Digital BW, The Print

Hi Clayton,


http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=ye
s&infoType=Specs&oid=37368464&category=Products

"Minimum Ink Droplet Size 

3 picoliters" [for the R200]

>> on the 260, straight K only was better than multiple channels of Eboni. 

>I'm wondering if the 2KBO approach might work on the 260.

I've tried that, and it's not bad.  However, the single K BO is essentially
the same quality, and it would allow color.  So, I'm thinking a single K BO
with either color or R2 in the midtone spots might be the formula that would
be most useful for the largest group.

Oddly, the glossy quality of the 260 with the MIS inks in just a couple
spots is bad.  It may take all the midtones pumping the R2 inks to hide the
banding.  That appears to be what Epson does with its "grayscale" printing.
It's full of color inks.  So, if a printer had R2 in the midtones and Eboni
in the K, one could do 100% carbon on matte paper with QTR, or neutral
blended matte B&W with the Epson "grayscale" mode, or neutral (or carbon
depending on R2 version loaded) glossy with either no cart swapping
(generating the dmax with the 2 dark R2s and either QTR or PS curves/ICC) or
with a PK swapped in.  I'm waiting for the R2 carts to test this.

>I looked at one of the 3MK curves and it looks like all 
>three are nearly the same, all stacked up on one another

There are actually important differences.  First, they start at different
points.  See the Point List tabs in QTR.  Second, they have slightly
different slopes.  It turns out if you have the exact same slope and density
for all the curves you get little vertical lines.

>(all three had same ink limit).

That makes it easier to set the dmax and linearize for different papers.
See the notes in the dmax test curve.

>That's what I began with, but it looked worse than 1K BO. 
>When I separated them by changing the ink limits it got better.

Yes, you were probably running into the same slope & same density problems.


> Ended up with a 4:1 ink limit ratio for optimum smoothness. 

I found also that I was able to achieve the same dmax with less ink if all
three were at the same level.  But, whatever works for that printer model is
what you need to do.  The printer models are clearly not all the same.

>I'm preparing some sample prints (including the 21-step) 
>to go out in tomorrow's mail. One of them is on Kayenta. 
>I'm especially curious to know how they compare to your 
>1K 260 prints because the 260 is the
>current model. My R200 won't live forever...

Yes, I'm curious also.  I recall well the Epson rep's comments to me that
Epson made the 220 too good.  It was cannibalizing the sales of their more
expensive units.  As such, I'm anxious also to see if the 1400 is the same
as the 260 or better.  Keep in mind that my mild disappointment with the 260
is mostly due to my assuming the 1400 would be able to take over from the
1800 in the future.  I still expect the 260 to make an outstanding entry
level B&W printer (if reliable carts & chips can be purchased).  If the 1400
is not up to the 1800 quality I'll just have to decide whether to buy
another 1800 and put it on the shelf for the future.  I'll probably be able
to borrow a 1400 in a few weeks to see how it does.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com