Digital BW, The Print

I have read that the 4800 is "linearized" in production, i.e., to tighter
tolerances, whereas the 2400 is more of a "consumer" product.  So far I have
not been able to determine what this means in practical terms.  I don't mind
springing the extra money for the 4800 if it has inherently better image
quality, although I don't print much larger than 10x15, which lays well on a
13 x 19 sheet.  As of now I am using the 2200 with UC inks and IP6 for b&w.
I would probably get IP for a 4800 or 2400, though some of what I have read
calls into question whether a rip is really needed for b&w, at least with
Epson papers.  Any experience is appreciated!

Ken

Ken,
I have both printers and I can't see any difference in image quality 
between the two. The 4800 seems to print somewhat faster and the 17" 
width is great and the auto alignment of the heads is a nice touch. 
Paper positioning on the 4800 is very precise...just not very 
accurate to the std listed sizes, but making custom adjustments here 
was no problem. But its a noisy cuss compared to the whisper quiet 
2400. I'm not using a rip on them now and the B&W output is very nice 
with the Epson software after fiddling with the controls a bit on 
both machines. I print color and B&W. The 4800 is a big, heavy duty 
production machine and wants a sturdy stand or table to support it. A 
complete Epson inkset is over $500.00.  With it's smaller footprint, 
the 2400 fits in tighter places. Its a lighter weight unit but seems 
robust and well made. I have to say that both, from a visual appeal 
standpoint, look great if that matters. With your print sizes it 
sounds like the 2400 might be a way to go. 
Good Luck
Lou Meluso

> I have read that the 4800 is "linearized" in production, i.e., to 
tighter
> tolerances, whereas the 2400 is more of a "consumer" product.  So 
far I have
> not been able to determine what this means in practical terms.  I 
don't mind
> springing the extra money for the 4800 if it has inherently better 
image
> quality, although I don't print much larger than 10x15, which lays 
well on a
> 13 x 19 sheet.  As of now I am using the 2200 with UC inks and IP6 
for b&w.
> I would probably get IP for a 4800 or 2400, though some of what I 
have read
> calls into question whether a rip is really needed for b&w, at 
least with

> Epson papers.  Any experience is appreciated!
> 
> Ken
>

Ken

I'm not sure about image quality - I suspect out of the box you'd be hard
pressed to tell the difference but I have not tested this.  There is no
doubt that the 4800's qualities over the 2400, other than the extra width,
are its robust construction and the maintenance of initial tolerances over
time.  I've just gone back to using my 2100 to play with the Nanochrome inks
and it's really a dinky little toy by comparison.  I suspect that the 2400,
while exhibiting massively improved output over the 2100, is of the same
construction.  If you don't want the extra size and are prepared to buy a
new printer in 3 years time to get the latest and greatest then the 2400
would likely serve you well.

FYI - the ink savings with the 220ml carts in the 4800 are considerable - if
you aren't changing K inks all the time - and could well cover a lot of the
extra expense over time depending on how much you are printing.

I would not buy Imageprint until you've used the (either) machine a
significant amount.

Steve

> From: Ken Carney <kcarney1@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:40:24 -0600
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Epson 4800 vs. 2400 question
> 
> I have read that the 4800 is "linearized" in production, i.e., to tighter
> tolerances, whereas the 2400 is more of a "consumer" product.  So far I have
> not been able to determine what this means in practical terms.  I don't mind
> springing the extra money for the 4800 if it has inherently better image
> quality, although I don't print much larger than 10x15, which lays well on a
> 13 x 19 sheet.  As of now I am using the 2200 with UC inks and IP6 for b&w.
> I would probably get IP for a 4800 or 2400, though some of what I have read
> calls into question whether a rip is really needed for b&w, at least with
> Epson papers.  Any experience is appreciated!
> 
> Ken

Ken,
>
> I have read that the 4800 is "linearized" in production, i.e., to tighter
> tolerances, whereas the 2400 is more of a "consumer" product.  So far I have
> not been able to determine what this means in practical terms.  I don't mind
> springing the extra money for the 4800 if it has inherently better image
> quality, although I don't print much larger than 10x15, which lays well on a
> 13 x 19 sheet.  As of now I am using the 2200 with UC inks and IP6 for b&w.
> I would probably get IP for a 4800 or 2400, though some of what I have read
> calls into question whether a rip is really needed for b&w, at least with
> Epson papers.  Any experience is appreciated!

I have a 2200 with UC/IP6 which I use for matte prints and a 4800 K3 which I use for glossy/
luster prints. A major benefit of the 4800 is that it is far more economical over time. It is 
much larger than the 2200 but also more of a production type of machine in that it positions 
the paper more precisely by itself, sucks the paper flat when printing, holds many sheets etc. 
Because I only use it for glossy prints, I don't have a big need for IP -- the out of the box K3 
black and white prints on epson premium glossy/luster are terrific with very deep blacks and 
are as neutral as IP prints.

I'm wondering how the 1800 stacks up against the 2400. Could someone
elaborate on the differences in color and B&W output?
 Thanks
  Ginny

R2400 v R1800

The R2400 and R1800 are from the same mould, i.e. they look the same.  The 
R1800 targets the consumer market, whereas the R2400 is for the professional 
market.  The R1800 uses a gloss optimizer to add the extra gloss to glossy 
media.  The R2400 uses high gloss UltraChrome K3 inks to add a glossy look.  
This works up to a point nevertheless the gloss optimizer produces better 
results.  Colour wise both printers are producing near identical results, 
there is not much in it.  When it comes to monochrome (greyscale, b/w) then 
the R2400 is in a class of its own.  The b/w prints from the R2400 are 
simply stunning.  The only printer that can match this b/w quality is the HP 
8750/8450 printers with their dedicated Photo black cartridge.  The R2400 
has better yellows, but at the expense of the blues whereas the R1800 has 
better red and orange, but the green is less pronounced.

Both printers offer good value for money, the R2400 is more expensive, but 
has the K3 inks.  The R1800 has CD/DVD printing - which feature do you value 
the most?

"The EPSON Stylus Photo R2400 doesn't compete with traditional wet chemistry 
photographs - it doesn't need to as it is streets ahead of anything I have 
seen produced in a darkroom".  In print quality terms, the R2400 has 
produced the best prints I have seen from any inkjet printer.  The colours 
are vibrant and jump off the page.  At twice the cost of R1800, here in the 
UK, that the kind of result I would expect for the money.

For a full comprehensive review of the R2400 go to 
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20R2400/page-1.htm

Thanks for this VERY informative reply! It is a huge help to me.
One last question: Does the 24oo produce stunning B&W prints with the
Epson Inks or need I go to third party inks to get darkroom quality?
If it can print B&W that well, heck! I'd buy one tomorrow just for
that capability! Please let me know.
Thanks again for the succinct and most informative reply.
Best
Ginny


