Digital BW, The Print

Hi,

I have been using a 1280 with the UT2 inset. My printer has the 
problem in that the LM head is not longer working after repeated 
cleaning. I even injected the MIS cleaner through that nozzile but 
it did not help. The printer was repaired less then a year ago with 
a similar problem which turned out to be electrical. I don'tthink it 
is worth sending out for repairs again. I can pick up a very lightly 
used 2200 for a good price. What is the difference between the UT2 
and UT7 inks? Can I still use my inks (I just bought some so have a 
lot left). Is the 2200 a good printer to work with? will there ever 
be spongless carts for it?  My other option is to wait for the 3800, 
use it for awhile as is until there are 3rd party inks and carts for 
it. Find it hard to justify the new price for a 2400.

Mike

Mike,

>I have been using a 1280 with the UT2 inset. 

>I can pick up a very lightly used 2200 for a good price. 

>What is the difference between the UT2 and UT7 inks?

They are very similar, but the cold toners are different and in different
positions.  The carbons are the same, thought he UT2 M & LM become UT7 C &
LC.

> Is the 2200 a good printer to work with?

Definitely.  I have the 4K+ inkset it mine now. (MK, PK, LK, & LLK plus LM
and 50% LC ("LLC"?), with yellow now in the Y position, but glop might go
there.)  This takes a rip -- QTR or IJC.  I'm using IJC because it's what I
know.  If you're into making your own profiles, I'd consider the 4K+
approach.  I really like it.  Not only do I have full Lab control, but the
carbon core (density) is independent of the hue.  So, control of tones is
very easy.  Right now, of course, there are not that many profiles.  See
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf  

> will there ever be spongeless carts for it?

The easy-refill sponge type that MIS has work fine.  I use them regularly.

> My other option is to wait for the 3800, ...

The 3800 looks like quite a machine.  I assume MIS inks can be used to
re-fill the Epson carts.  Then again, I'd want to sell some of those inks.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

The cost of a replacement 1280 usually less than your investment in
inks and carts, and in turn that is less than your time invested in
developing workflows to make everything work well. I faced your
decision twice in recent years with a less than optimal 1280 but
everything else to make good prints. Once I bought another 1280 and
kept making good prints for another 18 months. I don't regret that
decision. I had more time when the most recent 1280 began to falter,
so I stepped up to a 2400. That was a good decision for me at that time. 

Just realize how small the printer purchase price is in relation to
the total investment. So pick your time carefully to step up to new
printer models. And when you do step up, don't stop short of the
latest proven model to save $200 on the hardware. BTW, I wouldn't
consider a 3800 a "proven model". 

Bob Michaels

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mmrroott"
<mike.rott@...> wrote:

>
> Hi,
> 
> I have been using a 1280 with the UT2 inset. My printer has the 
> problem in that the LM head is not longer working after repeated 
> cleaning. I even injected the MIS cleaner through that nozzile but 
> it did not help. The printer was repaired less then a year ago with 
> a similar problem which turned out to be electrical. I don'tthink it 
> is worth sending out for repairs again. I can pick up a very lightly 
> used 2200 for a good price. What is the difference between the UT2 
> and UT7 inks? Can I still use my inks (I just bought some so have a 
> lot left). Is the 2200 a good printer to work with? will there ever 
> be spongless carts for it?  My other option is to wait for the 3800, 
> use it for awhile as is until there are 3rd party inks and carts for 
> it. Find it hard to justify the new price for a 2400.
> 
> Mike
>

Hello Mike,

> I have been using a 1280 with the UT2 inset. My printer has the 
> problem in that the LM head is not longer working after repeated 
> cleaning. I even injected the MIS cleaner through that nozzile but 
> it did not help. The printer was repaired less then a year ago with 
> a similar problem which turned out to be electrical. I don'tthink it 
> is worth sending out for repairs again. I can pick up a very lightly 
> used 2200 for a good price. What is the difference between the UT2 
> and UT7 inks? Can I still use my inks (I just bought some so have a 
> lot left). Is the 2200 a good printer to work with? will there ever 
> be spongless carts for it?  My other option is to wait for the 3800, 
> use it for awhile as is until there are 3rd party inks and carts for 
> it. 


>Find it hard to justify the new price for a 2400.

