Digital BW, The Print

Hi all,

I would really appreciate your comments and suggestions on the following:

I joined this group after undertaking basic colour management of my
digital workflow. It seemed the worthwhile next move to try to get to
grips with managed black and white as a necessary addition to my
output. I have been following the various threads with great interest.

I own a pair of Epson 1290 printers (I believe that's 1280 in the
US?) one of which is fitted with Epson colour inks, the other with MIS
UT2 inks. I don't currently sell my prints but it is my intention to
do so when I have finished 'fiddling about' and can settle on
profiles, software and (obviously) pigment inks.

I've spent a couple of months now making prints from various sources,
creating printer profiles, using the QuadtoneRIP with the monochrome
inks etc. While the output is undoubtedly far superior to the
'straight out of the box' results and while I can see what I have
learned and what the improvements in both workflow and output have
been, I now feel that I am sufficiently wiser to re-evaluate the
direction of my efforts - hopefully with more relevant advice and help
from this group.

I am trying to make the best use of resources while trying to minimize
the amount of potentially wasted effort (and money) in trying to get
these older printers to produce increasingly 'better' prints. As such,
I feel I have a choice. To continue with these two printers and see it
as a solveable problem to improve their output with time, patience and
more understanding, or to cut my lossses and invest in a new printer
namely a 2400 or 3800 which, I get the impression, are pretty much
'bang on' straight out of the box, or at least with just a little
tweaking.

Can any of you comment on this? Are these new printers 'that much
better' that they represent a genuine step forward? Or is it that they
simply make the processes involved easier while not offering
noticeably different prints when all is said and done? I ask the
latter because I feel that the final image is not judged on technical
details (such as ink droplet size, or dithering algorithms) but on how
the print actually looks when hanging on the wall. As such that's a
pretty wide and subjective field.

I spent several years with the Epson 1270, 1280, and several versions 
of MIS inks. It was a constant struggle with banding, clogging, and 
erratic printer behavior. There was a tremendous amount of time and 
money lost in fiddling with the printer. While I developed skills in 
fixing the printer, I had less time to spend on improving the quality 
of the prints.

Buying a 2400 eliminated all the hassle. As many people have mentioned, 
its possible to obtain beautiful b&w prints using ABW. The printer even 
works when I return from vacation, something my 1280 never did. I 
believe that you will obtain higher quality prints, as you will be able 
to concentrate on important print-making skills, rather than mess 
around with printer issues. Matte prints using Epson Velvet Fine Art 
are quite beautiful, and you can use any of the newer papers. While I 
have no experience with the 3800, it is probably worth considering as 
ink costs will ultimately be lower.

Evan

I can't comment on the 1280 or 1290, but can comment on the R2400. 
That comment is that you would not regret moving to the R2400 and the
K3 inks.  I tried to do B&W with an R800 and met much frustration.  I
haven't had any issues with the R2400.

Check out Clayton Jones' site for lots of great information.

keith z

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "alan9990_6"
<aansell@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> 
> I would really appreciate your comments and suggestions on the
following:

> 
> I joined this group after undertaking basic colour management of my
> digital workflow. It seemed the worthwhile next move to try to get to
> grips with managed black and white as a necessary addition to my
> output. I have been following the various threads with great interest.
> 
> I own a pair of Epson 1290 printers (I believe that's 1280 in the
> US?) one of which is fitted with Epson colour inks, the other with MIS
> UT2 inks. I don't currently sell my prints but it is my intention to
> do so when I have finished 'fiddling about' and can settle on
> profiles, software and (obviously) pigment inks.
> 
> I've spent a couple of months now making prints from various sources,
> creating printer profiles, using the QuadtoneRIP with the monochrome
> inks etc. While the output is undoubtedly far superior to the
> 'straight out of the box' results and while I can see what I have
> learned and what the improvements in both workflow and output have
> been, I now feel that I am sufficiently wiser to re-evaluate the
> direction of my efforts - hopefully with more relevant advice and help
> from this group.
> 
> I am trying to make the best use of resources while trying to minimize
> the amount of potentially wasted effort (and money) in trying to get
> these older printers to produce increasingly 'better' prints. As such,
> I feel I have a choice. To continue with these two printers and see it
> as a solveable problem to improve their output with time, patience and
> more understanding, or to cut my lossses and invest in a new printer
> namely a 2400 or 3800 which, I get the impression, are pretty much
> 'bang on' straight out of the box, or at least with just a little
> tweaking.
> 
> Can any of you comment on this? Are these new printers 'that much
> better' that they represent a genuine step forward? Or is it that they
> simply make the processes involved easier while not offering
> noticeably different prints when all is said and done? I ask the
> latter because I feel that the final image is not judged on technical
> details (such as ink droplet size, or dithering algorithms) but on how
> the print actually looks when hanging on the wall. As such that's a
> pretty wide and subjective field.
>

There are many experts here more experienced than me. I went from an 
Epson 880 last year...to an R2400. I really didn't want to spend that 
much on a printer ( I know there are even more expensive ones out 
there). I did no color calibration. I have a mac OSX4.9. I spent 
hours tweaking my images in Photoshop to get just the right color on 
my prints and they never printed right with the R2400 and I was so 
frustrated..I started looking at EXPENSIVE color calibration devices 
Then one person (a smart person) asked me if I would just try to 'let 
the printer determine the colors' on one print and it is consistently 
so perfect, I never looked back!
Debbi

>Hi all,
>
>I would really appreciate your comments and suggestions on the following:
>
>I joined this group after undertaking basic colour management of my
>digital workflow. It seemed the worthwhile next move to try to get to
>grips with managed black and white as a necessary addition to my
>output. I have been following the various threads with great interest.
>
>I own a pair of Epson 1290 printers (I believe that's 1280 in the
>US?) one of which is fitted with Epson colour inks, the other with MIS
>UT2 inks. I don't currently sell my prints but it is my intention to
>do so when I have finished 'fiddling about' and can settle on
>profiles, software and (obviously) pigment inks.
>
>I've spent a couple of months now making prints from various sources,
>creating printer profiles, using the QuadtoneRIP with the monochrome
>inks etc. While the output is undoubtedly far superior to the
>'straight out of the box' results and while I can see what I have
>learned and what the improvements in both workflow and output have
>been, I now feel that I am sufficiently wiser to re-evaluate the
>direction of my efforts - hopefully with more relevant advice and help
>from this group.
>
>I am trying to make the best use of resources while trying to minimize
>the amount of potentially wasted effort (and money) in trying to get
>these older printers to produce increasingly 'better' prints. As such,
>I feel I have a choice. To continue with these two printers and see it
>as a solveable problem to improve their output with time, patience and
>more understanding, or to cut my lossses and invest in a new printer
>namely a 2400 or 3800 which, I get the impression, are pretty much
>'bang on' straight out of the box, or at least with just a little
>tweaking.
>
>Can any of you comment on this? Are these new printers 'that much
>better' that they represent a genuine step forward? Or is it that they
>simply make the processes involved easier while not offering
>noticeably different prints when all is said and done? I ask the
>latter because I feel that the final image is not judged on technical
>details (such as ink droplet size, or dithering algorithms) but on how
>the print actually looks when hanging on the wall. As such that's a
>pretty wide and subjective field.
>

I started printing digitally about 4 years ago with a 1280 and the UT2
inkset. I was able to produce very nice b&w prints using MIS's ut2 and
Paul roark curves, but had trouble with clogs. Since then, I have had
two 1280's. Both developed a problem with the head in a relatively
short time - about a year. 

I purchased a R2400 8 months ago, and haven't had any significant
problems. Be aware, however, that in my experience the R2400 uses much
more ink than the 1280, so it can be expensive to operate unless you
use third party inks and refill your own carts. You can get ink from
MIS, or from other suppliers that sell Image Specialist's inks, like
Precision color (http://home.eol.ca/~mikling/). I have found that
these inks are very similar to the original epson - so much that
profiles made for the k3 inks work very well with them.

