Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Gilbert 
<lists@e...> wrote:
> 
> On Friday, January 17, 2003, at 05:09  PM, eleanor77027 
> <elliebrown@a...> wrote:
> 
> > so far I have been disappointed in image print for the 2200.
> > for $500 bucks I expected a finer dither at 1440 and at least some
> > color controls ... I think their 1440 is a joke ... and their
> > 2880 High speed is not great either ... both dither patterns are
> > coarser that the standard 2200 epson 1440 (high speed off) driver
> 
> Eleanor,
> 
> 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


I'd agree with you Eddie. There's just something unusual about the 
print- just looks better, all in all.

I have other issues though that bias me...


As I said before, I need a printer, any printer that WORKS before I 
think about getting the best print possible. And in my climate, the 
1280/1160 clogged up every day. Except for the six banding episodes, 
I've only had to clean the printer one other time to get a good nozzle 
check in the two months I've had it. In this perspective I don't worry 
about dots, dmax, etc as much as others who have the luxury of good 
reliable working printers. Not to say I don't respect the opinions of 
others on this matter.

One other thing: Colorbyte gave me lots of e-mails yesterday for 
profiles for Eclipse paper which I'm still trying to digest. But one 
test I did was to print two small prints at 2880 dpi (new curves for 
this resolution now exist for Eclipse and Photorag) and compare when 
still wet to a duplicate I had printed a month ago with an older 
version of their driver at 1440. The 2880 curve looks marginally 
better, based on this small sample.
Jim H.