Digital BW, The Print

I shouldn't have openned my mouth, but I did so I'll try to be
clearer. Like Julian, I'm cynical about the Next Big Deal. The lists
started as a way for people with niche interests to come together and
help each other, they have become another marketing outlet. Please
don't take that as an acusation, it's just an observation.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Robert Morrison
<rmorrison@p...> wrote:
> On 6/4/03 11:09 PM, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> wrote:
> 
> > You're talking features. Martin specifically asked about print
quality.
>  
> >> Completely smooth breakless curves.
> 
> This is not something I've gotten from the Piezo driver since the
move to
> Piezotone inks.

I agree there are many who have had problems with the transition, and
some profiles were off from the beginning for other people. However
there are many who have had no problem at all and they are making
beautiful prints with the new ink and the old system. I would submitt
that if you have no sharp transitions, reversals, or flat spots, that
you will be able to customize your workflow and get linear output and
get... 
> very, very fine tuning of hilight and shadow
> detail.

This is just a guess, but I imagine there are some input values that
do output to acurate 90%-100% output from ImagePrint, and even that
problem could be overcome.

> Speaking of print quality...try to imagine a piezo print with a 2.5
dmax!

As you say, this is a print quality issue to you, and I know it is for
others. To me it is not, as long as Dmax is not too weak. If you are
of the silver print esthetic this is an issue. I'm far exceeding
platinum dmax now, and actually a printing system with a very high
density range makes me print too dark and destroy the particular feel
I want. So in generally accepted terms, you are right that is an image
quality issue, but not universally.

> > I have a report of lack of ability to print a sharp edge at the image
> > border and an overall softness with IJC.
> 
> Certainly not what I've seen.  Was the report...your testing or someone
> else's?

Sorry, but I can't repeat the problem. This was with GimpPrint, which
IJC is based on. Since my earlier tests I've upgraded both GimpPrint
and Ghostscript versions and can't duplicate it quickly here now. This
problem with IJC was told to me by a high end printer whose opinion I
absolutely trust. He uses the Pro24 RIP currently, and has a critical
eye for sharpness, and told me he had this problem with IJC. So it's
iffy, I mostly brought it up to see if any other IJC users would
comment on it.

snip...
> That is perhaps a good question...although for me having a separate
print
> server is an incredibly valuable thing..

I understand that, and also that many higher end users and shops have
many boxes for many uses. Others, like myself, try to minimize that
approach because of cost. I'm just saying that for many users, adding
the cost of another system has to be factored in. If I were them, and
getting decent prints currently, I'd wait for a windows version. For
myself, I'll wait for an OSX version, but for now it supports no
printers I use.

> > Although I don't use them, if someone is making perfectly beautiful
> > prints with RGB curves, why is it non-sense?
> 
> Because it is convoluted workflow that makes fine tuning very
difficult in
> comparison to what they could be doing with Ink Jet Control.

I agree, but it can work, and is affordable. As I suggested, given the
same materials working well on both, is there really some magic image
quality difference?

> Partitioned
> workflows had their time and place in the development of digital
> printing...but in my opinion that time and place is gone...

Because you can evidently afford to easily move on, some can't.

>but of course
> that is just my opinion...to each his/her own.  I know using a
partitioned
> workflow would be nonsense for me. What we are talking about here is the
> ability to have fine control.  This is critical for print quality.

Actually, a truly partitioned workflow is the ultimate control, and
that is what you're really doing with IJC anyway. I agree that for
99.99% of users, dinking with partitioning is silly (by the way, don't
you still have to come up with your own partitioning curves with IJC?
Hmm?).
A high degree of control is very possible in RGB and CMYK with
partitioning, better control is happening every day.
Lastly, there has been a lot of knocking of canned profiles while
discussing this product. Canned profiles have been very successful for
many many users in a number of situations. The Atkesen color profiles
are just one example. Some users with unusual printers can't use them
well. Other users like you and me will trust none but our own. But to
rule them out as fatally flawed is over the top, and I'd bet the
majority of users out there will make wonderful prints with them and
be happy campers.
Tyler