Digital BW, The Print

Paul, when  do you expect UT for C82 to be ready and is it possible 
to tone prints? As I understand, you are positively surprised with 
quality of C82 prints. Is that correct? Thanks.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I was curious how prints produced on the 2200 ($595 at MIS) with 
ImagePrint
> ($495) (total $1090) compared to those produced on the C82 (now $90 
at MIS)
> with the "no-workflow" (light UT cyan in all 3 color spots) "quad" 
inkset I
> mixed last week.
> 
> Here I'm just looking at the smoothness of test strips by scanning 
equal
> density (5% & 50%) patches of the prints (at 1600 dpi) and 
measuring the
> smoothness with the Photoshop Histogram tool.  I use the tools 
Standard
> Deviation reading as the objective measure of smoothness.
> 
> In March, I posted the results of a similar comparison among various
> printers.  In that comparison the 2200/IP5/Neutral 5% patch 
measured 5.54 v.
> the 1280/MIS VM/Neutral of 2.56.  (Lower is smoother/better.)  The 
MIS VM
> was also smoother at 50%, but not as dramatically so.
> 
> To eliminate as many variables as possible, I scan the test strips 
together.
> So, today's comparison numbers should not be compared to the above 
numbers.
> 
> Today, the 2200/IP5/Neutral 5% patch read 6.79.  The C82/LC (warm) 
read
> 7.47.  (The IP5 prints a little lighter than the C82/LC, so I read 
areas on
> the C82 test strip that had the same median density.)
> 
> So, the IP5, which runs the 2200 Light black into the highlights 
but then
> neutralizes them with the light magenta and light cyan, is slightly 
smoother
> than the C82, which has UT LC in all spots.  The UT LC is somewhat 
lighter
> than the 2200 Light K, but much darker than the UC LC and LM.  So, 
the light
> UC inks pull the average density of the dots down.  (An equally 
warm IP5
> print that only used the UC LK would, presumably, be rougher than 
the C82.)
> 
> (You can see a 1600 dpi scan of the 2200 5% at
> http://studio-nelson.com/inkjet/bw22003.htm)
> 
> At the 50% spot, the IP5 measured 8.34.  The C82 measured 8.04, 
slightly
> better than the 2200/IP5 combination.
> 
> Overall, I think the 2 IP5 and C82 test strips are quite 
comparable.  The
> partitioned quad is still the smoothness champ, but at normal 
viewing
> distances and when real photos are used instead of test strips, 
most people
> will not notice the highlight dots both systems have.  Critical 
views on
> this list, however, might.
> 
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com