Digital BW, The Print

Will the image quality of a 1280 be noticably better the the C82 
After Pauls great answer to my earlier beginners post I have been 
comparing these two printers the cost differance is wide but the 1280 
is not that expensive when I was looking at a 2200. So now I need to 
know if the smaller printer will offer the same image quality as the 
1280. I don't mind the 13" size I just don't think I will NEED it.

Maybe a new guy group could be a spin off where kindly experianced 
inkjet printers could stop in and help us out with that first big 
step. And then the next half dozen LOL


Mark W.

I have read many posts which feel the 1280 is even better than the 
2200. I think Mr. Roark is producing the work he is doing on the C82 
for a no curve or adjustment workflow for folks just starting in BW 
printing and do not want to get too involved in the esthetics of the 
medium. This hobby or avocation is like anything else -- you get out 
of it what you put into it. If your are planning on going all the way 
with your photography--get the best you can afford and give it all 
the attention required to develop and hone you skills.


Your friend in Photography,

Johnny Eades


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "awahlster" 
<awahlster@a...> wrote:
> Will the image quality of a 1280 be noticably better the the C82 
> After Pauls great answer to my earlier beginners post I have been 
> comparing these two printers the cost differance is wide but the 
1280 
> is not that expensive when I was looking at a 2200. So now I need 
to 
> know if the smaller printer will offer the same image quality as 
the 

> 1280. I don't mind the 13" size I just don't think I will NEED it.
> 
> Maybe a new guy group could be a spin off where kindly experianced 
> inkjet printers could stop in and help us out with that first big 
> step. And then the next half dozen LOL
> 
> 
> Mark W.

> From: Johnny Eades [mailto:jeades1@...]
>
> I have read many posts which feel the 1280 is even better than the
> 2200.

The only sense in which I'd say the 1280 is "better" is if you like the
wider gamut and denser blacks of the standard dye inks. In every other way
that I can think of, the 2200 is a better printer: seven ink colors instead
of six, individual ink carts, 2880x1440 instead of 2880x720, FireWire
interface, paper cutter, better color management controls in the driver.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Mark,

>Will the image quality of a 1280 be noticably better than the C82 ...

Most viewers of prints would see no difference.  Very critical viewers might
notice that the C82 highlights are not quite as smooth as the 1280's.  (But
the C82 highlights are about like the 2200 with ImagePrint, which many
high-end printers on this list have and find very acceptable.)  

I think a slightly more important difference is that the C82 does not
deliver the dmax that the 1280 does; that is, the blacks are not quite as
black.  The C82 is going to peak out with Epson Enhanced Matte at about 1.59
and PhotoRag at perhaps 1.60.  With the 1280 EEM has been hitting 1.64 -
1.68 and PhotoRag 1.64.  (Of course, the old 3000 and PhotoRag beat this
handily with a 1.71.)  With EEM and PhotoRag, I think the C82 depth of black
is fine for many people and shots.  With some of the other cotton papers,
the C82 is weaker.

So, if one is really into photography as a serious hobby, wanting to try
lots of different papers, etc., then the 1280 is a significantly more
versatile printer.  (Once the "Easy UT-2" -- or whatever it's going to be
called -- is available for the 1280, it'll be the best of both worlds in
terms of ease and versatility, but at a bit higher price than the C82.)

On the other hand, for budget-minded photographers who ultimately want
impressive 16x20 display prints, I can see them testing the waters of
digital B&W printing with a C82 and then jumping to a 3000 (or 4000), and
keeping the little C82 for daily printing and snapshots.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul, I understand what you say about using the C82 for getting my 
feet wet BUT I have a daily use printer in my HP932C (ink consumer 
maximus) As to the idea of 16X20 display prints I have no where to 
display such a large print not in my home and I have NO intentions of 
any sort of gallery display. (have already had my fill of hobby 
business with 14 years as a custom knifemaker) My photography is for 
me, my friends, and family oh and the occasional wedding or high 
school grad photo I shoot (all processed by the local Pro lab) So a 
13X19 will be plenty of over kill for me. I do like the idea of the 
UT-2 inkset and the simpler way of doing things compared to the extra 
computer time with the 2200 etc. And the price differance between a 
C82 and a 1280 is not a concern for me. I just want to know what I'm 
buying brings the results I am paying for. It sounds as if the 1280 
will do that for me.

Mark W.






