Digital BW, The Print

As I ponder my B&W printing plans for the coming year, which may vary from day to day, I wonder where others see the market going.


I anticipate staying with 100% carbon for my fine art work.  At the moment I'm probably going to stay with Eboni and MIS glossy carbon in the 7800, switching the order, however, to fit more with MIS's (and my) normal ink positions: Eboni-6 in the Y, LM, M, LC, and K spots; and MIS K4 LLK, LK, and (K = Eboni).  These are all in their normal or default positions.  MIS PK will be in the C position.  

While I will not be able to support all positions of a full Eboni-6 installation in a K3 printer, I will be able to make the basic QTR profiles that use 5 of the Eboni inks in their usual positions.  I will also be able to support an "Eboni-4" k3 installation, and I think a "dual quad" ink setup in a K3 printer makes a lot of sense for many.  Eboni-4 or -5 QTR profiles made for the 7800 probably just need re-linearization for other k3 printers.   

While I was at one time thinking of moving the MIS glossy carbon out of the 7800, the demand for the old photo reproductions printed in "sepia" (MIS glossy carbon on Museo Silver Rag) is too great to ignore.  It's been a very successful program for the local museum and for me; so I've agreed to continue to do their printing for the foreseeable future.  I've seen no microbanding from just using 3 glossy carbons in the 7800.  As such, I currently plan to stay with only 3 glossy carbons.

I'm still hunting for the best glossy neutral, but I'm not sure any of the pigments excite me enough to move the large printer in that direction.  HP, and to a lesser extent Canon, both are showing some green shift on glossy papers in some of the latest Aardenburg-Imaging (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/) fade tests.  See, for example,  this comparison of the HP and Canon B&W results on gloss papers: http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Canon-v-HP.JPG  (Note that the papers were different.)  

By the way, please be sure to continue or expand your donations to Aardenburg-Imaging even though the fade tests are now available free to non-members.  It's an enormously valuable database to the industry.  Just hit the PayPal button at the top of http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/ 

I'll be experimenting with an Epson R3000 in coming months, using OEM inks.  Realistically, the OEMs, and particularly Epson, have taken most of the market for B&W.  While I'll always be experimenting with alternative approaches, I do want to keep track of where the main market is.  I'll be curious what experimenting with the OEM setup produces.  In theory I think RGB and ABW workflows should merge.  If (a big IF) their gray substitution algorithms are good enough there should be no difference.  That is part of what I'll be experimenting with.  

The most "fun" inkset I've come up with recently is the B&W dyes. (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/BW-Dye.pdf) I have the WorkForce 30 set up with the easiest, single-gray setup, and the cards it's producing are very good.  (See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/WF30-BW-Dye.pdf)  

While a Claria native printer like the 1400 or the smaller ones would be ideal for the full hextone inkset, the WF 30 is cheaper and simpler.  The WF 30 is also less prone to banding due to paper transport issues, which can affect the 1400 near the edges of the cards and when the pre-scored bump hits a roller.  I will probably buy a WF 40 next due to its smaller, 2 pl drop.  I'll try to find some way to make the midtone ink available to others without mixing. Until Epson comes out with a K3 Claria printer, there is a big gap in the market here.  I will probably start selling the cards made with these inks through my usual gallery (http://gallerylosolivos.com/).

The 1400 will probably migrate back to full Eboni-6, so I'll support the 1400 and 1100 as the main desktop units with that inkset, which continues to be the top choice, in my view, for the most lighfast (and cheapest) fine art quality B&W prints.

FWIW ...


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

For me the most exciting recent development is QTR support for the x900
printers. 11 ink positions allows a broad range of b&w ink set options to be
supported simultaneously in one printer. I could never justify a large
format with just one ink set but if I can have 3 or more loaded at the same
time (with shared positions) then I am very happy.

Just waiting for Roy to release the Windows support.....

