Digital BW, The Print

Well, some time has gone by and I assume that some of us have 2400's 
as well as 2200's in the same room. I'm still interested in knowing 
thoughts on the same image printed on a 2200 with a RIP (QTR, IJC, 
Image Print)compaired to one printed on a 2400 using the ABW setup. 
Side by side can you see a difference between the two prints. If so, 
what is it and is it an improvement? Later it would be interesting to 
see what the differences between prints are when using QTR or IJC, 
etc. with the same image on the two printers. For those of us who 
still have 2200's, 4000's, 7600's and 9600's this is a pertinant 
question which deserves some comment.

John H

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mr_Misty_44"
<jharvey@i...> 
wrote:
> Well, some time has gone by and I assume that some of us have
2400's 
> as well as 2200's in the same room. I'm still interested in knowing 
> thoughts on the same image printed on a 2200 with a RIP (QTR, IJC, 
> Image Print)compaired to one printed on a 2400 using the ABW setup. 
> Side by side can you see a difference between the two prints. If
so, 
> what is it and is it an improvement? Later it would be interesting
to 
> see what the differences between prints are when using QTR or IJC, 
> etc. with the same image on the two printers. For those of us who 
> still have 2200's, 4000's, 7600's and 9600's this is a pertinant 
> question which deserves some comment.
> 
> John H

Amen.  I have also asked the same question and some how there is
still no answer.  Also, 
how do prints on an Epson 2200 using MIS Assoc. inks and a RIP
compare vs a 2400 for both
matte and photo K inks.  

Martin

Hello Martin,

>how do prints on an Epson 2200 using MIS Assoc. inks and a RIP
>compare vs a 2400 for both matte and photo K inks.  

Do you mean MIS color inks or UT7 grayscale inks?  

Regards,
Clayton


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" <cj@c...> wrote:
> Hello Martin,
> 
> >how do prints on an Epson 2200 using MIS Assoc. inks and a RIP
> >compare vs a 2400 for both matte and photo K inks.  
> 
> Do you mean MIS color inks or UT7 grayscale inks?  


Grey scale.  I should have been more specific.

Martin

I think there has been plenty of posts which would help you with this.

The properties of the new K3 inks have been discussed a lot - the fact that
this discussion has related to the 4800 (first to market - the 7800 and 9800
are only just now available) at times is irrelevant for the most part. The
matte paper greyscale output has been improved over the original UC inks
with the introduction of LLK.  But with MIS greyscale/quad inks you had LLK
already.  Hence I think you will find that the true advancement associated
with the K3 inks vs "MIS greyscale" inks is really the performance on photo
papers - namely significant improvements re gloss differential and bronzing.
Aside from the inks, the Epson Adv B&W driver offers significant ease of use
enhancements for many users.  It's not perfect, but a dramatic improvement
over its predecessors.  Only fade tests will determine whether there is
weakness associated with the use of yellow ink in the greyscale.  Some have
claimed they can see subtle colour shifts in the greyscale ramp but I really
do think this is not the case - they may see/"perceive" it but I certainly
don't.  I see a nice smooth greyscale and easily determinable hue with the
picker.  This is a massive jump from the 21/2200 and more akin to Imageprint
output.  

So I think that's about it.  If you like photo paper output then the K3 inks
are a significant advance.  If you only print matte then they are less so
because you can get 3 shades of grey from a variety of sources.  Both the
21/2200 and the 2400 (4000 and 4800) are controllable with the same RIPs.

> From: mxgo95747 <mxgo95747@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 02:21:30 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 2400 Vs. 2200  (4800 vs 4000, 7800 vs.......)
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" <cj@c...>
> wrote:
>> Hello Martin,
>> 
>>> how do prints on an Epson 2200 using MIS Assoc. inks and a RIP
>>> compare vs a 2400 for both matte and photo K inks.
>> 
>> Do you mean MIS color inks or UT7 grayscale inks?
> 
> 
> Grey scale.  I should have been more specific.
> 
> Martin

Steve,

    This is all very fine but I still would like to hear what the 
same image printed on the same paper looks like coming from a 2200 
using UltraCrome inks and QTR or IJC or ImagePrint (I happen to use 
QTR) compaired to the 2400 using the ABW Epson Driver and K3 inks. 
Side by side what does someone think. Is there a definate difference 
between one and another. What is it. Is it an improvement. Someone 
please do this simple exercise if you happen to have both printers. 
It could be a 4000 vs 4800, or a 7600 vs...)Please the same 1440 as 
well.

