Bill,

Hang on before you commit. I am in the middle of testing the new Epson R2400 which is the first Epson printer to provide full, high-quality pro-level support for B&W printing. So far so good, the R2400 has produced quite competitive results compared to prints I've made with printers (Epson 2000P) deicated to B&W.

Having a single 13x19 inch printer for both professional quality color and B&W printing is what many have hoped for for a long time. I may just retire my dedicated B&W printer and opt for the new R2400 all-in-one.

Now you tell me! Kidding aside, what info I've seen on the 2400 looks good. On the other hand, I also have a perfectly good 2200 that I'll continue to use for color printing. Converting the 1280 to B&W means I'll be getting more use out of it, in addition to (hopefully) superior prints. So I think I'll hang in with what I have now, at least for a while. Thanks for the info, though....

Having just tested the 4800 (the wide format K3 ink printer) I can honestly say that for my work the epson K3 inks and even their "advanced B&W mode" in the driver solves any problems I might have had with their previous manifestations, including the dreaded metamarism and bronzing etc. The review is in an upcoming issue and of course I look forward to receiving David Brooks' usually sage review and comments on the 2400.

George,
The 4800 looks like it would be a great printer. Problem being out of the range for a lot of us. I only hope the 2400 comes through well. It is more affordable for many of us. Monte Johnson.

Monte,

Having nothing to do with how it performs, which so far is great, the R2400 if possibly purchased because it does B&W effectively, at $850 is an expensive B&W printer<S>.

David,

I know the 2400 is exspensive, but for those who do just BW it might be worth it. 850 is a lot,but if you are doing just 11+14 or 12+18 prints I believe it would be cheaper in the long run then lab prints. Besides you have total control doing your own. I can not afford it right now, but will be looking down the road at owning one. I enjoy printing my own, but at this time I like larger prints then 8+10 so my R800 does not get used much. I will have to say even though I shoot film digital printing is a nice thing to have at home. Monte Johnson.

Monte,

A short time ago I wrote an article for Shutterbug on B&W printing. As a demonstration I took an old Epson Photo 2000P, which is useless for printing color and cheap on eBay, and converted it to all black inks that are available from MIS Associates (http://www.inksupply.com/). Using curves for various papers made by Paul Roark downloaded from his website I was able to produce B&W prints that are archival and as good if not better because of Photoshop editing of the scans of the images, than I was able to obtain in a wet darkroom. (And my wet darkroom printing skills were just about as good a anyone's.)

In other word's it is definitely easier to spend $850 on a R2400 to obtain good B&W prints, but you can do it as well for less if you really want to.

David,

I do remember the article on the 200P. I agree when you say it is easier to spend 850 dollars on the R2400. I really like the R800 good choice at the time. When using the Epson Premium Photo Glossy paper I have produced pretty good BW prints. So I can onlly guess how good the K3 inks are on the 2400. I know the day will come when I do all my printing digital even if I shoot film. So I will be looking in investing into the newer printers simply because I believe it will make things easier. I am sure from what I remember reading the 2000 doing that setup might be cheaper, but for me I like to get things as simple as possible. Monte Johnson..

After working for a couple of weeks with MIS inks and my now B&W-only Epson 1280 printer, I have to say it was worth the effort. There is a depth and tonal range in my B&W prints now that I was never able to obtain previously. And, of course, no metamerism!

David's advice about not leaving the printer on when not actually printing was right on (something I learned the hard way, of course) as well as not going more than a couple of days without printing something. The ink nozzles do tend to clog more readily with these inks than with Epson inks, and the clog isn't always apparent in the Epson nozzle check printout. I would recommend routinely running the cleaning cycle before printing, every time.

There are two methiods of printing with these inks. One is straightforward, allowing the Epson software to do the "color" managing and adjusting the sliders if needed. The other involves converting the image in PS from grayscale to RGB, loading a specific curve (downloaded from the MIS website), then allowing PS to do the "color" management and turning off Epson's color controls before printing. There is something artificial about the latter process that I don't like, and perhaps that colors my judgement, but I find the prints that result are somewhat flat and lack tonal range. With the first method, the printed image is almost an exact match with the image on my (calibrated) monitor. You can't ask for much more than that......

Monte,

I think probably you might then just want to save up for the R2400. I don't think you can go wrong with it for either color or B&W.

David,

More then likely I will probably end up with the 2400. It will be the only one that might be in my grasp. Monte Johnson.

I had clogged heads on my Epson Stylus Photo 750. I was told by several "experts" that I had to either throw it out or send it away for a huge sum of money.
Instead I bought "Epson Compatible cleaning cartridges" from Voltexx :---- ( http://www.voltexcomputers.com/ ) . I alternated clean and test cycling the machine and letting it sit, and in 2 or 3 days it was fine. (Be sure to clean and test cycle the machine about 8 to 10 times after you replace the cleaning cartridges with real ink cartridges! You waste a little ink but it is worth it.)
The clogging has occurred again a couple of more times, when I let the machine sit idle for more than a week. I have been able to fix it each time with minimal fuss.
If you cannot get cleaning cartridges for your model, you could try removing the ink cartridges and (if the design permits) adding some solvent (20 to 30 drops per chamber) to the spongy material inside the chamber, and replacing the cartridges. (then use them like cleaning cartridges.) You can pick a good solvent by testing some dried ink with it. Let it sit and keep it wet with solvent for about 30 minutes before you give up. I would try 91% isopropyl alchohol first. Don't use anything that would damage plastic or the little metal parts inside the nozzle. Hydrogen peroxide could hurt the metal parts, I suspect.
I have found Voltexx to be reliable, quick, accurate and helpful over the last 5 years. (I am not affiliated in any way with the company.)
Candiru

One caution on repeated head cleaning cycles from Paul Roark, head guru at MIS inks. I'm not sure if he was referring to all Epson printers, or the SP 1280 specifically, but: If you run more than three cleaning cycles without doing a test print, there's a risk of damage to the printer. Apparently, each cleaining cycle is slightly longer than the previous one to a max of three, at which point you should print a nozzle check sheet. The cleaning cycles then reset themselves to the beginning. I haven't bothered to follow up on this info because intuitively, it seems to be the right thing to do anyway. One obvious advantage is saving ink that might otherwise be wasted in unnecessary cleaning cycles.

I have had my R800 a year now without any problems. It has always been on most of the time. I have went through four sets of inks. During storms we shut everything down that is the only time the printer is off. Monte Johnson.

Monte,

A good number of the head clogging problems that have been reported to me from SB readers have been due to leaving the printer turned on and infrequent use. When an Epson printer is turned on the head is raised from its rest position against a pad that keeps air from drying out the ink in the printer head. So far luck has been with you. Whether you continue to be may depend on what you do to minimize the cause of dried ink causing head problems.

David,

I have not been printing a lot of photos, but the pinter is in use almost every day printing text. Should I turn it off at the end of the day every day? Montre Johnson.

Monte,

If your printer is in use during the day as you say printing text, if there is some color included, that's the best way really to keep a printing running cleanly. However, I would definitely turn the print off when it is not going to be used for several hours like overnight.

BTW, if you are printing that much text it may in the long run be more cost effective to get an Epson C-86 for document printing. You can usually find a C-86 for considerably under $100. It supports a large reservoir black cartridge that makes for lower ink costs, and your not putting wear on an expensive R800.

Thanks david,

I will shut off the printer when not in use. Sounds like luck has been with me. How are the larger format Epsons in that respect? Do they have to be off when not in use? My guess the average user of say the 4800 or 2400 does not print all the time. So if you have to shut them down a lot does that not waste a lot of ink turning them on and off a lot? Monte Johnson.

Monte,

No, shutting the printer of and restarting it does not use any ink by itself. The printer will recharge the printhead periodically anyway after so many prints or so much time has gone by, which does use a minor amount of ink. It won't recharge the printhead just because it is turned of and on again.

Well, after several months of using MIS UT2 inks in my converted Epson 1280 printer, I have to sum up the experience in one word: Disappointing. This was not a scientific test by any means, but here are my reactions:

1. Printing results are inconsistent from cartridge to cartridge. It seems that every new cartridge installed prints with slightly different results, although none of the settings have been changed.

2. The last two cartridges I installed required several cleaning cycles before I could use them. This resulted in the loss of about 10% of the ink volune (eyeballed off the Epson status monitor) before I even got started. I really don't like sacrificing that much to the gods of inkjet printing.

3. The adjustment curves I downloaded from MIS don't give the results predicted by the instructions. As a result, I have been turning off PS color management and using the Epson controls....which brings us back to complaint #1.

So, the bottom line is.....David Brooks, you were right! I should have just waited for the 2400. In the meantime (while waiting for my IRS refund), I've been doing my BW printing with MK ink on the 2200 and getting great results. So, why did I ever do the 1280 conversion thing? Go figure........

Bill,

Although I did not experience the degree of problems with a converted Epson 2000P using the MIS black inkset for it (probably due to the larger jet size of that printer compared to the 1280) since testing the R2400 and finding out how much easier and how flexible B&W printing is with it, I had to buy my own R2400, even though I don't do all that much printing 13x19's. Paper and ink cost soon make the printer price seem not so much. So I am torn between justifying why I have such a costly printer and possibly wasting money making large prints of images that really don't deserve to be that big. But then if I had instead purchased the R1800 and saved some money I'd be wishing I had the R2400 every time I wanted to make a B&W print. But isn't the name of the game always having to wish for an ideal that you never quite reach?

But then sometimes I have to wish I were a little bit more the Luddite. I am finding shooting with the Canon 5D is just a bit too easy to obtain good results. Not as satisfying when some of the challenge has been removed by the new camera. But when you're well over the hill shouldn't the road be a little less bumpy? At my age I can't say as I mind not having to do some of what it took to get good results 25 years ago and longer.

David,

I don't think it's unreasonable to want the best quality prints you can produce, even if you don't make large prints on a production line basis. Of course, money is always an issue, which is why I'll probably end up buying the 2400 but drooling over the 4800.

One question re the 1280: I do like the MIS Eboni black ink, their equivalent of Epson's Matte Black. Do you happen to know if it's compatible with Epson's T009 color inks?

Bill,

Yes after using the Epson 4000 for awhile after it was introduced, I found much to like about the printer other than the amount of space it took up in my lab. And, from using it I would estimate the cost per print for ink would likely be significantly less than a 13x19 printer, at least as long as you could resist making too many 16x20 prints.

The MIS ebony black does reproduce a very nice tone in a print, However it is neither like the K3 or previous Epson UltraChrome inks or the dye inks made for the 1280 printer. All the UltraChrome inks are resin encapsulated pigment inks, while the MIS Ebony is a traditional uncoated carbon based pigment ink.

Mixing an uncoated pigment ink and dye color inks is not something I have ever attempted, but at least on matte papers it should not create any artifacts. But you would need to probably make custom profiles to use the mix successfully.

David I know the 2400 is a better choice for BW printing which is most of what I do,but how well does the 1800 do here? I am looking toward the future for a printer. The R800 I use now is good but I want to print at least 11x14 prints with better paper. As you know the 2400 is several hundred dollars difference. The 1800 looks like it will use most papers I would want.

Monte,

I also use the R800, mostly to produce proof prints to accompany my article submissions to Shutterbug, and to print labels on CD's of course - great for that. Other than the R1800 will handle larger 13 inch wide, more different and thicker papers, it is essentially the same as the R800 in print characteristics - it does not print B&W well or reliably. So, although I got very good performance testing the R1800, I passed on purchasing one for my own use, and got the R2400 instead almost entirely because it is so easy to use to obtain great quality B&W and with easy control of the tone of the black from sepia to blue-black.

After using the R2400 for awhile I find it uses less ink to make even more intensely colored prints and rich B&W's than any 13x19 printer I have used in the past. So if you do a lot of printing you'll save some on ink over time.

David,,

I guess i will hold out for the 2400. For BW it is the way to go. Thanks for the input on this. I want to make the best prints I can and saving some bucks will not get what I want.

In getting ink jet printers to produce a print with the look of a darkroom print from B&W film, selecting the printer is only part of the problem. The color sensitive CCDs used in digital camera see the various colors of light differently than was done by B&W film even if the digital camera is switched to B&W. I finally was able to get prints that looked those I made 50 years ago by using a yellow filter on the lens with the digital camera set to B&W. The yellow filter changed the density of the various colors so that they appeared like prints from B&W film. A week spent in New Mexico photographing steam locomotives on the Cumbres and Toltec Railroad produced lovely old-timey prints with wonderful cloud-filled skies.

You should be able to get the same results by shooting in color and then in Photoshop use the filters and/or channel mixer.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer