Digital BW, The Print

I completely agree that the profiles with Image print are superior to 
Epson profiles, and thats really what you are paying for.  Also agree 
that the enhanced matte provides pretty good results but certainly 
not great.  I do think the k3 ink set is superior in terms of 
bronzing and gloss differntial but thats another story...

It sounds like your not using ABW -- perhaps because of the monitor 
profiling issue.  But, as you know there are ways around that using 
either Eric Chans profiles or just make yourself a monitor curve.  I 
find that using abw vs rgb I get a bit deeper blacks, however, I have 
not measured it and need to do so.  There's other matte paers I use 
like VFA, hpr 308, enrada bw, & harman matte that i prefer to eem. 
But I think where the k3 inks w/ abw really excel at is with the new 
glossy papers.  I've had some really positive feedback from 
expereinced darkroom printers using the new Harman & Ilford fiber 
gloss's...  Actully, the first time I've ever been (mostly)  
satisfied with a digital B&W print...  Good luck...
SteveB    

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "digikdm" 
<monroekd@...> wrote:
>
> I have been printing with my new Epson 3800 for about 1 month, and I
> am a bit dismayed that the B&W prints I'm getting using the 
intrinsic
> Epson driver (with or without third party profiles provided by Eric
> Chan) are inferior to the B&W prints I get using ImagePrint with my
> Epson 2200 printer. Admittedly, the prints are far superior to the
> intrinsic Epson driver for the 2200, but I would have thought that
> after 3-4 years of R&D, you guys would have figured out why 
ImagePrint
> is so superior to your driver. Also I have found that the color
> profiles provided in the driver vary in their quality. You guys are
> apparently aware of this situation, since you are offering the Bill
> Atkinson 7600/9600 profiles on your website and state that "in most
> cases, these custom ICC profiles will provide much better color and
> black and white print quality than with the standard profiles 
already
> shipping with every printer". I don't understand why it is so
> difficult for a company that is totally devoted to printing to 
create
> the best possible canned profiles for their own printers and papers.
> You would likely prevent numerous defectors to third party papers, 
if
> you created the best possible profiles for your own papers. If one
> spends >$1000 for a printer, they should not then have to scour the
> internet for profiles or third party drivers to get the best 
possible
> prints. The Bill Atkinson profiles do not work well for the 3800, 
and
> thus the 3800 users are left out in the cold for accurate color 
profiles.
> I have also found it confusing that you have discontinued Epson
> Enhanced matte and Archival Matte
> papers and yet these profiles are still in the driver software. If 
the
> Ultrapremium presentation matte is the same as Ep Enhanced which I
> thought was the same as Archival matte, then why are there separate
> profiles in the driver for Enhanced matte and Archival matte? The
> profile/paper combo for premium luster is superior to that for the
> Enhanced matte profile/ultrapremium presentation matte paper combo,
> but both could be improved. 
> The enhanced matte profile in concert with Ultrapremium presentation
> matte paper is particularly poor with muddy/blocked-up shadow 
areas. 
> Perhaps you should pay Bill Atkinson to create some color profiles 
for
> the 3800 or better yet, Epson should purchase Colorbyte.
> Thanks
> Kevin Monroe
>