John H




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I think there has been plenty of posts which would help you with 
this.
> 
> The properties of the new K3 inks have been discussed a lot - the 
fact that
> this discussion has related to the 4800 (first to market - the 
7800 and 9800
> are only just now available) at times is irrelevant for the most 
part. The
> matte paper greyscale output has been improved over the original 
UC inks
> with the introduction of LLK.  But with MIS greyscale/quad inks 
you had LLK
> already.  Hence I think you will find that the true advancement 
associated
> with the K3 inks vs "MIS greyscale" inks is really the performance 
on photo
> papers - namely significant improvements re gloss differential and 
bronzing.
> Aside from the inks, the Epson Adv B&W driver offers significant 
ease of use
> enhancements for many users.  It's not perfect, but a dramatic 
improvement
> over its predecessors.  Only fade tests will determine whether 
there is
> weakness associated with the use of yellow ink in the greyscale.  
Some have
> claimed they can see subtle colour shifts in the greyscale ramp 
but I really
> do think this is not the case - they may see/"perceive" it but I 
certainly
> don't.  I see a nice smooth greyscale and easily determinable hue 
with the
> picker.  This is a massive jump from the 21/2200 and more akin to 
Imageprint
> output.  
> 
> So I think that's about it.  If you like photo paper output then 
the K3 inks
> are a significant advance.  If you only print matte then they are 
less so
> because you can get 3 shades of grey from a variety of sources.  
Both the
> 21/2200 and the 2400 (4000 and 4800) are controllable with the 
same RIPs.
> 
> 
> > From: mxgo95747 <mxgo95747@y...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 02:21:30 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 2400 Vs. 2200  (4800 vs 4000, 7800 
vs.......)
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton 
Jones" <cj@c...>

> > wrote:
> >> Hello Martin,
> >> 
> >>> how do prints on an Epson 2200 using MIS Assoc. inks and a RIP
> >>> compare vs a 2400 for both matte and photo K inks.
> >> 
> >> Do you mean MIS color inks or UT7 grayscale inks?
> > 
> > 
> > Grey scale.  I should have been more specific.
> > 
> > Martin

How many people do you think are out there with both a 4000 and a 4800?
Even a 2200 and 2400?  Even if they did I suspect they are much more
interested in moving forward with the new machine rather than looking back.
All I am suggesting here is that it may be quite some time - if ever -
before you get your neat answer...unless of course you either buy a 2400 and
do the test or ask your retailer for the use of a 2400 so you can run your
test.

I have the 2100 and bought the 4800.  I think I have made it pretty clear as
to what I think of the differences (same image on the 2100 with MIS inks or
Epson UCs vs the 4800 with K3 inks) on photo paper.  The K3s, while not
perfect, kill everything before it.  The differences on matte are much less
discernible and probably significantly more subjective. The retained
weakness of Epson MK vs MIS Eboni has been discussed.  The differences with
respect to ease of use have also been made clear.

If you do not feel you have enough feedback/comments from that which has
been discussed on this forum and the various reviews I would suggest you
need to run your own test and make your own judgements.

Cheers

Steve

> From: Mr_Misty_44 <jharvey@...>

> 
> Steve,
> 
>     This is all very fine but I still would like to hear what the
> same image printed on the same paper looks like coming from a 2200
> using UltraCrome inks and QTR or IJC or ImagePrint (I happen to use
> QTR) compaired to the 2400 using the ABW Epson Driver and K3 inks.
> Side by side what does someone think. Is there a definate difference
> between one and another. What is it. Is it an improvement. Someone
> please do this simple exercise if you happen to have both printers.
> It could be a 4000 vs 4800, or a 7600 vs...)Please the same 1440 as
> well.
> 
> John H

Yea John I share your interest. It is time we started getting these
ultrachrome comparison tests on all the printers with QTR.

The only one I know of who has commented on this is Roy. He said
something like you "should" get better tonality from the K3 with QTR
vs the K2 with QTR but that he didn't really notice much difference.
But these were first tests and not really in depth comparisons. He can
speak for himself, he is the best one to evaluate these perceiveable
differences since he designed the software. We'll see. I would
certainly like to know before I shell out another 5 grand for a new
machine! If this is a minimal improvement to hell with it. I don't do
much glossy work.

