Digital BW, The Print

Does 1280/1270, with MIS inks, driven by QTR, produce large *matte*
prints that look as good as prints from the 2400. I don't care what
reviewers say, I'm asking what you've seen/done...

I'm especially not asking about densitometry or what one sees with a
loupe: How do the prints "LOOK" as photographs?

I'm asking about matte/art/water color paper...
...NOT about gloss/semi-gloss /semi-matte paper. 

** Does 1280/MIS QTR look as good from 35mm scans as black-only on 2200? 

** Does 1280/MIS black-only look as good as black-only on 2200?

I suspect a lot of fine 1280/1270, 2000/2001, and 2200 printing is
still being done by fine photographers....yes? no?

> 
> Does 1280/1270, with MIS inks, driven by QTR, produce large *matte*
> prints that look as good as prints from the 2400. 

A properly operating 1280, and to a lesser extent 1270, can produce prints
that look as good as any printer.  The 1280 has several MIS ink options.
The variable-tone UT2 may be the most popular.  However, the MIS UT-FS or
UT-FSN are monotone options that are easier to work with and can sometimes
produce the best prints.  The 1270 also works very well with the monotone FS
or FSN inksets.

One can use either QTR or just the Epson driver with the 1280 and UT2.  I'm
not sure if QTR has any FS/N curves, but all that is needed is a grayscale
linearization curve.  I have posted simple Photoshop curves that do this for
the 1280 and 1270.  They can be loaded as Transfer Functions in the driver
so that there is direct grayscale printing without any RGB conversion or
application of other curves.  

The QTR ICC linearization approach in PS Print with Preview would also be
all one needed to control the FS/N inksets.


> 
> ** Does 1280/MIS QTR look as good from 35mm scans as black-only on 2200?
> 
> ** Does 1280/MIS black-only look as good as black-only on 2200?


BO v. all inks firing is a subjective issue that only you can judge.  The
1280 with the Epson driver produces an equal dmax to BO with the above inks.
I'm not sure about the QTR driver's dmax.


> 
> I suspect a lot of fine 1280/1270, 2000/2001, and 2200 printing is
> still being done by fine photographers...


The UT-FS/N project was in response to Shutterbug writer David Brook's
observations that lots of his readers were interested in B&W and had older
printers they could devote to this use.  The simple monotone ink with
grayscale curves was what we (Brooks and I) selected as the easiest to live
with approach for these people.  It's worked very well.  

One other printer that deserves special mention is the 2000P.  It may be the
best monotone inkset, matte paper printer I've seen.  

One downside to the 1270 - 2000P printers is that they use the older
cartridge approach that has all the "colors" in a single cart.  The
individual carts that the more modern printers use have some advantages,
including, in my view, being more reliable.

The various approaches and inksets I've used are outlined in my index at
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/index.htm .

Hope this helps.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Hi Djon;

I never tried QTR with a 1280 but I did B&W of several other 
flavors, including a homebrew greyscale ink set. When I go through 
my old prints and run across some of the 1280 prints, they often 
strike me as being better than anything I've done since. A 1280 in 
good condition can do as well as any of your above mentioned 
comparisons, though there's more learning curve involve particularly 
as compared to the 2400. The downside is that not having been 
designed to pump pigments, it is much more clog-prone than the 2200 
or 2400. Also, it is my opinion that the head manufacturing QC 
slipped a bit between the beige 1280 and the 'silver' 1280s. I've 
owned 2 of each, and the older beeige ones printed flawlessly, but 
the later ones had microbanding out of the box.

Hope this helps

Steve Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" 
<djon43@y...> wrote:
>
> Does 1280/1270, with MIS inks, driven by QTR, produce large *matte*
> prints that look as good as prints from the 2400. I don't care what
> reviewers say, I'm asking what you've seen/done...
> 
> I'm especially not asking about densitometry or what one sees with 
a
> loupe: How do the prints "LOOK" as photographs?
> 
> I'm asking about matte/art/water color paper...
> ...NOT about gloss/semi-gloss /semi-matte paper. 
> 
> ** Does 1280/MIS QTR look as good from 35mm scans as black-only on 
2200? 

> 
> ** Does 1280/MIS black-only look as good as black-only on 2200?
> 
> I suspect a lot of fine 1280/1270, 2000/2001, and 2200 printing is
> still being done by fine photographers....yes? no?
>

Steve,

> ... The downside is that not having been
> designed to pump pigments, it is much more clog-prone than the 2200
> or 2400...

I'll be curious with the R200 (made for dyes) if the old 1280 reliability
issue surfaces.  If I'm right that a big part of the differences relate to
individual v. multiple ink cartridge design, the R200 should be as reliable
as the C86.  This assumes it is used regularly.  It seems clear that the
pigment printers have more built-in cleaning cycles.

So, time will tell.  At least with the R200 it's so cheap that one can throw
it away and not get burned as badly.  So far, the R200 is making outstanding
prints with MIS B&W pigs (R200 EZ inkset -- not on the MIS website yet).

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com