Digital BW, The Print

Hi there, I have just taken delivery of my 4000 and I wanted to give 
you folks an insight into how I find this printer compared to the 
numerous other systems I have seen / used.

I have used :

1. Piezography (old version, 1290)
2. MIS VM inks (1290)
3. MIS UT inks (1290)
4. MIS UT2 inks (1290)
5. Black only printing (Eboni, 1290)

and have had exposure to 

1. 2200 full colour B&W prints
2. 2200 Black only prints (ultrachrome)
3. 7600 full colour + IP5.6 prints.

When I saw some images I had given to Epson to demo, I was less than 
happy with the output, Black ink prints were the usual dotty output 
and the colour ink variants all had pretty bad colour shifts and 
metamarism.  I figured the colour was fantastic, the black and white 
was better than my 1280 dye prints out of the box, but not by much.
I have since had a chance to play with the printer myself and it 
takes pride of place in my office.  My findings have suprised me.  It 
sits next to two printers, both 1290s installed with MIS UT and UT2 
hextones.
I had to mess around with the colour settings for ages as I couldn't 
for the life of me remember my colour management basics - but this is 
not the printers fault...(the MIS workflow is so different).
I have printed slightly warm toned images (full inkset), neutral 
images (full inkset) and black only prints.  I also printed the same 
image, with matched tones on the two MIS fed machines.  I laid these 
all out and have asked a number of colleagues, and my wife (who knows 
exactly what to look for now) which was which / which was better and 
why.  The results pretty much tallied with my own conclusions.
1. UT2 inks have the smoothest highlight transistions but do not seem 
to have the best definition and detail in the mid tones.
2. UT inks are well down the list (this may well be because the 
curves used for this inkset and my 1290 printer are extreme and there 
seems to be some accepted variance between printers that can cause 
issues with tonal transitions - I actally preferred the VM set, and 
by far the UT2)
3. The toned Ultrachrome 4000 prints were all but indistiguishable 
from the sepia/warm toned UT2 prints (I had to turn them over myself 
on more than one occaision).  There could be a slight tendancy 
towards blocking of the deepest shadows and some 'split-toned' effect 
as the shadows start to block but it is minimal, perhaps not as good 
for really dark prints.
4. The neutral Ultrachrome 4000- prints were really pretty good.  No, 
they were not as smooth as the UT2 set, but they are acceptable to my 
eyes.  Put them in a print at a foot away and you'd struggle to tell 
the difference.  

The big issue though is metamarism.  It is still there and that is 
where the difference comes between the UT2 and the Ultrachromes - the 
tone WILL shift.  It is not as dramatic as in previous pigment 
printers, but it is still there.  I assume Imageprint will get rid of 
most of this, but boy is it expensive.  And there is another way....

I was frankly stunned by the 4000 black only performance.
I have done this many times on the 1280/90 series and even on the 
2200 but was never totally happy with it.  Yes the luminance, 
contrast, detail and overall impression from a framed print was 
always stunning, but I couldn't stand those dots.  I have pretty keen 
eyes and with my 4000 prints (matt only so far, Ultrasmooth and 
Velvet art papers) I REALLY have to strain to see the dots, more than 
a few inches away and they're gone.  The prints are stunning and 
everyone picked these as the best.  No metamarism (no toning though, 
unless you play with the papers you print on), no shifting with time 
(the black ink seems to last for ever according to the longevity 
tests), no colour management issues.   I honestly never thought I 
would go this route after 4 years of trying pretty much everything on 
the market, I am happy.  Incidentally, the prints that came back from 
Epson were printed at 360dpi, hence the more visible dots, at 
1440+super it is great, still a grainy-ish apprearance, but I love it.

I will keep tweaking and playing, who knows, maybe I will have a 
different opinion when I try printing high key images with lots of 
highlights or much smoother transitions (for the minute I will keep 
my UT2 for wedding prints - very testing subject...) I will report 
back.