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Barrington Maye"
<mayebaza@...> wrote:
>
> R2400 v R1800
> 
> The R2400 and R1800 are from the same mould, i.e. they look the
same.  The 
> R1800 targets the consumer market, whereas the R2400 is for the
professional 
> market.  The R1800 uses a gloss optimizer to add the extra gloss to
glossy 
> media.  The R2400 uses high gloss UltraChrome K3 inks to add a
glossy look.  
> This works up to a point nevertheless the gloss optimizer produces
better 
> results.  Colour wise both printers are producing near identical
results, 
> there is not much in it.  When it comes to monochrome (greyscale,
b/w) then 
> the R2400 is in a class of its own.  The b/w prints from the R2400 are 
> simply stunning.  The only printer that can match this b/w quality
is the HP 
> 8750/8450 printers with their dedicated Photo black cartridge.  The
R2400 
> has better yellows, but at the expense of the blues whereas the
R1800 has 
> better red and orange, but the green is less pronounced.
> 
> Both printers offer good value for money, the R2400 is more
expensive, but 
> has the K3 inks.  The R1800 has CD/DVD printing - which feature do
you value 
> the most?
> 
> "The EPSON Stylus Photo R2400 doesn't compete with traditional wet
chemistry 
> photographs - it doesn't need to as it is streets ahead of anything
I have 
> seen produced in a darkroom".  In print quality terms, the R2400 has 
> produced the best prints I have seen from any inkjet printer.  The
colours 
> are vibrant and jump off the page.  At twice the cost of R1800, here
in the 

> UK, that the kind of result I would expect for the money.
> 
> For a full comprehensive review of the R2400 go to 
> http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20R2400/page-1.htm
>

Yikes.  The 2400 is very, very good but not part of Epson's "professional"
line-up.  It is, rather, their top-of-line consumer model.  A great little
machine and considerable better than the two printers that came before it
(the 21/2200 and the R1800).  When you see and use a 4800 you'll know
immediately what I mean.

> From: Barrington Maye <mayebaza@...>

>  The 
> R1800 targets the consumer market, whereas the R2400 is for the professional
> market.

I think you will be very surprised with the quality of the 2400's
out-of-the-box B&W prints.  They can be improved by using ICC profiles made
with QTR Create ICC if you have the equipment for doing so.  And of course
there is nothing to stop you moving to a dedicated B&W ink set at a later
point if you decide to.

> From: ginnylady33 <ginnylady33@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 09:46:26 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Epson 4800 vs. 2400 question
> 
>  Thanks for this VERY informative reply! It is a huge help to me.
> One last question: Does the 24oo produce stunning B&W prints with the
> Epson Inks or need I go to third party inks to get darkroom quality?
> If it can print B&W that well, heck! I'd buy one tomorrow just for
> that capability! Please let me know.
> Thanks again for the succinct and most informative reply.
> Best
> Ginny
>

Thanks Steve,

 Just what is QTR Create ICC?

Ginny

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@...> wrote:
>
> I think you will be very surprised with the quality of the 2400's
> out-of-the-box B&W prints.  They can be improved by using ICC
profiles made
> with QTR Create ICC if you have the equipment for doing so.  And of
course
> there is nothing to stop you moving to a dedicated B&W ink set at a
later

> point if you decide to.
> 
> 
> > From: ginnylady33 <ginnylady33@...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 09:46:26 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Epson 4800 vs. 2400 question
> > 
> >  Thanks for this VERY informative reply! It is a huge help to me.
> > One last question: Does the 24oo produce stunning B&W prints with the
> > Epson Inks or need I go to third party inks to get darkroom quality?
> > If it can print B&W that well, heck! I'd buy one tomorrow just for
> > that capability! Please let me know.
> > Thanks again for the succinct and most informative reply.
> > Best
> > Ginny
> >
>

Could you elaborate on your comment regarding the 4800?
Are you hinting that it makes even better B&Ws than the 2400?
Ginny


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@...> wrote:
>
> Yikes.  The 2400 is very, very good but not part of Epson's
"professional"
> line-up.  It is, rather, their top-of-line consumer model.  A great
little
> machine and considerable better than the two printers that came
before it
> (the 21/2200 and the R1800).  When you see and use a 4800 you'll know
> immediately what I mean.
> 
> 
> > From: Barrington Maye <mayebaza@...>
> 
> >  The 
> > R1800 targets the consumer market, whereas the R2400 is for the
professional
> > market.
>

Ginny

It's substantially more rugged in construction and virtually all other
aspects.  Whether that shows up in print is another story but I have no
doubt which would last and continue to perform well longest.  But there are
other factors as well.  The 4800's 220ml ink carts are more economical but
is much more expensive to switch inks and trial third party inks. I would
not buy the 4800 unless you needed the extra width and even then I'd suggest
the 7800 is likely a better deal (width for money).

QTR Create ICC can be found here:

http://www.quadtonerip.com/html/QTRiccprofile.html


Steve

Ah...OK Steve. Thanks for that info. In that case I'll go with the
2400. Especially after considering the weight and price of the 4800.
With the 2400, would the improvement in B&W quality vs. the 1800 be
out of the box or would I need 3rd party inks?
Also, if I am using it as a dedicated B&W printer and my 1800 for
color, what would be the relative frequency of cartridge use for the
2400? For example, in doing color on the 1800 I tear thru Cyan and
Magenta way faster than other colors.

Thanks again for your help!

Best
Ginny


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@...> wrote:
>
> Ginny
> 
> It's substantially more rugged in construction and virtually all other
> aspects.  Whether that shows up in print is another story but I have no
> doubt which would last and continue to perform well longest.  But
there are
> other factors as well.  The 4800's 220ml ink carts are more
economical but
> is much more expensive to switch inks and trial third party inks. I
would
> not buy the 4800 unless you needed the extra width and even then I'd
suggest

> the 7800 is likely a better deal (width for money).
> 
> QTR Create ICC can be found here:
> 
> http://www.quadtonerip.com/html/QTRiccprofile.html
> 
> 
> Steve
>

> From: ginnylady33 <ginnylady33@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:04:19 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Epson 4800 vs. 2400 question
> 
> Ah...OK Steve. Thanks for that info. In that case I'll go with the
> 2400. Especially after considering the weight and price of the 4800.
> With the 2400, would the improvement in B&W quality vs. the 1800 be
> out of the box or would I need 3rd party inks?

Out of the box you will notice a huge improvement.  (Yes the 4800 is a beast
and, as a pro printer, quite a bit more expensive.)

> Also, if I am using it as a dedicated B&W printer and my 1800 for
> color, what would be the relative frequency of cartridge use for the
> 2400? For example, in doing color on the 1800 I tear thru Cyan and
> Magenta way faster than other colors.

I can't speak for ink use but I would say that you'll likely use the 2400
for colour as well (until you decide to replace the inks with dedicated B&W
ones).  It is simply a better printer than the R1800.  Part of me hopes that
my 2100 will blow up so I have an excuse to get the 2400 as well.

"Part of me hopes that my 2100 will blow up so I have an excuse to get
the 2400 as well."
 
ROFL.
Too funny......
Ginny

PS-I wonder if someone could address my frequency of ink cart use
question.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> > From: ginnylady33 <ginnylady33@...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:04:19 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Epson 4800 vs. 2400 question
> > 
> > Ah...OK Steve. Thanks for that info. In that case I'll go with the
> > 2400. Especially after considering the weight and price of the 4800.
> > With the 2400, would the improvement in B&W quality vs. the 1800 be
> > out of the box or would I need 3rd party inks?
> 
> Out of the box you will notice a huge improvement.  (Yes the 4800 is
a beast
> and, as a pro printer, quite a bit more expensive.)
> 
> > Also, if I am using it as a dedicated B&W printer and my 1800 for
> > color, what would be the relative frequency of cartridge use for the
> > 2400? For example, in doing color on the 1800 I tear thru Cyan and
> > Magenta way faster than other colors.
> 
> I can't speak for ink use but I would say that you'll likely use the
2400
> for colour as well (until you decide to replace the inks with
dedicated B&W
> ones).  It is simply a better printer than the R1800.  Part of me
hopes that
> my 2100 will blow up so I have an excuse to get the 2400 as well.
>

Ginny

The R2400 is a great printer for colour and B&W requiring no special 
third party software such as RIPs to produce quality prints. I 
upgraded a few months back now because I wanted a better B&W solution 
with no hassle. My 2100 now lies idle. As far as ink usage is 
concerned the light magenta and light cyan plus the blacks are used 
quicker than yellow, cyan and magenta. I recently changed inks to MIS 
K4 with their easyfill clear carts. Quality is still very good and 
the savings are huge. However I do make my own profiles using an 
Eyeone, so I cannot say how good the Epson generic profiles work with 
the MIS inks for colour work. Also as mentioned earlier Roys RIP 
contains a piece of software for making B&W profiles if you have a 
spectro. QTR ICC profile. Used with the Epson advanced B&W mode in 
the printer driver linearises the output and produces the best B&W 
prints I have managed to produce to date. Also while I think of it 
the R2400 has performed brilliantly as far as nozzle blockages. I 
have I think only had to do one cleaning cycle from new. Have a look 
at Clayton's site for more info on BW printing in general and his 
thoughts on R2400.