Mike

On 6 August 2011 22:06, Paul <roark.paul@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> As I ponder my B&W printing plans for the coming year, which may vary from
> day to day, I wonder where others see the market going.
>
> I anticipate staying with 100% carbon for my fine art work. At the moment
> I'm probably going to stay with Eboni and MIS glossy carbon in the 7800,
> switching the order, however, to fit more with MIS's (and my) normal ink
> positions: Eboni-6 in the Y, LM, M, LC, and K spots; and MIS K4 LLK, LK, and
> (K = Eboni). These are all in their normal or default positions. MIS PK will
> be in the C position.
>
> While I will not be able to support all positions of a full Eboni-6
> installation in a K3 printer, I will be able to make the basic QTR profiles
> that use 5 of the Eboni inks in their usual positions. I will also be able
> to support an "Eboni-4" k3 installation, and I think a "dual quad" ink setup
> in a K3 printer makes a lot of sense for many. Eboni-4 or -5 QTR profiles
> made for the 7800 probably just need re-linearization for other k3 printers.
>
>
> While I was at one time thinking of moving the MIS glossy carbon out of the
> 7800, the demand for the old photo reproductions printed in "sepia" (MIS
> glossy carbon on Museo Silver Rag) is too great to ignore. It's been a very
> successful program for the local museum and for me; so I've agreed to
> continue to do their printing for the foreseeable future. I've seen no
> microbanding from just using 3 glossy carbons in the 7800. As such, I
> currently plan to stay with only 3 glossy carbons.
>
> I'm still hunting for the best glossy neutral, but I'm not sure any of the
> pigments excite me enough to move the large printer in that direction. HP,
> and to a lesser extent Canon, both are showing some green shift on glossy
> papers in some of the latest Aardenburg-Imaging (
> http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/) fade tests. See, for example, this
> comparison of the HP and Canon B&W results on gloss papers:
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Canon-v-HP.JPG (Note that the papers were
> different.)
>
> By the way, please be sure to continue or expand your donations to
> Aardenburg-Imaging even though the fade tests are now available free to
> non-members. It's an enormously valuable database to the industry. Just hit
> the PayPal button at the top of http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/
>
> I'll be experimenting with an Epson R3000 in coming months, using OEM inks.
> Realistically, the OEMs, and particularly Epson, have taken most of the
> market for B&W. While I'll always be experimenting with alternative
> approaches, I do want to keep track of where the main market is. I'll be
> curious what experimenting with the OEM setup produces. In theory I think
> RGB and ABW workflows should merge. If (a big IF) their gray substitution
> algorithms are good enough there should be no difference. That is part of
> what I'll be experimenting with.
>
> The most "fun" inkset I've come up with recently is the B&W dyes. (
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/BW-Dye.pdf) I have the WorkForce 30 set
> up with the easiest, single-gray setup, and the cards it's producing are
> very good. (See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/WF30-BW-Dye.pdf)
>
> While a Claria native printer like the 1400 or the smaller ones would be
> ideal for the full hextone inkset, the WF 30 is cheaper and simpler. The WF
> 30 is also less prone to banding due to paper transport issues, which can
> affect the 1400 near the edges of the cards and when the pre-scored bump
> hits a roller. I will probably buy a WF 40 next due to its smaller, 2 pl
> drop. I'll try to find some way to make the midtone ink available to others
> without mixing. Until Epson comes out with a K3 Claria printer, there is a
> big gap in the market here. I will probably start selling the cards made
> with these inks through my usual gallery (http://gallerylosolivos.com/).
>
> The 1400 will probably migrate back to full Eboni-6, so I'll support the
> 1400 and 1100 as the main desktop units with that inkset, which continues to
> be the top choice, in my view, for the most lighfast (and cheapest) fine art
> quality B&W prints.
>
> FWIW ...
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Aug 6, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Paul wrote:

> As I ponder my B&W printing plans for the coming year, which may  
> vary from day to day, I wonder where others see the market going.

[snip]

> FWIW ...
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com


It's worth a lot to me to know your plans, Paul, even though I'm not  
trying to sell into the market. My plans are to reprint and document  
old, small-format B&W family photos for far-flung relatives and family  
friends. But I like to do it as well as I can and to send out long- 
lasting reprints with explanatory notes. And it wouldn't have occurred  
to me to try the WF printer if you hadn't mentioned it.

So I much appreciate this List, especially your remarkably generous  
contributions, including your going-forward post, which I'm sure a lot  
of us will be saving and updating. If you update it, I hope you can  
include a note about the plans for a session of your and Roy's B&W  
Photography workshop at the 2012 Golden Trout Natural History Workshop.

Thanks again.
--
Sam

One interesting thing that doesn't seem to have got much attention is the fact that some of K3 black and white tests over at Aardenburg seem to be faring a lot better than anyone would have expected reading posts on forums over the last few years over the concern with colour inks to produce neutral tones.  Many samples are still passing at the 60 Megalux hour point.  Did I miss something in all of this?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam McCandless <samcc@...> wrote:

>
> On Aug 6, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Paul wrote:
> 
> > As I ponder my B&W printing plans for the coming year, which may  
> > vary from day to day, I wonder where others see the market going.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > FWIW ...
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> It's worth a lot to me to know your plans, Paul, even though I'm not  
> trying to sell into the market. My plans are to reprint and document  
> old, small-format B&W family photos for far-flung relatives and family  
> friends. But I like to do it as well as I can and to send out long- 
> lasting reprints with explanatory notes. And it wouldn't have occurred  
> to me to try the WF printer if you hadn't mentioned it.
> 
> So I much appreciate this List, especially your remarkably generous  
> contributions, including your going-forward post, which I'm sure a lot  
> of us will be saving and updating. If you update it, I hope you can  
> include a note about the plans for a session of your and Roy's B&W  
> Photography workshop at the 2012 Golden Trout Natural History Workshop.
> 
> Thanks again.
> --
> Sam
>

Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
>
> For me the most exciting recent development is QTR support 
> for the x900 printers. 11 ink positions allows a broad range
> of b&w ink set options to be
> supported simultaneously in one printer...

Yes, a "Tri Quad" setup sounds good.

> Just waiting for Roy to release the Windows support...

I hope the R3000 support for Windows is out soon enough for me to use it on the loaner I'll be experiementing with.


Sam McCandless <samcc@...> wrote:
>
> ... My plans are to reprint and document  
> old, small-format B&W family photos ...

I'm a big fan of archiving old photos with the carbon pigments.  

> ... I hope you can  
> include a note about the plans for a session of your and Roy's B&W  
> Photography workshop at the 2012 Golden Trout Natural History Workshop.

I assume it will happen again next year.  Being on the mailing list is the best way to assure that you get notice of it as soon as we open it up for registration -- about the end of January.  For thos interested who are not on the list, just send me a street address off list.


"wattsies67" <wattsie@...> wrote:
>
> One interesting thing that doesn't seem to have got much attention is the fact that some of K3 black and white tests over at Aardenburg seem to be faring a lot better than anyone would have expected ...

For most uses the K3 approach is fine.  There is a reason that is where most of the market is.  You will note that I'm going to be experimenting with an R3000 with OEM inks.

On the other hand, note the little comparison chart I have on page 1 of http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-4-Plus.pdf.  No inkset with color pigments in it can touch the stability of 100% carbon.

Note also the chart Mark has on page 4 of all of his fade test reports at http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/.  There is a huge variance in the amount of light that a print will be exposed to in differing display situations.  60 Mlux-hrs, for example is equal to only 6.8 years of commercial gallery lighting.  For people printing to that market, that is not a very long time.  But the OEM processes are fine for the vast majority of uses.  

There is a lot to be said for the k3 approach, but it is really a color printing approach that just happens to make reasonably good B&W prints also.  For those who are targeting just B&W, it's not a very efficient use of the printer.  

From my perspective, it's fun to be able to make very much more stable prints for very much less money. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

>> For me the most exciting recent development is QTR support
>> for the x900 printers. 11 ink positions allows a broad range
>> of b&w ink set options to be
>> supported simultaneously in one printer...

>Yes, a "Tri Quad" setup sounds good.

In fact because of ink position sharing I plan to get "Tri Hextone" such as
neutral / sepia / split out of 11 ink positions.

Mike

On 7 August 2011 07:42, Paul <roark.paul@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
> >
> > For me the most exciting recent development is QTR support
> > for the x900 printers. 11 ink positions allows a broad range
> > of b&w ink set options to be
> > supported simultaneously in one printer...
>
> Yes, a "Tri Quad" setup sounds good.
>
>
> > Just waiting for Roy to release the Windows support...
>
> I hope the R3000 support for Windows is out soon enough for me to use it on
> the loaner I'll be experiementing with.
>
> Sam McCandless <samcc@...> wrote:
> >
> > ... My plans are to reprint and document
> > old, small-format B&W family photos ...
>
> I'm a big fan of archiving old photos with the carbon pigments.
>
> > ... I hope you can
> > include a note about the plans for a session of your and Roy's B&W
> > Photography workshop at the 2012 Golden Trout Natural History Workshop.
>
> I assume it will happen again next year. Being on the mailing list is the
> best way to assure that you get notice of it as soon as we open it up for
> registration -- about the end of January. For thos interested who are not on
> the list, just send me a street address off list.
>
> "wattsies67" <wattsie@...> wrote:
> >
> > One interesting thing that doesn't seem to have got much attention is the
> fact that some of K3 black and white tests over at Aardenburg seem to be
> faring a lot better than anyone would have expected ...
>
> For most uses the K3 approach is fine. There is a reason that is where most
> of the market is. You will note that I'm going to be experimenting with an
> R3000 with OEM inks.
>
> On the other hand, note the little comparison chart I have on page 1 of
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-4-Plus.pdf. No inkset with color
> pigments in it can touch the stability of 100% carbon.
>
> Note also the chart Mark has on page 4 of all of his fade test reports at
> http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/. There is a huge variance in the amount
> of light that a print will be exposed to in differing display situations. 60
> Mlux-hrs, for example is equal to only 6.8 years of commercial gallery
> lighting. For people printing to that market, that is not a very long time.
> But the OEM processes are fine for the vast majority of uses.
>
> There is a lot to be said for the k3 approach, but it is really a color
> printing approach that just happens to make reasonably good B&W prints also.
> For those who are targeting just B&W, it's not a very efficient use of the
> printer.
>
> From my perspective, it's fun to be able to make very much more stable
> prints for very much less money.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
>
> ... because of ink position sharing I plan to get 
> "Tri Hextone" such as
> neutral / sepia / split out of 11 ink positions.
> 

That sounds interesting.  The general discussion brings up an interesting issue I've found in my experiments with profiling and the use of differing numbers of inks and types of profiles.

The dogma is that the more channels of gray ink we have printing, the smoother the final print.  This dogma is probably a good starting point, but my experience is that not only is it characterized by decreasing marginal utility, but more may actually be worse in some situations.

With the Epson 1800 and Eboni, in the experiments that ultimately lead to the "3-MK" workflow with 3 full strength Eboni channels, I tried all sorts of different numbers of channels of that ink.  For that printer and approach, the smoothest was about 3.5 channels.  That is, while subsequent experience found that a minority of the 1800 printers needed 4 to be smooth, mine was about equal between 3 and 4, and less smooth above that.  While the final decision to go with a 3-MK approach obviously was influenced by that number also allowing color to be installed, I found that more channels did not necessarily result in smoother prints, at least with that type of arrangement.

Similarly, with a good 1400 and using a channel that does not band (not all channels are equal on mine), a single black only can be smoother than  the 1800 3-MK workflow.  

