Hello Christopher,
>There seems to be a few like myself who are beyond a simple push
>print on a cheap photo printer, but not at the building a custom
>profile,
More than a few. There are lots of people in this category, you
aren't alone. We just aren't very vocal.
>...with all the D'max detecting spectrogizmos with a 1024bit
>file with a 19 cartridge custom blended oak aged, triple distilled
>ink set.
LOL!
>So here is the question I have a 2400 on order, I have a 2200 in
>perfect condition sitting on my desk. Will the 2200 with a dedicated
>B & W ink set, either MIS or Cone, using their profiles, on a high
>end paper produce a noticeably superior output to the naked eye then
>the 2400 with the Epson ink set on a high end paper in the ABW mode?
Theoretically, yes, as was shown by Tyler's example. I think that
whether it is visible to the eye depends a lot on the quality of the
image source (is it from a 4x5 neg or 35mm neg, for example - the
difference between those is visible even in a BO print). The real
question is whether whatever difference can be seen is worth the extra
work it takes to get it. As Steve Karafylakkis pointed out, the first
90% is relatively easy, it takes a disproportionately large amount of
work to get that last 10%. Most photographers understand that an 8x10
neg produces a better 8x10 print than a 35mm neg. But how many are
willing to use an 8x10 camera to get it? So we all make our
cost/benefit choices.
I used a 2200 for two years, mostly doing BO printing but also
experimenting with QTR and various ink formulas, including modifying
curves, etc, and found I had little patience for it. As for the
quality of results there were pros and cons, as with any system.
Then I got a 2400 and was thrilled to find a system that, with care,
can make very fine prints with a very easy and straightforward
approach (see article #9 at the link below for a description of the
workflow). As Paul said, the color inks present a new kind of
challenge, but I found that with some experimenting the sweet spot ABW
settings can be found for various papers that reduce the color cast
issues enormously. It isn't a perfect system, but it is very very
good. I was never fully satisfied with my 2200 prints, but the 2400
is in a whole 'nother class and I love the results. You'd have to
drag me kicking and screaming back to a 2200.
I admire anyone who has the patience and inclination to work with
RIPs, curves and densitometers/spectros and so on. They certainly
deserve the extra benefit they get from it. It's just not my cup of tea.
As for print longevity it is generally accepted, and Paul's tests have
verified, that the color inks fade faster than pure carbon. But again
we're faced with theory vs practical reality. Wilhelm rates
2400/K3/ABW prints at 110 to >200 years, depending on paper and
display method. You have to decide if that is enough for you. I've
had a K3 print on my windowsill torture test for 14 months now (some
direct sunlight every day). There is a barely noticeable indication
of fading in a middle gray area (you have to really look for it). It
is a tiny bit less than the fading on a 2200/UT7 print right beside it
that has been there for 21 months. Between Wilhelm's ratings and my
own tests I have no qualms about selling these prints. You can draw
your own conclusions.
The only inks that seem not to fade at all are the pure carbon ones.
I have an Eboni BO print that is now three years on the windowsill and
shows no sign of fading. Pure carbon multi ink prints are warmer and
yellower than most people like, so most ink sets are cooled with color
pigments in some manner. Even the all gray Piezo K7 set has been
neutralized, so I suspect that it also will not have the same
longevity as pure carbon.
So there you have it: ease of use vs print quality, and print
longevity. The 2400 offers a high quality solution with some
compromises. We have to make our own decisions if those are
acceptable. I hope this helps.
Regards,
Clayton
Info on black and white digital printing at
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm