hlockwood
Well-known
Kirk,
I just got back from vacation in VT. I'll pick up the mail in the morning and begin the process.
HFL
hlockwood
Well-known
I did get the package from Kirk and found 5 beautiful (big!) prints inside, along with a disk with files for the 5 images. Kirk also included the prints he received from Jon Cone; these are the prints that serve as marketing tools for piezography. I have to agree with Kirk: Jon needs to improve his marketing skills. The prints - at $43! - are too small for serious evaluation. Even so, I can see that a much better job of printing would have been possible. But enough about Cone.
As I said, Kirks prints are big and beautiful. The paper is Harmon Gloss Baryta, so the Dmax is better than one can expect from matte paper such as the Canson Photo Rag that I praised in an earlier post. But that will turn out to be unimportant for this exercise.
Kirk prints with a large format Canon iPF machine. The Canons have a native resolution which is some multiple of 300 dpi, and so, Kirk's images were printed at that resolution. This introduces a small (but ignorable) problem in that I print at the Epson native resolution of 360 dpi, and I can't match exactly the magnification of Kirk's prints.
And finally, Kirk and I share a distrust of the drivers's resampling algorithms, so that doesn't enter into the picture. I simply avoid resampling and accept the print size dictated by the chosen resolution, thus keeping all, and only, the original pixels. Kirk has a more sophisticated approach that I needn't bring into the discussion, but he accomplishes the same result.
I have finished printing (with some cropping due to the 13" size limitation of the R3000) 2 of Kirk's 5 images on 11"x17" Canson Rag Photographique and will shortly complete a third. I'll then ship everything back to Kirk for his comments. We can then continue a public discussion on this thread. This is fun!
Harry
Off topic: If I had it to do over, I would have ignored the enticement of a big discount on the R3000 and bought the 3880 instead. From a practical perspective, it is almost essential that one have available a Windows machine or Parallels+Windows on a Mac. When I added the Windows capability to my iMac, the savings on the R3000 purchase largely disappeared. The need arises because there is no individual-channel power flush on the R3000 without loading 3rd party, Windows-only software. The advantage of the larger bed on the 3880 is also very attractive.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Harry,
Thanks again. This is good for me. I bought a 3880 with a $250.00 Epson rebate even though I was not ready for printing. Today I see a big price increase on the list price of a 3880 that's about $300.00.
Cal
thompsonks
Well-known
Many thanks, Harry, for the heads-up about the R3000. I wondered about how to keep it clean with no power-cleaning cycle. I planned to buy an R3000, assuming you finished our experiment and I wanted to go for Cone inks, before the rebate ends on the 8/31. But now I won't do that. I think my choice would instead be someone's oldie but goodie 3800 from Craigslist, since they're quite cheap - and I wouldn't be using the inks that make the newer version better for color.
Kirk
PS, a small correction: The paper is Harman Gloss Baryta Warmtone, which is a creamier paper base that looks like ancient/classic Portriga Rapid 111. The regular Gloss Baryta has moderate OBs and is great for color. The Warmtone is meant to be a BW, not a color, paper. The warm substrate it hard to profile for color printing. I add +.01 Red to get something close selenium-toned Portriga prints (referring to slight/weak selenium toning for archival preservation – not the brown color of full selenium toning or of Cone, Adobe, or Nik 'selenium').
Kirk
PS, a small correction: The paper is Harman Gloss Baryta Warmtone, which is a creamier paper base that looks like ancient/classic Portriga Rapid 111. The regular Gloss Baryta has moderate OBs and is great for color. The Warmtone is meant to be a BW, not a color, paper. The warm substrate it hard to profile for color printing. I add +.01 Red to get something close selenium-toned Portriga prints (referring to slight/weak selenium toning for archival preservation – not the brown color of full selenium toning or of Cone, Adobe, or Nik 'selenium').
Last edited:
hlockwood
Well-known
Thanks for the correction on the Harmon paper.
The R3000 has one kind of power "cleaning." When you start with empty ink lines, as in a new machine, the start-up procedure involves pumping the inks from all of the cartridges into the tubes leading to the print head. You cannot select a single line to clear in case of a clog. So, if one subsequently needs a power clean, one reverts to the start-up procedure and wastes a lot of ink.
On the other hand, I've been using the R3000 since November 2013 and have experienced very few clogs, typically when the humidity is very low. I solved that problem with a Sears humidifier. And as far as the performance of the machine is concerned, it has been stellar.
I'm going to follow your lead though, Kirk, and look into a 3800 on Craigslist. As in life, it's always good to have a backup plan.
Harry
P.S. I should get the prints back to you within the next few days.
Last edited:
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I do suggest anyone considering a 3800 or 3880 carefully check the specs for the physical size before commitment. Some have been surprised at just how large they are. Not a big deal for some, but a deal breaker for others.
hlockwood
Well-known
Thanks Bob, but I think I can squeeze it in.
I just came across a locally available, slightly used 3800 in "Excellent" condition for $450.
Is there anyway I can tell how much this machine has been used? I did request a live demo from the seller.
HFL
Bob Michaels
nobody special
A new ink set cost $566. Add that to the $450 purchase price and you will have spent $1,116.
A new 3880 direct from Epson costs $1,095 with free shipping. I suspect B&H has the same deal but did not check.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Bob,
The current B&H price is $1139.00, and realize that currently there is a $200.00 mail in rebate.
A little more than a year ago I think the price was $1050.00 and my mail in rebate was $250.00.
The 3880 is kinda big and heavy, especially if you live in a Madhattan apartment. I carried mine onto the subway and had to do this evil transfer between subway lines at 51St and Lex. By the time I got home both my arms were kinda broken and I had no strength to give. All I can say is that I'm stubborn, LOL, and carrying an Epson 3880 home on the subway wasn't one of the smartest things I ever did..
Cal
thompsonks
Well-known
Bob, since the thread is about BW printing, we'd be using only BW inks - either the seven shades of Cone ink, or just the black and gray inks in an Epson set. So the present color inks in a used 3800/3880 would last a long time, being used up only in cleaning cycles. Or alternately, all the color inks would be purged and replaced with Cone inks. In neither case would a used printer need a whole set of Epson inks.
Kirk
Kirk
hlockwood
Well-known
Agreed, Bob. But if this printer comes with a set of (nearly?) full carts, then we're back to the $450 level.
BTW, I assumed that one can purge a single line on the 38xx. Am I mistaken?
BTW2, I believe the price now is back to the pre discount level.
HFL
Bob Michaels
nobody special
thompsonks: I understand and accept that you like the results from the Cone inks. In my 13 years of printing b&w from Epsons, I could see no differences other than the Cone high prices but that is just different strokes for different folks. I did use a lot of MIS ink for printing b&w before the modern evolution of Epson printers in the 2400-3880 series (which all appear to essentially use the same drivers and inksets) I have used the Epson drivers and inks for the last 8 years or so but that is just different strokes...........
But, lest anyone be mislead, Epsons use quite a bit of LM and LC and Y in a lesser amount in addition to the K, LK, and LLK in printing b&w using the Epson ABW driver. That is how the differing tonalities are derived.
But, lest anyone be mislead, Epsons use quite a bit of LM and LC and Y in a lesser amount in addition to the K, LK, and LLK in printing b&w using the Epson ABW driver. That is how the differing tonalities are derived.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I got that price off the Epson web site just as I was composing the post.
Personally, the last 7 printers I have bought have been Epson factory refurbished as I find them to be at least as good as the new ones but much cheaper. But I see Epson has no refurbished 3880's today.
thompsonks
Well-known
Bob, some mixup here? I didn't like the Cone samples, so Harry and I are experimenting with them. My initial preference was the same as yours, but I'm trying to let Harry convince me otherwise.
Kirk
PS, really like the work on your website!
Kirk
PS, really like the work on your website!
hlockwood
Well-known
Let it be said that Harry is not trying to convince you to switch, merley to show you something much better than the samples you got from Cone is possible.
+1 re Bob's website
Harry
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Kirk: sorry I got the players confused. But since this is all personal preference, you are certainly doing the right thing with the eyeball to eyeball comparison of actual prints.
hlockwood
Well-known
I've completed the task of printing 3 of 5 of Kirk's images. I'm satisfied that my prints are quite good. Kirk and I both realize that this isn't the ideal comparison in that his prints are glossy and rather warm while mine are matte and rather cool. But the point of the exercise was not to show that my prints would be superior to his, rather that the piezography approach would be a viable (B&W) alternative, or at least another arrow in the quiver of the serious printmaker.
I'll be mailing the prints to Kirk tomorrow (Monday) morning, and once he's had a chance to study the results, we can both comment here in this thread. I will say this in advance: my task would have been much simpler had Kirk's prints not been so damn good!
HFL
I'll be mailing the prints to Kirk tomorrow (Monday) morning, and once he's had a chance to study the results, we can both comment here in this thread. I will say this in advance: my task would have been much simpler had Kirk's prints not been so damn good!
HFL
thompsonks
Well-known
Harry's three prints arrived today, and he's a master printer! His work makes the samples of Piezography that I received from InkJet Mall look amateurish. He's shown it's a richer system than you can learn from the 'official' examples.
We'll have a chance to take a close look tomorrow under better viewing light, but I can offer some first impressions:
Both sets of prints are of exhibition quality. The differences don't really indicate technical superiority/inferiority; as Ansel Adams would put it, they're more like different interpretations or performances of the same score. The prints aren't interchangeable – you'd have to print a show one way or the other – but the differences fall within the margin of differing styles or tastes.
The Piezo prints show, for a now-known reason, better resolution than the Canon three-black-ink prints (to my eyes, glasses only, without benefit of a loupe). I don't think either of us added sharpening. One of my print heads turns out to have been worn on the MBK and B side and last week finally quit, with a test print showing it wasn't clogged but was creating some wobbly irregularity. With my print head replaced, perhaps resolution would be equal.
Harry's prints have a slightly-cool-but-almost-neutral tone, unmatched in – and IMO preferable to – the five Piezo samples. Mine are warmer, on a creamier paper stock that almost matches Portriga Rapid 111. His paper base and image tone look more like another fine Agfa paper of the same era, Brovira 118.
Many of the differences are attributable to choice of papers, each working well with the chosen inkset. Harry's prints are just beautiful on matte paper. Mine, on Harman Gloss Baryta Warmtone, have a shinier surface and deeper blacks. But if you choose a matte paper, I don't think you could do better than Harry's Canson (unless maybe HPR?).
To my eye, the most interesting thing about the Piezo inks is that under a 6300K Ott lamp and some other mixed home lighting, different shades of gray seem very slightly tinted, with Zones II-III a bit redder/warmer, and Zones IV-V looking like they have a 'chef's pinch' of yellow. It's a nice effect that works like the slight duotone of archival selenium toning. It perhaps helps to create an illusion of depth, as tonal gradations progress smoothly but at the same time undergo a barely-perceptible shift in tone.
By either taste or technology, I've gone for slightly moodier darks, and Harry for more open shadows. I'm suggesting technology because when rendering the same file, the Quadtone RIP profile may distribute the lower quarter-tones with a little more openness, or progressive lightness, than the profile for my printer. I prefer Harry's rendering in this respect, though I could probably match it with a small PS Curve, or maybe with a profile for the Canon printer that measured only the distribution of the black and gray inks. In this instance I'm not sure if it's software difference, or different 'interpretations of the score.'
I 'reserve the right' to unravel these first impressions when a colleague and I look at the two sets of prints under a uniform 5000K viewing light. But for now, I think Harry and I are both working with exhibition-quality technologies and materials. A closer look may persuade me to set up a dedicated Piezo printer for BW, but in 'normal' mixed home room light I'm equally pleased with both print sets.
Kirk
PS, after consultation with my resident really honest critic: Another vote for 'two really nice ways to do it.' Of the three prints (under evening home light + Ott lamp), she preferred one of my versions and one of Harry's, but said it depended on how well the tone, contrast, and density of blacks complemented the subject matter (my translation). She liked the deeper Canon/Harman blacks which she thought gave more feeling of depth, but not when my print was too contrasty. She preferred the image in which Harry had gone for more shadow detail – she found this, along with the softer paper surface, more 'atmospheric.'
We'll have a chance to take a close look tomorrow under better viewing light, but I can offer some first impressions:
Both sets of prints are of exhibition quality. The differences don't really indicate technical superiority/inferiority; as Ansel Adams would put it, they're more like different interpretations or performances of the same score. The prints aren't interchangeable – you'd have to print a show one way or the other – but the differences fall within the margin of differing styles or tastes.
The Piezo prints show, for a now-known reason, better resolution than the Canon three-black-ink prints (to my eyes, glasses only, without benefit of a loupe). I don't think either of us added sharpening. One of my print heads turns out to have been worn on the MBK and B side and last week finally quit, with a test print showing it wasn't clogged but was creating some wobbly irregularity. With my print head replaced, perhaps resolution would be equal.
