Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "lawrencetrek" 
<ltitle@i...> wrote:
 With 
> out the expensive hardware/software to do this (+expertise), I 
am not sure 
> how easy it would be to have someone do the profiling for you 
(especially 
> when you live in an isolated, small city like I do).

There are several places that will produce an ICC profile for your 
particular printer. And yes, every inkset and paper combination 
needs its own profile. (Although Museo and ESFA have been 
known to be interchangeable to a degree). Here are a couple of 
places that I know of. I post one of these at great personal risk.

http://www.chromatics.com (Ask for Scott Ward) $125

http://digitaldog.net/ (Andrew Rodney) $150?

http://www.profilecity.com $?

Each of these places will give you an initial file to print; made up 
mostly of grey chips. This is the linearization part. Based on the 
readings from that, the software generates several more pages 
of color chips. This is done through the mail or Fedex. At 
Chromatics, where I get them now, I get seven pages of color 
chips to print, after linearization.

It's important to print this untagged file with Epson driver set to 
No Color Adjustment, so that the driver isn't messing with the 
color; you want the driver to be "dumb". Also, record your Media 
Type, as you will use that same Media type later. If you really 
want to get picky, there is a file around called the Culbertson 
Ramp, named after Dan Culbertson. You can print this image 
using various mediatype settings to show you how much ink 
each setting lays down; after you pick one, then stick with that 
one.




  I also wonder whether you 
> would have to do a new profile with each ink change, or are the 
pigments 
> consistent enough lot to lot.  (That could get expensive for 
someone doing this 
> as a hobby). 

See above. 


>And with your custom profile, I am curious how would you 
> compare the output of the b/w 9600 on archival art papers to 
that of 
> piezography. (subjectively and objectively) 

I used the piezo system briefly years ago with my old 3000. It 
was nice, but to me, very limiting, to be constrained into ONLY 
using b/W ink. My personal taste is to be able to tone, and 
sometimes radically. I also tried the MIS Variables, but the whole 
curve thing seemed nutty to me, but others seem to like it. Was 
that diplomatic?



 >Yet, I used one in the store the other day to print a file, and was 
> certain that it had a purplish color cast under fluoro lights, but 
looked more 
> neutral or even a bit warm in daylight, and with halogen lights.

I don't think I'd trust anything that I briefly tested in a store.
Like i 
told that other guy; it's just not giving it a fair chance at all.
There's 
so much more that they can do, but only after profiling. I wish I 
could show you the test prints from my 9600; one untagged and 
unprofiled, and the other profiled. It was radical difference.



  I didn't try 
> printing a sample grayscale.  The dot pattern with a loupe was 
not too bad to 
> me, but I don't have any piezotone samples yet to compare 
with.  If you were 
> not doing this for a living, but wanted to get a printer setup to 
produce serious 
> b/w digital output at home, which way would you go ?  


Hard to say. I don't know you. I don't know how demanding you 
are. But I'd bet that the 2200 is a fine printer, if given a fair 
chance. And even with B/W. The only potential drag about the 
2200 seems to be the cost of the ink, and until some third party 
cracks the code, the only game in town are the Ultras. Not that 
the quality is bad, but with those tiny inkwells, it's pretty pricey 
stuff, compared to, say, the 220ml carts in the 9600. That's part 
of the reason I got the bigger printer.



Good luck.