Digital BW, The Print

Hi --
This my first post to the group.  I have spent a fair bit of time 
looking through previous posts and 'files', as well as relevant QTR 
and UT2 website files, help files, etc.

I have done B&W gelatin-silver printing for about 40 years, using 
Zone system for the last 20 or so.  I used to use Ilfobrome, 
Gallerie, Seagull, and Dektol.  Now I use a Windows XP Pro, a 1280 
with Epson inks, profiled in PhotoCal 2.6 for color, unprofiled for 
G2.2 sisngle black printing, and a Spyder monitor profile on a CRT 
monitor.  Have been almost happy with single tone Epson black, except 
for the nasty dither pattern in the high values.  Tried the 
ImagePrint RIP demo, but still had metamerism,(faint magenta) 
although the dither is much less obtrusive.  Don't want to spend the 
bucks for an obsolescent printer with dongle and still have 
metamerism.

Sprang for UT2 inks, which i used up (well, there's a bunch of Eboni 
left over) in a day of experimenting and printing.  When viewing the 
21 patch file, from 90% to 50% seems pretty compressed, as do the 
patches on a printout. I only have a transmission densitometer, so I 
couldn't measure them.  My UT2 prints certainly do not have the 
contrast in the shadows that i could achieve with single black, or 
with ImagePrint.  Reducing the ink limit and gamma in QTRgui didn't 
really solve the problem, since the blacks got weaker without the 
shadow contrast problem being solved.

I tried Epson HW Matte, Archival Matte, and Arches Hot press 
watercolor.  I tried setting paper type (and presumably ink deposit) 
to Photo Paper, Matte Heavyweight, and Photo Quality Glossy Film 
(which was the best).  I tried printing both with QTR and using 
Paul's curves in Photoshop.  (eventually had to reinstall my 1280 
driver due to software nastiness/printer hang)  I played a bit with 
Gama setting using the Epson driver to print at 1.8 or 2.2.  I tried 
carbon, neutral, and cool curves in photoshop.

For some images Carbon looks nice, but still the low densities are 
pretty muddy and flat looking by my standards, using UT2 inks, when 
the gray mode print looks good on the screen, and has printed fine 
using other ink/apps.  I was able to make new files that printed 
better, by making the print look 'too light' in G2.2 mode on the 
screen, before RGB/curves were applied.

I tried making a PS Working Space custom file to change the gray 
scale image on screen, but even with 'preview' checked i can not get 
the image to update on the screen in real time.  PS seems to be set 
up to have reflection density values entered numerically, although i 
can move the curve.

Before i order any more MIS inks, i am interested to know whether 
people have had to change their images to adapt to UT2 inks, as one 
would, say, to a new paper/developer combination, or have they been 
able, using stock Ruark curves, to get 'good' prints, matching the 
G2.2 monitor image of the unmanipulated files that have printed well 
in the past.

At this point i am tempted to wait for the new Epson printer 
announced in Japan, which supposedly prints tritone blacks.  
Basically I want a good Dmax and invisible dither in the lightest 
tones below paper white.  I think the stock Epson black ink looks ok, 
although the UT2 colors are ok with me too.

So far UT2 'caliberation' has been more expensive and time consuming 
than it would have been for wet printing with a new combination ;-)  
Kinda frustrating that at this point in digital printing we still 
don't have a conveniently achievable WYSIWYG method to print high 
quality B&W.  I am perfectly willing to believe this is entirely due 
to user error and inexperience on my part, since so many others seem 
to be happy with their results.  I'd love to hear what I am doing 
wrong.


Ted