I agree with everything Paul and Michael said, both valid
perspectives.  Here's something else to consider re the 2400.  If you
were to get a 2400 and use either the K3 inks or the MIS K4 equivalent
in the ABW mode (with or without the Y=LLK option), you'd find that
your workflow would undergo a major change.  It's a completely
different approach.  Whether or not you would like that, and the
resulting prints, only you can answer and only by trying it.  So it
definitely would be a costly gamble (unless you know someone who has
one which you could play with).  If you wanted to stick with UT+RIP
then there's no point in buying a 2400 for that.  A used 2200 or even
a new 1800 would do the job.

But keep in mind that many people who do use 2400s in ABW mode love
them and feel they are worth every penny.  There must be some reason
for that.  I'm saying this just to give some food for thought before
you dismiss the idea completely.  From what you say you are at a
juncture in your printing life and whatever decision you make will
likely chart your course for at least a couple more years.  Wouldn't
hurt to think through all the options.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

>The cost of a replacement 1280 usually less than your 
>investment in inks and carts, and in turn that is less 
>than your time invested in developing workflows ...

An interesting observation.

Note what I've been pushing lately.  The UT-R2 should work on all Epson 6
and 7 ink printers.  The 4K+ should work on all Epson 6 and 7 ink printers.
The inks and workflows should stay the same for what are essentially a
flexible monotone, Epson driver R2 approach, and a full Lab controlled 4K+
rip approach.

I have not tested the R2 or 4K+ on lots of printers, but the idea here is to
have a couple of approaches that work on lots of machines from the 220 to
the 9600.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thank-you Paul, Michael and Clayton. You have each given me something to think about. I 
didn't think of it in those terms, but yes, I guess I am at a juncture in my printing, and 
should consider carefully before making a quick decision. I was comfortable with the 1280 
plus UT2. It produced wonderful prints on mat paper, but there were things I would have 
liked improved. If I do go with the 2200, then it sounds like the K4+ inks are the future 
and the route I should go. However, the message I am getting from your responses, and 
from reading some older messages, is that the new K3 printers are capable of producing 
excellent B&W prints, with the standard K3 or K4(+) inks while still retaining their ablity to 
print color. Most of what I do is B&W, but I do get requests for color and actually have a 
backlog of quit a few color prints to make, and no good color printer. If the 2400 or 3800 
can do both. possibly with a RIP and a swaping out the Y position for better B&W, that 
would be very appealing. In that case I would rather get one 17in printer (3800) and have 
the ability to print larger,  instead of 2 dedicated 13in printers. I can wait a month or so at 
the most, and the 2200 isn't going anywhere, so I have some time.

Mike

Hello Mike,

>...the message I am getting...is that the new K3 printers are 
>capable of producing excellent B&W prints,

Here's a bit of perspective on that, FWIW.  I had a 2200 (and an 870
before that) and for over 4+ years tried numerous variations of MIS
inks, including UT7, custom formulas, with and without QTR and
different curves approaches, and in spite of seemingly endless
tinkering was never fully satisfied and kept going back to good old
Eboni BO.  Finally the K3 printers arrived.  The 2400/K3/ABW, for my
eyes, produces far better prints than anything I was able to get
previously, and with ease of use and lack of printer/workflow hassles.
 For me, K3 blew the doors off the barn and opened up a whole new
world that had been out of reach before.

 
>...while still retaining their ablity to print color. Most of what I 
>do is B&W, but I do get requests for color and actually have a 
>backlog of quit a few color prints to make, and no good color
>printer. If the 2400 or 3800 can do both. possibly with a RIP and a
>swaping out the Y position for better B&W, that would be very 
>appealing. In that case I would rather get one 17in printer (3800) 
>and have the ability to print larger,  instead of 2 dedicated 13in 
>printers. I can wait a month or so at the most, and the 2200 isn't 
>going anywhere, so I have some time.

Something else to consider - with the 2400 you would always have the
option to use other inks and drive it with a RIP (R2, K7, whatever). 
That may or may not be possible with the 3800.  I have heard that the
3800 carts may have a different kind of chip and the cart may be wired
in some way to the chip so as to provide a more accurate ink guage. 
That could mean that alternative carts may be a long time in coming,
if at all.  Epson keeps trying to subvert the 3rd party market and
they may succeed someday.  The 3800 is an unknown quantity at this
point.  It's probably safe to say that you would be locked into using
Epson inks for some period of time.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

> >...the message I am getting...is that the new K3 printers 
> > are capable of producing excellent B&W prints ...

I agree.  Once one has LLK and LK, the quality is potentially there.  A
"blended" B&W inkset (with the color pigments mixed in with carbon to avoid
high gamut dots) is a bit smoother (all else being equal, which it never
is), but even as one who has designed and used lots of them, I'm moving away
from that approach.  My fade tests also suggest blended inksets might have a
slight edge, but perhaps not enough to overcome the advantages of an inkset
approach that uses standard inks, thus allowing the use of the best pigment
for each position.  (I'll be fade testing 3 magentas -- and use the best).

> ... The 2400/K3/ABW, for my eyes, produces far better 
> prints than anything I was able to get previously,

One factor is that the LLK is lighter than the lightest ink in the UT2/7.
Also, even assuming one can get perfect ramps, the ability to control both
Lab a and b really matters.  It's not only a matter of getting just the
right tone, it's also the ability to correct for batch-to-batch ink
variations, which are also much more significant with blended B&W inksets
than they are with the standardized colors.

On the other hand, the K3 approach is not the ultimate in quality.  For
example, the 2200 with 4K+ (which also uses LLK), gets increased smoothness
by using a light cyan that is a 50% dilution of standard LC.  At 14" I can
detect the difference.  I'm not one who thinks examination with a loupe is
the way to select an inkset, but in terms of smoothness, the K3 approach is
limited, in part, due to the use of the high gamut color inks.  Even when
one pulls out the yellow, reducing also the amount of LC and LM that are
used for a particular tone, the LC dots will still limit smoothness.  How
much one compromises the smoothness for other factors is the issue.

> and with ease of use and lack of printer/workflow hassles.
> For me, K3 blew the doors off the barn and opened up a 
> whole new world that had been out of reach before.

I think this is the key.  The k3 has good enough quality, and the ABW mode
is much easier for most people.  Swap out the yellow for carbon, and the
quality/ease-of-use results are hard to beat.  So, in part, it's a question
of how comfortable one is with a rip or other workflow, how much control one
wants over the distribution of tones, whether one wants color printing from
the same printer, and, of course, price.  I, personally, like the control
and enjoy the technical challenges, but if I just wanted to push the button
and get good B&W, the k3 approach would have tremendous appeal.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Paul,

>I'm not one who thinks examination with a loupe is the way to select 
>an inkset, but in terms of smoothness, the K3 approach is limited, 
>in part, due to the use of the high gamut color inks.  Even when
>one pulls out the yellow, reducing also the amount of LC and LM that 
>are used for a particular tone, the LC dots will still limit 
>smoothness.  How much one compromises the smoothness for other 
>factors is the issue.

This has always been an interesting issue for me, and one that never
seems to get much attention in threads here.  As you know I often
pointed out that BO's luminance was due to bare paper showing between
the dots, and that the various full ink approaches produced prints
with varying degrees of veiling.  When I got the 2400 I was very
pleasantly surprised to find that K3 prints have a beautiful luminance
that, while not as good as BO, is much better than most of the full
ink prints I had seen.  With a loupe I saw that there was indeed bare
paper showing in the ABW print highlights (in BO prints the bare paper
goes further down into the midtones).  So ABW is definitely a "dotty"
system.  But for me this is a worthy trade off because I place high
value on that luminance (maybe the lesser smoothness doesn't bother me
because I am so used to BO's look).  I see ABW as a good balance
between the two extremes.

So I'm curious about how the 2200/K4+/RIP prints look in this regard.
 Is it completely dotless with full paper coverage, or is there some
bare paper showing with just lighter ink for the dots so it appears
smoother?  If you print the same image on this and 2400/ABW is there a
difference in the luminance?

 
>I think this is the key.  The k3 has good enough quality, and the 
>ABW mode is much easier for most people.  Swap out the yellow for 
>carbon, and the quality/ease-of-use results are hard to beat.  So, 
>in part, it's a question of how comfortable one is with a rip or 
>other workflow, how much control one wants over the distribution 
>of tones, whether one wants color printing from the same printer, 
>and, of course, price.  

You really have put your finger on it.  This is very similar to the
old Zone System debates between advocates of the full blown ZS and
those of the various modified versions.  For many, the extra degree of
control just wasn't worth the extra time and effort.  I see the same
principle at work here.  The ABW approach offers a compelling package
of features.



>I, personally, like the control and enjoy the technical challenges, 
>but if I just wanted to push the button and get good B&W, the k3 
>approach would have tremendous appeal.  

I'm glad there are people like you out there because you folks are the
ones pushing the envelope and helping things evolve.  But there are
legions of us ordinary mortals who aren't so technically inclined.  I
hope there is no condescension in the phrase "just want to push the
button".  The ABW prints are so good, and I am so continually swamped
with work in my profession, that I am delighted to have a system that
allows me to focus my efforts on being a creative photographer without
enormous output hassles.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Very encouraging information on the K3/ K4 inks and B&W from both 
Clayton and Paul. I think this might be the way for me to go. Seems 
like a reasonable gamble.
> 
  I have heard that the
> 3800 carts may have a different kind of chip and the cart may be 
wired
> in some way to the chip so as to provide a more accurate ink 
guage. 
> That could mean that alternative carts may be a long time in 
coming,
> if at all. 