You would think that the added L.L. grey would improve the very light
values out of greayscale but since QTR and UC uses light cyan and
light magenta up there it could very well be that we'll hardly see any
change at all. 

Does anyone know for sure....That is a big question for anyone using
this approach.

John

> 
>     This is all very fine but I still would like to hear what the 
> same image printed on the same paper looks like coming from a 2200 
> using UltraCrome inks and QTR or IJC or ImagePrint (I happen to use 
> QTR) compaired to the 2400 using the ABW Epson Driver and K3 inks. 
> Side by side what does someone think. Is there a definate difference 
> between one and another. What is it. Is it an improvement. Someone 
> please do this simple exercise if you happen to have both printers. 
> It could be a 4000 vs 4800, or a 7600 vs...)Please the same 1440 as 
> well.
> 
> John H
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> > I think there has been plenty of posts which would help you with 
> this.
> > 
> > The properties of the new K3 inks have been discussed a lot - the 
> fact that
> > this discussion has related to the 4800 (first to market - the 
> 7800 and 9800
> > are only just now available) at times is irrelevant for the most 
> part. The
> > matte paper greyscale output has been improved over the original 
> UC inks
> > with the introduction of LLK.  But with MIS greyscale/quad inks 
> you had LLK
> > already.  Hence I think you will find that the true advancement 
> associated



> > with the K3 inks vs "MIS greyscale" inks is really the performance 
> on photo
> > papers - namely significant improvements re gloss differential and 
> bronzing.
> > Aside from the inks, the Epson Adv B&W driver offers significant 
> ease of use
> > enhancements for many users.  It's not perfect, but a dramatic 
> improvement
> > over its predecessors.  Only fade tests will determine whether 
> there is
> > weakness associated with the use of yellow ink in the greyscale.  
> Some have
> > claimed they can see subtle colour shifts in the greyscale ramp 
> but I really
> > do think this is not the case - they may see/"perceive" it but I 
> certainly
> > don't.  I see a nice smooth greyscale and easily determinable hue 
> with the
> > picker.  This is a massive jump from the 21/2200 and more akin to 
> Imageprint
> > output.  
> > 
> > So I think that's about it.  If you like photo paper output then 
> the K3 inks
> > are a significant advance.  If you only print matte then they are 
> less so
> > because you can get 3 shades of grey from a variety of sources.  
> Both the
> > 21/2200 and the 2400 (4000 and 4800) are controllable with the 
> same RIPs.
> > 
> > 
> > > From: mxgo95747 <mxgo95747@y...>
> > > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 02:21:30 -0000
> > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 2400 Vs. 2200  (4800 vs 4000, 7800 
> vs.......)
> > > 
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton 
> Jones" <cj@c...>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Hello Martin,
> > >> 
> > >>> how do prints on an Epson 2200 using MIS Assoc. inks and a RIP
> > >>> compare vs a 2400 for both matte and photo K inks.
> > >> 
> > >> Do you mean MIS color inks or UT7 grayscale inks?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Grey scale.  I should have been more specific.
> > > 
> > > Martin

Fact is I'm sure there are plenty of people who have both of these
inksets out there to compare, especilly with the 22/2400 machines. The
problem is getting someone who is using the QTR rip to have them both.
Roy does.

We're not talking about the Epson driver here. I would expect a big
improvement over that original sad system they were using that sucked
so bad. That is precisely why we abandoned it in the first place. They
couldn't even make generic color profils that were usable. As far as
software goes Epson is playing catch up at best.

John

> If you do not feel you have enough feedback/comments from that which has
> been discussed on this forum and the various reviews I would suggest you
> need to run your own test and make your own judgements.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> > From: Mr_Misty_44 <jharvey@i...>
> 
> > 
> > Steve,
> > 
> >     This is all very fine but I still would like to hear what the
> > same image printed on the same paper looks like coming from a 2200
> > using UltraCrome inks and QTR or IJC or ImagePrint (I happen to use
> > QTR) compaired to the 2400 using the ABW Epson Driver and K3 inks.
> > Side by side what does someone think. Is there a definate difference
> > between one and another. What is it. Is it an improvement. Someone
> > please do this simple exercise if you happen to have both printers.
> > It could be a 4000 vs 4800, or a 7600 vs...)Please the same 1440 as
> > well.
> > 
> > John H