Harry's prints have a slightly-cool-but-almost-neutral tone, unmatched in – and IMO preferable to – the five Piezo samples. Mine are warmer, on a creamier paper stock that almost matches Portriga Rapid 111. His paper base and image tone look more like another fine Agfa paper of the same era, Brovira 118.
Many of the differences are attributable to choice of papers, each working well with the chosen inkset. Harry's prints are just beautiful on matte paper. Mine, on Harman Gloss Baryta Warmtone, have a shinier surface and deeper blacks. But if you choose a matte paper, I don't think you could do better than Harry's Canson (unless maybe HPR?).
To my eye, the most interesting thing about the Piezo inks is that under a 6300K Ott lamp and some other mixed home lighting, different shades of gray seem very slightly tinted, with Zones II-III a bit redder/warmer, and Zones IV-V looking like they have a 'chef's pinch' of yellow. It's a nice effect that works like the slight duotone of archival selenium toning. It perhaps helps to create an illusion of depth, as tonal gradations progress smoothly but at the same time undergo a barely-perceptible shift in tone.
By either taste or technology, I've gone for slightly moodier darks, and Harry for more open shadows. I'm suggesting technology because when rendering the same file, the Quadtone RIP profile may distribute the lower quarter-tones with a little more openness, or progressive lightness, than the profile for my printer. I prefer Harry's rendering in this respect, though I could probably match it with a small PS Curve, or maybe with a profile for the Canon printer that measured only the distribution of the black and gray inks. In this instance I'm not sure if it's software difference, or different 'interpretations of the score.'
I 'reserve the right' to unravel these first impressions when a colleague and I look at the two sets of prints under a uniform 5000K viewing light. But for now, I think Harry and I are both working with exhibition-quality technologies and materials. A closer look may persuade me to set up a dedicated Piezo printer for BW, but in 'normal' mixed home room light I'm equally pleased with both print sets.
Kirk
PS, after consultation with my resident really honest critic: Another vote for 'two really nice ways to do it.' Of the three prints (under evening home light + Ott lamp), she preferred one of my versions and one of Harry's, but said it depended on how well the tone, contrast, and density of blacks complemented the subject matter (my translation). She liked the deeper Canon/Harman blacks which she thought gave more feeling of depth, but not when my print was too contrasty. She preferred the image in which Harry had gone for more shadow detail – she found this, along with the softer paper surface, more 'atmospheric.'
Last edited:
hlockwood
Well-known
Wow, Kirk, your review of the prints I made from your files is most flattering. Thank you for your kind words.
I do agree with you that our prints are not interchangeable because of the different choices of paper, inks and degree of warmth. (And they probably should not be exhibited side by side.) The kind of photography I enjoy most is capturing candid moments involving people, i.e., street photography. For that I like strong contrast, sharpness and cool tonality. Very different from the images in this exercise.
Full disclosure: I did actually add sharpening. The technique is a very restrictive edge sharpening process developed by John Brownlow and first appeared in Luminous Landscape back in 2001*. The effect is to enhance the apparent contrast of the entire image without introducing local artifacts. In my opinion, it's much less intrusive than the more commonly used sharpening methods, at least at my skill level.
I also used slight Curves adjustments in each of the images, again because of my bias toward higher contrast - but not at the expense of shadow detail, as you have noted.
I think your observation that the different shades of gray in my prints show slight tinting under mixed lighting is on the mark. The Cone inks in these prints are not pure carbon pigments; I believe Jon Cone adds color pigments to achieve varying degrees of warmth/coolness. Pure carbon is slightly brownish rather than pure black, and the resulting prints would be correspondingly warm. The price of adding color pigments, however, is reduced longevity; one can hope the price is not too high. I have some prints into Aardenburg Imaging for rigorous fade testing.
The lighting in my (dry) basement studio is a mish-mash of 5000K and 6300K overheads, and your comments suggest I should pay more attention to this important detail. Ott lamp on the way.
In an earlier post I said there were 5 files, but, in fact there are 6. After sending the prints to you I decided to print one of the remaining three, HighKey.tif. I applied 3 separate curve adjustments, and I'm still not satisfied. I suspect that if I knew how to use Lightroom (which I have on my machine,) I could get to the print this file deserves. Your print of this image is beautiful. I don't believe either of the other 2 files would present a comparable challenge.
