Digital BW, The Print

I'm seeing very smooth dithering in the shadows with  
ImagePrint (os 9 demo) using matte black in the 9600, 
compared with the Epson driver.
But the light areas look more course? as if it's using the light 
black  to fill in the lightest transitions.

This is from my post on epson9000:
-------------------------
Thanks for the OS X info
I'm planning on testing it out very soon.
But for a quick test I've just received a Mac OS 9 demo (is there a 
os X demo?) to see how it compares with the Epson driver.

First, I've noticed that ImagePrint's profiles open up the shadows 
quite a bit and with a bit more saturation. I'll need to figure out 
how I can color adjust and soft proof in Photoshop for ImagePrint 
output. Perhaps just a few adj. layers would do it.

ImagePrint handles the black ink very well, there's a very smooth 
transition in values in the shadow areas. 

Here are a few very quick test images....

http://www.sublimatrix.com/html/Page1.html

http://www.sublimatrix.com/html/Page2.html

http://www.sublimatrix.com/html/Page3.html
Now on page 3 ImagePrint doesn't handle the light areas very 
well? much more grain. 
I'll still need to test the other IP quality settings as well as 
adjustments in Photoshop to see if there's any difference..

Anyway just some quick testing....

Andrew G

-------------------------
-
> 
> For what it's worth, I'm using IP on Mac OS X with a 7600 using 
> UltraChrome inks (Matte Black) -- don't know how my 
observations will 
> map to your experience on the 2200, but anyways...
> 
> I too agree that I expected more from the dither, after hearing 
and 
> reading rave review feedback about how superior it was to any 
others 
> available. It is definitely more coarse than the Epson driver (OS 
9 
> only) at 1440 (unidirectional/high speed off). At first, I was really 
> put off by how much more coarse the dither was -- my 
expectations were 
> really high.
> 
> However, sheer persistence and closer inspection has led me 
to value 
> the following from this RIP, and I would like to know if you 
and/or 
> others are seeing similar results:
> 
> 1) Even though the dither is more coarse, the finished print has 
a 
> certain overall smoothness about it that I find pleasing in some 
way 
> that I can't quite describe.
> 
> 2) Even though the dither is more coarse, the image detail is 
far 
> superior. Fine details, curves, diagonal lines, and specular 
highlights 
> all reproduce much more cleanly than with the Epson driver -- 
none of 
> the "jaggies" and color fringing on high-contrast edges that 
plague 
> Epson driver prints.
> 
> 3) Much more color manageable. I generate my own custom 
ICC profiles, 
> and so far (one paper on the 7600 as a pilot, a bunch more in 
progress 
> as I write this) the finished results are definitely better than with 
> the profiles I generated using the Epson driver.
> 
> 4) Real grayscale! The special grayscale mode that IP brings 
to the 
> 7600 (& 2200??), with UltraChrome ink, renders a neutrality to 
the 
> entire gray ramp that is just not possible with the Epson driver, 
even 
> with my own ICC profiles (which are good profiles). It was this 
element 
> alone that encouraged me to buy IP for my 7600, and so far I'm 
very 
> pleased with the results. Now if I can just get ColorByte 
Software to 
> generate their special Grayscale profiles for the rest of the 
media 
> that I use...
> 
> All is not perfect, and I am working with ColorByte to work 
through 
> some issues I am having. Even though I do agree with you 
about the 
> coarseness of the dither, I do not find it so objectionable, 
especially 
> in view of these other advantages.
> 
> Are others seeing similar things? Am I an island?
> 
> /eddie