Regards Peter.

Thanks Peter for the useful advice.
1-What is this "spectro. QTR ICC profile"? I've no idea. Could you
elaborate?
2-Where is 'Clayton's website'? 
Appreciate your help!
Ginny


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwbonkers"
<PeterDLevis@...> wrote:

>
> Ginny
> 
> The R2400 is a great printer for colour and B&W requiring no special 
> third party software such as RIPs to produce quality prints. I 
> upgraded a few months back now because I wanted a better B&W solution 
> with no hassle. My 2100 now lies idle. As far as ink usage is 
> concerned the light magenta and light cyan plus the blacks are used 
> quicker than yellow, cyan and magenta. I recently changed inks to MIS 
> K4 with their easyfill clear carts. Quality is still very good and 
> the savings are huge. However I do make my own profiles using an 
> Eyeone, so I cannot say how good the Epson generic profiles work with 
> the MIS inks for colour work. Also as mentioned earlier Roys RIP 
> contains a piece of software for making B&W profiles if you have a 
> spectro. QTR ICC profile. Used with the Epson advanced B&W mode in 
> the printer driver linearises the output and produces the best B&W 
> prints I have managed to produce to date. Also while I think of it 
> the R2400 has performed brilliantly as far as nozzle blockages. I 
> have I think only had to do one cleaning cycle from new. Have a look 
> at Clayton's site for more info on BW printing in general and his 
> thoughts on R2400.
> 
> Regards Peter.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ginnylady33" 
<ginnylady33@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Peter for the useful advice.
> 1-What is this "spectro. QTR ICC profile"? I've no idea. Could you
> elaborate?
> 2-Where is 'Clayton's website'? 
> Appreciate your help!
> Ginny
> 
1) I use a GretagMacbeth Eyeone spectrophotometer an expensive device 
used for measuring printed targets used in the creation of colour 
ICC  profiles. Roy Harrington QTR contains a program for making B&W 
ICC profiles if you have a measuring device. Its not neccessary just 
a refinement. You can still produce great B&W prints without creating 
a B&W profile. Have a look at Clayton's site.

2)Clayton's web site
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Peter.

Wow! Thanks Peter.
What a wealth of information on Clayton's site! It is most informative.
  Interesting that he is so pleased with Black Only printing. I assume
that the 2400 can do BO printing. 
 Thanks again for your help!
  Best
  Ginny




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwbonkers"
<PeterDLevis@...> wrote:

>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ginnylady33" 
> <ginnylady33@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Peter for the useful advice.
> > 1-What is this "spectro. QTR ICC profile"? I've no idea. Could you
> > elaborate?
> > 2-Where is 'Clayton's website'? 
> > Appreciate your help!
> > Ginny
> > 
> 1) I use a GretagMacbeth Eyeone spectrophotometer an expensive device 
> used for measuring printed targets used in the creation of colour 
> ICC  profiles. Roy Harrington QTR contains a program for making B&W 
> ICC profiles if you have a measuring device. Its not neccessary just 
> a refinement. You can still produce great B&W prints without creating 
> a B&W profile. Have a look at Clayton's site.
> 
> 2)Clayton's web site
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> Peter.
>

Sorry you're out of luck on that one - it will not allow "BO" printing
without a RIP.  FYI you don't need an expensive Eye-One to use QTR Create
ICC.  It can be used with a simple densitometer (rather than the more
expensive spectrophotometers which, in short, measure colour rather than
just density).  These are considerably cheaper  (a couple of hundred bucks
only).  

Just to pick up on what Peter said, a slight correction is in order.  QTR
Create ICC does not linearize the 2400's Adv B&W output.  It profiles it.
So you can use colour management (well really only luminance or density
management in this case) for B&W much as you do for colour.  Consider it a
refinement of what the 2400 already does.  If you are not familiar with
colour management in general then the following website has some good stuff
in it:

http://www.computer-darkroom.com/home.htm

When you get the 2400 you will see that you are instructed to print Same as
Source/No Color Management from PS.  QTR Create ICC creates ICC profiles and
you would then Let Photoshop Determine Colors with the ICC profile you
created at printing rather than the above.

Have fun

Steve

> From: ginnylady33 <ginnylady33@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:53:11 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Epson 4800 vs. 2400 question
> 
> Wow! Thanks Peter.
> What a wealth of information on Clayton's site! It is most informative.
>   Interesting that he is so pleased with Black Only printing. I assume
> that the 2400 can do BO printing.
>  Thanks again for your help!
>   Best
>   Ginny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwbonkers"
> <PeterDLevis@...> wrote:
>> 
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ginnylady33"
>> <ginnylady33@> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks Peter for the useful advice.
>>> 1-What is this "spectro. QTR ICC profile"? I've no idea. Could you
>>> elaborate?
>>> 2-Where is 'Clayton's website'?
>>> Appreciate your help!
>>> Ginny
>>> 
>> 1) I use a GretagMacbeth Eyeone spectrophotometer an expensive device
>> used for measuring printed targets used in the creation of colour
>> ICC  profiles. Roy Harrington QTR contains a program for making B&W
>> ICC profiles if you have a measuring device. Its not neccessary just
>> a refinement. You can still produce great B&W prints without creating
>> a B&W profile. Have a look at Clayton's site.
>> 
>> 2)Clayton's web site
>> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>> 
>> Peter.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@...> wrote:
Hi Steve
> 
......Just to pick up on what Peter said, a slight correction is in 
order.  QTR
> Create ICC does not linearize the 2400's Adv B&W output.  It profiles 
it.
> So you can use colour management (well really only luminance or 
density
> management in this case) for B&W much as you do for colour.  Consider 
it a
> refinement of what the 2400 already does......

Better put than me. I stand corrected. Sorry Ginny I did not mean to 
mislead you. Glad Clayton's site is of use.

Peter.

Hello Ginny,

>Interesting that he is so pleased with Black Only printing. 

BO prints can be surprisingly beautiful (for all the reasons listed in
the article), but not for all images - you have to be selective.  It
is weakest with images that have large midtone areas.  That's where
the graininess is most obvious.


>I assume that the 2400 can do BO printing. 

Unfortunately the 2400 can't do BO printing.  I'm sure it would be
very good at it (not all models do it equally well).  I have a 2400
but still use BO for some images that look better with it.  I do my
proofing in BO with an R200 so I always have that to compare with the
K3 version when deciding how to do a final print.  It's proving to be
a very nice arrangement.

