Digital BW, The Print

Thanks for your input Tyler. It's much appreciated. I had thought
about possible bleeding problems also but hoped that using smaller
dots with multiple channels might help in limiting it while still
allowing good d'max. If it is a problem, I'll try the limits thing
with multi channels and see if it works. I have a 2nd 1200 that will
be a good candidate for multi black experiments as one channel has a
couple of nozzle drop outs I can't get rid of, so would just use 5
channels of black.
I remember the thread you are referring to and may have some of it
filed somewhere on one of my systems. I tend to do that when there's
info that seems pertinent to my machines.

Best regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >