Digital BW, The Print

Sure you have to dedicate a printer to b§W. Al other options are 
crazy.
YOu have to buy a second printer for color. OK? It´s very simple, 
isn´t it?

--- 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).