Digital BW, The Print

Tyler Boley wrote:
> There's been considerable talk about the enticing new printers from
> Epson's competitors, and various OEM solutions from these and the
> latest generation Epsons with regard to B&W printing capability. I
> can't possibly count the number of conversations I've had in the last
> 6 months on and off line about this, the basic tone being- there's no
> advantage to monochromatic inksets and product developers for the
> masses finally have my fine print aesthetic best interests at heart.
> What has struck me as distinctly odd is that most people involved in
> staying current about high end B&W ink printing know better. That may
> be one reason why they don't take part in these discussions, they are
> irrelevant to them. For some strange reason I'm not that smart, I'm
> part of this community and chose to remain for now...
> I work with UCK3s every day, with a 9800, rgb driver, or RIP. I use it
> for color, and monochrome outside the gamut of the mono inksets here.
> I'm fully aware of what it can do, and can't. In fact, even for mono
> (strong sepia, for example) the epson driver is less adequate here, we
> make special ink setups and profiles for that in the RIP.
> Anyway, take a look here-
>
> http://tylerboley.com/info/RGB_Quad.jpg
>
> these are sections about .8" high, one from the 9800 UCK3 w/ RGB
> driver and custom profile on HPR, the other a straight quad on the
> 9600, also HPR. Both at 1440, drum scanned at 2000 dpi and downsized
> to 1000dpi for posting here. 4000 dpi would have described the dots
> better and the difference would have been greater.
> The difference is obvious. Clearly there is photographic information
> in the file that the RGB driver operating normally is incapable of
> describing on paper. Not only resolution details, but levels of gray
> and tonal subtleties simply non-existent in one and not the other. To
> me, this constitutes "better". No question. That's what we want from
> output systems, accurate translation of data to the paper, subjective
> issues temporarily aside.
> I can't afford to constantly upgrade, I'm a very small business sole
> proprietor. So this is not even the current mono ink state of the art,
> I'm not  touting that or even my setup. If this was a well done K7 or
> K6 (of any brand), particularly at 2880, the difference would be even
> more striking.
> Can you see the difference by eye, is this dishonest? You can see it,
> clearly, and my eyes are old. One looks like large format, the other
> medium or fine grain 35mm, these are about 6.5 x 9" prints from 5x7
> drum scanned neg. I've not shown any sky, grainy in one and cream in
> the other. But you shouldn't believe stuff like that, it's just words.
> If you think these differences are relevant to you, look into them
> yourself.
>
> Here 's what I'm NOT talking about-
> You should or should not care about this difference, be willing to pay
> for it, or that it will be relevant to your style or source data.
> That you should prefer any particular method. I rarely even mention my
> setup on list, I have no interest in talking anyone into anything.
>
> Here's what I AM talking about-
> >From a purely technical standpoint, writing complex and nuanced
> monochrome data to paper, more grays and/or blacks than currently
> available from OEM solutions (at least the Epson K3s) are still
> better. Demonstrably and significantly. I've heard the HP dither is
> more random and photographic, but the Canon coarser, what those would
> do in this test remains to be seen.
> Slightly surprised we have to go back and demonstrate this again,
> actually. OK, slithering back into my cave... well, on the road actually.
> Tyler
Once again, Tyler has show that "he da man" by bringing some reality 
into the conversation. Thanks Tyler. This group needs the education from 
time to time, and I appreciate your efforts.
-- 
Bruce Watson
/












/