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> I have the 2100 and bought the 4800.  I think I have made it pretty
clear as
> to what I think of the differences (same image on the 2100 with MIS
inks or
> Epson UCs vs the 4800 with K3 inks) on photo paper.  The K3s, while
not
> perfect, kill everything before it.  The differences on matte are
much less
> discernible and probably significantly more subjective. The retained
> weakness of Epson MK vs MIS Eboni has been discussed.  The
differences with
> respect to ease of use have also been made clear.
> 
>> Cheers
> 
> Steve
> 
>

Hi Steve, I think your statement ("the differences on matte are much
less
 discernible and probably significantly more subjective. The retained
 weakness of Epson MK vs MIS Eboni has been discussed".) pretty much
says it for me.   

If you print on matte papers, with the RIPs, profiles, Piezo K7 inks,
MIS inks, Paul' work, 
and refillable cartridges that are on the market, the Epson 2200
might be the best choice 
for those individuals.  I am sure that it will be quite a while
before the Epson 2400 has all 
the above after market choices.


Thanks,

Martin

If I were worried about the "5 grand" I would want to see for myself rather
than ask another's opinion.

(I think my Krell power amps and Theta Digital cd player are worth the money
but would you agree?  Only a listening test by you yourself can help you
make that decision.)

> From: john dean <deanwork2003@...>

> 
> Yea John I share your interest. It is time we started getting these
> ultrachrome comparison tests on all the printers with QTR.
> 
> The only one I know of who has commented on this is Roy. He said
> something like you "should" get better tonality from the K3 with QTR
> vs the K2 with QTR but that he didn't really notice much difference.
> But these were first tests and not really in depth comparisons. He can
> speak for himself, he is the best one to evaluate these perceiveable
> differences since he designed the software. We'll see. I would
> certainly like to know before I shell out another 5 grand for a new
> machine! If this is a minimal improvement to hell with it. I don't do
> much glossy work.
> 
> You would think that the added L.L. grey would improve the very light
> values out of greayscale but since QTR and UC uses light cyan and
> light magenta up there it could very well be that we'll hardly see any
> change at all. 
> 
> Does anyone know for sure....That is a big question for anyone using
> this approach.
> 
> John

That is a poor analogy and an extremely subtle difference is not worth
changing systems for almost anyone. These things are not that complicated.

I have to disagree with you. I never printed anything but matte papers on my 
2400 and the amount of control with the new driver and the quality of the 
images with the K3 inks is a significant improvement.

There are two things that I see on this list quite often. One is Paralysis 
by Analysis, people seem to spend more time analyzing curves and step wedges 
then printing. They are always looking for a shortcut instead of 
experimenting to determine what works best for them. Second people have a 
tendency to give expert opinions about what they know very little about, 
such as printing two images and the analyzing the printer. I have printed 
over 100 images on my 2400 and still do not consider myself an expert on 
that printer.

These comments are not directed at any individuals, I  consider this list to 
be an invaluable source of information.

That said, I will still continue to read each message in detail, go figure.

Gary

www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 1:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: 2400 Vs. 2200 (4800 vs 4000, 7800 vs.......)


I think there has been plenty of posts which would help you with this.

The properties of the new K3 inks have been discussed a lot - the fact that
this discussion has related to the 4800 (first to market - the 7800 and 9800
are only just now available) at times is irrelevant for the most part. The
matte paper greyscale output has been improved over the original UC inks
with the introduction of LLK.  But with MIS greyscale/quad inks you had LLK
already.  Hence I think you will find that the true advancement associated
with the K3 inks vs "MIS greyscale" inks is really the performance on photo
papers - namely significant improvements re gloss differential and bronzing.
Aside from the inks, the Epson Adv B&W driver offers significant ease of use
enhancements for many users.  It's not perfect, but a dramatic improvement
over its predecessors.  Only fade tests will determine whether there is
weakness associated with the use of yellow ink in the greyscale.  Some have
claimed they can see subtle colour shifts in the greyscale ramp but I really
do think this is not the case - they may see/"perceive" it but I certainly
don't.  I see a nice smooth greyscale and easily determinable hue with the
picker.  This is a massive jump from the 21/2200 and more akin to Imageprint
output.

