I'll bow to Tom's info on this one as I've never personally seen B&W
(or color, for that matter) from a 4000. I can only say that on a
2200, using all sorts of Epson papers and ONLY OEM inks, as well as
Epson's postscript RIP, the B&W was awful. Only Epson Enhanced Matte
was acceptable to my eye, as it cured the truly hideous bronzing
problem and somewhat mitigated the metamerism. The driver for the
4000 may well have been much improved over the 2200 in that regard.
Of course, if you're mainly after color printing, it's all moot
point. I don't think anyone has ever questioned any of the recent
vintage Epsons in that regard.
Matthew
On Dec 21, 2005, at 11:01 PM, Listar wrote:
> This is all true, but for $775, don't count the 4000 out. The 4000
> uses the
> same inks as my 7600 and the results are simply stunning. The
> metamerism
> and bronzing is very small AS LONG AS YOU USE EPSON INKS AND PAPER
> (yes, I
> was shouting).
>
> If you don't want it for that price, I might be interested.
>
> Tom
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|