That would be a deal breaker for me on the 3800. I would really like 
to continue using MIS inks. I just contacted my local epson dealer. 
He can get me a 3800 next week at the earliest, end of the month at 
the latest, so they are about to hit the shelves. Probably worth 
hanging tight until companies like MIS get a chance to see how this 
new printer is plumbed and if a 3rd party option is doable in the 
foreseeable future. If not, I can pick up a 2400 anytime.

Clayton,

>... I often pointed out that BO's luminance was due to 
> bare paper showing between the dots, ...

In that case, you'd love my old 7500.

Seriously, I understand why some people want the ultimate in smoothness.  BO
was never my cup of tea.  However, I'm using the 7500 on even 8 x 10s, and
with LLK in the highlights I have yet to see an actual photo that is
affected negatively by the fine-grained structure (i.e., dots) one can see
in test strips upon very close inspection.  There is no way I'd give up the
control of the image tone that I have for more smoothness.

> So I'm curious about how the 2200/K4+/RIP prints look in 
> this regard.  Is it completely dotless with full paper 
> coverage, or is there some bare paper showing with just lighter 
> ink for the dots so it appears smoother? 
> If you print the same image on this and 2400/ABW is 
> there a difference in the luminance?

I suspect a much of it is subjective, but it could be that the impression of
"luminance" you're speaking of comes, as you've said, from the bare paper
showing thought the dots to some extent.  Perhaps some "dottiness" gives a
perception of detail in the spectral highlights.  While the bare paper
should show though for the very brightest, but very small points, just as
the ink is starting to flow there could be a transition point where there is
some optimum dot frequency.  If this is the case, then the two approaches
would be the similar in that both the 2200 K4+ and 2400 ABW will use LLK,
and I think they have about the same dot size.  Where they might differ is
that with the 2200 I do not put any of the color inks in the first couple of
steps (of the 256).  I don't know if the Epson driver also holds the colors
out of those ultimate highlights.


>... I hope there is no condescension in the phrase "just want to 
> push the button". 

None intended.  I am in an effort to reduce the amount of time I spend on
the technical end of things also.  My gallery and other responsibilities
this next year are such that I just won't have as much time for playing with
technology just for the fun of it.  If my 7500 crashes, I may be near the
front of the line of 3800 purchasers. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I've got an Epson 3000 printer with a network card. I can't figure out how
to connect it to a network though. I need to change the network settings on
the card, but can't figure out how to do so. Any advice?

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

Hi Daniel.
I have the 3000 and the card and the network manual for it.
Unfortunately they are all in Ohio and I am not. However, if someone
here has the info for the 7000/7500 it should be the same method since
the card will also work with those machines. As I recall, not
necessarily very well, I think you address the card over the net
itself to change its settings. I suspect the command structure is
similar if not the same for the larger machines.

If you don't get help before Xmas, I will be in Ohio for a couple of
days over the holiday and can get the info for you then.

Regards
Duane
 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel Staver"
<daniel@...> wrote:
>
> I've got an Epson 3000 printer with a network card. I can't figure
out how
> to connect it to a network though. I need to change the network
settings on

> the card, but can't figure out how to do so. Any advice?
> 
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no
>

I could be wrong but I've a network card in my 4000. I had to default  
it to factory (printer off, unplug it, hold in small button on card,  
plug power back in). After that it had a network address like a  
router (192.168.2.1) and could be accessed over ethernet cable from a  
browser.

Hope I remembered that correctly because all I did then was change  
the last quartet (last 3 numbers) to something that wouldn't conflict  
with the 3 computers, 2 printers and 2 routers.

Alan

On Nov 15, 2006, at 12:19 PM, dlruckus wrote:

> Hi Daniel.
> I have the 3000 and the card and the network manual for it.
> Unfortunately they are all in Ohio and I am not. However, if someone
> here has the info for the 7000/7500 it should be the same method since
> the card will also work with those machines. As I recall, not
> necessarily very well, I think you address the card over the net
> itself to change its settings. I suspect the command structure is
> similar if not the same for the larger machines.
>
> If you don't get help before Xmas, I will be in Ohio for a couple of
> days over the holiday and can get the info for you then.
>
> Regards
> Duane