Digital BW, The Print

<shilesh.jani@s...> wrote:
> Ted,
> Look here: 
> http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/colorswabs.html

already had done, and agree with what you say, thanks.

> other words, the highlights in UT2 prints will always be more dotty 
> than of FS prints (using the same printer). [...] It is the ink 
design.  The one 
> way around it is using smaller droplets or try 2880 printing (slow 
on 
> 1280). 

I may try 2880 printing -- when i have done it using Epson single 
black, highlight densities increased, so the dither looked more 
annoying.  On some images I could readjust the curves, but it didn't 
seem to be a real improvement on HWM which is what i have been using 
on my 1280 (until UT2).

> 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.

I may end up trying FS inks.  I don't require multiple print tone 
choices, just a good neutral comparable to Ilfobrome (slightly warm) 
or Oriental Seagull (slightly cool.  Before Epson changed their inks 
on the 1280, i was happy with some of their Quadtone curves too, but 
since they changed ink vendors I have never been able to get the 
Epson quadtones dialed in so they match the profiled monitor 
appearance.

I am trying to see why I should use QTR at all -- if Paul's PS curves 
work, why use QTR?  For people without PS, or who need to print from 
other imaging apps, QTR is a great bargain and a nice app, but if you 
can print from PS, why not do it?

i suppose using a RIP instead of a driver is faster, but i am not 
doing high volume work.  Basically, all i care about is the 
appearance of the print.

ted