Digital BW, The Print

This is the approach I'm using on my 2200:
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf

 

So far, I think the need for the rip is worth the inconvenience.  In fact,
as a few recent posts suggest, rips might even make for better prints.  For
me, it's mostly the ease of profiling and the inkset options they allow that
make the rips attractive.

 

The ease of profiling comes, in part, from the toners being very light (no
carbon in them).  I totally ignore density when changing tones.  The
linearization takes care of any impact.  There are also no cross-overs.  So,
all I deal with are 2 curves - LM and LLC (50% dilution of LC).  The profile
I use for my brightened PremierArt Matte BW paper involved only moving end
points and 2 internal points on 2 curves.  The profiling and experiments
took only 4 iterations from the neutral curve starting point.  That is way
faster than previous blended inkset approaches would have allowed.  The ease
of experimenting is part of what encouraged me to try the brightened paper
(the mainstream media), and the results appear superior - higher dynamic
range.  See my notes on this at
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/PM_Split_Tone.pdf .

 

Having non-blended toners does reduce smoothness a bit, but because the LLK
is lighter than the UT7 light inks, the smoothness is not compromised.  The
limiting factor is the LC - which the 2400 uses.  So, with a 50% dilution of
LC used in this approach, we're smoother than the 2400.  In fact, with the
LLLK in the 2200, it has the lightest ink I've ever used in highlights -
very questionable whether it adds anything that one will see in a photo.
The other options such as glop or yellow ink might be more useful in the
yellow spot.  Note that with brightened paper, I'm not using any colors in
the lightest highlights.  That smoothes them out even more than the older
variable-tone inksets.  Frankly, in the 2200, dots are just not a problem
with this approach.

 

It's nice to not have to worry about mixing errors.  The only blend in the
basic approach is a 1:1 blend of LC and base.  As you may have noticed in
earlier posts, we've found that Image Specialists glop is essential if not
exactly the same as MIS base (and glop).  So, all inputs are available
commodities, although MIS's prices are good enough that there is little
reason not to use their services and more convenient sizes.   I think this
approach avoids the sources of the mixing errors.  Moreover, I've worked
with MIS to get them doing QC on the LK that they buy wholesale.  As such,
the MIS LK should be more consistent than other third party inks.   One can,
of course, mix the LLC just by purchasing 2 bottles of standard MIS inks -
Lc and glop - and pouring them together. 

 

Note I'm using Epson UC LM now.   I'll be doing comparison fade testing to
determine which LM is the best.  One attraction to this approach is that it
opens up each position to competition.  I'll use the best ink form any
vendor.  Past tests suggest Epson UC LM is the best.  We'll see. 

 

I think this basic approach will work on all Epson printers.  So,
transitioning from one printer to another will be easier and cheaper.  Even
the curves are not that different.  With a rip, comparing the full-on ink
limit initial test pages of different printers allows one to alter the ink
limits appropriately.  Once that is done, I found the basic curves transfer
over from printer to printer with little alteration needed.

 

The 3800 is a "large format" design, and I think it shows the future.  All
blended inks I've been involved with are unstable and experience tone
changes if the carts and lines are not regularly used or agitated.  This
approach avoids that problem.  I expect the 3800 to be the first real mass
market large format printer.  Dealing with the blended ink tone shifts on
that scale is something I will not do. 

 

If we all end up going with the k3 approach, most of the inks we have on
hand will be useable even in that approach.  What I've basically done is
take the k3 approach and port it to other Epson printers - and improved it
by cutting the LC density in half.

 

In short, this is a variable-tone approach for virtually all Epson printers
that is largely compatible with where I see the mainstream going.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]