Digital BW, The Print

For: Arthur Fink

> If the 2200 with its regular ink set is fine, then I'd have the 
> advantage
> of not needing to dedicate one printer to B&W.  Or ... is that a false 
> economy?

I used to print B&W on the 1160+Piezography and color with the 1280 and 
the Epson Driver. Now I am using the 7600 and ImagePrint. (The 7600 is 
functionally the same as the 2200 except that it costs some $70-80 in 
wasted ink to switch from Photo Black, for printing on glossy-type 
paper, to Matte Black, for printing on matte-type black paper.)

With the latest version of ImagePrint (5.6), I find that my color 
prints are better than those using either the Epson Driver or the fine 
Atkinson profiles. I particularly like printing on Epson Premium 
Semi-Matte (a glossy-type paper) on which I recently made a series of 
prints for an exhibition whose general sharpness, richness of backs and 
color subtlety and smoothness I found that I could not duplicate after 
switch to Matte Black and EEM and Photo Rag.

As for B&W, I find that my prints using Matte Black on EEM and Photo 
Rag are every bit as good as the prints I used to make on the same 
papers with the 1160+Piezography. And I have the advantage of being 
able to make subtle changes in the tone of the print, say from warm to 
selenium, using the ImagePrint TintPicker. [B&W prints using Photo 
Black and glossy-type papers are unacceptable because they exhibit 
"bronzing."]

The only problem I have is the $70-80 cost of changing back and forth 
between the Photo Black and Matte Black inks -- a problem that you 
won't have with the 2200. But I hope that there soon will be some new 
papers that will produce good B&W with the Photo Black ink, such as the 
forthcoming Oriental Seagull paper.

--MItch/Potomac, MD