PS - the printer itself is fantastic, fast, quiet, self adjusting - 
could have done with a 'quickstart' though - to just have a 396page 
manual (all English) to play with was a little much...

Have fun.

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" 
<stephen.bate@m...> wrote:


> Hi there, I have just taken delivery of my 4000 and I wanted to 
give 
> you folks an insight into how I find this printer compared to the 
> numerous other systems I have seen / used.
> 
> I have used :
> 
> 1. Piezography (old version, 1290)
> 2. MIS VM inks (1290)
> 3. MIS UT inks (1290)
> 4. MIS UT2 inks (1290)
> 5. Black only printing (Eboni, 1290)
> 
> and have had exposure to 
> 
> 1. 2200 full colour B&W prints
> 2. 2200 Black only prints (ultrachrome)
> 3. 7600 full colour + IP5.6 prints.
> 
> When I saw some images I had given to Epson to demo, I was less 
than 
> happy with the output, Black ink prints were the usual dotty output 
> and the colour ink variants all had pretty bad colour shifts and 
> metamarism.  I figured the colour was fantastic, the black and 
white 
> was better than my 1280 dye prints out of the box, but not by much.
> I have since had a chance to play with the printer myself and it 
> takes pride of place in my office.  My findings have suprised me.  
It 
> sits next to two printers, both 1290s installed with MIS UT and UT2 
> hextones.
> I had to mess around with the colour settings for ages as I 
couldn't 
> for the life of me remember my colour management basics - but this 
is 
> not the printers fault...(the MIS workflow is so different).
> I have printed slightly warm toned images (full inkset), neutral 
> images (full inkset) and black only prints.  I also printed the 
same 
> image, with matched tones on the two MIS fed machines.  I laid 
these 
> all out and have asked a number of colleagues, and my wife (who 
knows 
> exactly what to look for now) which was which / which was better 
and 
> why.  The results pretty much tallied with my own conclusions.
> 1. UT2 inks have the smoothest highlight transistions but do not 
seem 
> to have the best definition and detail in the mid tones.
> 2. UT inks are well down the list (this may well be because the 
> curves used for this inkset and my 1290 printer are extreme and 
there 
> seems to be some accepted variance between printers that can cause 
> issues with tonal transitions - I actally preferred the VM set, and 
> by far the UT2)
> 3. The toned Ultrachrome 4000 prints were all but indistiguishable 
> from the sepia/warm toned UT2 prints (I had to turn them over 
myself 
> on more than one occaision).  There could be a slight tendancy 
> towards blocking of the deepest shadows and some 'split-toned' 
effect 
> as the shadows start to block but it is minimal, perhaps not as 
good 
> for really dark prints.
> 4. The neutral Ultrachrome 4000- prints were really pretty good.  
No, 
> they were not as smooth as the UT2 set, but they are acceptable to 
my 
> eyes.  Put them in a print at a foot away and you'd struggle to 
tell 
> the difference.  
> 
> The big issue though is metamarism.  It is still there and that is 
> where the difference comes between the UT2 and the Ultrachromes - 
the 
> tone WILL shift.  It is not as dramatic as in previous pigment 
> printers, but it is still there.  I assume Imageprint will get rid 
of 
> most of this, but boy is it expensive.  And there is another way....
> 
> I was frankly stunned by the 4000 black only performance.
> I have done this many times on the 1280/90 series and even on the 
> 2200 but was never totally happy with it.  Yes the luminance, 
> contrast, detail and overall impression from a framed print was 
> always stunning, but I couldn't stand those dots.  I have pretty 
keen 
> eyes and with my 4000 prints (matt only so far, Ultrasmooth and 
> Velvet art papers) I REALLY have to strain to see the dots, more 
than 
> a few inches away and they're gone.  The prints are stunning and 
> everyone picked these as the best.  No metamarism (no toning 
though, 
> unless you play with the papers you print on), no shifting with 
time 
> (the black ink seems to last for ever according to the longevity 
> tests), no colour management issues.   I honestly never thought I 
> would go this route after 4 years of trying pretty much everything 
on 
> the market, I am happy.  Incidentally, the prints that came back 
from 
> Epson were printed at 360dpi, hence the more visible dots, at 
> 1440+super it is great, still a grainy-ish apprearance, but I love 
it.