The purpose of this exercise - while it was fun and challenging - was to explore the question, whither piezography for grayscale printing? The observations in your post are incisive. To satisfy a wide range of photo subjects, the best of all worlds would probably be to have two printers, one of which would be dedicated to B&W printing.
HFL
*http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/smart-sharp-shtml
I do agree with you that our prints are not interchangeable because of the different choices of paper, inks and degree of warmth. (And they probably should not be exhibited side by side.) The kind of photography I enjoy most is capturing candid moments involving people, i.e., street photography. For that I like strong contrast, sharpness and cool tonality. Very different from the images in this exercise.
Full disclosure: I did actually add sharpening. The technique is a very restrictive edge sharpening process developed by John Brownlow and first appeared in Luminous Landscape back in 2001*. The effect is to enhance the apparent contrast of the entire image without introducing local artifacts. In my opinion, it's much less intrusive than the more commonly used sharpening methods, at least at my skill level.
I also used slight Curves adjustments in each of the images, again because of my bias toward higher contrast - but not at the expense of shadow detail, as you have noted.
I think your observation that the different shades of gray in my prints show slight tinting under mixed lighting is on the mark. The Cone inks in these prints are not pure carbon pigments; I believe Jon Cone adds color pigments to achieve varying degrees of warmth/coolness. Pure carbon is slightly brownish rather than pure black, and the resulting prints would be correspondingly warm. The price of adding color pigments, however, is reduced longevity; one can hope the price is not too high. I have some prints into Aardenburg Imaging for rigorous fade testing.
The lighting in my (dry) basement studio is a mish-mash of 5000K and 6300K overheads, and your comments suggest I should pay more attention to this important detail. Ott lamp on the way.
In an earlier post I said there were 5 files, but, in fact there are 6. After sending the prints to you I decided to print one of the remaining three, HighKey.tif. I applied 3 separate curve adjustments, and I'm still not satisfied. I suspect that if I knew how to use Lightroom (which I have on my machine,) I could get to the print this file deserves. Your print of this image is beautiful. I don't believe either of the other 2 files would present a comparable challenge.
The purpose of this exercise - while it was fun and challenging - was to explore the question, whither piezography for grayscale printing? The observations in your post are incisive. To satisfy a wide range of photo subjects, the best of all worlds would probably be to have two printers, one of which would be dedicated to B&W printing.
HFL
*http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/smart-sharp-shtml
thompsonks
Well-known
Yesterday I looked carefully at Harry's and my prints with a photographer friend whose 'day job' is color management. He has a real eye for tone and detail (as well as color). He observed the same differences as Harry and I, but with better explanations and a more conclusive overall judgment.
His first comment was that it's 'just not fair' to compare prints on semi-gloss and matte papers. Of course the former has higher maximum density, and it's hard to overlook this apples/oranges factor. But both ink-to-paper combinations were matched effectively.
Second, he explained that the higher resolution of the Piezo prints wasn't just a matter of a dying Canon printer head. If you make a continuous tone using three colors of ink, there's a messier dot pattern than if you print with more jets 'firing' with more differentiated tones.
The higher resolution of Piezo prints was clearly visible with a loupe, and in some areas visible to the eye in 9x13.5" prints. But this was at closer-than-normal viewing distance – call it pixel-peeping distance, with eyes a few inches from the paper. (My own thought: Some practical advantage should appear in larger prints from full-frame MM files, but at some point in enlargement, doesn't lens resolution become a more important limitation on sharpness than printer resolution?)
Third, under a 5000K light source, one can see in the Piezo prints a shift from more neutral dark tones to a slight yellow-brown tone in the highlights. This is visible in the 25% down to 10% range of ink densities. But this isn't a disturbing factor. (Me again: It might add to, rather than subtract from, image quality – and this might vary with the paper base on which one was printing.)
In terms of particular prints, my more expert friend picked the same ones as my spouse for subjective preference as to image quality: two Canon prints, one Piezo print. This had to do mostly with Harry's and my slightly different preferences regarding shadow detail, and the suitability of glossy/matte paper and warm/cool ink to an image's mood or subject matter. Call it a draw.
For a final or overall view: My friend has sold and serviced printing systems for a long time. In his opinion the Piezo system made more difference in the past than in the present. Despite difficulties of set-up and clogging, it offered quite an advantage when printers had just one black ink, or when blacks and grays were compounded from colors that suffered from metamerism. But contemporary color printers and their inks have advanced until three black inks can generate an exhibition-quality print. At this point the differences in image quality of the prints we looked at fall within the range of good style and taste, rather than on a one-dimensional scale from better to worse. Both systems are fine, but the incentives to set up a separate Piezo system for BW have diminished over time to minimal.
Which leads to my own decision: I was strongly impressed by Harry's prints. But given the differences attributable simply to paper base and ink tone, IMO we generated no evidence that either Harry or I should feel dissatisfied with our present printing systems. For the near future, I'm committed to shifting my own work back from from color to BW, using a Leica Monochrom. But my friend and I finally shrugged at the results of all this work and agreed I need not set up a separate BW Piezo printer. If I begin printing much larger and become fretful about printer resolution, or especially if I see obviously superior Piezo prints on a higher Dmax paper like Harman Gloss Baryta Warmtone, I'll certainly reconsider.
If you face a similar choice, one clear point is that you can't make a sound decision based on the samples offered by InkjetMall. It takes skill like Harry's to get the most out of the Piezo system.
If there are at this point more than two followers of this thread, feel free to share my views, and I trust any that Harry might care to add, with anyone who'd find the information helpful.
Kirk
His first comment was that it's 'just not fair' to compare prints on semi-gloss and matte papers. Of course the former has higher maximum density, and it's hard to overlook this apples/oranges factor. But both ink-to-paper combinations were matched effectively.
Second, he explained that the higher resolution of the Piezo prints wasn't just a matter of a dying Canon printer head. If you make a continuous tone using three colors of ink, there's a messier dot pattern than if you print with more jets 'firing' with more differentiated tones.
The higher resolution of Piezo prints was clearly visible with a loupe, and in some areas visible to the eye in 9x13.5" prints. But this was at closer-than-normal viewing distance – call it pixel-peeping distance, with eyes a few inches from the paper. (My own thought: Some practical advantage should appear in larger prints from full-frame MM files, but at some point in enlargement, doesn't lens resolution become a more important limitation on sharpness than printer resolution?)
Third, under a 5000K light source, one can see in the Piezo prints a shift from more neutral dark tones to a slight yellow-brown tone in the highlights. This is visible in the 25% down to 10% range of ink densities. But this isn't a disturbing factor. (Me again: It might add to, rather than subtract from, image quality – and this might vary with the paper base on which one was printing.)
In terms of particular prints, my more expert friend picked the same ones as my spouse for subjective preference as to image quality: two Canon prints, one Piezo print. This had to do mostly with Harry's and my slightly different preferences regarding shadow detail, and the suitability of glossy/matte paper and warm/cool ink to an image's mood or subject matter. Call it a draw.
For a final or overall view: My friend has sold and serviced printing systems for a long time. In his opinion the Piezo system made more difference in the past than in the present. Despite difficulties of set-up and clogging, it offered quite an advantage when printers had just one black ink, or when blacks and grays were compounded from colors that suffered from metamerism. But contemporary color printers and their inks have advanced until three black inks can generate an exhibition-quality print. At this point the differences in image quality of the prints we looked at fall within the range of good style and taste, rather than on a one-dimensional scale from better to worse. Both systems are fine, but the incentives to set up a separate Piezo system for BW have diminished over time to minimal.
Which leads to my own decision: I was strongly impressed by Harry's prints. But given the differences attributable simply to paper base and ink tone, IMO we generated no evidence that either Harry or I should feel dissatisfied with our present printing systems. For the near future, I'm committed to shifting my own work back from from color to BW, using a Leica Monochrom. But my friend and I finally shrugged at the results of all this work and agreed I need not set up a separate BW Piezo printer. If I begin printing much larger and become fretful about printer resolution, or especially if I see obviously superior Piezo prints on a higher Dmax paper like Harman Gloss Baryta Warmtone, I'll certainly reconsider.
If you face a similar choice, one clear point is that you can't make a sound decision based on the samples offered by InkjetMall. It takes skill like Harry's to get the most out of the Piezo system.
If there are at this point more than two followers of this thread, feel free to share my views, and I trust any that Harry might care to add, with anyone who'd find the information helpful.
Kirk