Digital BW, The Print

Daune, here's what I strongly suspect, not what I know...
Since I've been doing this so long I actually have some uncoated mono
Somerset prints around here somewhere (and they were beautiful in a
delicate sort of way) and have indeed played with dot size a lot, this
 MAY be useful.
I hope Roy answers though as QTR behavior and driver/printer behavior
is going to be more his area then mine.
I think your non variable printers are still selectable, in that
different quality settings may use different dots sizes, just not more
than one at once. Somewhere on this list long ago Roy explained that
to me.
Anyway, the 1200- if variable the dots size shifts with limits in the
sense that a severe limit will not allow the printer to go up to the
next size, sounds like you got that. However, if limited to the
smallest dot, it will not get to the same density at 1440 as it will
at 2880, because the small dot is too widely spaced. That's why at
1440 more sizes are necessary and available, and in my RIP, variable
dot, and sizes other than the smallest, are not selectable at 2880.
That's why I suggested 2880, if QTR works like my RIP, 2880 will allow
only the smallest dot for the entire doc, and with all inks, and still
allow max coverage if you want it.
What I don't know at all is if any of that is relevant to your 1200.
If you want to insure small dot only, and there is no dpi setting, or
any other setting, that lets you do that, you're back to your limit
question for Roy and I'm just blowing smoke.
Also possibly of interest to you, I suspect achieving good density
with no bleed will be one of your challenges. I think, at least with
one ink, you could get slightly higher density before bleed with
smaller dots than larger. However, with multiple inks, the reverse may
be true...
Yes, I've been attempting to turn the art of applying ink to paper
into some sort of mysticism, I'm beginning to suspect it's a
shockingly flawed concept for which I will pay dearly...
Tyler


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus"
<dlruckus@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Tyler. My printers are a 3000,a 1200 and a 7000. The 1200 is
> variable dot. The others are not. It's my understanding (perhaps
> warped but all I have to work with;) )that the dot size shifts with
> ink limits in QTR. What I was asking was if the dot size could be
> fixed at the smallest for an entire document regardless of ink limits.
> I think Roy told me that could happen only with reduced limits. Maybe
> you are correct and at the highest res that is what happens anyway. I
> seem to recall reading somewhere that it does in regard to the 2880dpi
> machines and the 1800. I don't know if that is the case with my older
> machines.
>  It's only really of interest to me in relation to using uncoated
> papers(yes,I know--but see my reference to understanding above) where
> I was considering that perhaps Paul's experiments could be
> extrapolated into a means of gaining hi(relatively) density shadows
> while still achieving a bit more smoothness within a BO workflow.
> Considering what Roy said, it looks as if that might work out anyhow
> and I can just try using multiple channels of black overlaid for the
> bottom, at full bore, while limiting a couple more for mids to get
> minimum dots and so on.
>  If anyone would know if that could work out, it would be you, as I
> understand you flagellate yourself with Rip texts as a means of
> approaching Nirvana in this life :).
>  With a paper such as the old Somerset Velvet and using Eboni which
> seems to me to be a bit stiffer than other inks I have any experience
> with, the old 1200 makes pretty fair BO prints as it is for some
> images. With just a shade more help they might be considerably better
> than just pretty fair. That, of course, might be very arguable for an
> old hand with large format like yourself.
> 
> Regards
> Duane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
> <tyler@> wrote:
> >
> > if you are trying to insure the smallest dot sizes are used with the
> tightest patters, can't 
> > you just select 2880, or whatever the highest res setting your
> printer offers?
> > Tyler
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus"
> <dlruckus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes. Thanks again. I think I see what you are saying and it would
> > > effectively be the same. I was looking for a way to have some
control,
> > > however slight, over the dottiness factor with BO as well as
achieving
> > > an enhanced d'max with uncoated papers. It's apparent that I still
> > > have a long way to go in learning the intricacies of a rip and
> it's use.
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > Duane
> > > 
> > >
>