Digital BW, The Print

Two inks with the 3.5 to 4 pl printers produce acceptable (at least to 
me) grayscale prints.  So how close does one black in the R800 at 1.5 
pl bring us to the ideal?  I'd like to see a print made with the R800 
and one black ink added to Roy's dots gallery.

Carl

On Jan 28, 2005, at 8:30 PM, Shilesh Jani wrote:

>
>
> I say this in jest, well partially in jest:
>
> If you could make infintesimly small dots and can place the at
> infinitesimly small distances, you could make perfectly dotless
> prints with only the back ink.  And the prints would be perfectly
> smooth if you have a good profile.
>
> Till then.............
>
> Shilesh
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
> <roy@h...> wrote:
>>
>> --- 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).
>>
>> As Shilesh has said it all boils down to the density of the inks
> and the size
>> of the drops.  All the current printers we're talking about
> 1160,1270,1280,
>> 2200, 7600 have approximately the same smallest dot size about 4
> picoliters.
>> 4000 is slighly smaller at 3.5 pl.  In all these cases this
> smallest dot size is
>> used at 1440dpi so there is no benefit to 2880 as far as seeing
> dots in the
>> highlights.
>>
>> The FS and FSN inks and the Piezotone inks are the only ones with a
> significantly
>> lighter ink.   So if you want the most dot-less highlights you have
> to use
>> something like this.  I did a dot comparison a while ago, see :
>>
>> http://harrington.com/dotscans/dotsdots.html
>>
>> Roy
>>
>>>
>>>> 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