At least with the use of multiple high density inks, as in the 3-MK approach, it appears that once enough are employed to hide the banding, the use of more channels begins to increase the noise in (roughness of) the print.  With scanning and digital exposures I'm accustomed to thinking that random noise is averaged out with multiple sampling.  With printing at least with the 1800 3-MK setup, however, noise appears to be additive.   

Note that this issue is where multiple channels are firing at the same time, not where they are used in a serial partitioning profile. But it does raise the issue of whether, using multiple overlapping channels will always lead to a smoother result.

While I've been a fan of making profiles with more overlaps in them, with my 7800 I tested profiles with overlapping, dual channels, using QTR, and found the smoothest was the single, serially-partitioned profile -- the standard, simple QTR all-gray (no "toners") profile, made using Roy's semi-automatic partitioning algorithm. 

It may be that there is a trade off between hiding banding and increasing noise in the system.  Also, I think there is an issue of the tolerance of a profile to inconsistent papers and inks, and that issue probably favors more channels firing at the same time.  

Overall, there seem to be a lot of different issues that affect our printing, but it may be that more inks firing at the same time is not necessarily a good thing.  Noise, including possibly not only the dots but the dithering patterns, in our printing systems may, at least in some respects, be additive.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

I think an interesting point is that with 6/7 dilutions you are also often
printing with only 3 or 4 inks at once.

Also I find the amount of overlap can have a big impact on print quality.
I find QTR standard partitioning even with 7 ink dilutions can lead to
posterization in the 3/4 tones which goes away if I use a more overlapped
approach like Cone's K7.

Of course then I tend to get a slightly lower dmax as more ink dilutions @
dmax tends to lower it.

In the end the great thing with QTR is that, combined with a linearization
tool, you can do anything you want with the inks and so you can tweak to
optimize any given ink/printer/paper/image if you want.

Cheers,

Mike

On 7 August 2011 15:42, Paul <roark.paul@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Michael King <drmrking@...> wrote:
> >
> > ... because of ink position sharing I plan to get
> > "Tri Hextone" such as
> > neutral / sepia / split out of 11 ink positions.
> >
>
> That sounds interesting. The general discussion brings up an interesting
> issue I've found in my experiments with profiling and the use of differing
> numbers of inks and types of profiles.
>
> The dogma is that the more channels of gray ink we have printing, the
> smoother the final print. This dogma is probably a good starting point, but
> my experience is that not only is it characterized by decreasing marginal
> utility, but more may actually be worse in some situations.
>
> With the Epson 1800 and Eboni, in the experiments that ultimately lead to
> the "3-MK" workflow with 3 full strength Eboni channels, I tried all sorts
> of different numbers of channels of that ink. For that printer and approach,
> the smoothest was about 3.5 channels. That is, while subsequent experience
> found that a minority of the 1800 printers needed 4 to be smooth, mine was
> about equal between 3 and 4, and less smooth above that. While the final
> decision to go with a 3-MK approach obviously was influenced by that number
> also allowing color to be installed, I found that more channels did not
> necessarily result in smoother prints, at least with that type of
> arrangement.
>
> Similarly, with a good 1400 and using a channel that does not band (not all
> channels are equal on mine), a single black only can be smoother than the
> 1800 3-MK workflow.
>
> At least with the use of multiple high density inks, as in the 3-MK
> approach, it appears that once enough are employed to hide the banding, the
> use of more channels begins to increase the noise in (roughness of) the
> print. With scanning and digital exposures I'm accustomed to thinking that
> random noise is averaged out with multiple sampling. With printing at least
> with the 1800 3-MK setup, however, noise appears to be additive.
>
> Note that this issue is where multiple channels are firing at the same
> time, not where they are used in a serial partitioning profile. But it does
> raise the issue of whether, using multiple overlapping channels will always
> lead to a smoother result.
>
> While I've been a fan of making profiles with more overlaps in them, with
> my 7800 I tested profiles with overlapping, dual channels, using QTR, and
> found the smoothest was the single, serially-partitioned profile -- the
> standard, simple QTR all-gray (no "toners") profile, made using Roy's
> semi-automatic partitioning algorithm.
>
> It may be that there is a trade off between hiding banding and increasing
> noise in the system. Also, I think there is an issue of the tolerance of a
> profile to inconsistent papers and inks, and that issue probably favors more
> channels firing at the same time.
>
> Overall, there seem to be a lot of different issues that affect our
> printing, but it may be that more inks firing at the same time is not
> necessarily a good thing. Noise, including possibly not only the dots but
> the dithering patterns, in our printing systems may, at least in some
> respects, be additive.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 08/07/2011 04:42 PM, Paul wrote:

>
> The dogma is that the more channels of gray ink we have printing, the
> smoother the final print.  This dogma is probably a good starting
> point, but my experience is that not only is it characterized by
> decreasing marginal utility, but more may actually be worse in some
> situations.
>
> With the Epson 1800 and Eboni, in the experiments that ultimately
> lead to the "3-MK" workflow with 3 full strength Eboni channels, I
> tried all sorts of different numbers of channels of that ink.  For
> that printer and approach, the smoothest was about 3.5 channels.
> That is, while subsequent experience found that a minority of the
> 1800 printers needed 4 to be smooth, mine was about equal between 3
> and 4, and less smooth above that.  While the final decision to go
> with a 3-MK approach obviously was influenced by that number also
> allowing color to be installed, I found that more channels did not
> necessarily result in smoother prints, at least with that type of
> arrangement.