> 
> I will keep tweaking and playing, who knows, maybe I will have a 
> different opinion when I try printing high key images with lots of 
> highlights or much smoother transitions (for the minute I will keep 
> my UT2 for wedding prints - very testing subject...) I will report 
> back.
> 
> PS - the printer itself is fantastic, fast, quiet, self adjusting - 
> could have done with a 'quickstart' though - to just have a 396page 
> manual (all English) to play with was a little much...
> 
> Have fun.
> 
> Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber"
<stephen.bate@m...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" 
> <stephen.bate@m...> wrote:
>
> > Hi there, I have just taken delivery of my 4000 and I wanted to 
> give 
> > you folks an insight into how I find this printer compared to the 
> > numerous other systems I have seen / used.
> > 
>
> > Epson were printed at 360dpi, hence the more visible dots, at 
> > 1440+super it is great, still a grainy-ish apprearance, but I love 
> it.
> > 
> > I will keep tweaking and playing, who knows, maybe I will have a 
> > different opinion when I try printing high key images with lots of 
> > highlights or much smoother transitions (for the minute I will keep 
> > my UT2 for wedding prints - very testing subject...) I will report 
> > back.
> > 
>
> > Steve

Steve, thanks very much for sharing your findings.  Basically as a fan
of BO printing on the 2200, I find this news rather exciting!

Don in Broken Arrow

Hi Stephen,

Nice report.  

I just got my 4000 going and also experimented with the color management.  I now have 
all ink neutral prints, using a CM method that I didn't really expect.  The ICC method gave 
me somewhat olive midtones, but the print driver method (recommended by Epson for 
B&W) gives completely neutral prints (cool tone). 

And I don't see any metamarism, in light ranging from daylight, to flourescent, to halogen 
varied from dim (very warm) to bright (sort of white), but maybe I am not fully sensitive to 
it.  I have been doing fine silver prints for 30 years though so I should know a little.  I 
don't at this early stage see any reason for a rip.

This is based on very few prints so far, and only on enhanced matte, so maybe my mind 
will change?  or maybe the paper matters?  I picked it for cheap to learn with, but it looks 
pretty good to me.  Will be trying velvet, photo rag and ultrasmooth when I get time.

Scott


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" <stephen.bate@m...> 
wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" 
> <stephen.bate@m...> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Hi there, I have just taken delivery of my 4000 and I wanted to 
> give 
>

Hi Scott.  What workflow are you using?

I had in the PS CS print/preview box - Adobe 98 as document space (or 
GG2.2, then I select the actual 4000 enhanced matt profile as the 
print space.  Then switch off all colour management in the printer 
driver.

When I tried it in reverse.  ie, select 'printer colour management'in 
the PS print dialog box, then select the ICM option in the printer 
driver settings, I got freakish magenta or olive prints - way wrong.

Could you explain your methods?

Thanks

Steve


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Graham" 
<gebilwil@n...> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> Nice report.  
> 
> I just got my 4000 going and also experimented with the color 
management.  I now have 
> all ink neutral prints, using a CM method that I didn't really 
expect.  The ICC method gave 
> me somewhat olive midtones, but the print driver method 
(recommended by Epson for 
> B&W) gives completely neutral prints (cool tone). 
> 
> And I don't see any metamarism, in light ranging from daylight, to 
flourescent, to halogen 
> varied from dim (very warm) to bright (sort of white), but maybe I 
am not fully sensitive to 
> it.  I have been doing fine silver prints for 30 years though so I 
should know a little.  I 
> don't at this early stage see any reason for a rip.
> 
> This is based on very few prints so far, and only on enhanced 
matte, so maybe my mind 
> will change?  or maybe the paper matters?  I picked it for cheap to 
learn with, but it looks 
> pretty good to me.  Will be trying velvet, photo rag and 
ultrasmooth when I get time.
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" 
<stephen.bate@m...> 