Regards,
Clayton


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

I think this has already been answered, but FWIW - I have the 1800, and I 
love it. I believe I'm even getting very good B&W prints from it. But if my 
main interest were B&W, I would have bought the 2400. I think there's 
general agreement that the 2400 is the better printer for B&W. Its main 
disadvantage is the diffraction differences one sees when printing on gloss 
papers (the specular white areas don't get ink coverage, so they look 
duller than areas which are inked). Many people claim that the diffraction 
is even a problem when printing with the 1400 on pearl or semi-gloss 
papers, but I doubt that. If I print on a pearl surface such as Epson 
Premium Luster, I have to work pretty hard to see that diffraction 
differential. It's there, but I doubt that anyone would notice it unless 
they worked at it.

So - if your main interest is B&W, get the 2400. If you don't particularly 
like glossy prints, especially **really** glossy prints, get the 2400.

Bill Hansen

For sheetfed paper up to 17" wide, the 4800 can't be beat. The cost of the
carts is cheaper, and the machine is built to higher tolerances than the
2400.

That said, I've been using a 2200 and a 7800 for a while. The prints from
the 7800 are awesome, while the 2200 is good. I'd love to replace the 2200
with the 4800 as I print both BW and color. I'd use it to  print smaller
production run prints (letter and tabloid size) without resorting to rolls
-- the 4800 is perfect for that. The print quality is very very similar to
the 2400 however with the color inkset.

Jim P


On 2/4/06 9:43 AM, "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com"
<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Subject: Re: Epson 4800 vs. 2400 question
> 
> Ginny
> 
> It's substantially more rugged in construction and virtually all other
> aspects.  Whether that shows up in print is another story but I have no
> doubt which would last and continue to perform well longest.  But there are
> other factors as well.  The 4800's 220ml ink carts are more economical but
> is much more expensive to switch inks and trial third party inks. I would
> not buy the 4800 unless you needed the extra width and even then I'd suggest
> the 7800 is likely a better deal (width for money).

Hi Clayton,

 Thanks for sharing the info. And, thank you for the fabulous
information on your website! I learned a great deal from the articles.

Curious, what printer are you using for the BO final prints?

Best
Ginny


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

>
> Hello Ginny,
> 
> >Interesting that he is so pleased with Black Only printing. 
> 
> BO prints can be surprisingly beautiful (for all the reasons listed in
> the article), but not for all images - you have to be selective.  It
> is weakest with images that have large midtone areas.  That's where
> the graininess is most obvious.
> 
> 
> >I assume that the 2400 can do BO printing. 
> 
> Unfortunately the 2400 can't do BO printing.  I'm sure it would be
> very good at it (not all models do it equally well).  I have a 2400
> but still use BO for some images that look better with it.  I do my
> proofing in BO with an R200 so I always have that to compare with the
> K3 version when deciding how to do a final print.  It's proving to be
> a very nice arrangement.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Ginny, you seem to be getting good advice regarding your questions. An
issue that you will have to address, at least initially, is whether
you want to start printing on cotton rag papers using the Epson Matte
Black ink (the papers and inks that Clayton and many other use) or
whether you will start with glossier papers, ranging from satin or
pearl surfaced to true gloss. In which case you will be printing with
the Photo Black Ink. All the other inks in the system are compatible
with either type of paper, but the cotton rag matte prints definitely
need Matte Black Ink (Mk) and the other papers need Photo Black (Pk).
The 2400 prints beautifully on the rag papers using the Advanced Black
and White (ABW) feature of the Epson driver. My impression is that
these matte prints are slightly better than what could be achieved on
the old 2200. Except that the 2200 need a third-party rip to achieve
it. The greater improvement facilitated with the 2400 is in the
ability to print on the satin to true glossy papers, which the 2200
could not do well even with a third party rip. Now that can be done
beautifully on the 2400 using the Photo Black Ink in the K3 set up and
the ABW feature of the Epson driver. I.E. right out of the box. I love
the look of the rag papers, but I also love the deep blacks I can
print on the satin papers (Epson Premium Semi Matte in my case). What
keeps me from going back to the rag printing currently is the cost of
switching from the Pk to the Mk ink. It is not prohibitive but neither
is it trivial. That is why you need to make a choice on how to get
started. If you are interested in glossy, then I would start with
something that is semi-matte or satin because the more glossy the
paper the higher the probability that even with the 2400 you will run
into issues such as gloss differential. The Premium Semi Matte is a
beautiful paper, but it is made in sheets of 17 x 22. So you will have
to cut them to a size that works in the 2400 and use the residual for
test strips. Clayton has offered to sell, at a very reasonable price,
small prints on different rag papers. Well worth the price in my view.
You can see how the various papers look with the Mk ink. Be sure to
look a Epson VFA (velvet fine art). If you want to see a small print
made on Epson Premium Semi Matte using the Pk ink, I will be happy to
send you one (free of charge). Contact me at my email address about that.

You can purchase Epson premium semimatte in smaller sheet sizes as  
well, if you don't want to bother with cutting down large sheets or  
rolls:
http://www.eximvaios.com/catalog/default.php?cPath=2_252_382

On Feb 4, 2006, at 10:18 PM, rgoldman2 wrote:

> Ginny, you seem to be getting good advice regarding your questions. An
> issue that you will have to address, at least initially, is whether
> you want to start printing on cotton rag papers using the Epson Matte
> Black ink (the papers and inks that Clayton and many other use) or
> whether you will start with glossier papers, ranging from satin or
> pearl surfaced to true gloss. In which case you will be printing with
> the Photo Black Ink. All the other inks in the system are compatible
> with either type of paper, but the cotton rag matte prints definitely
> need Matte Black Ink (Mk) and the other papers need Photo Black (Pk).
> The 2400 prints beautifully on the rag papers using the Advanced Black
> and White (ABW) feature of the Epson driver. My impression is that
> these matte prints are slightly better than what could be achieved on
> the old 2200. Except that the 2200 need a third-party rip to achieve
> it. The greater improvement facilitated with the 2400 is in the
> ability to print on the satin to true glossy papers, which the 2200
> could not do well even with a third party rip. Now that can be done
> beautifully on the 2400 using the Photo Black Ink in the K3 set up and
> the ABW feature of the Epson driver. I.E. right out of the box. I love
> the look of the rag papers, but I also love the deep blacks I can
> print on the satin papers (Epson Premium Semi Matte in my case). What
> keeps me from going back to the rag printing currently is the cost of
> switching from the Pk to the Mk ink. It is not prohibitive but neither
> is it trivial. That is why you need to make a choice on how to get
> started. If you are interested in glossy, then I would start with
> something that is semi-matte or satin because the more glossy the
> paper the higher the probability that even with the 2400 you will run
> into issues such as gloss differential. The Premium Semi Matte is a
> beautiful paper, but it is made in sheets of 17 x 22. So you will have
> to cut them to a size that works in the 2400 and use the residual for
> test strips. Clayton has offered to sell, at a very reasonable price,
> small prints on different rag papers. Well worth the price in my view.
> You can see how the various papers look with the Mk ink. Be sure to
> look a Epson VFA (velvet fine art). If you want to see a small print
> made on Epson Premium Semi Matte using the Pk ink, I will be happy to
> send you one (free of charge). Contact me at my email address about  
> that.

>Curious, what printer are you using for the BO final prints?

The R200 is my only BO machine at present.  A few months ago I tried
BO on the 2400 using QTR but the results were disappointing.  Since
that time Roy said a newer version has improved 2400 handling, but
I've been too busy to try it yet.  I still have hope.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Ginny:

I hate to be a stick in the mud, and I know you are new to all of this, but 
it would be very helpful to you if you tried to research some of this 
information on your own. Try googling some of the terms that are used or 
people that are mentioned.

You can't learn everything in a day. To become a good B&W printer takes time 
and lots of trial and error to find what works for you. IMHO you would serve 
yourself better and build a better foundation of knowledge by researching 
things yourself and using the list as one of the many sources you tap.

If you want to discuss this (off topic subject) further, contact me off 
list.


Gary Brown

baffin@...
www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ginnylady33" <ginnylady33@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 8:53 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Epson 4800 vs. 2400 question


Wow! Thanks Peter.
What a wealth of information on Clayton's site! It is most informative.
  Interesting that he is so pleased with Black Only printing. I assume
that the 2400 can do BO printing.
 Thanks again for your help!
  Best
  Ginny




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwbonkers"
<PeterDLevis@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ginnylady33"
> <ginnylady33@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Peter for the useful advice.
> > 1-What is this "spectro. QTR ICC profile"? I've no idea. Could you
> > elaborate?
> > 2-Where is 'Clayton's website'?
> > Appreciate your help!
> > Ginny
> >
> 1) I use a GretagMacbeth Eyeone spectrophotometer an expensive device
> used for measuring printed targets used in the creation of colour
> ICC  profiles. Roy Harrington QTR contains a program for making B&W
> ICC profiles if you have a measuring device. Its not neccessary just
> a refinement. You can still produce great B&W prints without creating
> a B&W profile. Have a look at Clayton's site.
>
> 2)Clayton's web site
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>
> Peter.
>







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

This is superb advice. In general, I prefer to use matte type
finishes for B&W. I've also liked the look of Epson semi-gloss on some
B&W prints. I do have some of the fine art papers to try as well when
my 2400 arrives. (Velvet fine art, Museo, Hahnemule and Innova ultra
smoorth)
 Where is the info on what Clayton will sell?
 Thanks for your help!
  Ginny



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "rgoldman2"
<rgoldman@...> wrote:
>
> Ginny, you seem to be getting good advice regarding your questions. An
> issue that you will have to address, at least initially, is whether
> you want to start printing on cotton rag papers using the Epson Matte
> Black ink (the papers and inks that Clayton and many other use) or
> whether you will start with glossier papers, ranging from satin or
> pearl surfaced to true gloss. In which case you will be printing with
> the Photo Black Ink. All the other inks in the system are compatible
> with either type of paper, but the cotton rag matte prints definitely
> need Matte Black Ink (Mk) and the other papers need Photo Black (Pk).
> The 2400 prints beautifully on the rag papers using the Advanced Black
> and White (ABW) feature of the Epson driver. My impression is that
> these matte prints are slightly better than what could be achieved on
> the old 2200. Except that the 2200 need a third-party rip to achieve
> it. The greater improvement facilitated with the 2400 is in the
> ability to print on the satin to true glossy papers, which the 2200
> could not do well even with a third party rip. Now that can be done
> beautifully on the 2400 using the Photo Black Ink in the K3 set up and
> the ABW feature of the Epson driver. I.E. right out of the box. I love
> the look of the rag papers, but I also love the deep blacks I can
> print on the satin papers (Epson Premium Semi Matte in my case). What
> keeps me from going back to the rag printing currently is the cost of
> switching from the Pk to the Mk ink. It is not prohibitive but neither
> is it trivial. That is why you need to make a choice on how to get
> started. If you are interested in glossy, then I would start with
> something that is semi-matte or satin because the more glossy the
> paper the higher the probability that even with the 2400 you will run
> into issues such as gloss differential. The Premium Semi Matte is a
> beautiful paper, but it is made in sheets of 17 x 22. So you will have
> to cut them to a size that works in the 2400 and use the residual for
> test strips. Clayton has offered to sell, at a very reasonable price,
> small prints on different rag papers. Well worth the price in my view.
> You can see how the various papers look with the Mk ink. Be sure to
> look a Epson VFA (velvet fine art). If you want to see a small print
> made on Epson Premium Semi Matte using the Pk ink, I will be happy to
> send you one (free of charge). Contact me at my email address about
that.
>

Thanks for the link!
What is that paper like?
Ginny

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
<scho@...> wrote:

>
> You can purchase Epson premium semimatte in smaller sheet sizes as  
> well, if you don't want to bother with cutting down large sheets or  
> rolls:
> http://www.eximvaios.com/catalog/default.php?cPath=2_252_382
> 
> On Feb 4, 2006, at 10:18 PM, rgoldman2 wrote:
> 
> > Ginny, you seem to be getting good advice regarding your questions. An
> > issue that you will have to address, at least initially, is whether
> > you want to start printing on cotton rag papers using the Epson Matte
> > Black ink (the papers and inks that Clayton and many other use) or
> > whether you will start with glossier papers, ranging from satin or
> > pearl surfaced to true gloss. In which case you will be printing with
> > the Photo Black Ink. All the other inks in the system are compatible
> > with either type of paper, but the cotton rag matte prints definitely
> > need Matte Black Ink (Mk) and the other papers need Photo Black (Pk).
> > The 2400 prints beautifully on the rag papers using the Advanced Black
> > and White (ABW) feature of the Epson driver. My impression is that
> > these matte prints are slightly better than what could be achieved on
> > the old 2200. Except that the 2200 need a third-party rip to achieve
> > it. The greater improvement facilitated with the 2400 is in the
> > ability to print on the satin to true glossy papers, which the 2200
> > could not do well even with a third party rip. Now that can be done
> > beautifully on the 2400 using the Photo Black Ink in the K3 set up and
> > the ABW feature of the Epson driver. I.E. right out of the box. I love
> > the look of the rag papers, but I also love the deep blacks I can
> > print on the satin papers (Epson Premium Semi Matte in my case). What
> > keeps me from going back to the rag printing currently is the cost of
> > switching from the Pk to the Mk ink. It is not prohibitive but neither
> > is it trivial. That is why you need to make a choice on how to get
> > started. If you are interested in glossy, then I would start with
> > something that is semi-matte or satin because the more glossy the
> > paper the higher the probability that even with the 2400 you will run
> > into issues such as gloss differential. The Premium Semi Matte is a
> > beautiful paper, but it is made in sheets of 17 x 22. So you will have
> > to cut them to a size that works in the 2400 and use the residual for
> > test strips. Clayton has offered to sell, at a very reasonable price,
> > small prints on different rag papers. Well worth the price in my view.
> > You can see how the various papers look with the Mk ink. Be sure to
> > look a Epson VFA (velvet fine art). If you want to see a small print
> > made on Epson Premium Semi Matte using the Pk ink, I will be happy to
> > send you one (free of charge). Contact me at my email address about  
> > that.
>

Thanks Clayton.
 Is QTR hard to use?
  BTW, where are the cut sheets you offer to sell?
  Thanks!
  Ginny


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

>
> >Curious, what printer are you using for the BO final prints?
> 
> The R200 is my only BO machine at present.  A few months ago I tried
> BO on the 2400 using QTR but the results were disappointing.  Since
> that time Roy said a newer version has improved 2400 handling, but
> I've been too busy to try it yet.  I still have hope.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Smooth, soft gloss satin finish.  Prints beautifully with the Epson  
K3 and MIS K4 inks.  I use the latter in a 2400.

Carl

On Feb 5, 2006, at 4:14 AM, ginnylady33 wrote:

>   Thanks for the link!
> What is that paper like?
> Ginny
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
> <scho@...> wrote:
>>
>> You can purchase Epson premium semimatte in smaller sheet sizes as
>> well, if you don't want to bother with cutting down large sheets or
>> rolls:
>> http://www.eximvaios.com/catalog/default.php?cPath=2_252_382
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2006, at 10:18 PM, rgoldman2 wrote:
>>
>>> Ginny, you seem to be getting good advice regarding your  
>>> questions. An
>>> issue that you will have to address, at least initially, is whether
>>> you want to start printing on cotton rag papers using the Epson  
>>> Matte
>>> Black ink (the papers and inks that Clayton and many other use) or
>>> whether you will start with glossier papers, ranging from satin or
>>> pearl surfaced to true gloss. In which case you will be printing  
>>> with
>>> the Photo Black Ink. All the other inks in the system are compatible
>>> with either type of paper, but the cotton rag matte prints  
>>> definitely
>>> need Matte Black Ink (Mk) and the other papers need Photo Black  
>>> (Pk).
>>> The 2400 prints beautifully on the rag papers using the Advanced  
>>> Black
>>> and White (ABW) feature of the Epson driver. My impression is that
>>> these matte prints are slightly better than what could be  
>>> achieved on
>>> the old 2200. Except that the 2200 need a third-party rip to achieve
>>> it. The greater improvement facilitated with the 2400 is in the
>>> ability to print on the satin to true glossy papers, which the 2200
>>> could not do well even with a third party rip. Now that can be done
>>> beautifully on the 2400 using the Photo Black Ink in the K3 set  
>>> up and
>>> the ABW feature of the Epson driver. I.E. right out of the box. I  
>>> love
>>> the look of the rag papers, but I also love the deep blacks I can
>>> print on the satin papers (Epson Premium Semi Matte in my case).  
>>> What
>>> keeps me from going back to the rag printing currently is the  
>>> cost of
>>> switching from the Pk to the Mk ink. It is not prohibitive but  
>>> neither
>>> is it trivial. That is why you need to make a choice on how to get
>>> started. If you are interested in glossy, then I would start with
>>> something that is semi-matte or satin because the more glossy the
>>> paper the higher the probability that even with the 2400 you will  
>>> run
>>> into issues such as gloss differential. The Premium Semi Matte is a
>>> beautiful paper, but it is made in sheets of 17 x 22. So you will  
>>> have
>>> to cut them to a size that works in the 2400 and use the residual  
>>> for
>>> test strips. Clayton has offered to sell, at a very reasonable  
>>> price,
>>> small prints on different rag papers. Well worth the price in my  
>>> view.
>>> You can see how the various papers look with the Mk ink. Be sure to
>>> look a Epson VFA (velvet fine art). If you want to see a small print
>>> made on Epson Premium Semi Matte using the Pk ink, I will be  
>>> happy to
>>> send you one (free of charge). Contact me at my email address about
>>> that.

Hello Gary,

>I hate to be a stick in the mud,...

Please don't be.  The Yahoo list software is notoriously difficult for
researching archives and a beginner in many cases wouldn't know what
to look for.  Ginny is asking excellent questions and there are many
other forum readers who are too shy to ask who are certainly
benefitting from these.  The people who are answering these questions
volunteer their time because they want to be helpful to others. 
Beginners' questions also provide an opportunity for people with
intermediate experience to join the ranks of those who help.  We want
to encourge more people to become active.  In time I'm sure Ginny will
become one of the ones who helps others.  The worst thing we can do is
discourage people by telling them not to ask so many questions.  IMO,
by encouraging beginners to participate, this list is fulfilling its
highest purpose.  It doesn't exist solely for the convenience of
experienced users.  Ginny and her enthusiasm are most welcome.  Ask
away, Ginny!

Regards,
Clayton


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

Thanks Clayton,

 I must admit that the one or two BO good prints I got out of my 1280
were, indeed, more pleasing to my eye than those made with my 1800.
They had a very open, warm toned, luminous look on Epson Enhanced Matte.
 What printer would be most trouble-free (blockage wise) with BO if I
wanted to print up to 11X14?
  Thanks
  Ginny
  

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

>
> >Curious, what printer are you using for the BO final prints?
> 
> The R200 is my only BO machine at present.  A few months ago I tried
> BO on the 2400 using QTR but the results were disappointing.  Since
> that time Roy said a newer version has improved 2400 handling, but
> I've been too busy to try it yet.  I still have hope.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Hello Ginny,

>I must admit that the one or two BO good prints I got out of my 
>1280 were, indeed, more pleasing to my eye than those made with 
>my 1800.  They had a very open, warm toned, luminous look on 
>Epson Enhanced Matte.

Yep.  In spite of its graininess, BO remains popular with a lot of
photographers.  Over the past few years there have been several
reports of people showing pairs of identical images printed with BO
and full ink, to laypersons, who chose the BO one because "it looks
better".  It has fine qualities, you just have to choose which images
to use it with.


>What printer would be most trouble-free (blockage wise) with BO if 
>I wanted to print up to 11X14?

The 2200 is a really fine BO printer.  The only thing better (that I
know of) is the 4000.  It has a more random dither pattern which
results in slightly smoother tones.

BTW, I must disagree with the person who suggested to go do some
research on your own - your questions are most welcome.  It's what
this forum is all about, so ask all you want.  There are lots of
silent readers who I'm sure will be benefitting from these
discussions, so you are asking for them as well.  This forum is not
just for the convenience of more experienced users.  That's my .02 worth.

Regards,
Clayton


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

> >What printer would be most trouble-free (blockage wise) with BO if 
> >I wanted to print up to 11X14?
> 
> The 2200 is a really fine BO printer.  The only thing better (that I
> know of) is the 4000.  It has a more random dither pattern which
> results in slightly smoother tones.
 
 Thanks for the help and the encouragment regarding my inquisitive
nature. 
  Is there a printer smaller than the 2200 that would do BO printing? 
 I don't think I could justify getting BOTH a 2400 and a 2200.  :)
(I've already ordered the 2400 which was on sale for $675)

 Interesting that the 2200 does BO and the 2400 does not. Why is that? 

Appreciatively,
Ginny

Ginny,

>Is there a printer smaller than the 2200 that would do BO printing? 
>I don't think I could justify getting BOTH a 2400 and a 2200.  :)
>(I've already ordered the 2400 which was on sale for $675)

That's a _really_ good price.  I use an R200 (precursor to the 220)
for BO and it does a very good job. They cost $99 or less.  Under a
loupe you can see some fine dither banding in lower zones that is more
pronounced than the 2200 did.  So it's not as good, but to the eye
it's hard to tell the difference (I saved example prints from my 2200
and compare current ones to them).

It's also proving to be a good companion to the 2400 because the
workflows are so similar I can do my initial proofing in BO, and use
the 2400 only for late proofs and final prints.  It saves a lot on ink
costs plus less wear and tear on the 2400 (the paper feed mechanism on
my 2200 wore out after two years of busy use).  The only bad thing is
I can't print large BO prints, so I hope someday to get back to my
QTR/2400/BO experiments.

 
>Interesting that the 2200 does BO and the 2400 does not. Why is that?

Ahh, the $64 question. I would love to have the answer.

Regards,
Clayton


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

According to Epson UK 2nd Tier Support, they don't believe single channel
greyscale is a credible photographic printing platform.  Pity as it would,
presumably, have been easy to maintain.

> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>

> 
>  
>> Interesting that the 2200 does BO and the 2400 does not. Why is that?
> 
> Ahh, the $64 question. I would love to have the answer.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton

> That's a _really_ good price.  

  It's on sale at thenerds.net with FREE shipping, too.


 use an R200 (precursor to the 220) for BO and it does a very good job. 
It's also proving to be a good companion to the 2400 because the
> workflows are so similar I can do my initial proofing in BO, and use
> the 2400 only for late proofs and final prints.  It saves a lot on ink

  I'm not sure how the 200 fits in with your workflow for the 2400 if
you are using the 200 mainly for BO prints. 
Are the inksets for the 200/220 the same as the 2400?

 Appreciatively,
  Ginny

Hello Ginny,

>I'm not sure how the 200 fits in with your workflow for the 2400 
>if you are using the 200 mainly for BO prints. 

Sorry if I wasn't clear.  Because I use an unmanaged workflow (no
profiling or color management procedures) with equivalent settings for
both printers, I get good WYSIWYG and can send an image to either
printer and get very similar results (in terms of density and
contrast).  So I work up an image doing all proofing with R200/BO on
EEM.  This reduces ink costs significantly (BO printing is extremely
economical because a lot less ink is laid down).  Once I'm satisfied
with the image it becomes a matter of how I want to do the final print.  

Whether I want a BO or a K3 print, depending on what paper I use I may
or may not need to add an adjustment curve layer to the image.  Some
papers are different enough from EEM in contrast and/or density to
require a curve to make the final print match the proof.  This curve
is usually quite simple and quick, requiring one or two more proofs on
the final paper.  Once it's done it's saved with the image for future use.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Ginny, I agree with Clayton.  Your questions are good
ones that most of us either want to know or enjoy
reviewing and adding our $.02 worth...
Michael Vendrell, MD

--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:

> Hello Ginny,
> 
> >I must admit that the one or two BO good prints I
> got out of my 
> >1280 were, indeed, more pleasing to my eye than
> those made with 
> >my 1800.  They had a very open, warm toned,
> luminous look on 
> >Epson Enhanced Matte.
> 
> Yep.  In spite of its graininess, BO remains popular
> with a lot of
> photographers.  Over the past few years there have
> been several
> reports of people showing pairs of identical images
> printed with BO
> and full ink, to laypersons, who chose the BO one
> because "it looks
> better".  It has fine qualities, you just have to
> choose which images
> to use it with.
> 
> 
> >What printer would be most trouble-free (blockage
> wise) with BO if 
> >I wanted to print up to 11X14?
> 
> The 2200 is a really fine BO printer.  The only
> thing better (that I
> know of) is the 4000.  It has a more random dither
> pattern which
> results in slightly smoother tones.
> 
> BTW, I must disagree with the person who suggested
> to go do some
> research on your own - your questions are most
> welcome.  It's what
> this forum is all about, so ask all you want.  There
> are lots of
> silent readers who I'm sure will be benefitting from
> these
> discussions, so you are asking for them as well. 
> This forum is not
> just for the convenience of more experienced users. 
> That's my .02 worth.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:
>
> According to Epson UK 2nd Tier Support, they don't believe single channel
> greyscale is a credible photographic printing platform.  Pity as it would,
> presumably, have been easy to maintain.
> 
I've just run a bunch of prints on the 2200 using the BO method at (2800 Res) with Epson's 
Luster and Semigloss paper and Kodaks Luster. Using the glossy paper I can't detect any of 
the "dots" one sees when using matte paper. And the tonal separation is very smooth. 

I've compared these prints to those I've made using matte paper with QTR. Other than the 
sheen of the glossy paper, I can't tell a difference in quality (Although Epson's Photo Black 
ink is on the warm side).

Go figure. Either my eyes need an adjustment or this method works well with glossy 
papers. 

Steve

> 
> > From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> 
> > 
> >  
> >> Interesting that the 2200 does BO and the 2400 does not. Why is that?
> > 
> > Ahh, the $64 question. I would love to have the answer.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Clayton
>

The driver posted in the UK for the 2100 (same printer as the 2200) allows
proper K ink only printing to matte paper but uses all the inks when
printing to "photo" paper.  When this was raised with them they said they
weren't going to change it.  Like I said, they don't consider it a
photographic workflow and clearly weren't too bothered with it.  You might
want to take a good loupe to your photo paper "BO" step wedge and see if you
can see colour dots.

> From: steveh0607 <steveh060758@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:22:13 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Epson 4800 vs. 2400 question
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@...> wrote:
>> 
>> According to Epson UK 2nd Tier Support, they don't believe single channel
>> greyscale is a credible photographic printing platform.  Pity as it would,
>> presumably, have been easy to maintain.
>> 
> I've just run a bunch of prints on the 2200 using the BO method at (2800 Res)
> with Epson's 
> Luster and Semigloss paper and Kodaks Luster. Using the glossy paper I can't
> detect any of 
> the "dots" one sees when using matte paper. And the tonal separation is very
> smooth. 
> 
> I've compared these prints to those I've made using matte paper with QTR.
> Other than the 
> sheen of the glossy paper, I can't tell a difference in quality (Although
> Epson's Photo Black
> ink is on the warm side).
> 
> Go figure. Either my eyes need an adjustment or this method works well with
> glossy 
> papers. 
> 
> Steve

$675.  That's cheaper than 4 parking tickets in central London!!  I might just have to pop one 
in the suitcase on my next trip to the US.  What a bargain.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ginnylady33" <ginnylady33@...> 
wrote:

>
> 
> > That's a _really_ good price.  
> 
>   It's on sale at thenerds.net with FREE shipping, too.
>

Is there a coupon or code to apply to get this price?  Checking thenerds.net, they have it now 
listed at $772.15.  Maybe it was a through yesterday sale or something...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...> wrote:
>
> $675.  That's cheaper than 4 parking tickets in central London!!  I might just have to pop 
one 

> in the suitcase on my next trip to the US.  What a bargain.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ginnylady33" <ginnylady33@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > > That's a _really_ good price.  
> > 
> >   It's on sale at thenerds.net with FREE shipping, too.
> >
>

I have been reading the list for two years, am just a hobby  
photorapher/printer (although i do sell some prints) and have gone  
thru three printers, four inksets, and now just use the 2400  
(ahhhhh), and I like reading these answers, even though I know 95% of  
it. I agree with clayton...DM
On Feb 5, 2006, at 6:13 AM, Clayton Jones wrote:

> Hello Gary,
>
> >I hate to be a stick in the mud,...
>
> Please don't be.  The Yahoo list software is notoriously difficult for
> researching archives and a beginner in many cases wouldn't know what
> to look for.  Ginny is asking excellent questions and there are many
> other forum readers who are too shy to ask who are certainly
> benefitting from these.  The people who are answering these questions
> volunteer their time because they want to be helpful to others.
> Beginners' questions also provide an opportunity for people with
> intermediate experience to join the ranks of those who help.  We want
> to encourge more people to become active.  In time I'm sure Ginny will
> become one of the ones who helps others.  The worst thing we can do is
> discourage people by telling them not to ask so many questions.  IMO,
> by encouraging beginners to participate, this list is fulfilling its
> highest purpose.  It doesn't exist solely for the convenience of
> experienced users.  Ginny and her enthusiasm are most welcome.  Ask
> away, Ginny!
>
> Regards,
> Clayton
>
>
> Info on black and white digital printing at
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Digital wedding photography	Learn digital photography	Digital  
> photography college
> Digital photography	Digital photography web site	Digital  
> photography course
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>  Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>



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

Sorry, my bad.
It was Page Computer.
Maybe I found the inks cheaper at Nerds.
Ginny


