Digital BW, The Print

Ted,

I will try to answer each of your questions - if I can:  First, it is 
very important to know that your viewing environment (i.e., grayscale 
workspace) is critical.  I am no expert on this, and I find that 20% 
dot gain works for me.

(1).  FS inks.  Currently MIS has 2 versions of FS inks (i) the 
original FS inks in both regular (warm) and neutral hues, and (ii) UT-
FS inks also in the regular (warm) and neutral hues.  I have the most 
experiece with the original FS inks.  About 2 years ago, Paul Roark 
and I realized about the same time (see archives) that these inks 
(which mimic the density of Pieezo inks) can be used in the 1280 
printer WITHOUT using the Piezo driver, provided the inks are 
installed in a particular order.  The order is cyan=dark, 
magenta=dark, light cyan=medium, light magenta=medium, and 
yellow=light.  To make a long story short, this tonal arrangment 
yields excellent results on EEM paper, printing straight from PS, 
using the Epson driver.  You don't need the Piezo driver.  Anyway, 
this idea did not catch-on (no idea why).  But then Piezo changed 
from the plug-in version to the Epson driver based ICC version, and 
changed their ink arrangment to approximately (but not excatly) the 
same.  The Piezo ICC system last I checked has both yellow, and light 
magenta with light inks.  This has a minor difference in print 
quality.  With UT-FS inks, now MIS has started filling their carts in 
the position Paul and I came up with those many months ago.

So, if toning is not necessary for you, it would be worth going with 
the FS inks for the slightly warm opition.  I tried UT-FS neutral 
inks some time back, but it was not to my taste because I beileve my 
perception is extremely sensitive to magenta.  Yours may be 
different.  This option, either in carts or a CIS on your 1280 will 
give you about the smoothest prints available today - definitely less 
dots than 2200 Epson inks + QTR.  But, you would need to create 
grayscale curves for different papers.  I have done that, and it is 
easy.

(2) Indeed, you do not need QTR with this approach.  But, QTR is 
capable of allowing this ink tone arrangment, and make for easier 
curves creation.  Maybe this weekend I will compare the gradients on 
my 1280 and see how smoothness compares between the Epson driver and 
QTR on the 1280.  And using a RIP is NOT necessarily faster.  For 
instance the old Piezo plug-in on my 1280 was slower than the Epson 
driver, and QTR on my 2200 is slower than the Epson driver.  I have 
no idea why.  One observation:  if you already have a 2200, and QTR, 
I don't see why you need to try using the slow 1280, other than it is 
fun (frustrating) or you want the absolute lack of dots in the 
highlights.  I get gorgeous warm prints on 2200+QTR, and cool prints 
too.

Hope this helps.

Shilesh


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tgos3" 
<egosfield@c...> wrote:
> 
> <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