> wrote:
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" 
> > <stephen.bate@m...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > Hi there, I have just taken delivery of my 4000 and I wanted to 
> > give 
> >

Hi Steve,

In the PS print/preview box I'm using "printer color management"  (note that "same as 
source" does the same thing).  Then in the print driver I select "color controls", that is the 
one that shows the sliders, and leave the sliders alone.  Epson recommends this for B&W.

Voila! neutrality.  Using the paper profile in print preview gave me olive midtones.

Oh, I did make a "brilliant discovery" about a dumb mistake I was making.  Since I had 
started with a B&W negative and scanned it, it seemed to be B&W.  Duh, checking with the 
eyedropper showed "black" to be not completely black since I had not profiled the scanner 
(totally unnecessary in my opinion if one thinks  :~)...  ).

Now I desaturate my B&W so it really is.

Which brings up another point:  Epson printers (all inkjets, except a few 'weird off the wall 
ones") need RGB input files which they then convert to their ink profiles (some verison of 
CMYK depending on the inkset).  If they don't get it, they first convert the input file to RGB 
and then convert it to print.  Conversions (rounding errors, clipping, etc.) are NOT an 
advantage.  While this may not be a disaster for color, B&W is the most demanding thing 
that you can ask a printer to do.  ANY tiny color shift shows.

I did not experiment with grey scale vs RGB, just 'followed directions', as the CM exps took 
enough time.

Oh, and I use Colormatch as a work space as also recommended by Epson---in my tests 
vs Adobe RGB it did not affect the color tone of the print, but did affect the density.  You 
can of course fix the density on the screen before printing.

The advantage of Colormatch" for color is that it matches the inks better---looks slightly 
duller so you get more what you expect.  It does not adversely affect the Printed Result, 
just that the screen is more real.

Good Luck
Scott




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" <stephen.bate@m...> 
wrote:

> Hi Scott.  What workflow are you using?
> 
> I had in the PS CS print/preview box - Adobe 98 as document space (or 
> GG2.2, then I select the actual 4000 enhanced matt profile as the 
> print space.  Then switch off all colour management in the printer 
> driver.
> 
> When I tried it in reverse.  ie, select 'printer colour management'in 
> the PS print dialog box, then select the ICM option in the printer 
> driver settings, I got freakish magenta or olive prints - way wrong.
> 
> Could you explain your methods?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Graham" 
> <gebilwil@n...> wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> > 
> > Nice report.  
> > 
> > I just got my 4000 going and also experimented with the color 
> management.  I now have 
> > all ink neutral prints, using a CM method that I didn't really 
> expect.  The ICC method gave 
> > me somewhat olive midtones, but the print driver method 
> (recommended by Epson for 
> > B&W) gives completely neutral prints (cool tone). 
> > 
> > And I don't see any metamarism, in light ranging from daylight, to 
> flourescent, to halogen 
> > varied from dim (very warm) to bright (sort of white), but maybe I 
> am not fully sensitive to 
> > it.  I have been doing fine silver prints for 30 years though so I 
> should know a little.  I 
> > don't at this early stage see any reason for a rip.
> > 
> > This is based on very few prints so far, and only on enhanced 
> matte, so maybe my mind 
> > will change?  or maybe the paper matters?  I picked it for cheap to 
> learn with, but it looks 
> > pretty good to me.  Will be trying velvet, photo rag and 
> ultrasmooth when I get time.
> > 
> > Scott
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" 
> <stephen.bate@m...> 
> > wrote:
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" 
> > > <stephen.bate@m...> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Hi there, I have just taken delivery of my 4000 and I wanted to 
> > > give 
> > >

Super, thanks Scott, I didn't try this method - I got to pack 10 of 
the 400 page manual (basically the end of the contents...!) so I'm 
not to aufait with the recommended setting.  I will try this, along 
with colormatch (another very wide gamut space so should be fine, 
altough with most of my capture, digital, I can't expect much more 
than an expanded sRGB anyway.

Thanks

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Graham" 
<gebilwil@n...> wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> 
> In the PS print/preview box I'm using "printer color management"  
(note that "same as 
> source" does the same thing).  Then in the print driver I 
select "color controls", that is the 
> one that shows the sliders, and leave the sliders alone.  Epson 
recommends this for B&W.
> 
> Voila! neutrality.  Using the paper profile in print preview gave 
me olive midtones.
> 
> Oh, I did make a "brilliant discovery" about a dumb mistake I was 
making.  Since I had 
> started with a B&W negative and scanned it, it seemed to be B&W.  
Duh, checking with the 
> eyedropper showed "black" to be not completely black since I had 
not profiled the scanner 
> (totally unnecessary in my opinion if one thinks  :~)...  ).
> 
> Now I desaturate my B&W so it really is.
> 
> Which brings up another point:  Epson printers (all inkjets, 
except a few 'weird off the wall 
> ones") need RGB input files which they then convert to their ink 
profiles (some verison of 
> CMYK depending on the inkset).  If they don't get it, they first 
convert the input file to RGB 
> and then convert it to print.  Conversions (rounding errors, 
clipping, etc.) are NOT an 
> advantage.  While this may not be a disaster for color, B&W is the 
most demanding thing 
> that you can ask a printer to do.  ANY tiny color shift shows.
> 
> I did not experiment with grey scale vs RGB, just 'followed 
directions', as the CM exps took 
> enough time.
> 
> Oh, and I use Colormatch as a work space as also recommended by 
Epson---in my tests 
> vs Adobe RGB it did not affect the color tone of the print, but 
did affect the density.  You 
> can of course fix the density on the screen before printing.
> 
> The advantage of Colormatch" for color is that it matches the inks 
better---looks slightly 
> duller so you get more what you expect.  It does not adversely 
affect the Printed Result, 
> just that the screen is more real.
> 
> Good Luck
> Scott
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" 
<stephen.bate@m...> 
> wrote:
> > Hi Scott.  What workflow are you using?
> > 
> > I had in the PS CS print/preview box - Adobe 98 as document 
space (or 
> > GG2.2, then I select the actual 4000 enhanced matt profile as 
the 
> > print space.  Then switch off all colour management in the 
printer 
> > driver.
> > 
> > When I tried it in reverse.  ie, select 'printer colour 
management'in 
> > the PS print dialog box, then select the ICM option in the 
printer 
> > driver settings, I got freakish magenta or olive prints - way 
wrong.
> > 
> > Could you explain your methods?
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > Steve
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott 
Graham" 
> > <gebilwil@n...> wrote:
> > > Hi Stephen,
> > > 
> > > Nice report.  
> > > 
> > > I just got my 4000 going and also experimented with the color 
> > management.  I now have 
> > > all ink neutral prints, using a CM method that I didn't really 
> > expect.  The ICC method gave 
> > > me somewhat olive midtones, but the print driver method 
> > (recommended by Epson for 
> > > B&W) gives completely neutral prints (cool tone). 
> > > 
> > > And I don't see any metamarism, in light ranging from 
daylight, to 
> > flourescent, to halogen 
> > > varied from dim (very warm) to bright (sort of white), but 
maybe I 
> > am not fully sensitive to 
> > > it.  I have been doing fine silver prints for 30 years though 
so I 
> > should know a little.  I 
> > > don't at this early stage see any reason for a rip.
> > > 
> > > This is based on very few prints so far, and only on enhanced 
> > matte, so maybe my mind 
> > > will change?  or maybe the paper matters?  I picked it for 
cheap to 
> > learn with, but it looks 
> > > pretty good to me.  Will be trying velvet, photo rag and 
> > ultrasmooth when I get time.
> > > 
> > > Scott
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" 
> > <stephen.bate@m...> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" 
> > > > <stephen.bate@m...> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > Hi there, I have just taken delivery of my 4000 and I 
wanted to 
> > > > give 
> > > >

