Digital BW, The Print

Hi Antonis,
OK, I see what you're saying about the additional, lighter gray. Makes
sense.  And I'd read a few of the posts mentioning the OPM beta addressing a
dithering issue but had forgotten about that -- thanks, I will send them a
note and give that a try. As I'd mentioned, even with the dithering issue, I
prefer the prints I'm getting with OPM even though I'm using other folks'
curves. I can definitely see the appeal of the full product coupled with a
densitometer. (And an easier route to using other inks, like the
ultratones.)

The primary use of the Epson RIP for me was to output postscript, not B&W
printing. I definitely am leaning towards IJC for that; I just figured I'd
try out the Epson RIP for photos since I already had it. My principle work
is graphic design and I use the 2200 for the odd digital, low run job, like
a industry awards entry or some such thing for clients. The downside of PS
as the rasterizer is speed, particularly if I'm running out a 12 or 20 page
booklet. It can also turn some Pantone colors a little funky enroute to CMYK
or RGB while the Epson RIP actually does a pretty good job with them.
Truthfully, I use an EX and a 3000 for that most of the time anyway since
3rd party inks work very well (for non-photographic uses, anyway) and are
substantially cheaper than OEM for 2200.

Many thanks for your help,
Matthew

>> 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. >
> 
> 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