-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Mark,
> 
> >Will the image quality of a 1280 be noticably better than the 
C82 ...
> 
> Most viewers of prints would see no difference.  Very critical 
viewers might
> notice that the C82 highlights are not quite as smooth as the 
1280's.  (But
> the C82 highlights are about like the 2200 with ImagePrint, which 
many
> high-end printers on this list have and find very acceptable.)  
> 
> I think a slightly more important difference is that the C82 does 
not
> deliver the dmax that the 1280 does; that is, the blacks are not 
quite as
> black.  The C82 is going to peak out with Epson Enhanced Matte at 
about 1.59
> and PhotoRag at perhaps 1.60.  With the 1280 EEM has been hitting 
1.64 -
> 1.68 and PhotoRag 1.64.  (Of course, the old 3000 and PhotoRag beat 
this
> handily with a 1.71.)  With EEM and PhotoRag, I think the C82 depth 
of black
> is fine for many people and shots.  With some of the other cotton 
papers,
> the C82 is weaker.
> 
> So, if one is really into photography as a serious hobby, wanting 
to try
> lots of different papers, etc., then the 1280 is a significantly 
more
> versatile printer.  (Once the "Easy UT-2" -- or whatever it's going 
to be
> called -- is available for the 1280, it'll be the best of both 
worlds in
> terms of ease and versatility, but at a bit higher price than the 
C82.)
> 
> On the other hand, for budget-minded photographers who ultimately 
want
> impressive 16x20 display prints, I can see them testing the waters 
of
> digital B&W printing with a C82 and then jumping to a 3000 (or 
4000), and

> keeping the little C82 for daily printing and snapshots.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Paul,

I usually agree with you, but for sheer punch nothing can beat Premium
Glossy on a 1280/90 with Epson dye inks, IME. Even Cibachrome addicts admire
it. But if I wanted to sell a picture or give one away, the Ultrachromes are
the way to go because of their longer life, and the 2200/2100 is the
cheapest way to use them.

Having finally stumped up for IP 5.6 for my 2100, the B&W prints on Epson
Semigloss or Glossy Paper Photo Weight (=ProGlossy?) are amazing. On matte
papers images are simply too flat and lifeless for my liking.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>

The only sense in which I'd say the 1280 is "better" is if you like the
wider gamut and denser blacks of the standard dye inks. In every other way
that I can think of, the 2200 is a better printer: seven ink colors instead
of six, individual ink carts, 2880x1440 instead of 2880x720, FireWire
interface, paper cutter, better color management controls in the driver.

Paul,

What you have recommed in the past few days regarding this topic is the 
Epson C82. Does this
apply to the C84 for BW printing only.

jerry


At 03:37 AM 12/4/2003, you wrote:

>Paul, I understand what you say about using the C82 for getting my
>feet wet BUT I have a daily use printer in my HP932C (ink consumer
>maximus) As to the idea of 16X20 display prints I have no where to
>display such a large print not in my home and I have NO intentions of
>any sort of gallery display. (have already had my fill of hobby
>business with 14 years as a custom knifemaker) My photography is for
>me, my friends, and family oh and the occasional wedding or high
>school grad photo I shoot (all processed by the local Pro lab) So a
>13X19 will be plenty of over kill for me. I do like the idea of the
>UT-2 inkset and the simpler way of doing things compared to the extra
>computer time with the 2200 etc. And the price differance between a
>C82 and a 1280 is not a concern for me. I just want to know what I'm
>buying brings the results I am paying for. It sounds as if the 1280
>will do that for me.
>
>Mark W.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
><paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > >Will the image quality of a 1280 be noticably better than the
>C82 ...
> >
> > Most viewers of prints would see no difference.  Very critical
>viewers might
> > notice that the C82 highlights are not quite as smooth as the
>1280's.  (But
> > the C82 highlights are about like the 2200 with ImagePrint, which
>many
> > high-end printers on this list have and find very acceptable.)
> >
> > I think a slightly more important difference is that the C82 does
>not
> > deliver the dmax that the 1280 does; that is, the blacks are not
>quite as
> > black.  The C82 is going to peak out with Epson Enhanced Matte at
>about 1.59
> > and PhotoRag at perhaps 1.60.  With the 1280 EEM has been hitting
>1.64 -
> > 1.68 and PhotoRag 1.64.  (Of course, the old 3000 and PhotoRag beat
>this
> > handily with a 1.71.)  With EEM and PhotoRag, I think the C82 depth
>of black
> > is fine for many people and shots.  With some of the other cotton
>papers,
> > the C82 is weaker.
> >
> > So, if one is really into photography as a serious hobby, wanting
>to try
> > lots of different papers, etc., then the 1280 is a significantly
>more
> > versatile printer.  (Once the "Easy UT-2" -- or whatever it's going
>to be
> > called -- is available for the 1280, it'll be the best of both
>worlds in
> > terms of ease and versatility, but at a bit higher price than the
>C82.)
> >
> > On the other hand, for budget-minded photographers who ultimately
>want
> > impressive 16x20 display prints, I can see them testing the waters
>of
> > digital B&W printing with a C82 and then jumping to a 3000 (or
>4000), and
> > keeping the little C82 for daily printing and snapshots.
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
>they are often being updated.
>
>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:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
>them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
>Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
>membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
>printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
>the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
>guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner 
>and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
>YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
>"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO 
>YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR 
>EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF 
>PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF 
>THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE 
>BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE 
>USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) 
>UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) 
>STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
>YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
>PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Jerry,


>What you have recommed in the past few days regarding this topic is the 
>Epson C82. Does this apply to the C84 for BW printing only.

