Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 1/12/06 8:40:55 PM, kcarney1@... writes:


> I have read that the 4800 is "linearized" in production, i.e., to tighter
> tolerances, whereas the 2400 is more of a "consumer" product.  So far I have
> not been able to determine what this means in practical terms. 
> 
Mostly that a particular 4800 is more likely to start out in the middle of 
the sweetspot, and match the canned profiles for it nicely. Over time this 
advantage will erode, and wear, clogging, other printer changes, as well as ink and 
media changes, make the canned profiles a bit less exacting in their match to 
what you have at hand. A 2400 will have the same image quality, but is less 
likely to be tightly matched to the canned profiles up front. 

If you are planning to custom profile your printer anyways (or if the papers 
you use aren't Epson paper), then this really isn't a factor, and you should 
decide on print size, feed quality, and/or ink cart size: this last one is not 
automatically in favor of the 4800. If you print a lot, the 4800 will be more 
economical, with lower ink costs, and more convenient, as you can leave the 
machine to print a large number of images, which small carts just won't do 
without one or another cart running out. Yes, you could add a third party bulk ink 
system, but thats what you are buying with the 4800: an OEM bulk ink system, 
and a good one. On the other hand, if you don't print much, having ink settle 
and age in the large carts is not a good deal, and using smaller, fresher 
carts, that you can replace more affordably when they get old, even if they are not 
empty, then the 2400 is a better choice.

>  I don't mind
> springing the extra money for the 4800 if it has inherently better image
> quality,
> 
Nope, not better image quality, just better initial "centering", a more 
robust design, and built in bulk ink.

>  although I don't print much larger than 10x15, which lays well on a
> 13 x 19 sheet.  As of now I am using the 2200 with UC inks and IP6 for b&w.
> I would probably get IP for a 4800 or 2400, though some of what I have read
> calls into question whether a rip is really needed for b&w, at least with
> Epson papers.  Any experience is appreciated!
> 
I'm not overly fond of the Epson B&W process, or its results, but thats for 
another time; certainly you can get low metamerism B&W prints, and (the big 
draw) color from the same printer...

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision, Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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