Digital BW, The Print

Ted,

Look here:

http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/colorswabs.html

You will see that the lightest inks in the UT2 set are in the light 
magenta and light cyan positions.  Now compare the density of the 
lightest ink in the FS ink set.  The FS is significantly lighter.  In 
other words, the highlights in UT2 prints will always be more dotty 
than of FS prints (using the same printer).  So again, this is not a 
QTR, or RIP, or Paul's curve issue.  It is the ink design.  The one 
way around it is using smaller droplets or try 2880 printing (slow on 
1280).  My 1280 using Epson driver and FS inks is definitely less 
dotty (almost non-existant) than my 2200 using Epson inks and QTR.  
Life is full of compromises.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tgos3" 
<egosfield@c...> wrote:
> 
> I have been trying an Epson 1280 and QTR (latest=f), using Epson 
and 
> MIS UT2/Eboni inks on matte paper.  So far, like a few others, i am 
> bothered by the dither pattern in high values.  In the QTR 
> instructions i have seen, there is said to be 'not much difference' 
> in the dither patterns - i suspect this means they are part of 
Gimp, 
> and not necessarily a native part of QTR.  Nevertheless, I'd like 
to 
> know which if any patterns are least visible in high key images or 
> high print values.  I don't care about printing speed.
> 
> last night i did some comparisons of Epson single black and QTR 
> single black with Ordered and Even Tone dither patterns, and the 
QTR 
> dither patterns were far more obtrusive, using Epson HWM, 'no' 
> profile, 1480, 'better' (=unidirectional).  For me, so far, QTR is 
> unusable (coarse, unpredictable contrast) for Epson ink single 
black, 
> on high key images or images with important subtle high values. 
> 
> The Epson driver single black output looks pretty grotty on gray 
> scale patch curves, but achieves usable, and more important, 
> reasonably WYSWYG, normal image results with my profiled monitor.
> 
> I am hoping the new UT2 carts will be more successful in 'real' 
> quadtone (actually tritone, is it not?) printing.
> 
> Next question -- i downloaded Roy's gray-lab file, and have used it 
> as a visual working space in PS, and have used the gray-mat space 
as 
> soft proof.  I can see the difference on visual display.  The 
> comments Roy made here seemed to indicate that you can print from 
PS 
> to QTR, which I am unable to do on my system (WXP).  Did i 
> misinterpret?  I saw the earlier comments that I don't need 
> the 'printer space' profile for QTR printing, which makes sense.
> 
> I am awaiting a replacement set of MIS UT2 inks which they are 
> sending me due to previous problems I commented on last week.  They 
> are sending at least one other listmember replacement inks as well, 
> and they recognize some problems in QC with the carts, which they 
are 
> attempting to deal with. 
> 
> For at least some of us without reflection densitometers, rigorous 
> calibration of QTR seems to be difficult and tedious. I think it is 
> ironic that i might have to spend another $250 for IJC/OPM plus/or 
> however much for a densitometer, after managing to achieve very 
good 
> color calibration with PhotoCal for a lot less money.  I have a 
> transmission densitometer from my Zone/Film days, and was hoping to 
> avoid more hardware purchases ;-)
> 
> IJC/OPM users:  the website claims 'invisible' dither.  Is this 
> really true?  I know piezography claimed it at one point as well, 
and 
> so does ImagePrint.  I don't think ImagePrint delivers, although it 
> is better than Epson single black, of course, and a bit better than 
> Epson RGB color. I can print low key images with excellent results 
> using Epson single black, and i assume/hope eventually with UT2 in 
> PS.  What i can't achieve in digital printing on a 1280 so far is 
> really smooth high values without visible dither.
> 
> I hope others have been more successful and might offer advice.
> 
> thanks
> 
> ted