Digital BW, The Print

There seems to be a lot of noise in both, but I agree that the UT2 looks
better and has less noise. Were these shot at high ISOs?

Andrew


On 06/21/2009 08:15 PM, Roger wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> After being content with the UTR2 inkset on a R220 for a few years I
> stepped up to an R1800 a while ago and tried the 3MK workflow.
> 
> I printed a 11x14 wedding album with it and am generally happy with the
> results, but for shots that call for smoothness (fog, skies, etc) it
> doesn't look nearly as good as UTR2. I'm wondering if the results I am
> getting are typical for this inkset.
> 
> I don't have a flatbed scanner so the following were shot on my 20D with
> a macro lens (forgive any color artifacts, etc this introduced).
> 
> Here are a few shots to illustrate the difference:
> 
> http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fogUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fogUTR2.jpg>
> vs
> http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fog3mk.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fog3mk.jpg>
> 
> Take a look at the skin tones and sky:
> http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kissUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kissUTR2.jpg>
> vs
> http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kiss3MK.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kiss3MK.jpg>
> 
> http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dressUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dressUTR2.jpg>
> and
> http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dress3MK.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dress3MK.jpg>
> 
> Does this look normal to you?
> Thanks,
> Roger
> 
>