Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/02/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I would recommend printing on Epson's enhanced (archival) matt paper with black ink printing. If you're using a Mac, you have to install the matt black ink cartridge, uninstall it and then reinstall it again. Unfortunately Epson's print driver doesn't yet fully support OS X. A warning may come up not to print in all black - but the results are absolutely gorgeous. The blacks are neutral without color cast. Be careflu of not scuffing the surface of the print. You can damage the surface fairly easily. It's one hell of a printer. The CompUSA where I bought my Epson 2200 was also out of the matt black ink catridges. I bought a dozen ink catrdiges from www. altex.com for $8.90 each. Their prices on paper is pretty good too. Richard Richard Clompus, OD Roanoke, VA > From: "Christopher Williams" <leicachris@worldnet.att.net> > Date: 2003/02/26 Wed PM 09:27:12 EST > To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > Subject: Re: [Leica] I just got an Epson 2200 > > To get deeper blacks on the semigloss or lustre papers, set the gamma to 2.2 > instead of the 2200 default of 1.8. > > I advise turning off the high speed mode, the printer works slower, but > quality is much improved. > > I am also using the 2200 for Duotones which are coming out quiet nice. > > Still wondering if the 2200 RIP for $200 is worth the hassle. > > Chris > New Orleans > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "T r i s t a n T o m" > Subject: [Leica] I just got an Epson 2200 > > > > well i gave in. i returned the 1280 and got the 2200. there goes my tax > refund! > > > > i got lucky, i decided to drive by my local CompUSA and although they did > > not have the 2200 on display, upon inquiry, i learned that they had one in > > back so i bought it. > > > > i can't wait to try the matte black ink (store was sold out of that > > cartridge) on heavyweight matte paper. but in my first black and white > test > > print, with the regular photo black ink installed, the black and white > > image on photo glossy paper looks much more even toned than the print with > > the 1280 did. and the tonality doesn't change nearly as much when i go > > under different lighting. > > > > i surmise this is due to the fact that the 2200 adds light grey to it's > > pallette, whereas the 1280 had to use the CMYK colors (and it's black) to > > make up grey tones. i was getting blue and sometimes reddish variations > > with my black and white printouts on the 1280. a non quadtone inkjet black > > and white printout will probably never be perfect (ie. there will probably > > always been some bit of color toning), but i can say that i'm much happier > > with the 2200 result than i was with the 1280 result (for a black and > white > > print using stock Epson inks). since most of my black and white images are > > actually not truly black and white, but rather sepia or duotone, i think > > the 2200 is going to suit me well. and of course i can print color too. > > > > it is true that in a side by side comparison, the pure black of the 2200 > is > > not as deep as the black from the 1280 but it's not noticeable if one > > doesn't point it out. > > > > -- > > > > Tristan Tom Photography > > http://www.tristantom.com/ > > NO ARCHIVE > > -- > > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/ unsub.html > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/ unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html