I have not tried the C84 yet.  MIS just received some carts for it.  I
assume they'll buy one and try it.  Until I've tested it, however, I'm
reluctant to speculate.  It is certainly my hope that all the C82 inks work
even better on the C84, with its higher resolution.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
_________________________________



At 03:37 AM 12/4/2003, you wrote:
>Paul, I understand what you say about using the C82 for getting my
>feet wet BUT I have a daily use printer in my HP932C (ink consumer
>maximus) As to the idea of 16X20 display prints I have no where to
>display such a large print not in my home and I have NO intentions of
>any sort of gallery display. (have already had my fill of hobby
>business with 14 years as a custom knifemaker) My photography is for
>me, my friends, and family oh and the occasional wedding or high
>school grad photo I shoot (all processed by the local Pro lab) So a
>13X19 will be plenty of over kill for me. I do like the idea of the
>UT-2 inkset and the simpler way of doing things compared to the extra
>computer time with the 2200 etc. And the price differance between a
>C82 and a 1280 is not a concern for me. I just want to know what I'm
>buying brings the results I am paying for. It sounds as if the 1280
>will do that for me.
>
>Mark W.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
><paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > >Will the image quality of a 1280 be noticably better than the
>C82 ...
> >
> > Most viewers of prints would see no difference.  Very critical
>viewers might
> > notice that the C82 highlights are not quite as smooth as the
>1280's.  (But
> > the C82 highlights are about like the 2200 with ImagePrint, which
>many
> > high-end printers on this list have and find very acceptable.)
> >
> > I think a slightly more important difference is that the C82 does
>not
> > deliver the dmax that the 1280 does; that is, the blacks are not
>quite as
> > black.  The C82 is going to peak out with Epson Enhanced Matte at
>about 1.59
> > and PhotoRag at perhaps 1.60.  With the 1280 EEM has been hitting
>1.64 -
> > 1.68 and PhotoRag 1.64.  (Of course, the old 3000 and PhotoRag beat
>this
> > handily with a 1.71.)  With EEM and PhotoRag, I think the C82 depth
>of black
> > is fine for many people and shots.  With some of the other cotton
>papers,
> > the C82 is weaker.
> >
> > So, if one is really into photography as a serious hobby, wanting
>to try
> > lots of different papers, etc., then the 1280 is a significantly
>more
> > versatile printer.  (Once the "Easy UT-2" -- or whatever it's going
>to be
> > called -- is available for the 1280, it'll be the best of both
>worlds in
> > terms of ease and versatility, but at a bit higher price than the
>C82.)
> >
> > On the other hand, for budget-minded photographers who ultimately
>want
> > impressive 16x20 display prints, I can see them testing the waters
>of
> > digital B&W printing with a C82 and then jumping to a 3000 (or
>4000), and
> > keeping the little C82 for daily printing and snapshots.
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
>they are often being updated.
>
>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:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
>them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
>Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
>membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
>printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
>the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
>guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner 
>and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
>YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
>"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO 
>YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR 
>EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF 
>PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF 
>THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE 
>BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE 
>USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) 
>UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) 
>STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
>YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
>PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND
MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  OWNER AND
MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Thank you for your quick reply. I may just go ahead and get the C84, as it 
is difficult to find
the C82.

jerry

At 07:01 PM 12/4/2003, you wrote:

>Jerry,
>
>
> >What you have recommed in the past few days regarding this topic is the
> >Epson C82. Does this apply to the C84 for BW printing only.
>
>I have not tried the C84 yet.  MIS just received some carts for it.  I
>assume they'll buy one and try it.  Until I've tested it, however, I'm
>reluctant to speculate.  It is certainly my hope that all the C82 inks work
>even better on the C84, with its higher resolution.
>
>Paul
>www.PaulRoark.com
>_________________________________
>
>
>
>At 03:37 AM 12/4/2003, you wrote:
> >Paul, I understand what you say about using the C82 for getting my
> >feet wet BUT I have a daily use printer in my HP932C (ink consumer
> >maximus) As to the idea of 16X20 display prints I have no where to
> >display such a large print not in my home and I have NO intentions of
> >any sort of gallery display. (have already had my fill of hobby
> >business with 14 years as a custom knifemaker) My photography is for
> >me, my friends, and family oh and the occasional wedding or high
> >school grad photo I shoot (all processed by the local Pro lab) So a
> >13X19 will be plenty of over kill for me. I do like the idea of the
> >UT-2 inkset and the simpler way of doing things compared to the extra
> >computer time with the 2200 etc. And the price differance between a
> >C82 and a 1280 is not a concern for me. I just want to know what I'm
> >buying brings the results I am paying for. It sounds as if the 1280
> >will do that for me.
> >
> >Mark W.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> ><paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> > > Mark,
> > >
> > > >Will the image quality of a 1280 be noticably better than the
> >C82 ...
> > >
> > > Most viewers of prints would see no difference.  Very critical
> >viewers might
> > > notice that the C82 highlights are not quite as smooth as the
> >1280's.  (But
> > > the C82 highlights are about like the 2200 with ImagePrint, which
> >many
> > > high-end printers on this list have and find very acceptable.)
> > >
> > > I think a slightly more important difference is that the C82 does
> >not
> > > deliver the dmax that the 1280 does; that is, the blacks are not
> >quite as
> > > black.  The C82 is going to peak out with Epson Enhanced Matte at
> >about 1.59
> > > and PhotoRag at perhaps 1.60.  With the 1280 EEM has been hitting
> >1.64 -
> > > 1.68 and PhotoRag 1.64.  (Of course, the old 3000 and PhotoRag beat
> >this
> > > handily with a 1.71.)  With EEM and PhotoRag, I think the C82 depth
> >of black
> > > is fine for many people and shots.  With some of the other cotton
> >papers,
> > > the C82 is weaker.
> > >
> > > So, if one is really into photography as a serious hobby, wanting
> >to try
> > > lots of different papers, etc., then the 1280 is a significantly
> >more
> > > versatile printer.  (Once the "Easy UT-2" -- or whatever it's going
> >to be
> > > called -- is available for the 1280, it'll be the best of both
> >worlds in
> > > terms of ease and versatility, but at a bit higher price than the
> >C82.)
> > >
> > > On the other hand, for budget-minded photographers who ultimately
> >want
> > > impressive 16x20 display prints, I can see them testing the waters
> >of
> > > digital B&W printing with a C82 and then jumping to a 3000 (or
> >4000), and
> > > keeping the little C82 for daily printing and snapshots.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> >
> >
> >Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> >they are often being updated.
> >
> >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:
> >- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> >them short.
> >- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> >Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> >membership without notice.
> >- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> >printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> >the membership.
> >- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> >guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> >and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
>section:
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> >
> >BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> >YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> >"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> >YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> >EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> >PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF
> >THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE
> >BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE
> >USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> >UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> >STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> >YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> >PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
>they are often being updated.
>
>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:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
>Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
>membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
>printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
>the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
>guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
>Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelinesin the Files section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNERAND
>MODERATORSOF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
>FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
>DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
>GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  OWNERAND
>MODERATORSOF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
>POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
>TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
>ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
>THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
>MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
>they are often being updated.
>
>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:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
>them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
>Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
>membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
>printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
>the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
>guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner 
>and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
>YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
>"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO 
>YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR 
>EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF 
>PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF 
>THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE 
>BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE 
>USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) 
>UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) 
>STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
>YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
>PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

At 06:13 PM 12/4/03 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi Paul,
>
>I usually agree with you, but for sheer punch nothing can beat Premium
>Glossy on a 1280/90 with Epson dye inks, IME. Even Cibachrome addicts admire
>it. But if I wanted to sell a picture or give one away, the Ultrachromes are
>the way to go because of their longer life, and the 2200/2100 is the
>cheapest way to use them.
>
>Having finally stumped up for IP 5.6 for my 2100, the B&W prints on Epson
>Semigloss or Glossy Paper Photo Weight (=ProGlossy?) are amazing. On matte
>papers images are simply too flat and lifeless for my liking.
>
>Bob Frost.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
>
>The only sense in which I'd say the 1280 is "better" is if you like the
>wider gamut and denser blacks of the standard dye inks. In every other way
>that I can think of, the 2200 is a better printer: seven ink colors instead
>of six, individual ink carts, 2880x1440 instead of 2880x720, FireWire
>interface, paper cutter, better color management controls in the driver.


Paul,

My "virgin" 1280 color print is a mind blower. I printed it on premium 
glossy paper with absolutely no fiddling  - non-profiled monitor  - from a 
E3200 scanned Portra neg.  I look at it to raise my spirits when things 
aren't going swimmingly with B/W.

AZ

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