Digital BW, The Print

You will never get a better print than from a head of an epson 5000 
or an epson 7000 or an epson 9000 or an epson 4000. If the machine 
is best alignet the output will be indistinguishable from any future 
hardware. You don´t believe??
Hope this helps!

-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
<chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> As a follow-up: last night I printed a more "representative" image 
from a 1Ds 
> file converted to grayscale, printed on Epson Premium Luster, 
again using 
> "printer color management" and "color controls."  I found the 
print to be 
> different in hue from the print mentioned im my initial post.  
However, looking 
> at them side by side (and next to a silver print), the print on 
Luster actually 
> looks more "neutral" than the one on Enhanced Matte.  The Enhanced 
Matte 
> one looks almost (lightly) selenium toned, while the one on Luster 
looks (in 
> terms of hue) closer to the untoned silver print (on Ilford 
multigrade fiber 
> Luster paper).  It's hard to explain, but both the 4000 print on 
Luster and the 
> silver print have grays that are "grayer" to my eye, while the 
4000 print on 
> Ehnaced Matte tends toward the slight purplish tone of a lightly 
selenium 
> toned silver print.  By way of comparison, a grayscale print on 
the 2200 using 
> the Epson driver in my perception tends much more strongly toward 
purple or 
> green than either of these prints from the 4000.  I have not yet 
been able to 
> make any serious conclusions on metamerism on this print, as it's 
yet another 
> seriously overcast day here...
> 
> If someone with a color measurement tool thingy would like me to 
mail them 
> the prints from the 4000 for some objective data, I'd be happy 
to.  Next up for 
> me is to compare both of these prints from the 4000 to prints of 
the same 
> images on my 2200 using ImagePrint.
> 
> (by the way, I image that I will ultimately give in and buy 
ImagePrint for the 
> 9600, as 9600 grayscale prints look the same to me as 2200 
grayscale prints.  
> I would get ImagePrint for the 9600, rather than the 4000, because 
then I'd 
> have the ability to print larger neutral grayscale files.  But I 
would be limited to 
> Matte papers, since I'm set up for matte black ink in the 9600 and 
don't like the 
> idea of eating the cost of switching inks.  On the other hand, I 
can't think of a 
> B&W print I've made recently that I would have preferred with a 
glossy/luster 
> paper, particularly given the depth of blacks on Ultrasmooth)
> 
> > 
> > --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
> > <chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> > > I'd like to ask that anyone who has a 4000 print a B&W image 
with 
> > a "normal" 
> > > range of tonal values and check for neutrality and 
metamerism.  I 
> > ask this b/c I 
> > > have a 4000 and have printed one B&W image that to me looks 
neutral 
> > and 
> > > (more surprisingly) seems to show little to no color shifting 
when 
> > viewed in 
> > > different light.  The print was a grayscale RGB file 
(converted 
> > using the 
> > > Convert to B&W Pro plug-in) on Epson Enhanced Matte, printed 
at 
> > 1440dpi, 
> > > using "printer color management" in the Photoshop driver 
and "color 
> > controls" 
> > > in the Epson driver.  However, the image I printed was not 
really 
> > > representative of a normal B&W, in my opinion -- it's a 
backlit 
> > image of a tree 
> > > against the sky, so it had lots of stark blacks and white 
whites, 
> > with just a bit of 
> > > midtone values and gradation in the sky.  So, I'll be printing 
> > another image as 
> > > a better test (like something with a wide range of tonal 
values -- 
> > a landscape 
> > > of street shot).  I'd like others to post their experiences w. 
B&W 
> > on the 4000 as 
> > > well -- I find it hard to believe that B&W has been 
significantly 
> > improved 
> > > unless there were serious tweaks to the driver that I don't 
know 
> > about, and am 
> > > assuming, as I mentioned above, that the nature of this 
particular 
> > image is 
> > > why there was little metamerism.  (Or perhaps Enhanced Matte 
shows 
> > less 
> > > color shifting for some reason?  I'll try the next print on a 
> > different paper).