Digital BW, The Print

I knew it couldn't be that easy, also knew there was some reason we
were all using the micro setting in StudioPrint.
When I tried to change to any of the variable dot settings in a quad
environment, I got an alert that those settings were not available
with a mode that uses "light" inks.
The previous test I did and posted about was just a quick straight
CMYK environment, so it let me do it.
So, this option is not something I can utilize so won't pursue. I will
try to do a quick test more like your own on a coated paper,
unlinearized, and pass them on to you at some point here anyway.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis"
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> Hi Tyler,
> 
> I like that discovery. It may explain differences between
> drivers. If you have a densitometer (I guess the EyeOne\
> could double as one) and can read some numbers 
> to compare to my chart, we can get to some scientifically
> valid data (!). 
> 
> As a reminder :  my numbers were the result of reading
> the darkest patch anywhere along an UNlinearized BO scale.
> 
> Glad you and Ernst are testing and contesting  <G>.
> 
> 
> Antonis
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
> <tyler@t...> wrote:
> > Ernst and Antonis-
> > I think dot size is an issue. I just did a quick experiment on some
> > uncoated Somerset scaps. In StudioPrint a user option is dot size.
> > I've always used the smallest out of habit. I selected one of the
> > variable options instead and did a quick test. I believe the variable
> > options open up to the larger dot sizes at the highest densities. By
> > making that change I got an increase in dmax in all channels with no
> > apparent increase in dotiness in lower densities.
> > I need to test it further, but this may explain the differences
> > between printer models and other mysterys.
> > Also may be worthwhile with various drivers or RIPs, how they address
> > the hardware with regard to this.
> > Tyler