So I think that's about it.  If you like photo paper output then the K3 inks
are a significant advance.  If you only print matte then they are less so
because you can get 3 shades of grey from a variety of sources.  Both the
21/2200 and the 2400 (4000 and 4800) are controllable with the same RIPs.


> From: mxgo95747 <mxgo95747@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 02:21:30 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 2400 Vs. 2200  (4800 vs 4000, 7800 vs.......)
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
> <cj@c...>
> wrote:
>> Hello Martin,
>>
>>> how do prints on an Epson 2200 using MIS Assoc. inks and a RIP
>>> compare vs a 2400 for both matte and photo K inks.
>>
>> Do you mean MIS color inks or UT7 grayscale inks?
>
>
> Grey scale.  I should have been more specific.
>
> Martin





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

Photo paper? No contest.  K3 is well worth it.

Matte paper? Hmmm.  As I have said before, 3 greys in K3 vs 2 in K2 is a not
necessarily a slam dunk decision.  Someone like Tyler would jump at the
chance if K3 were all that was available - he wants 7 or more and if he can
have 3 rather than just 2 then he's ahead.  How much are you prepared to pay
for the extra fidelity?  The original post asked also about K3 vs, say, UT7.
Even more difficult.  In this comparison you have 3K on both sides - but one
side doesn't do colour (and is not too great at the moment on photo paper).
Does 3K give you enough B&W fidelity such that the ability to also do high
quality colour with the same printer/ink set make it compelling?  Quite
possibly but still a very personal decision.  Someone who wants more than 3K
for B&W would likely not be prepared to compromise his B&W for the ability
to do colour.  Personally, I see little reason to run a dedicated B&W ink
set in my 4800 to get more than the 3K I have (I reserve the right to change
my mind if I ever get to see some of Tyler's prints!).  I also do colour so
I am very happy to have a very good B&W solution and a very good colour
solution in the same box.  Was 2K enough for this?  Personally I tried the
MIS 3K solutions and found they had advantages.  Such alternatives do not
overwhelm me now that I have 3K standard.

There is no easy answer to your question.

> From: john dean <deanwork2003@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:10:13 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 2400 Vs. 2200  (4800 vs 4000, 7800 vs.......)
> 
> Fact is I'm sure there are plenty of people who have both of these
> inksets out there to compare, especilly with the 22/2400 machines. The
> problem is getting someone who is using the QTR rip to have them both.
> Roy does.
> 
> We're not talking about the Epson driver here. I would expect a big
> improvement over that original sad system they were using that sucked
> so bad. That is precisely why we abandoned it in the first place. They
> couldn't even make generic color profils that were usable. As far as
> software goes Epson is playing catch up at best.
> 
> John

> From: Gary Brown <baffin@...>


> I have to disagree with you. I never printed anything but matte papers on my
> 2400 and the amount of control with the new driver and the quality of the
> images with the K3 inks is a significant improvement.

Gary, I agree with you.  But with the prior printer and third party inks and
RIPs a lot was available to the enterprising fellow that demanded it.  Hence
it is not a slam dunk decision - it depends on the person involved and
whether they were/are prepared to go different routes with the old or new
printer.  As John said, they are not concerned with "out-of-the-box" results
(otherwise it would make a decision in favour of the new printers very
easy).

The original post asked in part: ss a 2400 printer loaded with K3 ink and
running QTR better than UT7?  Well it depends on a lot of factors...and only
the individual can decide after, as you suggest, doing their own homework.

Not at all.  It depends on whether you think the difference is "subtle" and
whether "5 grand" is significant.  Only you can make that decision.

> From: john dean <deanwork2003@...>

> 
> That is a poor analogy and an extremely subtle difference is not worth
> changing systems for almost anyone. These things are not that complicated.

Steve,

When you bring all these other factors into the equation I totally
agree with you and you are really making more sense than I am - I have
been thinking about these same issues. It is nice that we actually DO
have choices now and that there isn't one way to go, and that makes
everything more interesting. Eventually I wan to try some smaller
glossy work with UT7 inks and that could surprise me with that new
formula with the gloss optimizer.

Roy can't tell us about the 9600 vs 9800 comparison with QTR because
he doesn't have a 9600 and no one (except the guys promoting for
Epson) has a 9800. Everytime a new product comes out we debate like
this, and you are toally right, as to the large format models it might
be Christmas before we know much. I'm not going to take Nash Editions
word for it. But, we will start having a lot of reports of the 2400
/2200 comparison with rips and that will give some clues. Right now
that is all we can expect.

As to Gary's comment about not all "tests" being equal, or even
valueable, that is important for sure. 

I can tell you one thing, the quality of ones scan and his command of
Photoshop have a gigantic impact on the ultimate monochrome output,
and can be as much of a factor than even the inkset and media. 


John 






--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Not at all.  It depends on whether you think the difference is
"subtle" and
> whether "5 grand" is significant.  Only you can make that decision.
> 
> 
> > From: john dean <deanwork2003@y...>
> 
> > 
> > That is a poor analogy and an extremely subtle difference is not worth
> > changing systems for almost anyone. These things are not that
complicated.

OK,

My 4800 arrives tomorrow around noon. I currently use a 2200 with UT7
inks on semigloss paper. I will try to give a comparison of the same
image based on asthetic quality only... as that is what I think is
being requested. As it is right now, I am pretty happy with the UT7
inks, except for the bronzing factor. I am upgrading for the ability
to print both color and B&W, and because I recently switched to medium
format and wanted to go bigger. I recently talked to a successeful
fine art photographer from NYC who had nothing but praise for the
4800's B&W capability OUT OF THE BOX. I will let you know.

Ben

Steve and all, I seem to have  unwittingly become the poster boy here
for multiple K mono printing. I just want to say that there are very
many pro and non-pro printers out there using quad (and more) systems
happily printing away, doing nice stuff.
They just don't happen to hang around on lists much. A bit of cause
for some introspection here...
The 4+ part mono printing systems are out there from a few suppliers,
represent a significant contribution to state of the art inkjet
monochromatic printing, and seem to be under-represented on this list.
It all gets down to the prints and the results, not the number of Ks
or whatever.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Photo paper? No contest.  K3 is well worth it.
> 
> Matte paper? Hmmm.  As I have said before, 3 greys in K3 vs 2 in K2
is a not
> necessarily a slam dunk decision.  Someone like Tyler would jump at the
> chance if K3 were all that was available - he wants 7 or more and if
he can
> have 3 rather than just 2 then he's ahead.  How much are you
prepared to pay
> for the extra fidelity?  The original post asked also about K3 vs,
say, UT7.
> Even more difficult.  In this comparison you have 3K on both sides -
but one
> side doesn't do colour (and is not too great at the moment on photo
paper).
> Does 3K give you enough B&W fidelity such that the ability to also
do high
> quality colour with the same printer/ink set make it compelling?  Quite
> possibly but still a very personal decision.  Someone who wants more
than 3K
> for B&W would likely not be prepared to compromise his B&W for the
ability
> to do colour.  Personally, I see little reason to run a dedicated
B&W ink
> set in my 4800 to get more than the 3K I have (I reserve the right
to change
> my mind if I ever get to see some of Tyler's prints!).  I also do
colour so
> I am very happy to have a very good B&W solution and a very good colour
> solution in the same box.  Was 2K enough for this?  Personally I
tried the
> MIS 3K solutions and found they had advantages.  Such alternatives
do not

> overwhelm me now that I have 3K standard.
> 
> There is no easy answer to your question.
>

Didn't mean to make you a "poster boy"!  It's just that you are a person
known to us on the list who has expressed a preference for more greys rather
than less.  My point was simply that the answer to the question being asked
is not simple and depends on a whole host of factors and preferences.  There
is no one answer.  Any response would begin with "well it depends on.....)

Steve

> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>

> 
> Steve and all, I seem to have  unwittingly become the poster boy here
> for multiple K mono printing. I just want to say that there are very
> many pro and non-pro printers out there using quad (and more) systems
> happily printing away, doing nice stuff.
> They just don't happen to hang around on lists much. A bit of cause
> for some introspection here...
> The 4+ part mono printing systems are out there from a few suppliers,
> represent a significant contribution to state of the art inkjet
> monochromatic printing, and seem to be under-represented on this list.
> It all gets down to the prints and the results, not the number of Ks
> or whatever.
> Tyler

Right, but we use you as an example of someone who has done this for
many years and knows the differences from these years of experience
and is open enough and kind enough to share where he is and where he
has been. To tell you the truth the Piezzo site is not exactly
exploding with knowledge and enthuasism. And, now that the new neutral
inkset is out I'm surprised of that fact. I have seen what you do, not
by you, but by others working the same process in a similar way. It is
impressive to say the least. My big curiosity about the Tyler mono
approach is will it go K7 or stay with Piezzo Quad and toning
alterations. I suspect the latter. I could be wrong, but I sense you
are already working with a system that is hard to beat for this type
of work. Of course the other thing is how can you ever get anything
done if you are testing and testing and testing everytime something
new comes down the pike. That's the only problem with this digital
stuff, every year your workflow changes. That may never change.

john 









--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> Steve and all, I seem to have  unwittingly become the poster boy here
> for multiple K mono printing. I just want to say that there are very
> many pro and non-pro printers out there using quad (and more) systems
> happily printing away, doing nice stuff.
> They just don't happen to hang around on lists much. A bit of cause
> for some introspection here...
> The 4+ part mono printing systems are out there from a few suppliers,
> represent a significant contribution to state of the art inkjet
> monochromatic printing, and seem to be under-represented on this list.
> It all gets down to the prints and the results, not the number of Ks
> or whatever.
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> > Photo paper? No contest.  K3 is well worth it.
> > 
> > Matte paper? Hmmm.  As I have said before, 3 greys in K3 vs 2 in K2
> is a not
> > necessarily a slam dunk decision.  Someone like Tyler would jump
at the
> > chance if K3 were all that was available - he wants 7 or more and if
> he can
> > have 3 rather than just 2 then he's ahead.  How much are you
> prepared to pay
> > for the extra fidelity?  The original post asked also about K3 vs,
> say, UT7.
> > Even more difficult.  In this comparison you have 3K on both sides -
> but one
> > side doesn't do colour (and is not too great at the moment on photo
> paper).
> > Does 3K give you enough B&W fidelity such that the ability to also
> do high
> > quality colour with the same printer/ink set make it compelling? 
Quite
> > possibly but still a very personal decision.  Someone who wants more
> than 3K
> > for B&W would likely not be prepared to compromise his B&W for the
> ability
> > to do colour.  Personally, I see little reason to run a dedicated
> B&W ink
> > set in my 4800 to get more than the 3K I have (I reserve the right
> to change
> > my mind if I ever get to see some of Tyler's prints!).  I also do
> colour so
> > I am very happy to have a very good B&W solution and a very good
colour

> > solution in the same box.  Was 2K enough for this?  Personally I
> tried the
> > MIS 3K solutions and found they had advantages.  Such alternatives
> do not
> > overwhelm me now that I have 3K standard.
> > 
> > There is no easy answer to your question.
> >

I'm surprised too. I've also looked in vain for a review of the k7
inkset on the piezography3000 group -- nothing more than this:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piezography3000/message/26645
You'd think that some of the beta testers or advance users would be
offering at least some information about the strengths and weakness of
K7. Perhaps not many people have tried it yet, and, like me, they're
waiting for a thumbs up or down.

Chris Hargens

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
 To tell you the truth the Piezzo site is not exactly
> exploding with knowledge and enthuasism. And, now that the new neutral
> inkset is out I'm surprised of that fact.

According to Fedex tracking my 2200 k7 set should be
here today. I have some more prints I need to finish
with my current UC setup, but I should have a
datapoint for folks by early next week at the latest.

Guy

--- Chris Hargens <chargens@...> wrote:

> I'm surprised too. I've also looked in vain for a
> review of the k7
> inkset on the piezography3000 group -- nothing more
> than this:
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piezography3000/message/26645
> You'd think that some of the beta testers or advance
> users would be
> offering at least some information about the
> strengths and weakness of
> K7. Perhaps not many people have tried it yet, and,
> like me, they're
> waiting for a thumbs up or down.
> 
> Chris Hargens
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> "john dean"
> <deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
>  To tell you the truth the Piezzo site is not
> exactly
> > exploding with knowledge and enthuasism. And, now
> that the new neutral
> > inkset is out I'm surprised of that fact. 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Thanks.I don't think we can expect the Holy Grail of tonality this
year. I would be curious to hear what people think about output from
the exact same files on the same machine with these two inksets.

john



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, guy washburn
<guido02474@y...> wrote:

> According to Fedex tracking my 2200 k7 set should be
> here today. I have some more prints I need to finish
> with my current UC setup, but I should have a
> datapoint for folks by early next week at the latest.
> 
> Guy
> 
> --- Chris Hargens <chargens@s...> wrote:
> 
> > I'm surprised too. I've also looked in vain for a
> > review of the k7
> > inkset on the piezography3000 group -- nothing more
> > than this:
> >
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piezography3000/message/26645
> > You'd think that some of the beta testers or advance
> > users would be
> > offering at least some information about the
> > strengths and weakness of
> > K7. Perhaps not many people have tried it yet, and,
> > like me, they're
> > waiting for a thumbs up or down.
> > 
> > Chris Hargens
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> > "john dean"
> > <deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> >  To tell you the truth the Piezzo site is not
> > exactly
> > > exploding with knowledge and enthuasism. And, now
> > that the new neutral
> > > inkset is out I'm surprised of that fact. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> ...To tell you the truth the Piezzo site is not exactly
> exploding with knowledge and enthuasism.

Yes, it has been remarkably quiet. I've been on that list since it's
inception in 2000, it does ebb and flow, and generally not have much
activity. It seems busiest when there are problems, and very quiet
when things seem to be working well. It is not a very social list.
I too have been wanting to hear from beta testers, other than my one
friend.
...
> ...My big curiosity about the Tyler mono
> approach is will it go K7 or stay with Piezzo Quad and toning
> alterations. I suspect the latter. I could be wrong, but I sense you
> are already working with a system that is hard to beat for this type
> of work.

I'm very happy with it, and what clients I have are happy as well, a
change would be very difficult. If I had an extra 7 ink printer around
I'd be into K7 playing in a hearbeat though.
Jon has assured us that the Piezotone line will remain viable and
available for a long long time. Cone Editions uses it in house, obvioulsy.
In this printing world we are all in here, it's very difficult to
commit to one process enough to master it, yet be in a position to
quickly evolve as well. Things move fast around here.
Tyler

Tyler Boley wrote:

> In this printing world we are all in here, it's very difficult to
> commit to one process enough to master it, yet be in a position to
> quickly evolve as well. Things move fast around here.
> Tyler

Ain't that the truth. And yet, I find myself wishing it would move 
farther, and faster. Sometimes.
--
Bruce Watson

Just installed the 4800 - simply amazing. Fast, quiet, BIG. I've been
using a 2200 with MIS UT7 inks up to this point. Initial comparison of
a print that I thought looked great with MIS - doesn't really compare
to the K3 ABW print. Blacks are blacker, tonal gradation is smoother,
just an all around better looking print. Asthetically, which is what I
think the original question on this thread was asking, the K3 print
looks a lot better. This is out of the box, too. B&W printing just got
a whole lot better, not to mention easier (a hell of a lot more
expensive, too!)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bghess_sp" <bghess_sp@y...> 
wrote:
> Just installed the 4800 - simply amazing. Fast, quiet, BIG. I've been
> using a 2200 with MIS UT7 inks up to this point. Initial comparison of
> a print that I thought looked great with MIS - doesn't really compare
> to the K3 ABW print. Blacks are blacker, tonal gradation is smoother,
> just an all around better looking print. Asthetically, which is what I
> think the original question on this thread was asking, the K3 print
> looks a lot better. This is out of the box, too. B&W printing just got
> a whole lot better, not to mention easier (a hell of a lot more
> expensive, too!)

Paper?

Martin

Yeah, I forgot to mention that, but from my stated impressions, one
can probably assume I use the coated papers, and they would be
correct. Specifically, luster and semigloss. I used matte and art
papers for a while, but went back to the coated for the more
photo-like appearence. Also, does anyone have any experience using
semimatte paper? what is the surface like? more matte or more luster?

Ben 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mxgo95747"
<mxgo95747@y...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bghess_sp"
<bghess_sp@y...> 

> wrote:
> > Just installed the 4800 - simply amazing. Fast, quiet, BIG. I've been
> > using a 2200 with MIS UT7 inks up to this point. Initial comparison of
> > a print that I thought looked great with MIS - doesn't really compare
> > to the K3 ABW print. Blacks are blacker, tonal gradation is smoother,
> > just an all around better looking print. Asthetically, which is what I
> > think the original question on this thread was asking, the K3 print
> > looks a lot better. This is out of the box, too. B&W printing just got
> > a whole lot better, not to mention easier (a hell of a lot more
> > expensive, too!)
> 
> Paper?
> 
> Martin