Digital BW, The Print

Diane,

I recognize your struggle. This is what I will do: I have my 2100 now 
running with UT3D & QTR. I'll by a 3800 at a certain point and run it 
with the OEM inks to begin with and will try the Y-replacement by 
Paul as well. In a direct comparison between the 2100 and 3800 I'll 
decide whether to convert the 3800 to B&W only, which is my highest 
priority (and revert the 2100 back to color). 

Joost


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields" 
<picnic@...> wrote:
>
> I just wish I had been able to see the prints noted in several of 
these 
> posts--yours and several others (I've looked at the online images 
that have 
> been linked).  I understand totally about the photographer and his 
input 
> being the most crucial, but after saying that---I keep wondering 
about OEM 
> (I'm waiting for a 3800, have a 2200 and 1280) vs., for instance, 
the 
> Piezography's K7 split tone set for the 2200 or Paul Roark's UT-7 
or Clayton 
> Jones' approach using ABW with K3 inks.
> 
> Think I will just continue to follow along, try the 3800 'as is' 
and then 
> consider what more I"ll do.  I have said previously, that I've 
> procrastinated for years about using a b/w dedicated printer 
(conversion of 
> my 1280) and working with QTR for monos in the 2200, so its not 
that I have 
> to rush to make a decision, but the threads concerning the prints 
in 
> NY/workflows, inks and printers by many and the results (though I 
missed the 
> initial information about that and need to go back and do a search 
for the 
> criteria) have gotten me to thinking about how I'm going to 
continue 
> printing monos in the future.
> 
> Diane
> -----------
> Diane B. Fields
> picnic@...
> photo site  http://www.pbase.com/picnic
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >>But I next had to check off another item on the list: inks. I dug 
around
> until I found a copy of the same image printed on an Epson k3 
printer, with 
> OEM
> inks, and (again) a PrintFIX PRO2.0   profile. So the main 
difference here 
> was
> instead of a number of tinted gray inks interacting to form the 
tones here, 
> it
> was predominantly one light gray for highlights and one dark gray 
for 
> shadows,
> with supporting roles for the color inks as toners. I rather 
expected that
> the relatively fragile illusion of 3d would be clearly present in 
the 
> monochrome
> inks image, and missing in the OEM inks image; but, to my suprise 
both 
> images
> held the illusion in the same areas (subject, and backlit stemware 
to one
> side) and did not hold it in the same areas (back wall and knife 
rack). So, 
> at
> least in this case, the "thinness" of OEM neutral printing did not 
effect 
> the 3d
> illusion, or show (to my eye, at 24 inch examination distance) any 
real
> difference in detail, smoothness, or color noise. Gosh, you guys 
almost had 
> me
> convinced. <G>
>