Digital BW, The Print

In Epson's defense (now there are words you don't read too often...) I think
they sell the 2200 rip not to produce metamerism-free B&W prints but to
provide postscript capabilities for that printer. I suspect the B&W market
is so relatively small that they don't give a hoot that it produces better
prints for us. That being said, it looks like a very different beast than
the earlier Epson RIPs for the 3000, 1280, EX, etc. There is in the archives
a very good workflow posted for the RIP, and I've used it to makes some very
nice prints indeed.

IJC clearly offers a better avenue, though. I haven't ponied up for the full
program yet, but I have used the OPM with Carl Schofield's curves for
Satine. (In our files section -- thanks, Carl!) I get significantly more
neutral prints using this method than I can get with the Epson RIP, which
consistently produces warm prints for me. They're very nice, but I like
being able to control the warmth with the blender in OPM. I will say this,
though: the Epson RIP isn't nearly as dotty in the highlights. I can't
explain this, though I suspect it has something to do with the OPM curves
using more of the black inks and less of the color. Pushing the blender more
towards warm may alleviate it, but I haven't tried it since the 50/50 mix
gives me really nice results. Robert, Paul and others have commented
extensively on the "dots in the highlights" problem with the OEM inks and
we're all anxiously awaiting the empty carts to get around that.

All that being said I will say this: the Epson RIP for the 2200 does in fact
make much better B&W prints than the OEM driver (IMHO). Whether or not it's
worth $200 or is the best solution is certainly open to debate. In my case I
do in fact need to output postscript once in a while, so the combination
made it a good buy for me. When we can start mixing our own inks for the
2200 I'm sure I'll buy and use IJC exclusively for making prints. Of course,
with custom inks in there, the ability to run postscript will be moot unless
I buy a second machine. It never ends.

Cheers,
Matthew Born

> When we can start mixing our own 
> inks for the 2200 I'm sure I'll buy and use IJC exclusively 
> for making prints. Of course, with custom inks in there, the 
> ability to run postscript will be moot unless I buy a second 
> machine. It never ends.

Just keep some cartridges with the standard inkset handy and change back
to that whenever you need regular color output. No need to buy a second
machine.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

Mathiew,

some comments on your post:


>I will say this,
> though: the Epson RIP isn't nearly as dotty in the highlights. I can't
> explain this, though I suspect it has something to do with the OPM curves
> using more of the black inks and less of the color. 

I doubt anybody will bring the black up as high as the highlights. Typically it 
won't start before at least 50% gray. There may be other reasons for the dots 
(see below).





>Pushing the blender more
> towards warm may alleviate it, 

It won't. The problem is the lack of a second, lighter gray. 


>Robert, Paul and others have commented
> extensively on the "dots in the highlights" problem with the OEM inks and
> we're all anxiously awaiting the empty carts to get around that.

Yes, but there may have also been some dither issues with the current 
release of OPM for the 2200. Contact bowhaus and request the latest beta - if 
you haven't already. If that doesn't change what you see, it's simply that the 
current gray is too dark to go into the highlights without a visible dot. 


> 
> All that being said I will say this: the Epson RIP for the 2200 does in fact
> make much better B&W prints than the OEM driver (IMHO). 
>Whether or not it's
> worth $200 or is the best solution is certainly open to debate. In my case I
> do in fact need to output postscript once in a while, so the combination
> made it a good buy for me. 


For the once-in-a-while use, Photoshop makes a great rasteriser - though 
less convenient.  If bw is your main concern, the $200 might be better spent 
on IJC - assuming you don't have other issues of dither, sharpness etc that 
would lean you towards the Epson product.



Antonis