Digital BW, The Print

I'll say this at the risk of being acused of promoting a product, only
because no one else seems to suggest it.
If you are truly interested in a dedicated mono printer and the K6/7s,
you can get a used 7000, 7600, or 4000 for very reasonable prices, QTR
for 50$, the inkset and be up and going with extraordinary high
quality and good print size for far less money and no hassle...
This of course, after deciding you want that kind of setup.
I had the chance to get a used 7600 for $500 and passed it up, stupid...
Tyler.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten"
<j.h.j.h@...> wrote:
>
> 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>
> >
>