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "vmixer42"
<geoffsm@...> wrote:
>
> Is there a coupon or code to apply to get this price?  Checking
thenerds.net, they have it now 
> listed at $772.15.  Maybe it was a through yesterday sale or
something...
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale"
<stevekale@> wrote:
> >
> > $675.  That's cheaper than 4 parking tickets in central London!! 
I might just have to pop 
> one 
> > in the suitcase on my next trip to the US.  What a bargain.
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ginnylady33"
<ginnylady33@> 

> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > > That's a _really_ good price.  
> > > 
> > >   It's on sale at thenerds.net with FREE shipping, too.
> > >
> >
>

Thank you Clayton for inviting "beginners" to participate in the 
site. 
Way too many "knowledgable" types here advise that one should search 
the archives!! I know my way around the web however I still have not 
found the 'archives' of this group. Please somebody point me to it - 
that is anywhere else except entering a keyword into the search-box!!!
Thanks
Vartkes
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Gary,
> 
> >I hate to be a stick in the mud,...
> 
> Please don't be.  The Yahoo list software is notoriously difficult 
for
> researching archives and a beginner in many cases wouldn't know what
> to look for.  Ginny is asking excellent questions and there are many
> other forum readers who are too shy to ask who are certainly
> benefitting from these.  The people who are answering these 
questions
> volunteer their time because they want to be helpful to others. 
> Beginners' questions also provide an opportunity for people with
> intermediate experience to join the ranks of those who help.  We 
want
> to encourge more people to become active.  In time I'm sure Ginny 
will
> become one of the ones who helps others.  The worst thing we can do 
is
> discourage people by telling them not to ask so many questions.  
IMO,

> by encouraging beginners to participate, this list is fulfilling its
> highest purpose.  It doesn't exist solely for the convenience of
> experienced users.  Ginny and her enthusiasm are most welcome.  Ask
> away, Ginny!
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

--- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "vartkes_peltekoglu" 
<vartkes@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Clayton for inviting "beginners" to participate in the 
> site. 
> Way too many "knowledgable" types here advise that one should 
search 
> the archives!! I know my way around the web however I still have 
not 
> found the 'archives' of this group. Please somebody point me to it -
 
> that is anywhere else except entering a keyword into the search-
box!!!
> Thanks
> Vartkes


If you come in from :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/messages

There will be a search box in the upper right corner. It isn't the 
best search on the web, but it is fairly accurate. I normally just 
sit down and trudge through.

Ginny, I'm fairly new here as well and found that digging through the archives, while time-
consuming, is a wonderful way to get many many answers to questions all at once. I had 
some questions about Epson Ultrasmooth, plugged that into the search box and was 
reading away for a good hour. It really is worth doing.

That being said, it's true that many more knowledgable people on this site are extremely 
willing to be helpful. I was introduced to Clayton's BO printing here, and I know any time I 
have a question, there will be someoine glad to answer it.

Have fun...this is a spectacular place to learn!
Sarah


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" <dfaprinting@...> wrote:

>
> --- In 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "vartkes_peltekoglu" 
> <vartkes@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Clayton for inviting "beginners" to participate in the 
> > site. 
> > Way too many "knowledgable" types here advise that one should 
> search 
> > the archives!! I know my way around the web however I still have 
> not 
> > found the 'archives' of this group. Please somebody point me to it -
>  
> > that is anywhere else except entering a keyword into the search-
> box!!!
> > Thanks
> > Vartkes
> 
> 
> If you come in from :
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/messages
> 
> There will be a search box in the upper right corner. It isn't the 
> best search on the web, but it is fairly accurate. I normally just 
> sit down and trudge through.
>

Steve Kale replied:
According to Epson UK 2nd Tier Support, they don't believe single 
channel
greyscale is a credible photographic printing platform.  Pity as it 
would,
presumably, have been easy to maintain.

As a former bean counter, I would say ink consumption is the better 
part of the equation.  Probably 98% of my output on my 2200 is BO.  The 
other 6 inks are only use in the cleaning cycles.  To top it off the 
matte black is Eboni not Epson.  Epson's profit is not just in the 
printer business but the consumables business, ink and paper.  At $99, 
the R220 can not be a huge profit center.  Work out the cost of Epson 
inks on a $ per gallon basis and you will see what I mean.

David Dorn







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

Just a warning about the Semimatte. I bought the 8.5X11 cut sheets
and printed them in my 1800. The results were disasterous. The ends of
the paper shredded and became stained with black ink. I called Epson
and they said the paper was 'not supported' or compatible with either
the 1800 or 2400 and that they had numerous reports of the same
experience from people who tried it in those printers.
 As soon as I went back to my normal 'supported' papers like Velvet FA
and SPG etc., my problems went away.
 (I did not dare try the paper in my 2400.)
  My feeling is, from looking at these cut sheets, is that they curl
upwards along the sides. It certainly is not a thickness issue as the
paper is way thinner than VFA. Just to be sure, the Epson tech, who
was excellent, had me try the thick paper setting but the results were
the same.
 Best
 Howard


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
<scho@...> wrote:

>
> You can purchase Epson premium semimatte in smaller sheet sizes as  
> well, if you don't want to bother with cutting down large sheets or  
> rolls:
> http://www.eximvaios.com/catalog/default.php?cPath=2_252_382
> 
> On Feb 4, 2006, at 10:18 PM, rgoldman2 wrote:
> 
> > Ginny, you seem to be getting good advice regarding your questions. An
> > issue that you will have to address, at least initially, is whether
> > you want to start printing on cotton rag papers using the Epson Matte
> > Black ink (the papers and inks that Clayton and many other use) or
> > whether you will start with glossier papers, ranging from satin or
> > pearl surfaced to true gloss. In which case you will be printing with
> > the Photo Black Ink. All the other inks in the system are compatible
> > with either type of paper, but the cotton rag matte prints definitely
> > need Matte Black Ink (Mk) and the other papers need Photo Black (Pk).
> > The 2400 prints beautifully on the rag papers using the Advanced Black
> > and White (ABW) feature of the Epson driver. My impression is that
> > these matte prints are slightly better than what could be achieved on
> > the old 2200. Except that the 2200 need a third-party rip to achieve
> > it. The greater improvement facilitated with the 2400 is in the
> > ability to print on the satin to true glossy papers, which the 2200
> > could not do well even with a third party rip. Now that can be done
> > beautifully on the 2400 using the Photo Black Ink in the K3 set up and
> > the ABW feature of the Epson driver. I.E. right out of the box. I love
> > the look of the rag papers, but I also love the deep blacks I can
> > print on the satin papers (Epson Premium Semi Matte in my case). What
> > keeps me from going back to the rag printing currently is the cost of
> > switching from the Pk to the Mk ink. It is not prohibitive but neither
> > is it trivial. That is why you need to make a choice on how to get
> > started. If you are interested in glossy, then I would start with
> > something that is semi-matte or satin because the more glossy the
> > paper the higher the probability that even with the 2400 you will run
> > into issues such as gloss differential. The Premium Semi Matte is a
> > beautiful paper, but it is made in sheets of 17 x 22. So you will have
> > to cut them to a size that works in the 2400 and use the residual for
> > test strips. Clayton has offered to sell, at a very reasonable price,
> > small prints on different rag papers. Well worth the price in my view.
> > You can see how the various papers look with the Mk ink. Be sure to
> > look a Epson VFA (velvet fine art). If you want to see a small print
> > made on Epson Premium Semi Matte using the Pk ink, I will be happy to
> > send you one (free of charge). Contact me at my email address about  
> > that.
>