Digital BW, The Print

Antonis,

I saw the same microbanding on all twelve of the PiezoTone samples 
that InkjetMall sent me.  I don't know what profiles they used, but 
they were certainly trying to show off their products.  They told me 
they used an Epson 7000 (do they mean 7600?) on PhotoRag. I would 
imagine that there new ICC profile approach or your custom approach 
doesn't exhibit this banding.   Anyway, this doesn't bother me 
because I am interested in how the prints look with the unaided 
eye.  Just like the highlight dots with ImagePrint don't bother me.

I certainly agree that you can make beautiful prints using the 2200 
and Ultrachrome inks with ImagePrint and equally beautiful prints 
using the PiezoTone inks on the 1280, even using the old driver with 
the wrong profiles.  I have made many of them.  I use both systems, 
primarily because of a larger selection of image tone.

But, I don't think I made myself clear.  I have some prints, maybe 
10% of my prints, that have areas of light silvery tones.  This is 
the region where ImagePrint puts down dots with blank paper in 
between, whereas the PiezographyBW driver I'm using more or less 
fills this space with light gray ink, obscuring the paper base.  The 
reflection off the paper base is whiter than off the light gray 
ink.  When placed across the room on a wall, these highlight areas 
on the ImagePrint prints have more luminosity.  And there is no 
question about it...it's very easy to see.  Now maybe this is not 
the case with your custom PiezoTone printing approach...I can accept 
this if you say so.  And maybe it won't be the case with the new ICC 
profiles.  As far as my own, present, printing methods I see it as a 
trade off between dots in the highlights and luminosity in the 
highlights.  I should add that this luminosity is best observed when 
the prints are illuminated indirectly.  I don't see this advantage 
when illuminated by strong direct lighting.

You mentioned Dmax values.  On PhotoRag with PiezoTone BlackBlack 
using the 1280 with the old driver, I get a Dmax of about 1.80 after 
a few days of aging (it's about 1.70 initially).  On Epson Velvet 
Fine Art using Ultrachrome inks on the 2200 with ImagePrint 5.5, I 
get a density of about 1.79 after a few days of aging (it's about 
1.75 initially).  So the two are pretty close in this case.

Anyway, this is what I am observing on this end, and I'm more than 
willing to admit that there may be other explanations than my own.

Ron
www.harrisimages.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis Ricos" 
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> Ron,
> 
> I agree with you too... Just want to add a note on an unfair 
comparison: You 
> are comparing, ImagePrint, an up-to-date software with the 
original piezo 
> plug-in whose days of glory have long faded (along with those 
inks).
> 
> In my experience the plug in with the original profiles is 
something to be 
> thrown out the window, not used with the Piezotones. Not everybody 
has the 
> same experience as you and I and many people either don't get 
banding or 
> don't care. But if you see what you say is micorbanding, it is 
most likely the 
> result of using ancient profiles made on systems running the 
original piezo 
> inks under who knows what condition. If that's the source of your  
problem 
> (and not head clogs), blame the profiles, not the 1280 or the 
Piezotones. 
> When I sent inkjetmall my sample grayscale from my 1280/Selenium 
> PT/PhotoRag complaining about the banding, I was told to try all 
their profiles 
> until one worked. In other words, that system has become a joke - 
certainly by 
> the standards we discuss printing here.
> 
> You also make a point about PT prints looking "dull". All else 
being equal (i.e. 
> perfect profiles between the 2 systems and same paper) that should 
only 
> mean a difference between dmax values. The two inksets you are 
comparing 
> (UC vs PT) are capable of excellent prints, but each may not 
achieve its 
> maximum black on the same papers. UC may favor EAM and PTs may 
favor 
> PhotoRag for example. Still, I wouldn't call the difference night 
and day 
> (unless you put glosy next to matte, which is a whole other issue).
> 
> In any case, other than being slow, the 1280/PT is capable of very 
fine bw 
> prints that will look smoother than the 2200 with its OEM 
configuration. The 
> trick is to use the correct profile. I make cutom profiles for all 
my printers using 
> IJC, so in that respect, my comparisons are not dependent on 
differences 
> between profiles.
> 
> Antonis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "harrisimages" 
> <harris@s...> wrote:
> > Antonis,
> > 
> > What you say is true....you will see a lot more highlight dots 
using 
> > ImagePrint on a 2200 than when using a 1280 with PiezoTone 
inks.  
> > But, there is a definite upside.  Prints with silvery tones will 
> > jump off the page when hanging on a wall in ambient window 
light, 
> > whereas the PiezoTone prints will look dull.  
> > 
> > Also, using the PiezographyBW driver with PiezoTone inks on my 
1280 
> > shows microbanding when viewed with a loupe.  Even the print 
samples 
> > that inkjetmall sent me showed this banding.