But you already have own two 1280s, so if you are not having clog
problems, I think that with the ut2 and Paul's curves you can produce
excelent b&w prints. The prints I get from my 2400 are very good, but
I don't think that they are better than the ones I got from the
1280/ut2. Color is another matter - the epson inks for the 1280 are
dyes and the color prints that I produced with them didn't last long.
But for b&w, I feel that the advantages of the 2400 are more in terms
of easier maintenance and faster printing speed rather than print
quality - when using the ut2 inks in the 1280. 

Hopefully, in a few years I will be able to say that the 2400 have
another advantage over the 1280: durability. 

Best wishes,

Manuel


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "alan9990_6"
<aansell@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> 
> I would really appreciate your comments and suggestions on the
following:

> 
> I joined this group after undertaking basic colour management of my
> digital workflow. It seemed the worthwhile next move to try to get to
> grips with managed black and white as a necessary addition to my
> output. I have been following the various threads with great interest.
> 
> I own a pair of Epson 1290 printers (I believe that's 1280 in the
> US?) one of which is fitted with Epson colour inks, the other with MIS
> UT2 inks. I don't currently sell my prints but it is my intention to
> do so when I have finished 'fiddling about' and can settle on
> profiles, software and (obviously) pigment inks.
> 
> I've spent a couple of months now making prints from various sources,
> creating printer profiles, using the QuadtoneRIP with the monochrome
> inks etc. While the output is undoubtedly far superior to the
> 'straight out of the box' results and while I can see what I have
> learned and what the improvements in both workflow and output have
> been, I now feel that I am sufficiently wiser to re-evaluate the
> direction of my efforts - hopefully with more relevant advice and help
> from this group.
> 
> I am trying to make the best use of resources while trying to minimize
> the amount of potentially wasted effort (and money) in trying to get
> these older printers to produce increasingly 'better' prints. As such,
> I feel I have a choice. To continue with these two printers and see it
> as a solveable problem to improve their output with time, patience and
> more understanding, or to cut my lossses and invest in a new printer
> namely a 2400 or 3800 which, I get the impression, are pretty much
> 'bang on' straight out of the box, or at least with just a little
> tweaking.
> 
> Can any of you comment on this? Are these new printers 'that much
> better' that they represent a genuine step forward? Or is it that they
> simply make the processes involved easier while not offering
> noticeably different prints when all is said and done? I ask the
> latter because I feel that the final image is not judged on technical
> details (such as ink droplet size, or dithering algorithms) but on how
> the print actually looks when hanging on the wall. As such that's a
> pretty wide and subjective field.
>

Evan,

I agree with your comments on the 2400 and ABW.  In the short while I¹ve had
the 2400, I¹ve printed on EEM and HPR successfully using ABW.  But my effort
with Epson VFA has been a total failure.  In order to access VFA in the
print dialogue, I had to feed through the front loading tray.  The resulting
print was a mess; there was (faint) ink outside the margins and the
otherwise very nice image was badly posterized.  Any thoughts on what I am
doing wrong?

Harry Lockwood


On 4/15/07 6:03 PM, "Evan Wolarsky" <wolarsky@...> wrote:
 
> snip
> 
> Buying a 2400 eliminated all the hassle. As many people have mentioned,
> its possible to obtain beautiful b&w prints using ABW. The printer even
> works when I return from vacation, something my 1280 never did. I
> believe that you will obtain higher quality prints, as you will be able
> to concentrate on important print-making skills, rather than mess
> around with printer issues. Matte prints using Epson Velvet Fine Art
> are quite beautiful, and you can use any of the newer papers. While I
> have no experience with the 3800, it is probably worth considering as
> ink costs will ultimately be lower.
> 
> Evan
> 



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

Harry, When you choose Velvet Fine Art in Print Setup, you should get 
a message that says you have to use the "Manual Roll" setting on the 
printer. If you feed the paper through the regular tray, it doesn't 
work properly, as you have found. You have to use the tray behind the 
regular paper holder. This is all described in the printer booklet. I 
can't fine mine, otherwise I would tell you which page. 

Evan

> I agree with your comments on the 2400 and ABW.  In the short while 
I¹ve had
> the 2400, I¹ve printed on EEM and HPR successfully using ABW.  But 
my effort
> with Epson VFA has been a total failure.  In order to access VFA in 
the
> print dialogue, I had to feed through the front loading tray.  The 
resulting
> print was a mess; there was (faint) ink outside the margins and the
> otherwise very nice image was badly posterized.  Any thoughts on 
what I am
> doing wrong?
> 
> Harry Lockwood
>Art
> > are quite beautiful, and you can use any of the newer papers. 
While I
> > have no experience with the 3800, it is probably worth 
considering as

> > ink costs will ultimately be lower.
> > 
> > Evan
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Harry, I looked at the manual on the Epson web site. On page 17 
is "Loading special paper in the single sheet guide". That's what you 
have to use for Velvet Fine Art.

Evan


> Evan,
> 
> I agree with your comments on the 2400 and ABW.  In the short while 
I¹ve had
> the 2400, I¹ve printed on EEM and HPR successfully using ABW.  But 
my effort
> with Epson VFA has been a total failure.  In order to access VFA in 
the
> print dialogue, I had to feed through the front loading tray.  The 
resulting
> print was a mess; there was (faint) ink outside the margins and the
> otherwise very nice image was badly posterized.  Any thoughts on 
what I am

> doing wrong?
> 
> Harry Lockwood
> 
>

Thanks for the response, Evan.  The problem is that VFA is grayed out in the
Print Setup so I can’t select it.  And believe me, I have read the manual ­
more than once.  I did try the tray behind the regular paper holder and got
an error message ­ blinking red light.  Since you have not had a problem, I
know it can be done.  I’ll try some other combinations.

Harry


On 4/16/07 9:11 AM, "Evan Wolarsky" <wolarsky@...> wrote:

>  
>  
>  
> 
> Harry, When you choose Velvet Fine Art in Print Setup, you should get
> a message that says you have to use the "Manual Roll" setting on the
> printer. If you feed the paper through the regular tray, it doesn't
> work properly, as you have found. You have to use the tray behind the
> regular paper holder. This is all described in the printer booklet. I
> can't fine mine, otherwise I would tell you which page.
> 
> Evan
> 
>> > I agree with your comments on the 2400 and ABW.  In the short while
> I¹ve had
>> > the 2400, I¹ve printed on EEM and HPR successfully using ABW.  But
> my effort
>> > with Epson VFA has been a total failure.  In order to access VFA in
> the
>> > print dialogue, I had to feed through the front loading tray.  The
> resulting
>> > print was a mess; there was (faint) ink outside the margins and the
>> > otherwise very nice image was badly posterized.  Any thoughts on
> what I am
>> > doing wrong?
>> > 
>> > Harry Lockwood
>> >Art
>>> > > are quite beautiful, and you can use any of the newer papers.
> While I
>>> > > have no experience with the 3800, it is probably worth
> considering as
>>> > > ink costs will ultimately be lower.
>>> > > 
>>> > > Evan
>>> > > 
> 


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

This is probably not the case but what ink are you using?  It needs to be
MK.

Tom Husband

On 4/16/07, Harry Lockwood <hflockwood@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the response, Evan.  The problem is that VFA is grayed out in
> the
> Print Setup so I can't select it.  And believe me, I have read the manual
> ­
> more than once.  I did try the tray behind the regular paper holder and
> got
> an error message ­ blinking red light.  Since you have not had a problem,
> I
> know it can be done.  I'll try some other combinations.
>
> Harry
>


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

Harry Lockwood wrote:
> Thanks for the response, Evan.  The problem is that VFA is grayed out in the
> Print Setup so I can\ufffd\ufffdt select it.  And believe me, I have read the manual \ufffd\ufffd
> more than once.  I did try the tray behind the regular paper holder and got
> an error message \ufffd\ufffd blinking red light.  Since you have not had a problem, I
> know it can be done.  I\ufffd\ufffdll try some other combinations.

