Digital BW, The Print

Tyler-

Thanks for the practical 3000 experience.

The curves I ended up with seem very similar to what you suggest.  I 
got to about 45% with the first ink, 65% with the second, 85% with the 
third and the black starts at about 85%.  I was also a little more 
agressive with the ink limits than Antonis suggested.  

As for needing therapy, I thought this _was_ therapy <g> Nearly as 
relaxing as golf.  Each print (putt) is almost there.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> I know the 3000 for quads all to well, well enough to need therapy.
> I've made CMYK curves for it from way back with the old StylusRIP, 
RGB
> curves for the Epson driver, and CMYK curves later for the now 
extinct
> PressReady. So...
> Here's how to make the most of it. With most papers you won't need 
any
> limiting, maybe some Hawk Mountian papers or Somerset (Epson) Velvet
> (enhanced), but probably not any Hanna papers. You don't want to 
limit
> unless you absolutely have to, mottle and bleed is your clue to 
limit.
> As long as an ink continues to gain density and there is no mottle 
or
> bleed, don't limit it. The idea is to get as far as possible down 
the
> scale with each ink, limiting inhibits that. With most drivers you
> should be able to get down near 40% with the first ink alone, 60-70 
or
> more with the second, then your third, and K won't need to be 
brought
> in untill 90% or higher.
> I don't specifically know how you would do it with IJC or QTR, but I
> left a lot of each light ink in under the next. Smoother because of 
2
> inks dithered together, and more density. Bleed, with most papers,
> will still not be a problem because you're still most likely under
> 200% total ink, not very high really.
> Once you get it right, 3000 quad output still qualifies as some of 
the
> best. Better dmax then smaller dot printers, and each ink will get
> farther down the scale.
> I had a lot of 3000 quads hanging next to 9600 quads recently. 
Without
> a loup, there was no practical quality difference without extreme
> inspection, knowing what to look for.
> Have at it.
> Tyler

<snip>