> Similarly, with a good 1400 and using a channel that does not band
> (not all channels are equal on mine), a single black only can be
> smoother than  the 1800 3-MK workflow.

At the time when BO printing was first discussed I mentioned the use of 
more channels for black ink to even out banding issues. There would be 
cons and pros I wrote then. With the same inks used over more channels 
the droplet size is forced to the minimum size and addressing of minimum 
droplet sizes usually is not as good as larger drop sizes. On the 
highest printer resolutions the minimum droplet size is already used but 
I still wonder about the black channel though, it is much more difficult 
to achieve a good Dmax with many minimum sized droplets than with fewer 
bigger droplets. The use of minimum droplet sizes may show small 
differences between head qualities faster. Then there is the dotgain 
that should be more inconsistent with smaller droplets compared to 
bigger ones (humidity, coating differences). Few manufacturer solutions 
use the same ink on two channels but on the Canon iPF500 (510,610 etc) 
model there are two MK channels used to get a higher density and the 
droplet size is the standard 4 picoliter of all the iPF models. In that 
case the droplet placement is still in Canon hands and could have been 
optimised for that combination. Which is a thing I mentioned in the 
past, is the weaving of a color printer optimal for a B&W printer?  Is 
noise created in a kind of aliasing of smaller droplets/dots to larger 
irregular dots as a result of unsuitable weaving, droplet addressing 
issues and more dotgain?

The question is whether the photo quality printers use more consistent 
heads than the workforce models starting from the same minimum droplet 
size. In most custom made solutions the highest resolution is used so 
the droplet variation does not come into use but I wonder if there is 
also a difference there too between the printer classes. In the Epson 
dry Minilab technology I recall a droplet variation of 5 or 6 droplet 
sizes and I can only guess that the minimum must be near 1 picoliter for 
a satisfying 4x6 quality. Single array heads that do not move and few 
choices of media so the platen gap/droplet addressing can be kept as 
optimal as possible. Maybe the droplets sizes are divided to two heads 
placed after another in the paper path.

> At least with the use of multiple high density inks, as in the 3-MK
> approach, it appears that once enough are employed to hide the
> banding, the use of more channels begins to increase the noise in
> (roughness of) the print.  With scanning and digital exposures I'm
> accustomed to thinking that random noise is averaged out with
> multiple sampling.  With printing at least with the 1800 3-MK setup,
> however, noise appears to be additive.

There is no averaging to a single value done of variable readings like 
in scanner multi sampling but a correct tone value is divided over 
several nozzles with different qualities and the uncertainties mentioned 
above start to play a role. Banding can be solved with more channels up 
to a point where irregular dot shapes, inconstant dot sizes become worse 
than nice big round dots placed precisely.

> Note that this issue is where multiple channels are firing at the
> same time, not where they are used in a serial partitioning profile.
> But it does raise the issue of whether, using multiple overlapping
> channels will always lead to a smoother result.

The pros and cons still apply there, banding can be reduced by overlaps 
and irregular/inconstant dots made with different ink dilutions will not 
be as visible but stretched too much give a similar noise experience.

> Overall, there seem to be a lot of different issues that affect our
> printing, but it may be that more inks firing at the same time is not
> necessarily a good thing.  Noise, including possibly not only the
> dots but the dithering patterns, in our printing systems may, at
> least in some respects, be additive.
>
> Paul www.PaulRoark.com

Which hints at and sums up what I tried to describe.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:
>
> As I ponder my B&W printing plans for the coming year, which may vary from day to day, I wonder where others see the market going.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still hunting for the best glossy neutral, but I'm not sure any of the pigments excite me enough to move the large printer in that direction.  

I cannot go past 3MK on Hahn Rag Pearl (a touch warm) or Canson Infinity Platine Fibre Rag (less so) using gelatin to both coat the paper and mount it to board or dibond. Or if you are in a hurry, just spray with Hahn spray.

"hp9180profile" <owens@...> wrote:
>
> 
> ...
> I cannot go past 3MK on Hahn Rag Pearl (a touch warm) or Canson Infinity Platine Fibre Rag (less so)

By coincidence, I just plugged in my old 1800 for the first time in a few years.  We'll see if Windex can revive the head.  What I may try is to see if the 1800 can support an easy one-midtone-density workflow like the C88 and WorkForce printers.

> using gelatin to both coat the paper and mount it to board or dibond. 

How are you coating with gelatin?

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Having recently set up several B&W dye inksets, from a complex variable-tone hextone to very easy WorkFlow 30 and C88 that require only 2 ink bottles (K + one dilute LK mix), I've concluded that the WF 30 with the easy 3-LK quadtone makes the best combination.  

With the sequentially starting curves embedded in ICCs it is smooth enough that only pixel peepers will see the dots, and I'm not concerned about them.  We're way past the need to hide the fact that we're using inkjet technology.

The WF 30 makes excellent images without visible banding at edges (unlike the 1.5 pl printers).  Cheapest and best works for me.

