Digital BW, The Print

Hi

I've been following the topic about how to drive a 7600/2200 for B/W with
interest, since I'm looking at a bigger printer early next year

Has anyone actually had a chance to get a detailed look at the new Epson
4000 yet?

I have quite a varied collection of info about it (photos, specs, PDFs etc)
at <http://northlight-images.co.uk/epson4000.html> and am due to get a play
with one before long (I'm told :-) for a quick review (I'll post any
observations to the list). I'm keen to see whether they have improved the
Black and White printing over the 7600. If you read the various specs, it is
hinted at, but not spelled out.

On a related matter... when I was recently talking to some dealers about the
4000, one of them asked if I had considered Canons latest pigment ink based
printers?

I thought they were talking of the likes of the w7250, but when I looked at
its spec sheet, it only mentions dye inks. A search revealed that pigments
are available for 8200 <http://www.canon.com.au/news/story_852.html> and
<http://www.canon.co.uk/About_Us/News/Solutions_Business_News/WorldRecord.as
p?ComponentID=33781&SourcePageID=25107#1> perhaps there is to be an Epson
7600 equivalent?

Has anyone on the list any experience of Canon pigment inks for B/W?

I still face the issue of whether I need the extra width of a 7600 with it's
black swop ink loss, or whether the extra ease of use of the 4000 will win
out - oh the hardship :-))


bye for now   

Keith Cooper

Northlight Images
http://northlight-images.co.uk
Photography - Digital Imaging - Apple Mac Consultancy

Tel +44 (0)116 291 9092 Mobile +44 (0)780 162 9397

One of the major problems with any Epson printer --including the 
4000 -- that uses UltraChrome ink is with the ink itself. The 
metamerism in the yellow ink makes UltraChrome ink unusable for a 
print for sale in my opinion (unless some work-around is employed 
like the ImagePrint RIP which doesn't use the yellow ink, I 
understand, for B&W prints). I know its off topic, but these printers 
aren't cheap and when you look at the same Ultrachrome flesh tones in 
incandescent light vs. daylight its startling. No excuse for this in 
a $3000 7600 or an $1800 4000, and for what Epson is charging for 
their ink.

The other major problem with the 7600 is with swapping out photo 
black for matte black or the other way around. I do this all the time 
in my 2200, but this would go through $100 of ink a pop in the 7600 --
 again, no excuse. This, fortunately, has been addressed in the 4000 
with its extra ink position. 

Both these issues are showstoppers on the 7600 for me, and the 
UltraChrome ink is a showstopper for me on the 4000. Epson needs a 
new generation of inks that address metamerism issues.

> On a related matter... when I was recently talking to some dealers 
about the
> 4000, one of them asked if I had considered Canons latest pigment 
ink based
> printers?
> 
> I thought they were talking of the likes of the w7250, but when I 
looked at
> its spec sheet, it only mentions dye inks. A search revealed that 
pigments
> are available for 8200 
<http://www.canon.com.au/news/story_852.html> and
> 
<http://www.canon.co.uk/About_Us/News/Solutions_Business_News/WorldRec
ord.as
> p?ComponentID=33781&SourcePageID=25107#1> perhaps there is to be an 
Epson
> 7600 equivalent?


I'm not sure what you mean by a '7600 equivalent' to the Canon 8200.  
The 8200 is a 42" printer, so it would be an approximate 9600 
equivalent.  From what I've heard the 8200 is much faster than the 
Epsons, which will probably be of more importance to people doing 
commercial printing.  It's a 6-color printer.  And I've only heard 
one response to prints from it, which said the results were nice but 
just shy of the Epsons.  This is not personal experience, just the 
few tidbits I've heard.  I've heard nothing about the printer's B&W 
capabilities, but it is a CcMmYK printer, so there's no Light Black 
ink.  Which suggest B&W not up to par with the Epsons, but who 
knows.  I'm hardly anywhere near an expert yet.  Just trying to help 
out with what I've heard.

Mike