Digital BW, The Print

Carl,

I was using 80% limit + 20 overlap on the carbon only curve and
50% C, 45% M + 20 overlap on the neutral curve.  The carbon curves
ought to be similar to yours for total ink, but the neutrals are pretty
different since the ink sets are different.

I went back this morning and looked at the steps.  They "look" very good
but I re-measured them and the densities are dramatically lower than I
measured yesterday.  My guess is that I was getting a wet-glossy reading
that showed very high -- especially in the darker areas.  Are either of you
doing anything special to dry prints?  Hair dryer?

Unfortunately, the linearization values I measured yesterday are also off
so the smoothness is not quite as good.

The mid-tone densities are a bit higher than we're used to partially
because dMax is higher.  The linearization puts the 50% step right at
half way between 0 and 100 so all the steps are equal.  The density numbers
don't show this because they are logs, but if you look at the Lab values
50Lab = (100Lab + 0Lab) /2. 

Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield <scho@m...> 
wrote:
> Roy,
> 
> I haven't tried the Ilford semi-matte yet, but it seems to be very 
> good.  Were you also setting limits at 100 for all of the UT2 inks?  I 
> noticed that your mid-tone densities were higher than what I was 
> getting with the UT1 gray inks and didn't know if that was because of 
> the difference between the UT1 and UT2 ink densities or your higher 
> gray-overlap percentage (I used 10%).
> 
> Carl
> 
> On Tuesday, January 20, 2004, at 12:48  AM, Roy Harrington wrote:
> 
> > Carl,
> >
> > That looks a lot like I'm getting.  Here's my carbon(warm) and neutral:
> >
> > Carbon:
> > Step	Gain	Density
> > 0	 0.00 	0.076	**
> > 5	-0.28	0.126	****
> > 10	-0.35	0.181	*****
> > 15	-0.02	0.243	*******
> > 20	-0.58	0.296	********
> > 25	-0.13	0.365	**********
> > 30	 0.07	        0.435	***********
> > 35	-0.05	0.503	*************
> > 40	 0.41 	0.585	***************
> > 45	-0.08	0.656	*****************
> > 50	 0.06 	0.743	*******************
> > 55	 0.13 	0.834	*********************
> > 60	 0.02 	0.928	************************
> > 65	 0.11 	1.034	**************************
> > 70	 0.10 	1.148	*****************************
> > 75	 0.37 	1.279	********************************
> > 80	 0.51 	1.420	************************************
> > 85	-0.26	1.551	***************************************
> > 90	 0.44 	1.750	********************************************
> > 95	 0.12 	1.939	*************************************************
> > 100	 0.00 
> > 	2.180	*******************************************************
> >
> > Neutral:
> > Step	Gain	Density
> > 0	 0.00 	0.058	**
> > 5	 2.02 	0.135	****
> > 10	 3.48 	0.209	******
> > 15	 4.11 	0.278	*******
> > 20	 4.76 	0.350	*********
> > 25	 4.41 	0.413	***********
> > 30	 4.01 	0.478	************
> > 35	 3.64 	0.548	**************
> > 40	 3.95 	0.632	****************
> > 45	 4.50 	0.726	*******************
> > 50	 4.23 	0.812	*********************
> > 55	 3.69 	0.899	***********************
> > 60	 2.32 	0.974	*************************
> > 65	 3.38 	1.111	****************************
> > 70	 3.81 	1.246	********************************
> > 75	 4.00 	1.389	***********************************
> > 80	 3.69 	1.535	***************************************
> > 85	 2.06 	1.650	******************************************
> > 90	 3.29 	1.896	************************************************
> > 95	 1.85 	2.060	****************************************************
> > 100	 0.00 
> > 	2.252	*********************************************************
> >
> >
> > With the neutral there's a lot of ink hence the higher dmax.  With the 
> > carbon
> > I have a GRAY_OVERLAP=20 so there's 20% light gray with the dark gray.
> > The result looks quite nice, no bronzing, but even after an hour of 
> > drying there's
> > a little tackiness in the dark areas.  It's pretty delicate for a long 
> > time.
> >
> > Roy
> >
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
> > <scho@m...>
> > wrote:
> >> Roy,
> >>
> >> That worked just fine.  I dropped Eboni out of the UT1 mix and made
> >> curves using just C, LC, and Y grays for the carbon-warm curve and
> >> added M and LM toners for a cool curve, on Epson Photo Paper.  Just
> >> kept the ink limits all at 100, partitioned the grays as usual, and
> >> linearized.  Below is a plot of the densities for a 50% blend of the
> >> warm and cool curves.  I made a neutral and warm print of a test image
> >> with these curves and they look great with no rub-off, bronzing, or
> >> gloss differential problems.  The prints have a beautiful, uniform,
> >> soft gloss and the 1.9+ dmax on plain old epson photo paper isn't too
> >> shabby.  So, "K-less" printing now for glossy papers?
> >>
> >> Carl
> >>
> >> Step	Density
> >> 0	 0.028	*
> >> 5	 0.075	**
> >> 10	 0.132	****
> >> 15	 0.188	*****
> >> 20	 0.247	*******
> >> 25	 0.293	********
> >> 30	 0.359	*********
> >> 35	 0.424	***********
> >> 40	 0.501	*************
> >> 45	 0.582	***************
> >> 50	 0.645	*****************
> >> 55	 0.742	*******************
> >> 60	 0.837	*********************
> >> 65	 0.918	***********************
> >> 70	 1.024	**************************
> >> 75	 1.133	*****************************
> >> 80	 1.265	********************************
> >> 85	 1.401	************************************
> >> 90	 1.533	***************************************
> >> 95	 1.703	*******************************************
> >> 100	 1.932	*************************************************
> >>
> >> On Monday, January 19, 2004, at 08:40  PM, Roy Harrington wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Carl,
> >>>
> >>> I just sent my post about leaving out Eboni.  I'm thinking that once
> >>> you drop eboni from the mix you may actually be able to use the
> >>> toner.
> >>>
> >>> Roy
> >>>
> >>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
> >>> <scho@m...>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Paul,
> >>>>
> >>>> You are right about the toner limitation for glossy with the UT1 
> >>>> inks
> >>>> and I have some UT2 inks on order from MIS, but I just wanted to see
> >>>> how this worked with the UT1 inks since I still have them loaded in
> >>>> the
> >>>> 1270.  I did get somewhat higher dmax with Epson Pro Glossy (1.76) 
> >>>> and
> >>>> even better with Ilford Smooth Pearl (2.04), using the same 92% 
> >>>> curve
> >>>> limit at 100%.  However, when I printed a QTR warm curve (no toner) 
> >>>> on
> >>>> the Pro Glossy the dmax dropped to 1.59 and the print showed 
> >>>> bronzing
> >>>> and gloss differential as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> Carl
> >>>> On Monday, January 19, 2004, at 04:05  PM, Paul Roark wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Carl,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The problem with this Eboni-glossy printing approach and the UT1 is
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> light toner.  In UT2 the coolness comes from an ink that is 
> >>>>> actually
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> hair
> >>>>> darker than the UT1 cyan.  That accounts for the dmax differences, 
> >>>>> I
> >>>>> assume.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Paul
> >>>>> www.PaulRoark.com
> >>>>> _____________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Carl Schofield [mailto:scho@m...]
> >>>>> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 12:50 PM
> >>>>> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Glossy printing with Eboni -- who
> >>>>> needs a
> >>>>> 4000?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Roy & Paul,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I tried the UT1 inks with Eboni K in my 1270 using a neutral curve 
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> QTR and printed to Epson Photo Paper.  The Eboni rubbed off and
> >>>>> showed
> >>>>> a gloss differential only in the 100% patch.  However, by applying 
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> curve adjustment layer and limiting output at 100% I was able to 
> >>>>> get
> >>>>> rid of the rub-off and gloss differential.  The "optimal" 100% 
> >>>>> output
> >>>>> limit in terms of dmax was at 92% and there was no rub-off or gloss
> >>>>> differential.  Print looked great with no bronzing either.  Dmax
> >>>>> numbers (see chart below) were not that great but the blacks still
> >>>>> looked good.  I did no spraying with Print Shield for these tests. 
> >>>>>  I
> >>>>> wonder if more C position gray ink were laid down under the Eboni 
> >>>>> if
> >>>>> dmax would be higher.  Roy, could this be accomplished with a 
> >>>>> higher
> >>>>> GRAY-OVERLAP?  I was using 10%.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Carl
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Curves 100% Ouput	D
> >>>>> 90	1.64
> >>>>> 91	1.64
> >>>>> 92	1.65
> >>>>> 93	1.631
> >>>>> 94	1.614
> >>>>> 95	1.609
> >>>>> On Monday, January 19, 2004, at 02:42  PM, Roy Harrington wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Paul,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm curious just what you've got here.  Is it that this one 
> >>>>>> specific
> >>>>>> paper Smooth Pearl is somehow compatible with Eboni but
> >>>>>> others aren't?    Or are you just not using the Eboni ink by 
> >>>>>> making
> >>>>>> the 100% spot just 100% R and G and 0% B -- i.e. the dark warm
> >>>>>> gray and dark cool gray inks are enough to give a great dMax.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Roy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> >>>>>> <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> >>>>>>> OK, this is a little half-baked, but the bottom line is that I've
> >>>>>>> hit
> >>>>>>> a dmax
> >>>>>>> of 2.28 on Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl - with Eboni.  There is 
> >>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>> significant dusting or rub-off.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The secret is that the UT2 (and perhaps UT1) inks use a base that
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> glossy binder.  It's not an acrylic coating on the particle.  
> >>>>>>> So, I
> >>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>> let Eboni sit there by itself - or barely at all.  So, to the
> >>>>>>> extent
> >>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>> is Eboni there, it is held by the base that carried the other 
> >>>>>>> inks
> >>>>>>> into that
> >>>>>>> spot.  The best dmax so far is with the yellow position sepia 
> >>>>>>> toner
> >>>>>>> pulled
> >>>>>>> out entirely at the 100% spot.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Whether I can write full curves for this is untested.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, there is more to do here before declaring any kind of 
> >>>>>>> victory,
> >>>>>>> but we
> >>>>>>> may not need to mess with switching blacks any more.  Now that
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>> nice.