Digital BW, The Print

I think there is most definitely a bad batch out there. I had to switch my
1280 back over to B&W (I'd been using the 2200, but there was a shortage of
cartridges around the holidays, and I needed to finish a project) and
there's something funky with the ones I ended up with. No matter what I do I
can't get a neutral print -- and I'm not working in a vacuum, I'm comparing
prints made earlier on my 1280 with UT2. They're warm and muddy. In fact,
all the curves produce prints that don't look at all like they used to. I
even downloaded the curves again, to no avail. Same image, same paper, same
printer, same computer, good nozzle checks...the current batch of prints is
horrible. I can't imagine what else it could be apart from the pre-filled
cartridges I got around mid-December. Fortunately, I'm back in business with
the 2200 and my OEM dyes are going back in the 1280 (color printing for my
family album snapshots only -- can't beat those dyes for color) so it's just
an annoying nuisance for me. I'm sure MIS would swamp me for new ones, but I
don't think I'd ever use them anyway. Don¹t give up yet, the UT system
really works. I switched to the 2200 for several reasons -- the 1280 makes
much better color prints (albeit not archival, but good enough for my
purposes); the 2200 never, ever clogs -- not true in my case with the 1280 &
UT inks; and the new easy refillable cartridges for the 2200. The 1280,
though, made prints every bit as good as those from the 2200 using Paul's
inks.

Matthew Born

On 1/15/05 1:52 PM, "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com"
<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> I can't help think that there may be a problem with the UT2 inks.
> Maybe a bad batch? I hope somebody can prove me wrong because I just
> invested a lot of time and money into this system.