Digital BW, The Print

I recently acquired an epson 2200 to print Black and White images from high 
end drum scans. The 2200 is advertised to be Epson's best non commercial 
product: BUT I did not know of metamerism. (I had been using the services of 
a quadink Piezography printer:Epson 7000 converted to the Jon Cone carbon 
ink process. NO PROBLEMS with metamerism and the archieval images on 
Hahnemuhle photorag are elegant. Recently my printer relocated his 
business operation 1500 miles to the north. Hence my purchase of the 2200.) 
Epson technical does not have an answer other than metamerism is in the 
nature of  the ultrachrome inks. The sales staff at Samy's suggested the 
advanced version of ImagePrint 5.0 RIP at $1,000.00,  but did not provide a 
convincing demonstration during my visit. Anyone out there with a solution? I 
am using OS X on the dual processor G4 and running Photoshop 7. I print 
with the matte black ink for matte surface paper (Hahnemuhle photorag 308) 
and set the printer for Epson watercolor radiant white. No matter how I 
approach color management the prints tend toward green in window light and 
magenta in tungsten. NOT MUSEUM QUALITY characteristics. HELP 
NEEDED.

Wednesday, March 5, 2003, 11:01:28 AM, rvsatzuma wrote:

r> I recently acquired an epson 2200 to print Black and White images from high 
r> end drum scans. The 2200 is advertised to be Epson's best non commercial 
r> product: BUT I did not know of metamerism. (I had been using the services of 
r> a quadink Piezography printer:Epson 7000 converted to the Jon Cone carbon 
r> ink process. NO PROBLEMS with metamerism and the archieval images on 
r> Hahnemuhle photorag are elegant. Recently my printer relocated his 
r> business operation 1500 miles to the north. Hence my purchase of the 2200.) 
r> Epson technical does not have an answer other than metamerism is in the 
r> nature of  the ultrachrome inks. The sales staff at Samy's suggested the 
r> advanced version of ImagePrint 5.0 RIP at $1,000.00,  but did not provide a 
r> convincing demonstration during my visit. Anyone out there with a solution? I 
r> am using OS X on the dual processor G4 and running Photoshop 7. I print 
r> with the matte black ink for matte surface paper (Hahnemuhle photorag 308) 
r> and set the printer for Epson watercolor radiant white. No matter how I 
r> approach color management the prints tend toward green in window light and 
r> magenta in tungsten. NOT MUSEUM QUALITY characteristics. HELP 
r> NEEDED.


I bought a 2200 mainly for the idea of having the ability to print
color pigment prints for sale. And for that it has been fantastic. But
I did have the notion of using profiling and/or experimentation to get
neutral B&W from the 2200 and then sell my 1160 with CIS and MIS FS-N
inks. Guess what? After about a dozen profiles from others and ones I
created using Profile Prism and dozens and dozens of test prints, not
to mention a crap load of expensive Ultrachrome ink in the process, I
am hanging on to my 1160 and the quadtone inks. My suggested solution?
Enjoy your 2200 for color and buy a 1160 or 1280 and set it up with a
CIS and quadtones. Not only will you have no metamerism but will have
perfect neutrality and MUCH cheaper ink.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

L i n k s  t o  m y  g a l l e r i e s:
http://fujirangefinder.com/document.php?id=246

on 3/5/03 12:46 PM, Richard Sintchak at richard@... wrote:

Wednesday, March 5, 2003, 11:01:28 AM, rvsatzuma wrote:

r> I recently acquired an epson 2200 to print Black and White images from
high 
r> end drum scans. The 2200 is advertised to be Epson's best non commercial
r> product: BUT I did not know of metamerism.

> I bought a 2200 mainly for the idea of having the ability to print
> color pigment prints for sale. And for that it has been fantastic. But
> I did have the notion of using profiling and/or experimentation to get
> neutral B&W from the 2200 and then sell my 1160 with CIS and MIS FS-N
> inks. Guess what? After about a dozen profiles from others and ones I
> created using Profile Prism and dozens and dozens of test prints, not
> to mention a crap load of expensive Ultrachrome ink in the process, I
> am hanging on to my 1160 and the quadtone inks. My suggested solution?
> Enjoy your 2200 for color and buy a 1160 or 1280 and set it up with a
> CIS and quadtones. Not only will you have no metamerism but will have
> perfect neutrality and MUCH cheaper ink.
> 
> Best regards,
> Richard  

After a ton of research on all the variables and tons of testing on the 2200
I have concluded the same thing. I'm using the 2200 for color and converting
my old 1200 to a quadtone setup strictly for B/W.


Sue

Sue Tallon Photography
suetallon@...





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "rvsatzuma" 
<rvsatzuma@y...> wrote:
> I recently acquired an epson 2200 to print Black and White images 
from high 
> end drum scans. The 2200 is advertised to be Epson's best non 
commercial 
> product: BUT I did not know of metamerism.

