Digital BW, The Print

I am glad you expressed this, the issue of"deep black"
Dmax.I think you hit it right on the head,about inkjet
printers.I have been a b&w darkroom printer for 35
years and have been trying to get a great b&w print
from Epson printers for  3 years. The QTR is very
good.I liked what you said about glorious shadow
detail,thats exactly how I feel.I just don't want to
put up with all that clogging with Piezography.As you
said QTR is the best compromise.Francis Ford 
--- Shilesh Jani <shilesh.jani@...>
wrote:

> 
> 
> Moises,
>  
> The "deep black" is clearly an issue, especially for
> matte black ink 
> on matte papers.  All RIPs will have this problem
> and all pigment 
> inks also.  There is nothing that can be done about
> it, other than 
> using a dye based ink, which introduces a lot of
> other problems.  But 
> the UltraChrome matte black ink of the 2200 is
> really sufficient.  
> Most people have problems because of the extremely
> high degree of 
> linear input-out behavior of QTR and other RIPs.  So
> if your image 
> histogram is not clipped in the shadows, you will
> actually see a lot 
> of shadow separation in the 90-100% region.  This
> will give 
> the "impression" of weak black.  In reality what you
> are seeing is 
> glorious shadow detail.  If you come from true
> darkroom printing 
> tradition, this is the biggest thing to get used to,
> or so I am 
> told.  If you come from Pt-Pd contact printing
> tradition, you will 
> say amen!
>  
> You get get stronger black using the photo lack ink
> on resin coated 
> papers, but that introduces bronzing problems and a
> very warm tone.
>  
> Unless you use a dye based ink, the 1280 printer
> will not help.  If 
> you use the Epson inks, try printing "black only".
>  
> In all honesty there is no perfect solution yet. 
> And I hope you do 
> not expect inkjet prints to look exactly like
> darkroom prints, 
> because they don't and hopefully never will.
>  
> Hope this helps.
>  
> Shilesh
>  
>  
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moises Faidengold
> [mailto:mfaidengold@...] 
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 1:53 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: Jani, Shilesh
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Piezography? Or, the
> state of the state.
> 
> 
> Shilesh,
>  
> Interesting comments you make.
> Now, let me be a little blunt. I have been playing
> with a 220o and 
> the Epson inks and so far have not been able to get
> really dark 
> blacks therefore I really would appreciate your
> input and/or 
> suggestions as to what to do.
> I also, tried with the QTR, but so far I have not
> fully satisfied 
> with it.
> And I really would like to keep having the capacity
> to print color 
> with the 2200 therefore the route of the OEM inks is
> somewhat 
> inconvenient. I have however a 1280 that I could
> convert to be a B&W 
> only, any suggestions?
>  
> Regards
>  
> Moises
> 
> Shilesh Jani <shilesh.jani@...> wrote:
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> Here is what I would do.
> 
> (1) get the 4000 if 17 inch is wide enough for you.
> (2) install and use QTR
> (3) if you like it, send Roy the $50
> (4) enjoy making prints
> 
> If you don't like QTR, that's when life gets
> complicated.  You have 
> choice of:
> 
> (1) continuing with OEM inks + RIP.  This will not
> necessarily be 
> better than QTR, or
> (2) putting-in 3rd party gary inks such as offered
> by MIS and Cone.
> 
> In my mind (and experience), there is no doubt that
> the best output 
> will come from 3rd party gray inks.  But the
> difference will be so 
> miniscule, that you will wonder why you went down
> that path, in the 
> process losing the ability to make color prints. 
> Only a year ago I 
> would have recomended to go with 3rd party inks and
> get a separate 
> printer for color (if that is an interest for you). 
> Not anymore.  
> For $50 QTR is an embarrasing bargain.  Oh, I have
> made and seen some 
> very compelling b/w prints from the 2200, 4000, and
> 7600 printers 
> with just the Epson driver, provided you have a good
> profile for your 
> paper, and you are not too finicky about metamerism.
>  The same cannot 
> be said for the older generation 1280 dye based
> inkset.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Shilesh
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> Jeff Curto 
> <jeff@j...> wrote:
> > 
> > The collective wisdom of this group is phenomenal,
> so I'm looking 
> for some
> > opinions.
> > 
> > Once upon a time, I used Cone's Piezography
> Photoshop plug-in in 
> combination
> > with his inks on an Epson 1200 to make beautiful
> prints. Problem 
> was, for
> > every beautiful print I made, I made 20 that were
> "tossers" because 
> of ink
> > clogs, banding issues, etc, etc, etc.
> > 
> > I gave up.
> & gt; 
> > Recently, I've been using QTR on an Epson 2200
> (thanks, Roy!), and 
> I'm
> > impressed, mainly because it works on a nearly
> "plug-and-play" sort 
> of
> > fashion. I'd like a bit more richness in the
> blacks, but otherwise, 
> I'm
> > happy.
> > 
> > I also note that a number of users on this list
> are using Paul 
> Roark's
> > curves, and still others are using ImagePrint to
> drive various 
> printers.
> > 
> > I am also on a Piezography listserv, and note that
> the number of 
> messages in
> > that group has tailed off to nearly "zero" over
> the last few months,
> > suggesting that either users are busy making
> prints, or that, like 
> me,
> > they've abandoned ship, looking for a lower
> frustration 
> and "P.I.A." factor.
> > 
> > I'm considering buying an Epson 4000 for use with
> either QTR or 
> ImagePrint,
> > and before I make that large (size and price)
> leap, I'm seeking 
> opinions on
> > the st ate of B&W inkjet printing at this point in
> history.
> > 
> > *Is Piezography dead?
> > *Is the Epson 4000 worth the price of admission?
> > *Is ImagePrint superior to Roy's QTR? If so, why
> or 
=== message truncated ===


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail