Digital BW, The Print

Hi Steve,

I assume you are referring to the Y ink being replaced with LLK.   If so, yes you
get rid of the 0.87% Y but there's more to the effect.  I think you'll then find that 
neutral is shifted quite a bit and you'll need to select warmer in the tone box 
which will then also reduce LC and LM.   Is it worth it?  I guess it depends.

Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:
>
> Or put another way, it¹s barely worth losing colour functionality (and
> reduced B&W toning) for a mere 0.87% of dots!
> 
> It would be interesting to see this analysis run for some other settings
> (e.g. warm and cool)
> 
> 
> From: Roy Harrington <roy@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 17:27:15 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Ink Comparison of Epson ABW and regular drivers
> 
> 
> Since there's been talk about the two Epson driver modes I thought
> it would be worthwhile seeing how they compare in ink usage.
> The following "prints" were done to a file and analyzed to see what
> commands were being sent to the printer.
> 
> Comparison of ink usage from the Epson R2400 with Epson driver
> Image - grayscale 21 step wedge
> Paper - Velvet Fine Art
> Quality - Best Photo (1440x1440)
> Both prints use 2 dot sizes, percents are weighted based on drop size
> 
> Epson ABW driver - neutral
> total 100% dots 9,763,341 small 2,532,646 medium
> K 31.27%
> LK 26.15%
> LLK 21.03%
> LM 12.76%
> LC  7.92%
> Y  0.87%
> 
> Epson standard driver - Epson Velvet Fine Art profile
> total 100% dots 10,393,768 small 2,694,351 medium
> K 32.84%
> LK 49.40%
> LLK  1.29%
> M  3.25%
> LM  4.39%
> C  2.90%
> LC  2.37%
> Y  3.54%
> 
> Some observations:
> ABW uses a lot more LLK --- 16 times!
> ABW uses a lot less Y   --- 1/4 the amount
> ABW uses no dark C and M
> 
> Interestingly this really supports the idea of replacing the Y
> ink with a LLK ink with either driver.
> 
> Roy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>