Digital BW, The Print

This "wisdom" attempts to answer a bit, the questions posed by Jeff Curto.

I used MIS and then Piezography for a good 5 years on several printers, the
Epson 3000 and the Epson 1160. They were great printers and great B/W work
flows 3 - 4 years ago. But then it happened. What? I don't exactly know but
my beautiful process went to hell. I think the printers went from slow to
slower, Cones inks changed and I never did sucessfully make that work. About
a year ago I abandoned both. I was just plain tired of struggling and
spending money on old technology, or imperfect products, whatever.

I now have a 2200, but the ink tanks are small and I have no need to do much
work on it.  I may sell if I get a good offer.  I also have the 4000 and
think it's great. I can almost get great B/W prints using all the inks and
Mac Holberts (CD with the 4000) workflow, but, and I struggled with this
one, they have a bit of metamerism (not objectionable in most light as a
stand alone print).  I now have the ImagePrint RIP and the results are
great.  A lot of money but this RIP has everything in the way of options.
There is a big learning curve and I am on the bottom so ask me in 6 months,
but for now this is the way to go. My friends have the same setup and I know
it works for them.  Also if time is a factor You can get a 16x20 very fast
instead of 1 1/2 hours on the 3000.

I don't know about QTR? I hear it is slow and I don't like the sound of the
process.

Art Schaefer

Well, I set up the QTR rip on two 2200 printers for black and white output and the results 
are very fine indeed. I've been doing high-end monochrome silver work for 25 years. The 
ultrachome inks don't have the extra subtlety that a true quadtone output with 4 carbon 
inks have, but this rip is outstanding for controling the output with Ultrachrome or the 
quad pigments. They are good enough that I am setting up this system for large format 
monochrome work with the 9600 and Ultrachrome. 

Image Print is a fine rip for a lot of applications, especially cmyk proofing and package 
printing, but I don't think it is necessary for monochrome with Ultrachrome. QTR should 
be linearized for the particular printer but once it is your set, it is not difficult at all. It 
certainly won't take you six months to master it's possibilities.

John 



 I now have the ImagePrint RIP and the results are
great. A lot of money but this RIP has everything in the way of options.
There is a big learning curve and I am on the bottom so ask me in 6 months,
but for now this is the way to go. My friends have the same setup and I know
it works for them. Also if time is a factor You can get a 16x20 very fast
instead of 1 1/2 hours on the 3000.

I don't know about QTR? I hear it is slow and I don't like the sound of the
pr

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Arthur Schaefer 
<awsimages@c...> wrote:

> stand alone print).  I now have the ImagePrint RIP and the results
are
> great.  A lot of money but this RIP has everything in the way of
options.
> There is a big learning curve and I am on the bottom so ask me in 6
months,
> but for now this is the way to go. My friends have the same setup
and I know
> it works for them.  Also if time is a factor You can get a 16x20
very fast
> instead of 1 1/2 hours on the 3000.
> 
> I don't know about QTR? I hear it is slow and I don't like the
sound of the
> process.
> 
> Art Schaefer

QTR is not slow, and the process (on a Mac) is actually easier than ImagePrint. QTR 
appears as a selectable printer, and you just print to it from within PS. On Windows it may 
be another story. The print quality is virtually identical, but I do like IP's tint picker as 
opposed to QTR's blending tones via percentages. IP is obviously a well written, well 
supported application that has layout and volume facilities that QTR lacks, but you pay for 
capabilities you may not use or need. If all you want to do is get great-looking B&W output 
from your 4000, QTR is just fine, and $850 cheaper, which will pay for a lot of ink and 
paper, even on a 4000.