Colormatch won't affect the B&W "color", just the color color   :~)

and speaking of the manual, both it and the "Getting Started Here" (or quick start or 
whatever) are WRONG about how to front load single sheets.  Go by the CD method.


scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" <stephen.bate@m...> 
wrote:

> Super, thanks Scott, I didn't try this method - I got to pack 10 of 
> the 400 page manual (basically the end of the contents...!) so I'm 
> not to aufait with the recommended setting.  I will try this, along 
> with colormatch (another very wide gamut space so should be fine, 
> altough with most of my capture, digital, I can't expect much more 
> than an expanded sRGB anyway.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Steve
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Graham" 
> <gebilwil@n...> wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> > 
> > In the PS print/preview box I'm using "printer color management"  
> (note that "same as 
> > source" does the same thing).  Then in the print driver I 
> select "color controls", that is the 
> > one that shows the sliders, and leave the sliders alone.  Epson 
> recommends this for B&W.
> > 
> > Voila! neutrality.  Using the paper profile in print preview gave 
> me olive midtones.
> > 
> > Oh, I did make a "brilliant discovery" about a dumb mistake I was 
> making.  Since I had 
> > started with a B&W negative and scanned it, it seemed to be B&W.  
> Duh, checking with the 
> > eyedropper showed "black" to be not completely black since I had 
> not profiled the scanner 
> > (totally unnecessary in my opinion if one thinks  :~)...  ).
> > 
> > Now I desaturate my B&W so it really is.
> > 
> > Which brings up another point:  Epson printers (all inkjets, 
> except a few 'weird off the wall 
> > ones") need RGB input files which they then convert to their ink 
> profiles (some verison of 
> > CMYK depending on the inkset).  If they don't get it, they first 
> convert the input file to RGB 
> > and then convert it to print.  Conversions (rounding errors, 
> clipping, etc.) are NOT an 
> > advantage.  While this may not be a disaster for color, B&W is the 
> most demanding thing 
> > that you can ask a printer to do.  ANY tiny color shift shows.
> > 
> > I did not experiment with grey scale vs RGB, just 'followed 
> directions', as the CM exps took 
> > enough time.
> > 
> > Oh, and I use Colormatch as a work space as also recommended by 
> Epson---in my tests 
> > vs Adobe RGB it did not affect the color tone of the print, but 
> did affect the density.  You 
> > can of course fix the density on the screen before printing.
> > 
> > The advantage of Colormatch" for color is that it matches the inks 
> better---looks slightly 
> > duller so you get more what you expect.  It does not adversely 
> affect the Printed Result, 
> > just that the screen is more real.
> > 
> > Good Luck
> > Scott
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" 
> <stephen.bate@m...> 
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Scott.  What workflow are you using?
> > > 
> > > I had in the PS CS print/preview box - Adobe 98 as document 
> space (or 
> > > GG2.2, then I select the actual 4000 enhanced matt profile as 
> the 
> > > print space.  Then switch off all colour management in the 
> printer 
> > > driver.
> > > 
> > > When I tried it in reverse.  ie, select 'printer colour 
> management'in 
> > > the PS print dialog box, then select the ICM option in the 
> printer 
> > > driver settings, I got freakish magenta or olive prints - way 
> wrong.
> > > 
> > > Could you explain your methods?
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > 
> > > Steve
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott 
> Graham" 
> > > <gebilwil@n...> wrote:
> > > > Hi Stephen,
> > > > 
> > > > Nice report.  
> > > > 
> > > > I just got my 4000 going and also experimented with the color 
> > > management.  I now have 
> > > > all ink neutral prints, using a CM method that I didn't really 
> > > expect.  The ICC method gave 
> > > > me somewhat olive midtones, but the print driver method 
> > > (recommended by Epson for 
> > > > B&W) gives completely neutral prints (cool tone). 
> > > > 
> > > > And I don't see any metamarism, in light ranging from 
> daylight, to 
> > > flourescent, to halogen 
> > > > varied from dim (very warm) to bright (sort of white), but 
> maybe I 
> > > am not fully sensitive to 
> > > > it.  I have been doing fine silver prints for 30 years though 
> so I 
> > > should know a little.  I 
> > > > don't at this early stage see any reason for a rip.
> > > > 
> > > > This is based on very few prints so far, and only on enhanced 
> > > matte, so maybe my mind 
> > > > will change?  or maybe the paper matters?  I picked it for 
> cheap to 
> > > learn with, but it looks 
> > > > pretty good to me.  Will be trying velvet, photo rag and 
> > > ultrasmooth when I get time.
> > > > 
> > > > Scott
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" 
> > > <stephen.bate@m...> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > --- In 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" 
> > > > > <stephen.bate@m...> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi there, I have just taken delivery of my 4000 and I 
> wanted to 
> > > > > give 
> > > > >

Hello Steve,

>I was frankly stunned by the 4000 black only performance.
>I have pretty keen eyes and with my 4000 prints I REALLY have 
>to strain to see the dots, more than a few inches away and 
>they're gone.  
>The prints are stunning and everyone picked these as the best.  
>I honestly never thought I would go this route after 4 years of 
>trying pretty much everything on the market, I am happy.


Very interesting report, thanks.  I'm pleased to hear that the 4000
can make BO look better than a 2200.  Some questions:

1) I assume you are using Epson Matte Black for these, yes?  
2) Is there any dither banding visible with a loupe?
3) What is the 4000's droplet size?


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Clayton,

I've also been doing some BO printing with the 4000 and agree with 
Steve's conclusions concerning print quality - very nice.  I don't see 
any dither banding in my prints and they look very similar to 2200 BO 
prints.  You can't print at 2880 dpi on matte papers with the 4000 
because when any matte paper media type is selected then only 1440 dpi 
is available as the highest print resolution (You also can't trick the 
driver into using 2880 by selecting an RC media type because it will 
then use the PK ink) .  However, I don't think this limits print 
quality at all on matte papers.  As I noted I couldn't see any 
qualitative difference between 2200 prints on EEM printed at 2880 dpi 
and 4000 prints on EEM at 1440 dpi when viewed with the naked eye.  The 
smallest dot size available on the 4000 is supposed to be 3.5 pl, but I 
don't know if that dot size is used when printing on matte papers at 
1440 dpi.  Roy may have more info on what the dot size distributions 
are for the 4000.  I did make a few high resolution scans of a small 
section from matched 4000 and 2200 prints on EEM and can see that the 
dots are more tightly packed in the 4000 print and also the dither 
pattern appears slightly different.  I've sent you some scans off list 
for evaluation.

