Digital BW, The Print

Just to clarify what I'm trying to convey.  The link below is a  
picture showing two Lab plots for step wedge prints made with both  
the i1 (no UV) and xrite-pulse (UV).  Both were printed via  
ColorBurst using a neutral Gray profile for Innova F-Type with MIS K4  
(no LLK) inks in an Epson 4000 printer.  Which is the most accurate  
description of the color/neutrality of the print?

http://homepage.mac.com/scho/Pulse-i1.jpg

On Apr 7, 2006, at 11:41 AM, Carl Schofield wrote:

> Yes, I'm not saying that the un-filtered i1 is not capable of  
> making excellent color profiles with the appropriate software  
> (Match or PM 5).  However, if you just look at raw Lab data from an  
> un-filtered i1 your assessment of color or neutrality in particular  
> for scanned grayscale wedges will not be the same compared to what  
> you measure with a UV filtered device.
>
> Carl
>
> On Apr 7, 2006, at 10:50 AM, James Irelan wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2006, at 9:35 AM, John Moody wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not so sure, the OBAs certainly change the apparent paper
>>> color, and
>>> that is due to the UV excited fluorescence.
>>> John Moody
>>>
>>
>>>   I see now why ColorBurst recommends (actually
>>> requires) the UV filtered hardware solution.
>>>
>>> Carl
>>
>> I'm not so sure, either.  I have a non-UV i1, and I'm reprofiling
>> papers for MIS Pro inks in a 7600, printing with ColorBurst.  I'm
>> profiling with ProfileMaker 5, which has new targets and seems to be
>> profiling much better than earlier versions.  Or maybe it's the ink.
>> Or both.  In any case, I'm getting very good results, at least in
>> color, and one duo-toned-style RGB b&w image so far.  All look
>> excellent to me- no surprises so far.  Admittedly the sample number
>> is small so far, but then if a problem with lack of filtration were
>> that significant, I think I would have seen it already.
>>
>> James
>