Digital BW, The Print

Strange...I still can't read it. There are a few letters and symbols that show up but mostly 
nothing. I wonder what the deal on my 'puter is. Oh well.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> 
wrote:
>
> Sarah,
> 
>  
> 
> Try it now.  The last time this happened there was some font incompatibility
> that was the source of the problem.  So, I tried to make sure it's all
> Arial, which has worked in the past.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sagaface
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:36 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Suggested Monochrome Inkset for Epson 2200? (for
> Paul R.)
> 
>  
> 
> Paul....I can't read your .pdf...it dowloads fine (I'm on a mac), but reads
> as gobbledygook.
> 
> anyplace else I could read this?
> 
> thank you,
> Sarah
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Joost,
> > 
> > 
> > > <paul.roark@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> This is the approach I'm using on my 2200:
> > >> http://home1. <http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf>
> gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf
> > > 
> > 
> > >Paul,
> > 
> > > I must confess I'm a bit puzzled by your suggestion of 
> > > this inkset for the 2200. I just (2 weeks) started to 
> > > work with the UT-3D set on my 2100. I have not made 
> > > all required profiles yet, but the early 
> > > results are very satisfying. ...
> > 
> > > Why this apparent change in direction?
> > 
> > Short answer: The 3D inkset is fine, and I use it. But my large format
> > tone instability, the advantages of standard inks, QC issues, and what I
> see
> > as the future of B&W printing have combined to alter the approach I'll be
> > using going forward.
> > 
> > The long answer gets too long to put everything in one post, but here are
> a
> > few factors that have influenced this change in direction.
> > 
> > First, note that in many ways the UT-3D approach will still have
> advantages
> > over the 4K+ or 5K+cm approach I'm moving to. For example, the Epson
> driver
> > is more convenient than a rip, and some purists may still prefer the
> blended
> > inks over the separate inks for desktop printers (but the 2200 with LM and
> > LLC is amazingly smooth, and standard inks allow me to use the best ink at
> > each position regardless of base compatibility, thus probably offsetting
> any
> > longevity advantages of blending). I might also add that the 3D inkset is
> > the one that I'll will be using for most of the museum project I'm on.
> It's
> > a good inkset, and I'm using it. 
> > 
> > That said, I had some specific problems I needed to solve, and the future
> > looks a lot different to me after the introduction of the Epson k3
> approach.
> > The 3D inkset may seem new to most, but I've been trying to solve it's
> > production and other problems for quite some time -- too long, in fact.
> > 
> > The immediate problem I had to solve involved the tone instability in my
> > 7500. My tests showed a huge advantage to non-blended inks. I tried some
> > experiments with altering the ink base to solve the problem, but I
> > ultimately gave up on that approach. While I found how to alter the
> > direction of the shifts, and while I think with enough time I could
> control
> > 2 different pigment types in an ink, when the number of pigments goes to
> 3,
> > I doubt a base can be made that will be as stable as one that can be
> > tailored to a single pigment type. I certainly don't have the time to work
> > on that solution at this point. Additionally, the other issues here argued
> > against a unique base as a solution. 
> > 
> > The bottom line is that a non-blended approach is all I'll be using for my
> > large format printers. My printing with the 7500 is too intermittent to
> > assure that I'll have tone stability from printing session to the next.
> > (Note that those who use their printers regularly will be un-affected by
> > this problem.) When one considers that the 3800 is a large format design,
> I
> > doubt I'll be looking at blended inkset solutions for it either. 
> > 
> > There are numerous advantages to standardized inks. Quality control,
> > competing vendors, and using the same inks in all printers, among them.
> One
> > should recall that the only reason we got into the dedicated inkset
> approach
> > and non-standard ink densities is that the mainstream color market did not
> > produce a system or inks that were adequate. That has changed. As with the
> > printers themselves, I think this small niche market needs to take
> > advantages of the high volume products that already exist if they serve
> our
> > purposes. I used to mix my own POTA developer for Technical Pan film --
> > until Kodak and others came out with products that were as good or better.
> > Then I used the simpler, pre-mixed solutions. 
> > 
> > Additionally, I think people need to be able to profile whatever inkset
> they
> > are using. There are all different levels of involvement here. The EZ and
> > R2 approaches have broad appeal because they do not require any hardware
> or
> > software other than the driver. I think these approaches will continue to
> > have appeal. On the other hand, the older variable tone inksets are
> > difficult for people to write new curves for unless they have a spectro
> and
> > the patience to fool around with profiling. Most do not.
> > 
> > Here the 2400 ABW mode really changes things. The ColorVision PFP's
> ability
> > to profile the 2400 Y=Carbon arrangement also takes semi-automatic
> profiling
> > to an inkset that is about as lightfast as is possible with today's
> > technology. The UT-3D inkset does work on the 2400, but, frankly, I'm not
> > sure there is much of a market at that level for an inkset that does not
> > take advantage of the technical improvements in profiling that are in
> place.
> > The Create ICC approach does extend the life of existing profiles
> somewhat,
> > but as totally new papers come onto the market, and as the ink tones
> drift,
> > keeping the print tones and ramps where they were intended becomes
> > increasingly difficult for most users, who simply rely on existing curves
> > and profiles.
> > 
> > Looking forward -- and that is the only direction I look -- for those who
> > want to do something that the OEM solutions can't do, I see rips and
> > standardized, competitive inks as the variable-tone approach that will
> > survive in this very changed environment. 
> > 
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>