Carl

Carl,
I take it that to reduce the warm tone of UT matte black, one should 
still use Eboni black ink?  Have you done any comparisons with custom 
printer profiled B&W ...? 
Thanks in advance,
Steve B 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
<scho@m...> wrote:
> Clayton,
> 
> I've also been doing some BO printing with the 4000 and agree with 
> Steve's conclusions concerning print quality - very nice.  I don't 
see 
> any dither banding in my prints and they look very similar to 2200 
BO 
> prints.  You can't print at 2880 dpi on matte papers with the 4000 
> because when any matte paper media type is selected then only 1440 
dpi 
> is available as the highest print resolution (You also can't trick 
the 
> driver into using 2880 by selecting an RC media type because it 
will 
> then use the PK ink) .  However, I don't think this limits print 
> quality at all on matte papers.  As I noted I couldn't see any 
> qualitative difference between 2200 prints on EEM printed at 2880 
dpi 
> and 4000 prints on EEM at 1440 dpi when viewed with the naked eye.  
The 
> smallest dot size available on the 4000 is supposed to be 3.5 pl, 
but I 
> don't know if that dot size is used when printing on matte papers 
at 
> 1440 dpi.  Roy may have more info on what the dot size 
distributions 
> are for the 4000.  I did make a few high resolution scans of a 
small 
> section from matched 4000 and 2200 prints on EEM and can see that 
the 
> dots are more tightly packed in the 4000 print and also the dither 
> pattern appears slightly different.  I've sent you some scans off 
list 

> for evaluation.
> 
> Carl

Steve,

I haven't used Eboni yet in the 4000.  I'm going to try some cooler 
papers and see how the MK looks on these papers first.  I made a low 
gamut profile with the i1 for EEM and the UC inks, and although it was 
better than the canned Epson profile there was still a bit too much 
metamerism for me (I have developed zero tolerance for metamerism).  If 
you want to use the UC color inks for B&W a RIP is the way to go, but 
you will have to either wait for Roy to finish the QTR version or pay 
$895 now for IP.

Carl

On Saturday, May 15, 2004, at 02:29  PM, brinkker2000 wrote:

> Carl,
> I take it that to reduce the warm tone of UT matte black, one should
> still use Eboni black ink?  Have you done any comparisons with custom
> printer profiled B&W ...?
> Thanks in advance,
> Steve B
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
> <scho@m...> wrote:
>> Clayton,
>>
>> I've also been doing some BO printing with the 4000 and agree with
>> Steve's conclusions concerning print quality - very nice.  I don't
> see
>> any dither banding in my prints and they look very similar to 2200
> BO
>> prints.  You can't print at 2880 dpi on matte papers with the 4000
>> because when any matte paper media type is selected then only 1440
> dpi
>> is available as the highest print resolution (You also can't trick
> the
>> driver into using 2880 by selecting an RC media type because it
> will
>> then use the PK ink) .  However, I don't think this limits print
>> quality at all on matte papers.  As I noted I couldn't see any
>> qualitative difference between 2200 prints on EEM printed at 2880
> dpi
>> and 4000 prints on EEM at 1440 dpi when viewed with the naked eye.
> The
>> smallest dot size available on the 4000 is supposed to be 3.5 pl,
> but I
>> don't know if that dot size is used when printing on matte papers
> at
>> 1440 dpi.  Roy may have more info on what the dot size
> distributions
>> are for the 4000.  I did make a few high resolution scans of a
> small
>> section from matched 4000 and 2200 prints on EEM and can see that
> the
>> dots are more tightly packed in the 4000 print and also the dither
>> pattern appears slightly different.  I've sent you some scans off
> list
>> for evaluation.
>>
>> Carl
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

> 
> Very interesting report, thanks.  I'm pleased to hear that the 4000
> can make BO look better than a 2200.  Some questions:
> 
> 1) I assume you are using Epson Matte Black for these, yes?  
> 2) Is there any dither banding visible with a loupe?
> 3) What is the 4000's droplet size?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm


1.  Yep.  I will not switch back to Eboni.  Unless I am dedicating 
the whole printer to a third party inkset (such as UT7 or similar) I 
do not want to jeopordise my warranty.  Besides, I acutally prefer 
the warmer tones of the Epson black.
2. No very little.  turn off the super fx though and you can see 
some (I think from the notes that the super fx setting is a full 
crossover weave dither).
3. 3.5pl.  Not actually that small, but a world better than my 
1290s. In all but the widest expanses of off-white sky or clothing 
you cannot see the dots.  Trying to reproduce <5% will always be 
tough with a 100% ink though...   

Steve