What resolution are you attempting to print in?  If I recall
correctly, VFA will be greyed out if you're not selecting
'Photo' or 'Best Photo'.  Certainly, I've successfully printed
on VFA this weekend.

I *did* see some posterization before I realized I was
printing in ABW mode from PSE3 using an ICC profile for the paper.
I'd also see posterization on EEM.

I feed the VFA in the "rear" single-sheet feeder.

Cheers,
Dana

Yes, that did it!  I must have been careless in the setup.  Thanks very much
for the hand holding.

BTW, the VFA print (hot off the 2400) is gorgeous.

Harry


On 4/16/07 9:20 AM, "Evan Wolarsky" <wolarsky@...> wrote:

>  
>  
>  
> 
> Harry, I looked at the manual on the Epson web site. On page 17
> is "Loading special paper in the single sheet guide". That's what you
> have to use for Velvet Fine Art.
> 
> Evan
> 
>> > Evan,
>> > 
>> > I agree with your comments on the 2400 and ABW.  In the short while
> I¹ve had
>> > the 2400, I¹ve printed on EEM and HPR successfully using ABW.  But
> my effort
>> > with Epson VFA has been a total failure.  In order to access VFA in
> the
>> > print dialogue, I had to feed through the front loading tray.  The
> resulting
>> > print was a mess; there was (faint) ink outside the margins and the
>> > otherwise very nice image was badly posterized.  Any thoughts on
> what I am
>> > doing wrong?
>> > 
>> > Harry Lockwood
>> > 
> 


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

Tom, thanks for jumping in, and yes, I’m using MK.  The cautionary note for
me is RTFM-MC (read the friendly manual-more carefully.)  I followed the
prescription and got a beautiful print.

Harry


On 4/16/07 11:11 AM, "Tom Husband" <tom.husband@...> wrote:

>  
>  
>  
> 
> This is probably not the case but what ink are you using?  It needs to be
> MK.
> 
> Tom Husband
> 
> On 4/16/07, Harry Lockwood <hflockwood@...
> <mailto:hflockwood%40verizon.net> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks for the response, Evan.  The problem is that VFA is grayed out in
>> > the
>> > Print Setup so I can't select it.  And believe me, I have read the manual
>> > ­
>> > more than once.  I did try the tray behind the regular paper holder and
>> > got
>> > an error message ­ blinking red light.  Since you have not had a problem,
>> > I
>> > know it can be done.  I'll try some other combinations.
>> >
>> > Harry
>> >
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
>  
>     


-- 

Harry F. Lockwood




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

Harry Lockwood wrote:
> Yes, that did it!  I must have been careless in the setup.  Thanks very much
> for the hand holding.
> 
> BTW, the VFA print (hot off the 2400) is gorgeous.

Excellent.  I always wait at least an hour to evaluate a
print, since the darker portions of the print tend to be
darker immediately after printing,but that's really just in
the deep shadows.

And, yes, VFA does look lovely.

Dana

I echo encouragement to acquire an R2400. I make black and white prints on
both matte and glossy paper (Innova Fiba-Gloss F is awesome albeit
expensive) with virtually no hassle all using ABW mode.

I do have paper feed problems from time to time and it seems particular to
feeding matte paper. It really ticks me off. But I've found that cleaning
the pinch roller with an alcohol soaked cotton ball makes it work again.

I'll be getting a 3800 within the next couple of weeks so I can make larger
prints.

Dave.

-- 
Web Site: www.david-keenan.com
2007 PAW: www.david-keenan.com/paw
2006 EuroBlog: www.david-keenan.com/euroblog


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