Digital BW, The Print

As people were being shooed out of PhotoPlus Expo yesterday 
evening, I wandered into Epson's exhibition booth, where a 
number of prominent photographers' work - printed on the new 
Epson 4000 - were on display. Only one photographer of the 
bunch had any b/w work - three prints, in fact, which ranged from 
very nice to mediocre to awful (IMO). 

One, a portrait, was actually quite lovely and, unlike the other two, 
pretty much artifact-free; another, a landscape, had a rather milky 
contrast range, but, much worse, on only slightly closer 
inspection I could see obvious posterization in the clouds. And 
no, I doubt this was a sought-after "effect". The third print, of a 
man in mid-leap between two hay bales, was actually quite 
nice...until I noticed a magenta shift along the horizon line. 
Another photographer who was looking on was actually a bit 
startled when I pointed this out.

So...maybe this answers the question about there still being a 
need for a RIP with the 4000...at least for anal-retentives like me. 
But I'm not alone here, right?

I said, *right*? ;-)

- Barrett

Hi Barrett

I have the same rear end oriented medical problem that you mentioned, and while I 
have seen magenta "blacks" etc., I was just inspecting a B&W sample printed for me on 
a 2200 using all inks on Epson Velvet

and it is BLACK when compared to a silver photographic print, which is one of my 
must criteria.

AND no color shift from flourescent to dimmed halogen (quite yellow) to overcast 
daylight.  Unfortunately the sun may not be out for a while to check that.

Anyway, it is proof to me that what I want is possible.  Now the question is how I 
should get it for me.

My friend who did the 2200 sample also used the std out of the box profile from 
Epson.  I can see how individual printer variations might mean some would need a 
modified profile, but certainly no RIP was used.  I also know that she first tried her 
favorite fine art matt papers with miserable results.  The blacks were not deep BLACK. 
So maybe the Epson ink to Epson paper match is critical? with the Ultrachrome inks.

A very knowledgeable dealer also demonstated muddy blacks to us using black only 
ink and fine non Epson papers.  An Epson expert (yes, there are some) has since told 
be that to get great blacks you must use all inks.  The matte black ink is quite warm 
(or yellow) toned.

Hope this is not too off your thread, but it relates to several threads that I have been 
following.

Bill

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "amateriat" 
<bwbenton@b...> wrote:

> As people were being shooed out of PhotoPlus Expo yesterday 
> evening, I wandered into Epson's exhibition booth, where a 
> number of prominent photographers' work - printed on the new 
> Epson 4000 - were on display. Only one photographer of the 
> bunch had any b/w work - three prints, in fact, which ranged from 
> very nice to mediocre to awful (IMO). 
> 
> One, a portrait, was actually quite lovely and, unlike the other two, 
> pretty much artifact-free; another, a landscape, had a rather milky 
> contrast range, but, much worse, on only slightly closer 
> inspection I could see obvious posterization in the clouds. And 
> no, I doubt this was a sought-after "effect". The third print, of a 
> man in mid-leap between two hay bales, was actually quite 
> nice...until I noticed a magenta shift along the horizon line. 
> Another photographer who was looking on was actually a bit 
> startled when I pointed this out.
> 
> So...maybe this answers the question about there still being a 
> need for a RIP with the 4000...at least for anal-retentives like me. 
> But I'm not alone here, right?
> 
> I said, *right*? ;-)
> 
> - Barrett