Digital BW, The Print

Hello Dan,

>I'm just getting started using a new 1280, a UT2 ink set including
>Eboni in the black slot...  
> 
>In both cases, the fine detail is muddy and the contrast is poor
>compared to other "black only" prints I've gotten off a lower end
>Epson machine 
>
>The only thing that's kept me going has been one single early print
>that was so beautiful I almost cried . . . but now I'm in a closed
>loop and am in need of suggestions.

I spent the past four years doing mostly BO printing, all the while
trying various other inks, workflows and approaches, including UT7
(the equivalent of UT2, for the 2200).  My own conclusion is that
nothing else out there is going to produce the beautiful luminance and
clarity as well as BO does.  I had the same response to UT7 as you are
describing here.  On certain images who's tones fell within its sweet
spot it can be excellent, but in general the prints have a slightly
veiled opaque look and rather muddy blacks compared to BO.

BO's luminance comes from the bare paper that shows between the dots,
which most of the full ink systems don't allow.  I think this is what
causes the opaque look.  The muddy blacks are caused by the system's
mixing the 2nd black in with the Eboni in all but the darkest zones
(at above 99% or RGB 0-2).

I discovered this one day with UT7 and a high key print with a few
small almost black areas (sand dunes with clumps of bushes in the
distance).  Suddenly on one test print there were white areas in the
dark bushes.  Inspection with a loupe showed that there was no ink in
those areas.  I ran a nozzle check and found that the Eboni cart had
totally clogged.  In Photoshop I examined those areas in the image
with the densitometer tool and discovered that the areas of white were
the only areas in the image that were RGB 2 or less.  

The point of this is that only in areas at or close to pure black do
the UT2/7 inks put down pure Eboni.  In other areas of the dark zones
there is a blend of inks, which makes them look muddy compared to BO.
When dmax tests are done the UT inks rate as good as BO because the
tests lay down a patch of pure black (100% or RGB 0).  But in real
world images the shadow zones aren't all pure black, so most of the
darks in prints have the muddy look.  That, combined with the veiled
highlights, makes them look aenemic next to a BO print.

The only thing I've found that comes close to BO prints is the 2400
ABW mode.  I was surprised to find that they have very good luminance
(not as good as BO but still quite good).  With a loupe I can see that
in the highlights it does allow some bare paper to show between the
dots.  Plus, I don't know how it blends the grays in the shadows, but
the blacks look much better than the UT inks.  So for me the 2400/ABW
is the best compromise, giving smooth non-dotty prints with excellent
blacks and luminance.

So what does all this mean for you?  Well, since you're coming from a
BO experience you are spoiled for that clear intense look, and IMO
you'll not be satisfied with much else.  I tried varios things for
years and always came back to BO - until the 2400 (and to my great
happiness I also found that it can produce gallery quality prints with
the same easy workflow as BO).   So perhaps you should look into
getting one of these.  I hope this isn't too depressing.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm



























"pop" (or "snap" or whatever) that