I might note that these sequential PS curves in ICCs have proven to be very portable among papers.  All I have to do is run an 80-100 test strip to determine the ink load, and then a second 21-step with a curve that has been modified to reflect the ink load.  Only the 50 to 100 area of the existing sequential curve needs to be changed.  It's just a straight line.  Multiple trials have not been needed -- just one 21-step and it's ready for Create ICC-RGB to make a linearized, color-managed ICC profile.

With this kind of success, I'll set up the 1100 with this kind of dye and Eboni workflow also.

So, basically, at this point it's Eboni for matte and Noritsu-Epson dyes for glossy (where long term display image permanence is not a major factor).  I'll probably take a look at the R3000 with OEM inks to fill in the middle of the scale and deal with the variable tone options.

(Am I the only one interested in these dyes?  If you might be interested in buying pre-mixed Noritsu-Epson LK, please contact me off list.  The B&W glossy cards, and maybe the inks are going commercial.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Keep us posted on progress with your 1800, Paul. Mine's still going strong, with your 3MK setup, but I'd be interested in the one midtone setup. 

Thanks!

Paul

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:

>
> "hp9180profile" <owens@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > ...
> > I cannot go past 3MK on Hahn Rag Pearl (a touch warm) or Canson Infinity Platine Fibre Rag (less so)
> 
> By coincidence, I just plugged in my old 1800 for the first time in a few years.  We'll see if Windex can revive the head.  What I may try is to see if the 1800 can support an easy one-midtone-density workflow like the C88 and WorkForce printers.
> 
> > using gelatin to both coat the paper and mount it to board or dibond. 
> 
> How are you coating with gelatin?
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

"Paul" <paulmwhiting@...> wrote:
>
> Keep us posted on progress with your 1800, Paul. ...

Sadly, my 1800 could not be easily revived.  Given all the issues I had with that printer heroics are not warranted.  While the 3-MK setup was very successful, that 1800 was right up there with the 1280 in terms of problems/$.

For easy 13" dye capability, I'll first try my 1100 with the single-dilution quad setup.  

I'm not sure why the dyes are smoother than pigments with this type of setup, but they are.  The 3 pl WF 30 prints are simply better than the 1400, at least when only 2 positions of the 1400 are used.  The 1.5 pl and higher dmax of the 1400 make it look better on paper, but the microbanding at the narrow leading edges of cards and due to the pre-scored fold of the card stock more than offset the theoretical 1400 advantages.  No viewer will ever see the lower dmax or larger drop size of the WF 30 (and hopefully  1100).

I wonder what drop size the Noritsu dry lab printers use.  They do not use light color inks, which probably causes their prints to look worse under the microscope, but I wonder if customers ever see the difference.  I suspect they use roll paper and cut it after printing, so they may be able to avoid the feed problems we've seen on the 1.5 pl printers.  

At one point I thought the WF 40 with it 2 pl drop might be a better printer, but it may be discontinued (according to B&H & out of stock at Epson).  At this point I don't see any need for more than the WF 30 for cards and 8x10. So, I'll probably buy another one of those as my card printer.  The cards are definitely worth a dedicated WF 30 dye printer. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:
>
> "Paul" <paulmwhiting@> wrote:
> >
> > Keep us posted on progress with your 1800, Paul. ...
> 
> Sadly, my 1800 could not be easily revived.  Given all the issues I had with that printer heroics are not warranted.  While the 3-MK setup was very successful, that 1800 was right up there with the 1280 in terms of problems/$.

Sorry to hear that, Paul. I supposed my 1800 still being ok is that I use it fairly often, and during lulls in my printing I do a nozzle check now and then just to keep the jets open. And I'm sure you've tried Art Entlich's tricks and perhaps a few of your own.

By the way, the test prints I submitted to Aardenburg, the ones made with my 1800 and 3MK, just passed the 70 megalux-hours test. Still doing well...

Been following your work with the WF printers... that may be just the setup for a friend who wants to get his feet wet in digital printing.
I'll stay tuned.

Cheers,

Paul

Re: Going forward

"Paul" <paulmwhiting@...> wrote:
>
>...
> By the way, the test prints I submitted to Aardenburg, 
> the ones made with my 1800 and 3MK, just passed the 
> 70 megalux-hours test. Still doing well...


The 100% carbon inksets are doing spectacularly well. I think the sprayed Premier Art and Eboni that you put in will ultimately be the most lightfast, but at 100 Mlux-hours the HPR unsprayed version has straight 100's for the I* Color rating. I'm not sure if any other inkset has done this (doubt it).

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Re: Going forward
> 
> "Paul" <paulmwhiting@> wrote:
> >
> >...
> > By the way, the test prints I submitted to Aardenburg, 
> > the ones made with my 1800 and 3MK, just passed the 
> > 70 megalux-hours test. Still doing well...
> 
> 
> The 100% carbon inksets are doing spectacularly well.

Paul, my apologies, I think I asked you this before...but when we use cartridges that contain a diluted Eboni (diluted with a clear base fluid, no color), with various concentrations in each cartridge, is that also known as 100% carbon? Or does 100% carbon mean using only cartridges with undiluted carbon?

This time I will print out your answer and file it!

Thanks,

Paul

"Paul" <paulmwhiting@...> wrote:
>
> 
> ... when we use cartridges that contain a diluted Eboni (diluted with a clear base fluid, no color), with various concentrations in each cartridge, is that also known as 100% carbon? Or does 100% carbon mean using only cartridges with undiluted carbon?


As long as the image forming substance is carbon (no color added), I call it 100% carbon pigment.  

Eboni MK is carbon at a pigment load (pigment weight relative to base/liquid weight) of about 20%.  (I don't know what Eboni's exact load is.  Some MKs are about 22%.)  When Eboni MK is diluted, the load or ratio of pigment to clear base decreases, but it's still only carbon pigment suspended in base.  When any of this is printed the carbon stays on the upper parts of the paper/coating, and the base is pulled into the paper/coating.  The pigment particles on the paper upper surfaces that form the image are all carbon and all the same in Eboni-6 and in Eboni 3-MK.

A relevant issue related to fading is whether the more dilute versions of the 100% carbon pigment inks fade faster than the MK.  With dyes it was generally believed that the more dilute mixes faded faster than the more concentrated mixes.  The crystalline structure on the paper that was formed by the dilute dyes was thinner than that formed by the more concentrated dyes.  These thinner crystalline structures, apparently, more easily allowed oxygen to reach the dye crystals and attack them.  Fade is, generally, oxidation, usually induced or accelerated by light.

The more dilute Eboni mixes have not been test at Aardenburg-Imaging.  However, Jon Cone's Piezotone Carbon Sepia has been tested, and it has a variety of different dilutions in it. (The Museum MK appears to be a different  pigment than the midtone inks.)  To see how the different dilutions of that inkset performed, I graphed the delta-e for the different density patches.  I also graphed the density v. delta-e for your sample of the 3MK Eboni inks that have only the higher concentration Eboni MK as the image forming substance.  The graphs are posted at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/CarbSepia-Eboni3MK-density-delta-e.jpg 

The graphs look rather similar (ignoring the Museum MK).  The papers are different, and the 3-MK version is sprayed (and we don't know what that does with carbon), but the basic shapes are the same.  When the bumps as smoothed, the bottom line is that the paper is the most unstable part of the package, and the carbon -- low concentration or high concentration -- is very stable.

(I don't know what the story is with Museum MK's higher delta-e, but I believe the midtone Carbon Sepia inks are not simply dilute Museum MK.  If I'm wrong here I hope someone will correct me.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul mentioned the WF30.  Anybody know if the WF630 is the same as re: printing?  The Epson site data seems the same except the WF630 has a scanner, fax, etc.  The WF630 is on the Apple site with a $100 rebate (if purchased with a computer) which is the reason I'm asking.

Dan

Daniel Hein <flambeau@...> wrote:
>
> Paul mentioned the WF30.  Anybody know if the WF630 is the same as re: printing?  ...



I don't know, but if the carts are the same, there is a good chance it is the same.  Check the product codes (?) of the carts that Epson sells for the printers.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <roark.paul@...> wrote:
>
> "Paul" <paulmwhiting@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > ... when we use cartridges that contain a diluted Eboni (diluted with a clear base fluid, no color), with various concentrations in each cartridge, is that also known as 100% carbon? Or does 100% carbon mean using only cartridges with undiluted carbon?
> 
> 
> As long as the image forming substance is carbon (no color added), I call it 100% carbon pigment. 

Thanks, Paul... here's a related question: what exactly do we mean by "Black Only" printing. Is this related to that option in certain earlier Epson drivers? Or does the term have a broader meaning, that we are using a set of carts containing one or more undiluted carbon pigment carts but also some various dilutions of the carbon pigment - thus necessitating QTR? 

I will have to study the remaining portion of your answer...

Regards,

Paul

Given the minimum droplet sizes of the Epson wide formats are 3.5 
picoliter, I can understand there is still a quality gain in using more 
black ink dilutions like the 6 or 7 ink varities more often discussed 
here. With smaller droplets up to 1.5 picoliter in desktop models, is 
there an equivalent reduction possible on the number of diluted inks 
used? For example 1.5/3.5 x 7 = 3 inks for a 1.5 droplet?  Is the image 
quality more or less equal along that range or is it not that simple? 
Maximum print size to compare A2-A3.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

On 08/28/2011 05:09 PM, Paul wrote:

> I wonder what drop size the Noritsu dry lab printers use.  They do not use light color inks, which probably causes their prints to look worse under the microscope, but I wonder if customers ever see the difference.  I suspect they use roll paper and cut it after printing, so they may be able to avoid the feed problems we've seen on the 1.5 pl printers.

> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Printing off the roll, roll wide printhead (assembled heads) and 5 or 6 
droplet sizes (could be they count white as well) and I estimate a 1.5 
or 2 picoliter minimum droplet size given the 4x6 minimum print size.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:
>
> Given the minimum droplet sizes of the Epson wide formats 
> are 3.5 picoliter, I can understand there is still a quality 
> gain in using more black ink dilutions like the 6 or 7 ink 
> varities more often discussed here. 

Given the limited number of ink channels/positions we have to deal with, my usual problem is determining the least number of inks needed for smoothness that is good enough that no one will ever sense a problem with a print.  This seems to vary among printers and also with a single printer depending on which positions are used.

