Digital BW, The Print

Sunday, August 18, 2002, 4:31:09 PM, Robert Morrison wrote:

RM> This is one of those images where looking at a smooth grey ramp printed from
RM> each profile (piezo or partitioned RGB workflow) will give you the key to
RM> success.  If the ramp isn't completely smooth with no breaks in the area
RM> that the gradient in your image is you are in trouble.  I like to look at
RM> the ramp about about a 15 degree angle...you can really see if there are
RM> bumps and whether signs of inks kicking in and out are there.

Thanks for this suggestion Robert.  As I mentioned I only just got
started in this and I've been printing out stepwedges and to me they
have looked pretty darn impressive.  This time I printed on out using both
drivers and although small differences can be seen they are slight.
UNTIL I took your suggestion of looking at the stepwedge print at an
angle!  Now I can see exactly where some breaks can be seen.  The
Epson driver/Randall curve looks much smoother but I can still see a
slight "bump" in the smoothness at about 60%.  For the Piezo driver
stepwedge print I can see "bumps" at 75, 55 and 25%.  Ever so slight
but definitely evident when looking at the angle.  Looking back at
my print out I can see this is about where the breaks in tone are
appearing.

So, I should be having smooth stepwedges, no?  What can one do (or
should one do) to try to improve on this smoothness, or lack of?

RM> My experience
RM> with FS-N inks is that they were not well matched in density to the FS
RM> inks...which were set up to use with the piezo driver.  I know that
RM> Colorbyte was forced to generate completely different recipes and profiles
RM> for imageprint for FS-N because they behaved so differently than FS. You
RM> will see this to varying degrees depending on the profile that you use in
RM> the piezo driver.

I first tried quadtones using MIS FS carts, twice.  I did not like the
warm tone so much so when I ordered a CFS I got the FS-N inks.  So far
I really like their tone better.  When using the Piezo driver I use it
at Unsupported ink and for the EAM profile, the paper I am printing
on.

RM> In some cases the profile for a particular paper is not
RM> the best...you should experiment...but you can experiment with an
RM> artifically generated file that is one inch wide and 10 inches long...that
RM> you can print several times on a sheet.  Once you find the best profile for
RM> your paper...you will almost certainly have success across images.  This is
RM> not a piezo vs. RBG partitioned workflow issue...it is a quality off profile
RM> issue.

I should start trying some other paper profiles just to see the
differences and what I get.  Any suggestions off the bat? (For FS-N
inks on EAM, that is.)

RM> I have no doubt that the profiles that I have for imageprint and the
RM> piezotones could handle this image, they are completely smooth and show no
RM> evidence of individual inks coming in and out.

I'm considering trying the PiezoTones Selenium when my FS-N bottles get
low.  And later I'll be considering some options with other profiles
as well..

RM> Robert

RM> PS  What paper and profile were you using in the piezo driver?

As I mention above, EAM and the Piezo EAM profile with Unsupported ink
selected.

RM> PPS  Really nice shot!

Thanks.  The entire image can be seen here:

<http://www.contaxg.com/document.php?id=6463&full=1>


Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...