Digital BW, The Print

I only need to go to 8x10
 
any suggestions
 
Thanks,  

Jesse  Kramer
Redding, California



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

JessKramer@... wrote:
> I only need to go to 8x10
> 
> any suggestions
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Jesse  Kramer
> Redding, California
> 

Epson C86 with MIS-EZ inks or BO with Eboni or even the Epson ink.

-Adam

Hello Jesse,

Also consider the R200, for $99 or less.  It has 6 inks compared to
the C86 4 inks.  This means more options with various ink sets and
QTR, and  it also does decent BO (most users report the C86 does
poorly on that).   

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 Jesse,
> 
> Also consider the R200, for $99 or less.  It has 6 inks compared to
> the C86 4 inks.  This means more options with various ink sets and
> QTR, and  it also does decent BO (most users report the C86 does
> poorly on that).   
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

I have a C86 which works fine, but I also want to do some BO prints. I
thought the R 200 uses dye ink. Will this lead to problems using Eboni
and other MIS inks?

>I have a C86 which works fine, but I also want to do some BO prints. 
>I thought the R 200 uses dye ink. Will this lead to problems using 
>Eboni and other MIS inks?

I have Eboni in mine and so far it's doing just fine.  Paul Roark has
also been doing it, and is working on a UT set for it.  I think he
said it would use UT2 ok.

Regards,
Clayton


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

> Also consider the R200, for $99 or less.  It has 6 inks 
> compared to the C86 4 inks.  This means more options with 
> various ink sets and QTR, and  it also does decent BO (most 
> users report the C86 does
> poorly on that).   

Is the R200 supported by Roy's QTR? What is the BO resolution?

Chris


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hi Chris,

>Is the R200 supported by Roy's QTR? 

Yes.


>What is the BO resolution?

Not sure what you mean by that...


Regards,
Clayton


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

Hi Clayton,

Thanks for the info.
 
> >Is the R200 supported by Roy's QTR? 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> >What is the BO resolution?
> 
> Not sure what you mean by that...

How many dpi can one print BO (I have an HP that will only do 600 dpi with
the black cartridge) - and does this rely on using a single BO cart, or
filling the other spaces with BO too?

Thanks,

Chris


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hello Chris,

>How many dpi can one print BO (I have an HP that will only do 600
dpi 
>with the black cartridge) - and does this rely on using a single BO 
>cart, or filling the other spaces with BO too?

I can't find any specs in the book.  The driver Dlg offers Photo and
Best Photo, rather than 1440/2880, etc.  But looking at the results
I'd guess it's got to be 1440 at least.  Anybody else know what R200
resolution is?

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:
> >I have a C86 which works fine, but I also want to do some BO
prints. 
> >I thought the R 200 uses dye ink. Will this lead to problems using 
> >Eboni and other MIS inks?
> 
> I have Eboni in mine and so far it's doing just fine.  Paul Roark
has
> also been doing it, and is working on a UT set for it.  I think he
> said it would use UT2 ok.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

I just finished some rough tests with my C86 using Eboni for BO using
Paul's sample pack from MIS.
 For my use I like the output of BO better than EZN, even with a C86.
Can you explain what inks you have in the R200 along with Eboni. I
keep getting hung up on mixing dye inks with pigment Eboni. 

THanks again. 

John

Hello John,

>I just finished some rough tests with my C86 using Eboni for BO using
>Paul's sample pack from MIS.
> For my use I like the output of BO better than EZN, even with a C86.
>Can you explain what inks you have in the R200 along with Eboni. I
>keep getting hung up on mixing dye inks with pigment Eboni. 

Right now the other five inks are the dyes that came with it, but it
doesn't matter.  When you use BO only the black is used, so the other
inks can be anything.  

I just bought a set of R200 ez-fill carts and a bottle of cleaning
fluid.  I'm going to remove the current 2/3 full dye carts and set
them aside (in case I ever need to send it for repair or swap or sell
it) and replace them with carts full of cleaning fluid.  It just gets
used up in cleaning cycles - why spend money on inks to go down the
drain?  I may at some point put some other ink in one of the positions
to experiment with 2K ideas using QTR, but for now it's strictly a BO
machine.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Clayton,
 I know it's been a while for you to remember but how do you think the R200 
BO compares to what you got from your old 870 using BO? (which I still have 
BTW). Or compared to the 2200 for that matter? (you may have covered this 
but I forgot exactly what you said if you did).
 Thanks,
 Richard

 On 8/28/05, Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote: 
> 
> Hello John,
> 
> >I just finished some rough tests with my C86 using Eboni for BO using
> >Paul's sample pack from MIS.
> > For my use I like the output of BO better than EZN, even with a C86.
> >Can you explain what inks you have in the R200 along with Eboni. I
> >keep getting hung up on mixing dye inks with pigment Eboni. 
> 
> Right now the other five inks are the dyes that came with it, but it
> doesn't matter. When you use BO only the black is used, so the other
> inks can be anything. 
> 
> I just bought a set of R200 ez-fill carts and a bottle of cleaning
> fluid. I'm going to remove the current 2/3 full dye carts and set
> them aside (in case I ever need to send it for repair or swap or sell
> it) and replace them with carts full of cleaning fluid. It just gets
> used up in cleaning cycles - why spend money on inks to go down the
> drain? I may at some point put some other ink in one of the positions
> to experiment with 2K ideas using QTR, but for now it's strictly a BO
> machine.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at 
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Richard,

>I know it's been a while for you to remember but how do you think 
>the R200 BO compares to what you got from your old 870 using BO? 
>(which I still have BTW). Or compared to the 2200 for that matter? 
>(you may have covered this but I forgot exactly what you said if 
>you did).

Well, first the 2200.  To the eye at normal viewing distance the R200
prints look as good as the 2200.  Looking really close, the R200 print
looks silghtly more coarse, but you have to look for it.  With the
loupe I see more of the fine dither banding in the R200 print.  An
aside, I haven't tried head alignment yet, so is possible it can be
improved.  It made a big improvement with the 2200.

As for the 870, I just examined an old print.  I see less dither
banding than the R200, but more than the 2200, and what is there is
more easily visible to the eye than the R200 print, as if its dither
pattern disguises it better.  Also, all three have different
patterns. 

The 2200 has the squiggly shaped groups of very fine dots that mesh
closely for a very smooth look.  The R200 has smaller groups that look
more like clumps.  The 870 print has a more random looking pattern
with smaller and less noticeable groups, but each dot is actually a
pair of very tiny dots.  

For general coarseness I'd say 2200 1st, 870 2nd, R200 3rd.  For
banding visible to the eye I'd swap the R200 and 870 positions.  From
normal viewing distance they all look excellent.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Clayton,

Would you mind clarifying that in numeric terms from best quality to worst for 
both ratings you are giving. (e.g. I'm not clear on whether to read the 2200 as 
having the most coarseness or the least, and etc. for the rest.) Thanks.

Craig


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" <
cj@c...> wrote:

> Hi Richard,
> 
> For general coarseness I'd say 2200 1st, 870 2nd, R200 3rd.  For
> banding visible to the eye I'd swap the R200 and 870 positions.  From
> normal viewing distance they all look excellent.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hello Craig,

>Would you mind clarifying that in numeric terms from best quality 
>to worst for both ratings you are giving. (e.g. I'm not clear on 
>whether to read the 2200 as having the most coarseness or the 
>least, and etc. for the rest.) Thanks.

Sorry I wasn't clear.  The 2200 is the smoothest of the three.  

Regards,
Clayton


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