I recently re-configured my 7800, in which I've had for several years 5 Eboni-based inks (100% and 4 dilutions) for just slightly warm matte printing, and 3 MIS glossy carbons -- K4 LLK, LK, and PK -- for making "sepia" toned (Lab B = 14) prints on Museo Silver Rag.  In the previous configuration the MIS glossy inks showed no microbanding even on absolutely smooth test strips. The new configuration has the inks in different spots such that they'll coordinate better with the "normal" ink positions.  So, the same inks are in the 7800, but they are in different positions.  Now I'm able to see some microbanding in the 3 MIS glossy carbons.  It looks like 3 gray inks is not always enough in my 7800.

Since I've committed to supporting the local museum's old photo reproduction program, which includes sales, I need to improve the glossy performance (though in actual prints the microbanding is hidden).  To do this I'll probably go to what I call a "Dual Quad" arrangement -- Eboni-4 (2%, 6% [LLK], 18% [LK], and K), and 4 MIS glossy carbons. For the glossy inks I'll probably do with the dual-LK setup that I used in the 1100 for a while (see http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/1100-HpGO.pdf).  It worked very well in the 1100 and keeps the setup closer to standard ink densities.

I've compared the 4 v. 5 ink Eboni printing on the 7800, and they seem very close with standard coated papers.  I have yet to test Arches uncoated hot press.  That is where I fear I may see a drop in quality with only 4 inks.  I'll test that later.

At any rate, the point where there are "enough" inks for smoothness, at least in my 7800 (which I think it a good sample) may be at the traditional "quad" level.  More inks may be smoother, particularly, I suspect, on uncoated papers, but a 4-ink "quad" setup, seems to give enough coverage that no one will see any inkjet artifacts (which are always there if you look at a high res scan).


> With smaller droplets up to 1.5 picoliter in desktop models,
> is there an equivalent reduction possible on the number of 
> diluted inks used? For example 1.5/3.5 x 7 = 3 inks for a 
> 1.5 droplet?  Is the image quality more or less equal along 
> that range or is it not that simple? 
> Maximum print size to compare A2-A3.

I don't know.

With my B&W dyes, the prints made with only 2 inks (an "LK" and Noritsu/Claria K, in the LC and C positions) look excellent, but only when the paper transport is perfect.  This means both rollers are engaged, and it excludes the area where the pre-scored bump in the Red River card stock hits one of the transport rollers.  

I'm seriously considering trying a fuller dye ink setup in the 1400 in a few weeks to see if more inks can smooth over these problem areas.  At this point, however, the WF 30, with the LK dye in all the color positions and Noritsu K in the K position, does much better than the 1400 at the edges.  Whether the difference is due to more inks or the larger 3 pl drop of the WF 30 is not known.

Note that the dyes are smoother than pigments in the 1400.  With dyes, I don't see any reason to go more dilute than an LK density (30% K).

So, the 1400 setup I'm considering will use un-toned Noritsu K and 30% K in the cyan channel and act as the low gamut cyan.  A "neutralizing" (26% magenta) channel will be in the magenta channel.  This would be the low gamut magenta channel.  These 2 can then be used for all glossy papers where a cool tone is needed, giving 4 inks, with at least 2 firing at all places along the scale. 

I'll also add yellow in that position.  This will give the system a full 3-D capability.  It'll also allow me to do a specific thing I'm looking for -- taking the blue out of the borders of my brochures.  That is, I'll be able to use the Epson driver to print brochures where  1-2% yellow will neutralize the OBAs of the borders.  I'll also be able to print a warm glossy image, which many prefer.  Bright paper with warm shadows was the "Lenswork" formula that so many liked.

I'll also probably put Eboni in the 1400 K position.  This opens up matte paper printing for all papers.  The 26% magenta LK is what I found was needed to tame the greenish highlights of HPR and some other matte papers.  Most matte papers have a very low dmax with dyes.  HPR (actually hit density 2.0 on one test) and Red River Premium Matte Plus are the exceptions.  The Eboni will allow a good dmax on all papers.  So, this 1400 setup will be a full-service dye printer that should be able to do quite a bit.  

However, whether this proposed 1400 setup will be able to tame the narrow border banding is unknown.  Eboni-6 didn't.  I'm suspicious 1.5 pl printers are more sensitive to paper transport issues than 3 pl printers.  But, again, dyes are smoother and the 1400 was made for dyes.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

On 09/05/2011 06:30 PM, Paul wrote:

> However, whether this proposed 1400 setup will be able to tame the
> narrow border banding is unknown.  Eboni-6 didn't.  I'm suspicious
> 1.5 pl printers are more sensitive to paper transport issues than 3
> pl printers.  But, again, dyes are smoother and the 1400 was made for
> dyes.
>
> Paul www.PaulRoark.com

And I wonder whether 1.5 picoliter droplets are harder to address in 
general and will change course in any condition that is less ideal so 
for example at the edges of the sheet. With better control on the platen 
gap; more step choices on the distance between nozzle and substrate and 
the substrate kept as flat as possible the conditions can be improved. 
On cheaper desktop printers measures like that will be too expensive.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |