Digital BW, The Print

Here is an excerpt from the epson site that makes some subtle 
distinction on the suitibility of these two printers for B & W 
printing...

4000
Professional Level Black & White Photographic Printing¹ 
*   Produces a truly consistent image with little color crossover or 
colorcasts 
*   Reduced metamerism on 7-color black & white prints 
*   Depending upon media, produces a black D-max up to 2.1 
*   Produces sellable quality neutral or toned black and white prints

7600
Professional Level Black and White Photographic Printing
*   Produces a truly consistent image with no color "crossover" or 
color casts. 
*   Able to produce neutral or toned black and white prints to 
satisfy demanding photographers. 
*   Depending upon the media used, you can produce a black D-max up 
to 2.0.

Draw your own conclusions.... I personally believe that these subtle 
distinctions in Epson's product literature indicates a difference, 
for some reason, in the B & W printing quality of these two printers.

Sincerely,

James Sims
http://www.jamessims.com

There is no doubt that the Epson drivers/profiles for the 7600/9600 are inferior for photographic use.  So, they took Imageprint's lead and improved their drivers.  This is good.  It may not be necessary to buy a 3rd parrty RIP to get good photographic prints from the 4000.  I've never understood why Epson didn't do the 7600/9600 drivers correctly.  Money must have played a role.  Or, it is possible that they simply didn't have the expertise to develop really good drivers at the time.
 
Tom Baker

James Sims <james@lightroomphotography.com> wrote:
Here is an excerpt from the epson site that makes some subtle 
distinction on the suitibility of these two printers for B & W 
printing...

4000
Professional Level Black & White Photographic Printing� 
*   Produces a truly consistent image with little color crossover or 
colorcasts 
*   Reduced metamerism on 7-color black & white prints 
*   Depending upon media, produces a black D-max up to 2.1 
*   Produces sellable quality neutral or toned black and white prints

7600
Professional Level Black and White Photographic Printing
*   Produces a truly consistent image with no color "crossover" or 
color casts. 
*   Able to produce neutral or toned black and white prints to 
satisfy demanding photographers. 
*   Depending upon the media used, you can produce a black D-max up 
to 2.0.

Draw your own conclusions.... I personally believe that these subtle 
distinctions in Epson's product literature indicates a difference, 
for some reason, in the B & W printing quality of these two printers.

Sincerely,

James Sims
http://www.jamessims.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

While observing and fondling the "working prototype" of the 4000 
at PhotoPlus Expo (didn't win one at the drawing yesterday - 
maybe better luck today), I pressed the main Epson rep about 
doing *serious* b/w with it, versus, say, a 2200 or 7600. He 
indicated that, for "serious black-and-white print production", 
you'll still need a third-party RIP such as IP (ugh...guess how 
much IP for the 4000 is going to cost?) or the like. No Epson 
software solution or "improved" driver was mentioned - if one did 
exist, I'd imagine they'd be eager to let it be known.

(As an aside: the 4000 is referred to as a "desktop" printer, but 
you'd better have a J. Paul Getty-class desk - it's narrower than a 
7600, but seems *deeper*, and weighs in at a little under 90lbs. 
Solidly built, though - you should see the spindle for paper rolls!)

And, given the paucity of b/w prints on display at the Expo, I still 
get that Rodney Dangerfield vibe about digital b/w (the fact that 
I'm a dedicated film shooter didn't help matters, either).

- Barrett

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "James 
Sims" <james@l...> wrote:
> Here is an excerpt from the epson site that makes some 
subtle 
> distinction on the suitibility of these two printers for B & W 
> printing...
> 
> 4000
> Professional Level Black & White Photographic Printing1 
> *   Produces a truly consistent image with little color crossover 
or 
> colorcasts 
> *   Reduced metamerism on 7-color black & white prints 
> *   Depending upon media, produces a black D-max up to 2.1 
> *   Produces sellable quality neutral or toned black and white 
prints
> 
> 7600
> Professional Level Black and White Photographic Printing
> *   Produces a truly consistent image with no color "crossover" 
or 
> color casts. 
> *   Able to produce neutral or toned black and white prints to 
> satisfy demanding photographers. 
> *   Depending upon the media used, you can produce a black 
D-max up 
> to 2.0.
> 
> Draw your own conclusions.... I personally believe that these 
subtle 
> distinctions in Epson's product literature indicates a difference, 
> for some reason, in the B & W printing quality of these two 
printers.

> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> James Sims
> http://www.jamessims.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "James Sims" 
<james@l...> wrote:
> Here is an excerpt from the epson site that makes some subtle 
> distinction on the suitibility of these two printers for B & W 
> printing...
> 
> 4000
> Professional Level Black & White Photographic Printing¹ 
> *   Produces a truly consistent image with little color crossover 
or 
> colorcasts 
> *   Reduced metamerism on 7-color black & white prints 
> *   Depending upon media, produces a black D-max up to 2.1 
> *   Produces sellable quality neutral or toned black and white 
prints
> 
> 7600
> Professional Level Black and White Photographic Printing
> *   Produces a truly consistent image with no color "crossover" or 
> color casts. 


This may/may not help answer the question.  Yesterday, at the NY 
Photo Expo., an Epson rep. explained to a bunch of us standing around 
the new 4000 that there was no difference in the quality of any of 
their current printers; i.e. 1440 is 1440 is 1440.  What the pro-
grade printers offer in terms of image quality is CONSISTENCY from 
print to print.  Not that the smaller printers were all over the map 
but just that a fine line of consistency from the pro printers could 
be expected.

I kept this in mind and wandered back over to the Cone's booth where 
he had on display mounted samples of B/W prints from a variety of 
Epson printers from the (older) 1200 thru the 2000P (3000 and 1280 
included).  I held, turned and examined the prints under the very 
strong overhead light and I swear I could see NO differences in the 
raw image quality.  By the way, all of the prints were absolutely 
gorgeous and indiscernalble from conventional darkroom prints.  Nary 
a dot, band or area of posterization present.  I couldn't check for 
metamirism but don't forget conventional prints were never totally 
exempt from that either. 

Don't sweat the last .1 D-max.  People don't view prints with 
reflection densitometers anyway. 

  
> *   Able to produce neutral or toned black and white prints to 
> satisfy demanding photographers. 
> *   Depending upon the media used, you can produce a black D-max up 
> to 2.0.
> 
> Draw your own conclusions.... I personally believe that these 
subtle 
> distinctions in Epson's product literature indicates a difference, 
> for some reason, in the B & W printing quality of these two 
printers.

> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> James Sims
> http://www.jamessims.com

At 05:15 PM 10/31/03 +0000, you wrote:
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "James Sims"
><james@l...> wrote:
>
>
>This may/may not help answer the question.  Yesterday, at the NY
>Photo Expo., an Epson rep. explained to a bunch of us standing around
>the new 4000 that there was no difference in the quality of any of
>their current printers; i.e. 1440 is 1440 is 1440.  What the pro-
>grade printers offer in terms of image quality is CONSISTENCY from
>print to print.  Not that the smaller printers were all over the map
>but just that a fine line of consistency from the pro printers could
>be expected.
>
>I kept this in mind and wandered back over to the Cone's booth where
>he had on display mounted samples of B/W prints from a variety of
>Epson printers from the (older) 1200 thru the 2000P (3000 and 1280
>included).  I held, turned and examined the prints under the very
>strong overhead light and I swear I could see NO differences in the
>raw image quality.  By the way, all of the prints were absolutely
>gorgeous and indiscernalble from conventional darkroom prints.  Nary
>a dot, band or area of posterization present.  I couldn't check for
>metamirism but don't forget conventional prints were never totally
>exempt from that either.
>
>Don't sweat the last .1 D-max.  People don't view prints with
>reflection densitometers anyway.
>
>

Guys,

I wonder if all the samples of B/W prints from different printers you saw 
at the  Epson booth were done using a RIP?   I suppose they were all on 
Epson paper - no?

AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us