You would if you had visited either this forum or the
Photo.net Digital Darkroom group first!    Don't feel bad  -
I got conned, too.   I read several reviews on places
like Luminous Landscape talking about how Epson had
solved the metamerism problem.   I didn't know then how
much L.L. gets carried away by their own highly irrational
exuberance.


> Epson technical does not have an answer other than 
> metamerism is in the nature of the ultrachrome inks.

Then how do they explain how the IP RIP can print
black and white on the 2200 using the stock inks 
and exhibits no metamerism?    Allegedly so can Epson's
OWN RIP, although I'd really appreciate it if someone 
would mail me a sample to evaluate!

>  The sales staff at Samy's suggested the advanced 
> version of ImagePrint 5.0 RIP at $1,000.00,  but did
> not provide a convincing demonstration 

One of the members here, Tom Fors, sent me an IP RIP
B+W sample and it looks very nice indeed - perfectly
neutral, excellent shadow detail, no metamerism.  The
dither patern is a bit coarser than the stock Epson one
but I didn't think that was a big problem for large prints.

But the IP RIP price is too rich for my blood.   Epson
released a driver for the 2000 (which had such bad
metamerism that there are reliable reports of ex-hippies
from the 1960's who checked themselves into treatment 
centers after seeing the metamerism because they thought
they were having acid-trip flashbacks) that is designed
to reduce the metamerism, also by using a coarser dither
that apparently omits the most offending inks.  So one
might HOPE they would issue a fixed driver for the 2200.
I.e., we can dream on.

Just a comment: yep, with IP5 it's dead on neutral, and yes dots in
highlights, which my MIS 1280/VM prints don't have, but come on now,
we are talking teeny teeny weeny here. If you are scanning in film,
worry about the film grain more (my opinion, others disagree).

I think Paul Roark's work with the MIS UC version has great promise
though I haven't myself seen any output yet. One thing that concerns
me is that AFAIK it is for 1160 and 1280 printers. And I've been
finding that there HAS to be a difference in the head design of the
2200- it just simply doesn't ever get clogs. Heck I've only had to do
about four  or five cleanings max in 3 months to get a clear nozzle
check. Otherwise the checks are perfect without having to clean.
Voodoo. And no windex-parking pad tricks up my sleeve, ladies and
gentlemen..<g>

I do have a theory that if you don't use the 2200 Epson driver to
print a purge pattern now and then, the printer will not do an
automatic cleaning- you know, when it makes cleaning noises when you
didn't tell it to, like when you first turn it on or hit print? IOW,
IP5 may not have a built in command to "run a cycle after ten prints
or so", and so I got banding in the middle of four prints on IP5.
Solved easily by just running the Epson driver on a purge pattern or
maybe the rare cleaning cycle.

So I wonder if Paul will come up with an all grey UC something to fit
the 2200.
Jim H.




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Nelson"
<peter@s...> wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "rvsatzuma" 
> <rvsatzuma@y...> wrote:
> > I recently acquired an epson 2200 to print Black and White images 
> from high 
> > end drum scans. The 2200 is advertised to be Epson's best non 
> commercial 
> > product: BUT I did not know of metamerism.
> 
> You would if you had visited either this forum or the
> Photo.net Digital Darkroom group first!    Don't feel bad  -
> I got conned, too.   I read several reviews on places
> like Luminous Landscape talking about how Epson had
> solved the metamerism problem.   I didn't know then how
> much L.L. gets carried away by their own highly irrational
> exuberance.
> 
> 
> > Epson technical does not have an answer other than 
> > metamerism is in the nature of the ultrachrome inks.
> 
> Then how do they explain how the IP RIP can print
> black and white on the 2200 using the stock inks 
> and exhibits no metamerism?    Allegedly so can Epson's
> OWN RIP, although I'd really appreciate it if someone 
> would mail me a sample to evaluate!
> 
> >  The sales staff at Samy's suggested the advanced 
> > version of ImagePrint 5.0 RIP at $1,000.00,  but did
> > not provide a convincing demonstration 
> 
> One of the members here, Tom Fors, sent me an IP RIP
> B+W sample and it looks very nice indeed - perfectly
> neutral, excellent shadow detail, no metamerism.  The
> dither patern is a bit coarser than the stock Epson one
> but I didn't think that was a big problem for large prints.
> 
> But the IP RIP price is too rich for my blood.   Epson
> released a driver for the 2000 (which had such bad
> metamerism that there are reliable reports of ex-hippies
> from the 1960's who checked themselves into treatment 
> centers after seeing the metamerism because they thought
> they were having acid-trip flashbacks) that is designed
> to reduce the metamerism, also by using a coarser dither
> that apparently omits the most offending inks.  So one
> might HOPE they would issue a fixed driver for the 2200.
> I.e., we can dream on.