Digital BW, The Print

http://lincolninks.com/SpectraTone2.html

is where you will find it.  Hats off to Dan for 
creating a general solution workflow for all 
of the B&W inksets and printers.

I gave it a run on the 3000.  The freebie 
Epson RGB Driver is equal or perhaps even 
better then the PressReady RIP and much 
easier then the Duotone workflow that I 
normally use.

Hmmmm, just might have to abandon the 
RIP Ship and swim on over to the 
Culbertson island of Dannites.  

One needs a profile (profiler pro does the job 
well) to preview the file to get a real time 
preview of the effect of your curves, print 
and then do the final tweak off the prints. 
Nice.

A 6 color printer will use the billion dollar 
epson separations strategy so just a simple 
tonal correction will seem to be in order.   

Allen Maertz
linconlinks.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., allentakichi@e... wrote:
> http://lincolninks.com/SpectraTone2.html
> 
> is where you will find it.  Hats off to Dan for 
> creating a general solution workflow for all 
> of the B&W inksets and printers.

Yup, it really works great. It's amazing how easy it is to build very good curves very fast! Seeing your quad file on the 
monitor in all it's acurate glory is way cool too. Been using it a lot the last few days.
> 
> I gave it a run on the 3000.  The freebie 
> Epson RGB Driver is equal or perhaps even 
> better then the PressReady RIP and much 
> easier then the Duotone workflow that I 
> normally use.

I'll bet it has something to do with separation methods, but I haven't quite been able to match PressReady with the driver. 
Probably depends on what you're looking for.
Becoming a Dannite eh? When he keeps solving our problems for us like this, it's hard not to.
Tyler

> Hmmmm, just might have to abandon the
> RIP Ship and swim on over to the
> Culbertson island of Dannites.

Bring a couple of cases of Absolut!  (for Epson printer head cleaner of
course)

Dan

Dan,

Besides the Absolut for the daily cleaning of those pesky heads, what 
do you need to successfully run your RGB method?

I'm interested in giving it a try with the MIS VM inks and what is a 
reasonable spectrometer to make this work and not wipe out what's 
left of the bank account?

What's the best source for the Profiler Pro?

Thanks,

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Dan Culbertson 
<danculb@b...> wrote:
> 
> > Hmmmm, just might have to abandon the
> > RIP Ship and swim on over to the
> > Culbertson island of Dannites.
> 
> Bring a couple of cases of Absolut!  (for Epson printer head 
cleaner of

> course)
> 
> Dan

> Dan,
> 
> Besides the Absolut for the daily cleaning of those pesky heads, what
> do you need to successfully run your RGB method?
> 
> I'm interested in giving it a try with the MIS VM inks and what is a
> reasonable spectrometer to make this work and not wipe out what's
> left of the bank account?
> 
> What's the best source for the Profiler Pro?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Martin

Not sure about the best source of Profiler Pro.  I'm still using the beta
version that I got as a beta tester (which was essentially the same as the
final release version).  Wish I could recommend a couple of different
profilers as options but Profiler Pro is the only one that I've tried that
doesn't choke on gray inks - though there may very well be others. If anyone
tries another package that works I'd be interested to know.   I told the
Profiler Pro folks that if they ever *fix* the software so that it notices
it is measuring the wrong color ink patch I would say many nasty things
after drinking way too much Absolut -- so they left that particular *error
proof* mode out of the software (which is why other profilers choke - the
profiler thinks a gray patch where there should be cyan, magenta and yellow
indicates an error and stops taking the data).

Any spectrophotometer which gives an Lab text file output will work with
Profiler Pro but with 729 patches needed for the highest quality profile a
hand held one would be a bit of a drag.  Tyler is using the SprectroCam and
says that works well.  I use the DTP-41 which I love but which seriously
depleted my toy account for most of one whole year (uh, I mean my
productivity tool account).  So I think the less expensive SpectroCam is the
going choice.

Dan Culbertson

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Dan Culbertson 
<danculb@b...> wrote:
(snip)

Dan,

After checking around I see that you did indeed put a dent in your 
to...uh...productivity tool account.

Profiler Pro is $799 to $899 or for $899 you can get it bundled with 
Doctor Pro, OptiCal and the monitor spider. The Spectrocam is pretty 
consistent everywhere at $1,395. (In the world of spectrophotometers 
this is definitely inexpensive for those of you who haven't priced 
these gadgets.) Which brings the total to about $2,300. (Of course I 
could also use this to calibrate the wife's Photoshop and 1270 color 
photo printing operation so it would be just for me.) I am afraid the 
Polaroid 120 scanner accidentally damaged my productivity tool 
account and I may need to do some repair before proceeding.

One thing I did notice on ColorVision's site is that Profiler Pro 
includes Profiler RGB and CMYK, which can use a scanner in place of 
the spectrophotometer. Is this even worth considering even as an 
interim first step?

The other question is how would to work the variable tone capability 
of the MIS VM ink set into the process?

Thanks,
Martin


> 
> Not sure about the best source of Profiler Pro.  I'm still using 
the beta
> version that I got as a beta tester (which was essentially the same 
as the
> final release version).  Wish I could recommend a couple of 
different
> profilers as options but Profiler Pro is the only one that I've 
tried that
> doesn't choke on gray inks - though there may very well be others. 
If anyone
> tries another package that works I'd be interested to know.   I 
told the
> Profiler Pro folks that if they ever *fix* the software so that it 
notices
> it is measuring the wrong color ink patch I would say many nasty 
things
> after drinking way too much Absolut -- so they left that particular 
*error
> proof* mode out of the software (which is why other profilers 
choke - the
> profiler thinks a gray patch where there should be cyan, magenta 
and yellow
> indicates an error and stops taking the data).
> 
> Any spectrophotometer which gives an Lab text file output will work 
with
> Profiler Pro but with 729 patches needed for the highest quality 
profile a
> hand held one would be a bit of a drag.  Tyler is using the 
SprectroCam and
> says that works well.  I use the DTP-41 which I love but which 
seriously
> depleted my toy account for most of one whole year (uh, I mean my
> productivity tool account).  So I think the less expensive 
SpectroCam is the

> going choice.
> 
> Dan Culbertson

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Dan Culbertson <danculb@b...> wrote:
> > One thing I did notice on ColorVision's site is that Profiler Pro
> > includes Profiler RGB and CMYK, which can use a scanner in place of
> > the spectrophotometer. Is this even worth considering even as an
> > interim first step?
> 
> Tyler has been trying that out and he had some success with it - but I think
> he came to the conclusion that there is a good bit of difficulty in the
> shadows with using a scanner based profiler.  Still, could be a good
> starting point.  Tyler?

The test was very quick and superficial. My scanner simply loses any detail above around 10% or more on EAM, which is 
what I chose to do the test with for some odd reason, it seems to fluoresce like crazy. Photospectrometer handles it ok, not 
scanners.
So Profiler had no useful highlight info for any of the inks. Since the preview had blown out hightlights, I simply made curves 
for the rest of each ink's range based on it and did the highlight areas some way I though would be ok.I was very suprised 
how well it turned out, and have been meaning to try another test on a better paper. I was really just curious and didn't 
take it very far. Actually the shadows and mids were pretty good, highs were the problem.
It was the Profiler Pro CMYK quad preview profile I had big shadow problems with, and need to find ink setup settings that 
will be a bit easier on it. But that's another test...
Someone (Todd?) posted who had Profiler RGB that they couldn't make it work, I'm not sure why. Indications were it could, 
and scanner gamut problems aren't an issue here. Anyone with WiziWIG or EZcolor should give it a try too, may choke 
though.
Tyler

> Dan,
> 
> After checking around I see that you did indeed put a dent in your
> to...uh...productivity tool account.

Well I bought my DTP-41 from http://www.colorok.com and the price was lower
than elsewhere - but still comparatively steep.  I just drank a half liter
of Absolut before I logged on to the site and my inhibitions went right
away.

> One thing I did notice on ColorVision's site is that Profiler Pro
> includes Profiler RGB and CMYK, which can use a scanner in place of
> the spectrophotometer. Is this even worth considering even as an
> interim first step?

Tyler has been trying that out and he had some success with it - but I think
he came to the conclusion that there is a good bit of difficulty in the
shadows with using a scanner based profiler.  Still, could be a good
starting point.  Tyler?

> 
> The other question is how would to work the variable tone capability
> of the MIS VM ink set into the process?
> 
Variable tone works exactly the same.  No changes in the process.  However,
when you make your RGB separation curves and preview the results you need to
consider not just the gradation but also the color tint.  So the curve
development will be a bit more complex and maybe take a bit more time since
you are balancing a couple of other variables.  However, since you can
preview the whole thing while you tweak the curves it shouldn't be all that
much of a problem.  You won't have any of the slider controls in the driver
though since you pretty much need to use "No Color Adjustment" in the driver
if you want to create a set of curves that keep the dark inks out of the
light tones. 

Dan Culbertson

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Dan Culbertson 
<danculb@b...> wrote:

(snip)

> > 
> > The other question is how would to work the variable tone 
capability
> > of the MIS VM ink set into the process?
> > 
> Variable tone works exactly the same.  No changes in the process.  
However,
> when you make your RGB separation curves and preview the results 
you need to
> consider not just the gradation but also the color tint.  So the 
curve
> development will be a bit more complex and maybe take a bit more 
time since
> you are balancing a couple of other variables.  However, since you 
can
> preview the whole thing while you tweak the curves it shouldn't be 
all that
> much of a problem.  You won't have any of the slider controls in 
the driver
> though since you pretty much need to use "No Color Adjustment" in 
the driver
> if you want to create a set of curves that keep the dark inks out 
of the
> light tones. 

Dan,

That sounds very workable. I would imagine that as you greated a 
profile for each paper there would be an optimal ink color so you 
really wouldn't need a slider adjustment.

Why do I have this sinking feeling I am going to buy this stuff. You 
know that feelins that says, "You shouldn't do this, it't too 
expensive, you are not realy going to do this." but deep down you 
know you are going for it anyways? And I am not even a vodka drinker.

Thanks!
Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:

(snip)
> 
> The test was very quick and superficial. My scanner simply loses 
any detail above around 10% or more on EAM, which is 
> what I chose to do the test with for some odd reason, it seems to 
fluoresce like crazy. Photospectrometer handles it ok, not 
> scanners.
> So Profiler had no useful highlight info for any of the inks. Since 
the preview had blown out hightlights, I simply made curves 
> for the rest of each ink's range based on it and did the highlight 
areas some way I though would be ok.I was very suprised 
> how well it turned out, and have been meaning to try another test 
on a better paper. I was really just curious and didn't 
> take it very far. Actually the shadows and mids were pretty good, 
highs were the problem.
> It was the Profiler Pro CMYK quad preview profile I had big shadow 
problems with, and need to find ink setup settings that 
> will be a bit easier on it. But that's another test...
> Someone (Todd?) posted who had Profiler RGB that they couldn't make 
it work, I'm not sure why. Indications were it could, 
> and scanner gamut problems aren't an issue here. Anyone with 
WiziWIG or EZcolor should give it a try too, may choke 
> though.
> Tyler

Tyler,

I have the EZcolor so I might as well give it a try. Maybe someone 
else has info on the Profiler RGB. I don't think I would want to buy 
something unless it is know to work with quad inks. I don't want to 
spend $200 only to find out I still need to get the $2300 solution. 
Might be worth getting the Profiler Pro and giving the scanner a try 
before buying the Spectrocam. Spread out the pain.

BTW, how do you like the Spectrocam? If you had to do it over again 
would you go with this or something else?

Thanks,
Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> Tyler,
> 
> I have the EZcolor so I might as well give it a try. Maybe someone 
> else has info on the Profiler RGB.

Profiler RGB is built into Pro, so I've got it.

> Might be worth getting the Profiler Pro and giving the scanner a try 
> before buying the Spectrocam. Spread out the pain.

Martin, when I get the chance I'll try it again in the next few days with the scanner and post the result.
> 
> BTW, how do you like the Spectrocam? If you had to do it over again 
> would you go with this or something else?

The Spectrocam was probably the first real econo scanning photospectrometers, anything else was out of my budget, 
which really didn't actually exist. I've been through 3 of them, 1st one failed, 2nd one was very innacurate, third one I 
returned for replacement just because there was a recall. Except for the 2nd one they all performed well, and the service 
I've recieved was great. I got mine from Pilot Marketing, who seems to have disappeared from the internet. The DTP-41 is 
considered the one best, and I think the price has been dropping. I'd do it again for this kind of stuff, if I was using it a lot for 
work purposes that generate income, I'd look into the reliability of the DTP-41. It might be more robust.
Tyler

Martin,

I don't think Profiler Pro works with a scanner, but I could be wrong.

Helene

<< Might be worth getting the Profiler Pro and giving the scanner a try 

before buying the Spectrocam. >>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., grdglass@a... wrote:
> I don't think Profiler Pro works with a scanner, but I could be wrong.

Yup, in the latest release it does. Basically they just built Profiler RGB capability into it. I guess it was easy to do and they 
thought users might want to make scanner based profiles if in a hurry. However you can do a smaller patch chart spectro 
based profile pretty quickly that will still be better.
I tested it again with the scanner, it does work, but not as well. It did make a preview profile that allowed me to build sep 
curves relatively quickly though, and show me a reasonable representation of it on my monitor. The curves just need a 
little trial and error tweaking. Certainly better to work with than not having it.
I'm not quite sure whether to recommend it or not. I've never gotten good Profiler RGB profiles from this scanner, possibly 
one that works well for color with this software might also be better for this.
Another more economical version might be to get something like the ColorMouse, or any other less expensive single patch 
reader that Profiler Pro supports, and just make profiles from the 127 patch chart. I made a quick one the other day and was 
suprised how good it was. 127 patches wouldn't be quite so daunting as 729 patches by hand.
You may also be able to find very good monitor calibration software for the same device to furthur justify the purchase...
...to whomever...
Tyler

Yep -- it has a scanner mode along with its spectrophotometer 
features.  In fact it pretty much incorporates both Profiler RGB 
and Profiler CMYK along with the spec tro mode.

Dan Culbertson

> I don't think Profiler Pro works with a scanner, but I could be 
wrong.
> 
> Helene

One other point about the expense. Profiler Pro makes seriously great color profiles, RGB and CMYK, best I've ever used. If 
you know others in your locale who also could use such a device and software it might be worth making a joint purchase.
I founf two different monitor calibration applications that support the Spectrocam also, so I use it for that too. But  
sometimes this thing will sit unused for weeks, it wasn't the wisest purchase I've made. Sure keeps me off the streets 
though.
Tyler

Does the license for Profiler Pro allow for resale of profiles created?

Not something I want to get into right now, have many other priorities - but
for the future?

Thanks,
nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tyler Boley [mailto:tyler@...]
> Sent: 31 August 2001 00:31
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Culbertson's RGB method A-OK
>
>
> One other point about the expense. Profiler Pro makes seriously
> great color profiles, RGB and CMYK, best I've ever used. If
> you know others in your locale who also could use such a device
> and software it might be worth making a joint purchase.
> I founf two different monitor calibration applications that
> support the Spectrocam also, so I use it for that too. But
> sometimes this thing will sit unused for weeks, it wasn't the
> wisest purchase I've made. Sure keeps me off the streets
> though.
> Tyler
>

> Does the license for Profiler Pro allow for resale of profiles 
created?
The license states "You may not do any of the following yourself, 
or through any other person and you may not permit any third 
party with whom you have a business relationship to do any of 
the following:  (A)  copy, modify or create derivative works based 
upon the Software; (B) decompile, disassemble, or reverse 
engineer the Software in whole or in part; (C) defeat, disable or 
circumvent any protection mechanism related to the Software; 
(D) sell, license, sublicense, lease, rent, distribute, disclose, 
permit access to, or transfer to any third party, whether for profit 
or without charge, any portion of the Software or any product (as 
a separate product or bundled with any other products other than 
the Software) created with the Software (including, without 
limitation, profiles in .ICM or .ICC format)" snip

This seems to be a standard condition of profiler software 
licenses but you might be able to get permission to sell a limited 
number of profiles if you write and I am sure they have a 
commercial license available for businesses.  It is basically sold 
as a profiler for making your own profiles not for creating a 
commercial product for sale or distributon.

Dan Culbertson

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., grdglass@a... wrote:
> > I don't think Profiler Pro works with a scanner, but I could be 
wrong.
> 
> Yup, in the latest release it does. Basically they just built 
Profiler RGB capability into it. I guess it was easy to do and they 
> thought users might want to make scanner based profiles if in a 
hurry. However you can do a smaller patch chart spectro 
> based profile pretty quickly that will still be better.
> I tested it again with the scanner, it does work, but not as well. 
It did make a preview profile that allowed me to build sep 
> curves relatively quickly though, and show me a reasonable 
representation of it on my monitor. The curves just need a 
> little trial and error tweaking. Certainly better to work with than 
not having it.
> I'm not quite sure whether to recommend it or not. I've never 
gotten good Profiler RGB profiles from this scanner, possibly 
> one that works well for color with this software might also be 
better for this.
> Another more economical version might be to get something like the 
ColorMouse, or any other less expensive single patch 
> reader that Profiler Pro supports, and just make profiles from the 
127 patch chart. I made a quick one the other day and was 
> suprised how good it was. 127 patches wouldn't be quite so daunting 
as 729 patches by hand.
> You may also be able to find very good monitor calibration software 
for the same device to furthur justify the purchase...
> ...to whomever...
> Tyler

Tyler,

Thanks for giving it a try again. Might be a way to get started in 
this direction and add the spectrophotometer later. The process would 
be very dependent on the individual scanner's color accuracy. 

The Colormouse approach cuts about $700 off the cost over the 
Spectrocam. Based on your earlier post on the Spectrocam and a 
statement on the Color Vision site that the Spectrocam "has a 
significantly higher error rate in its readings" compared to the 
Colormouse and the X-Rite Digital Swatchbook, I am sort of inclined 
to pass on the Spectrocam.

Any thoughts or opinons on the Colormouse or Digital Swatch book 
(which is the same price as the Spectrocam.)

Martin

Thanks Dan,

I was wondering if the 'pro' tag automatically lead to a 'relaxation' of
terms.

BTW - have you heard - Colorvision is now 'Pantone Colorvision'.

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Culbertson [mailto:danculb@...]
> Sent: 31 August 2001 00:50
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Culbertson's RGB method A-OK
>
>
> > Does the license for Profiler Pro allow for resale of profiles
> created?
> The license states "You may not do any of the following yourself,
> or through any other person and you may not permit any third
> party with whom you have a business relationship to do any of
> the following:  (A)  copy, modify or create derivative works based
> upon the Software; (B) decompile, disassemble, or reverse
> engineer the Software in whole or in part; (C) defeat, disable or
> circumvent any protection mechanism related to the Software;
> (D) sell, license, sublicense, lease, rent, distribute, disclose,
> permit access to, or transfer to any third party, whether for profit
> or without charge, any portion of the Software or any product (as
> a separate product or bundled with any other products other than
> the Software) created with the Software (including, without
> limitation, profiles in .ICM or .ICC format)" snip
>
> This seems to be a standard condition of profiler software
> licenses but you might be able to get permission to sell a limited
> number of profiles if you write and I am sure they have a
> commercial license available for businesses.  It is basically sold
> as a profiler for making your own profiles not for creating a
> commercial product for sale or distributon.
>
> Dan Culbertson
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> Any thoughts or opinons on the Colormouse or Digital Swatch book 
> (which is the same price as the Spectrocam.)
> 
> Martin

Sorry Martin, my photospectrometer experience begins and ends with the Spectrocam. Dan had a Digital Swatch book, I 
think he liked it.
Tyler

> Someone (Todd?) posted who had Profiler RGB that they couldn't make it work,
> I'm not sure why. Indications were it could,
> and scanner gamut problems aren't an issue here. Anyone with WiziWIG or
> EZcolor should give it a try too, may choke
> though.
> Tyler

Might have been the processing time that fooled him.  For some reason it is
a much more difficult set of calculations and the profile can take a half
hour or more for the computer to process (depending on the speed of the
computer).  First couple of times I gave up because I thought the computer
had hung up.  Then I let it process while I ran out to the store.  When I
came back I had a profile - viola'.  Now I just start it processing and
watch TV for a while.

Dan

> Dan,
> 
> That sounds very workable. I would imagine that as you greated a
> profile for each paper there would be an optimal ink color so you
> really wouldn't need a slider adjustment.

Yep, that is what you do.

> 
> Why do I have this sinking feeling I am going to buy this stuff. You
> know that feelins that says, "You shouldn't do this, it't too
> expensive, you are not realy going to do this." but deep down you
> know you are going for it anyways? And I am not even a vodka drinker.
> 
> Thanks!
> Martin

It is a serious social problem I know.  But I haven't yet found a
Productivity Tools Anonymous group so I just go with the flow.  Someday I
may sober up and regret it.  In the meantime..... buy, buy, buy.

Dan Culbertson

snip
. The DTP-41 is 
> considered the one best, and I think the price has been dropping. I'd do it
> again for this kind of stuff, if I was using it a lot for
> work purposes that generate income, I'd look into the reliability of the
> DTP-41. It might be more robust.
> Tyler

Robust like a good old workhorse.  The Profiler Pro DTP-41 target needs a
bit of editing for quadtones but I can send my edited version to anyone who
wants to try out a quadtone profile with it.  Mostly just a matter of
substituting black patch divider lines with white to keep enough contrast
for the DTP-41 to recognize a patch change as the strip is pulled through
the reader.

Dan Culbertson

Scott,

Thanks for the feedback. This is definately a field where few of us 
have much experience.

So I gather the inaccuracy with the Spectrocam occur when you are 
using it in their fixture and moving it over a test strip but if you 
do the patches individually they are okay?

Tyler is on his third or fourth one due to defects and recalls so I 
am concerned about their quality control.

I seem to recall in the Colormouse specs that it required 4 sec for 
each measurement which would slow you down, manually or 
automatically, on even the 127 patch test. What is the measurement 
time for the Spectrocam?

I noticed Spectrocam's monitor calibration feature but I already have 
an EZColor sceen spider and if you buy the Profile Pro bundle they 
through in their spyder as well. Does the Spectrocam offer better 
quality in this area?

As Tyler mentioned this is the type of thing that for me would get 
very heavy initial use until I was up and going with a good ink/paper 
combination. Once I got where I wanted to be, the instrument would 
see little use until some new paper or ink came along. So from that 
point of view it probably makes more sense to go with something 
slower and cheaper. Would want the highest level of accuracy though.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Scott Hendershot" 
<scott@p...> wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> Just a few comments on the Spectrocam. It does have a high rate of
> communication errors when used in the scanning mode. That is one of 
the
> reasons that I made the indexer out of a plotter. When used to make
> individual measurements it works wonderfully. The guys at 
Spectrostar tell
> me there is a new version of the software coming that has a superior
> communications driver. That will improve the scanning mode, but 
won't affect
> the way I use it.
> 
> I beleive that my approach to indexing can be applied to the 
ColorMouse as
> well. There are a few people with a ColorMouse that I will be 
working with
> to see if it can be done.
> 
> You may want to consider the Spectrocam's other features before you 
dismiss
> it. It can make emissive measurements as well as reflected 
measurements
> which means you can measure the color temperature of light sources 
and even
> your monitors white point.
> 
> Scott
> 
(snip earlier)

Martin,

Just a few comments on the Spectrocam. It does have a high rate of
communication errors when used in the scanning mode. That is one of the
reasons that I made the indexer out of a plotter. When used to make
individual measurements it works wonderfully. The guys at Spectrostar tell
me there is a new version of the software coming that has a superior
communications driver. That will improve the scanning mode, but won't affect
the way I use it.

I beleive that my approach to indexing can be applied to the ColorMouse as
well. There are a few people with a ColorMouse that I will be working with
to see if it can be done.

You may want to consider the Spectrocam's other features before you dismiss
it. It can make emissive measurements as well as reflected measurements
which means you can measure the color temperature of light sources and even
your monitors white point.

Scott

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 4:55 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Culbertson's RGB method A-OK


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...>
> wrote:
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., grdglass@a... wrote:
> > > I don't think Profiler Pro works with a scanner, but I could be
> wrong.
> >
> > Yup, in the latest release it does. Basically they just built
> Profiler RGB capability into it. I guess it was easy to do and they
> > thought users might want to make scanner based profiles if in a
> hurry. However you can do a smaller patch chart spectro
> > based profile pretty quickly that will still be better.
> > I tested it again with the scanner, it does work, but not as well.
> It did make a preview profile that allowed me to build sep
> > curves relatively quickly though, and show me a reasonable
> representation of it on my monitor. The curves just need a
> > little trial and error tweaking. Certainly better to work with than
> not having it.
> > I'm not quite sure whether to recommend it or not. I've never
> gotten good Profiler RGB profiles from this scanner, possibly
> > one that works well for color with this software might also be
> better for this.
> > Another more economical version might be to get something like the
> ColorMouse, or any other less expensive single patch
> > reader that Profiler Pro supports, and just make profiles from the
> 127 patch chart. I made a quick one the other day and was
> > suprised how good it was. 127 patches wouldn't be quite so daunting
> as 729 patches by hand.
> > You may also be able to find very good monitor calibration software
> for the same device to furthur justify the purchase...
> > ...to whomever...
> > Tyler
>
> Tyler,
>
> Thanks for giving it a try again. Might be a way to get started in
> this direction and add the spectrophotometer later. The process would
> be very dependent on the individual scanner's color accuracy.
>
> The Colormouse approach cuts about $700 off the cost over the
> Spectrocam. Based on your earlier post on the Spectrocam and a
> statement on the Color Vision site that the Spectrocam "has a
> significantly higher error rate in its readings" compared to the
> Colormouse and the X-Rite Digital Swatchbook, I am sort of inclined
> to pass on the Spectrocam.
>
> Any thoughts or opinons on the Colormouse or Digital Swatch book
> (which is the same price as the Spectrocam.)
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Martin,

I have been following this discussion for a while....  As one who should have 
bought stock in X-Rite years ago (5-instrument deep now), here are some 
thoughts.

- The DTP 41 is a defacto industry standard considered a "reasonably priced" 
alternative to the Gretag-Macbeth Spectrolino. It is built for commercial use 
and has _very solid_ tech support behind it, but it is not without its 
idyosyncracies. If you let it sit for a few months, you may need  to jump start 
the motors (using a command-line interface on the host computer), not a fun 
thing. If you buy it, opt for the UV attachment. 
What it doesn't do compared to the Spectrolino is that you cannot program 
several reads of the same patch, something that makes readings of noisy 
processes a bit more accurate (needed for art papers). You can work around 
that with the DTP-41 if your profiling software allows averaging among several 
reads - it's just not that convenient.

- The Digital Swatchbook and program that comes with it is a great instrument 
and software. You have the equivalent of a reflection densitometer with the 
convenience of instantly transfering data to the host computer, saving it and 
being able to export it. Really nice for doing any reflective densitometry 
(curves and such).  This is just a small bonus to the spectrophotometric 
abilites. As has been pointed out here, this is not an ideal instrument for 
profiling because a profile gets better with more patches which in turn gets 
tedious to do one at a time. But if all you are doing is filling out the CMYK data 
in Photoshop and making a quick-and-dirty profile, it's great cause you don't 
need special targets (as you do to auto-read in the DTP-41).

- If you are going to compare instruments, you have to compare how many 
bands they read. The more bands they break the spectrum down to the more 
accurate they are likely to be. Also, the software they come with will make a 
big difference in use. I only have X-Rite instruments and cannot compare to 
anything else. But I would want to make sure that if you are paying 
significantly less for the same features, you are not giving up something 
important either by way of tech sup. or accuracy. X-Rite and Macbeth have 
been standards in the industry for a long time. 

- Regarding profiling software, I guess since you are using this for mono / 
quad you only have one choice. But if you (also) do color, there are a lot of 
companies with similar claims out there,  hovering in the 3-5+ K dollars. I don't 
know how much of those claims they deliver. I have the Lino and Praxisoft 
products, but Monaco claims superiority, ColorBlind used to rule.... who 
knows. I don't know anyone who has bought _everything_ and done side by 
side profiles. I tend to use Lino for CMYK and CompassProfile for RGB, but I 
am not ready to recommend them over the current offerings. This is a pretty 
nasty area to compare and determine who has the best value for money. 
Tread carefully, the waters are deep is all I am saying. 

Even question if you need all this instrumentation for bw. I would put that 
money into a good RIP instead and get control of the individual channels - but 
I haven't done it (with Epsons) and don't have specific recommendations like 
Dan and others here. Just wanted to put in a word of caution before the 
Absolute kicks in....

Antonis

.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:

> Scott,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback. This is definately a field where few of us 
> have much experience.
> 
> So I gather the inaccuracy with the Spectrocam occur when you are 
> using it in their fixture and moving it over a test strip but if you 
> do the patches individually they are okay?
> 
> Tyler is on his third or fourth one due to defects and recalls so I 
> am concerned about their quality control.
> 
> I seem to recall in the Colormouse specs that it required 4 sec for 
> each measurement which would slow you down, manually or 
> automatically, on even the 127 patch test. What is the measurement 
> time for the Spectrocam?

Antonis, thanks so much for all this info, this is great. I could have 
made a surer decision had I known all this. I'm just going to add a 
few things, and to Scott Hendershot's last post. I'm not trying to 
sell Spectrocams, just fill in some blanks.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Antonis Ricos" <
antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
snip...
> What it doesn't do compared to the Spectrolino is that you cannot program 
> several reads of the same patch, something that makes readings of noisy 
> processes a bit more accurate (needed for art papers).

The Spectrocam does do this.

> - The Digital Swatchbook...
...transfering data to the host computer, saving it and 
> being able to export it.

Spectrocam also.
> 
> - Regarding profiling software, I guess since you are using this for mono / 
> quad you only have one choice.

I wish we knew that for sure, but it's a small group of users, little 
chance of there being a variety of profiling software among us. 
Frustratating to only have Colorvision as an option, and I'm not sure 
it's the case.

"Scott Hendershot" <scott@p...> wrote:
> Martin,
snip...

> The Spectrocam software for the PC does not include monitor calibration like
> your monitor spyder does. I think the software is lacking in this regard.

Scott, it's a joke so don't lament. It throws up maybe 10 colors and  
generates a profile. No oportunity to adjust guns, nada. Probably 
about as useful as Adobe Gamma. You pay extra for it too. The Pro 
version of the software includes this "feature", as well as custom dot 
gain measurements, meaning non CMYK. Not that useful either, you can 
use the standard CMYK dot gain measurement ability for anything you 
need. Don't bother with the Pro upgrade.
I found a beta of an excellent monitor calibration app that supports 
the cam, and Profile City has an excellent app that does as well.
Both "exellent" apps create calibration from my highly acurate device 
for my highly acurate monitor that look...
completely different!
so... pretty happy that's squared away...
Being on my fourth one is a problem, I wasn't happy about it.
Some more mud for you.
Tyler

Martin,

I didn't mean to imply that the Spectrocam was not accurate. It is. What
happens is that when you are scanning a line of patches you may get a CRC
error. A CRC error indicates that there was a communication error between
the Spectrocam and the computer. If you get an error you will have to scan
the line over again. An inconvenience, but not a show stopper. The
communication errors have nothing to do with the measurement accuracy.

I can see no evidence of poor quality control. My unit is very well made and
a joy to work with. I believe that an earlier design had some issues with
shielding and so were subject to interference from other electrical devices.
The current generation does not seem to have that problem.

The Spectrocam can make 35 measurements per second. This is software
configurable. After all the measurements are taken it then integrates them
into a single reading. I have mine set to make the full 35 measurements
since I am using it in the non scanning mode. This results in a one second
reading duration.

The scan mode is set up so that the Spectrocam just starts making
measurements continuously. As you move it over the row of patches to be
scanned it recognizes when one patch ends and another begins. After it
recognizes that all patches have been scanned it stops making measurements
and assumes the row is complete.

The Spectrocam software for the PC does not include monitor calibration like
your monitor spyder does. I think the software is lacking in this regard. It
does have the ability to measure the color temperature of your monitors
white point. The monitor spyder is a tough one to beat though.

I agree with Tyler. This is the sort of tool that gets used infrequently.
But when you need a spectrophotometer nothing else will do. Oddly, I have
found that I use it for more than just profiling. I use it to measure the
white point of different papers. I use it to measure the steps of gray ramps
when printing in monochrome and even for measuring the color temperature of
proofing lights.

I had a Color Mouse initially and found the process of measuring 729 patches
far to tedious and slow. I couldn't stand to use it. I have never regretted
sending it back and purchasing the Spectrocam.

Scott

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 10:14 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Culbertson's RGB method A-OK


> Scott,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. This is definately a field where few of us
> have much experience.
>
> So I gather the inaccuracy with the Spectrocam occur when you are
> using it in their fixture and moving it over a test strip but if you
> do the patches individually they are okay?
>
> Tyler is on his third or fourth one due to defects and recalls so I
> am concerned about their quality control.
>
> I seem to recall in the Colormouse specs that it required 4 sec for
> each measurement which would slow you down, manually or
> automatically, on even the 127 patch test. What is the measurement
> time for the Spectrocam?
>
> I noticed Spectrocam's monitor calibration feature but I already have
> an EZColor sceen spider and if you buy the Profile Pro bundle they
> through in their spyder as well. Does the Spectrocam offer better
> quality in this area?
>
> As Tyler mentioned this is the type of thing that for me would get
> very heavy initial use until I was up and going with a good ink/paper
> combination. Once I got where I wanted to be, the instrument would
> see little use until some new paper or ink came along. So from that
> point of view it probably makes more sense to go with something
> slower and cheaper. Would want the highest level of accuracy though.
>
> Martin
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Scott Hendershot"
> <scott@p...> wrote:
> > Martin,
> >
> > Just a few comments on the Spectrocam. It does have a high rate of
> > communication errors when used in the scanning mode. That is one of
> the
> > reasons that I made the indexer out of a plotter. When used to make
> > individual measurements it works wonderfully. The guys at
> Spectrostar tell
> > me there is a new version of the software coming that has a superior
> > communications driver. That will improve the scanning mode, but
> won't affect
> > the way I use it.
> >
> > I beleive that my approach to indexing can be applied to the
> ColorMouse as
> > well. There are a few people with a ColorMouse that I will be
> working with
> > to see if it can be done.
> >
> > You may want to consider the Spectrocam's other features before you
> dismiss
> > it. It can make emissive measurements as well as reflected
> measurements
> > which means you can measure the color temperature of light sources
> and even
> > your monitors white point.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> (snip earlier)
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Antonis,

You are correct that I am looking to get good control of B&W printing 
and am interested in have a good profiles to work with. I don't want 
to have to depend upon what is currently being marketed and would 
like the ability to produce my own. On the one hand I could just 
eyeball it but I really am not comfortable with that. I am guessing 
that any instrument that would give repeatable readings would be a 
giant step forward.

Since I don't plan to do much of this as I hope to settle on a small 
number of ink/paper combinations and get on with making photographs, 
a large investment is not only impossible but doesn't seem 
worthwhile. Is this they type of situation that as you pay more and 
more you are gaining smaller and smaller improvements in quality? In 
other words would I see a huge improvement using Profiler Pro and a 
Colormouse but a much smaller improvement in moving from that setup 
to a XTP-41 and one of the high-end software packages?

Since I might only be doing say 20 profiles until I found my 
ink/paper combinations and then 2 or 3 occasionally when a new paper 
came out, it seems that the tedious patch at a time measuring still 
might be acceptable. Even some of the 700+ patch targets should be 
able to be done in say 3 hours. So it would take 60 hours to do the 
first 20. In my situation, where there is not expectation of economic 
return, it seems better to spend the time than the $1,000 difference 
between the Spectrocam or Color Swatchbook to get the DTP 41 which 
would obviously cut that 60 hours down to a small fraction.

If I am making some naive assumptions here in my ignorance, please 
let me know.

A couple of half way measures suggest themselves and perhaps you can 
tell me if they are worth the cost. One would be to buy the 
Swatchbook at $1400 and use it as a highly accurate densitometer to 
measure step tables to move accurately create correction curves in 
Photoshop. The second is to spend the $900 to just get the Profiler 
Pro and rely on my Linoscan 1400 to get no so accurate data off the 
targets. Would one approach be inherently better than the other?

Thanks for the education in all this stuff,

Martin

P.S. If you want to get rid of any of those X-rites, let me know. <g>


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Antonis Ricos" 
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> I have been following this discussion for a while....  As one who 
should have 
> bought stock in X-Rite years ago (5-instrument deep now), here are 
some 
> thoughts.
> 
> - The DTP 41 is a defacto industry standard considered 
a "reasonably priced" 
> alternative to the Gretag-Macbeth Spectrolino. It is built for 
commercial use 
> and has _very solid_ tech support behind it, but it is not without 
its 
> idyosyncracies. If you let it sit for a few months, you may need  
to jump start 
> the motors (using a command-line interface on the host computer), 
not a fun 
> thing. If you buy it, opt for the UV attachment. 
> What it doesn't do compared to the Spectrolino is that you cannot 
program 
> several reads of the same patch, something that makes readings of 
noisy 
> processes a bit more accurate (needed for art papers). You can work 
around 
> that with the DTP-41 if your profiling software allows averaging 
among several 
> reads - it's just not that convenient.
> 
> - The Digital Swatchbook and program that comes with it is a great 
instrument 
> and software. You have the equivalent of a reflection densitometer 
with the 
> convenience of instantly transfering data to the host computer, 
saving it and 
> being able to export it. Really nice for doing any reflective 
densitometry 
> (curves and such).  This is just a small bonus to the 
spectrophotometric 
> abilites. As has been pointed out here, this is not an ideal 
instrument for 
> profiling because a profile gets better with more patches which in 
turn gets 
> tedious to do one at a time. But if all you are doing is filling 
out the CMYK data 
> in Photoshop and making a quick-and-dirty profile, it's great cause 
you don't 
> need special targets (as you do to auto-read in the DTP-41).
> 
> - If you are going to compare instruments, you have to compare how 
many 
> bands they read. The more bands they break the spectrum down to the 
more 
> accurate they are likely to be. Also, the software they come with 
will make a 
> big difference in use. I only have X-Rite instruments and cannot 
compare to 
> anything else. But I would want to make sure that if you are paying 
> significantly less for the same features, you are not giving up 
something 
> important either by way of tech sup. or accuracy. X-Rite and 
Macbeth have 
> been standards in the industry for a long time. 
> 
> - Regarding profiling software, I guess since you are using this 
for mono / 
> quad you only have one choice. But if you (also) do color, there 
are a lot of 
> companies with similar claims out there,  hovering in the 3-5+ K 
dollars. I don't 
> know how much of those claims they deliver. I have the Lino and 
Praxisoft 
> products, but Monaco claims superiority, ColorBlind used to 
rule.... who 
> knows. I don't know anyone who has bought _everything_ and done 
side by 
> side profiles. I tend to use Lino for CMYK and CompassProfile for 
RGB, but I 
> am not ready to recommend them over the current offerings. This is 
a pretty 
> nasty area to compare and determine who has the best value for 
money. 
> Tread carefully, the waters are deep is all I am saying. 
> 
> Even question if you need all this instrumentation for bw. I would 
put that 
> money into a good RIP instead and get control of the individual 
channels - but 
> I haven't done it (with Epsons) and don't have specific 
recommendations like 
> Dan and others here. Just wanted to put in a word of caution before 
the 
> Absolute kicks in....
> 
> Antonis
> 
> .
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
> <mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> > Scott,
> > 
> > Thanks for the feedback. This is definately a field where few of 
us 
> > have much experience.
> > 
> > So I gather the inaccuracy with the Spectrocam occur when you are 
> > using it in their fixture and moving it over a test strip but if 
you 
> > do the patches individually they are okay?
> > 
> > Tyler is on his third or fourth one due to defects and recalls so 
I 
> > am concerned about their quality control.
> > 
> > I seem to recall in the Colormouse specs that it required 4 sec 
for 
> > each measurement which would slow you down, manually or 
> > automatically, on even the 127 patch test. What is the 
measurement 
> > time for the Spectrocam?

Scott,

You make a good case and what drew me to the Spectrocam in the first 
place was the scan mode which would speed things up greatly in 
comparision to the Swatchbook at the same price. So I guess I will 
put it back on my list as top a posibility.

Thanks again,

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Scott Hendershot" 
<scott@p...> wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> I didn't mean to imply that the Spectrocam was not accurate. It is. 
What
> happens is that when you are scanning a line of patches you may get 
a CRC
> error. A CRC error indicates that there was a communication error 
between
> the Spectrocam and the computer. If you get an error you will have 
to scan
> the line over again. An inconvenience, but not a show stopper. The
> communication errors have nothing to do with the measurement 
accuracy.
> 
> I can see no evidence of poor quality control. My unit is very well 
made and
> a joy to work with. I believe that an earlier design had some 
issues with
> shielding and so were subject to interference from other electrical 
devices.
> The current generation does not seem to have that problem.
> 
> The Spectrocam can make 35 measurements per second. This is software
> configurable. After all the measurements are taken it then 
integrates them
> into a single reading. I have mine set to make the full 35 
measurements
> since I am using it in the non scanning mode. This results in a one 
second
> reading duration.
> 
> The scan mode is set up so that the Spectrocam just starts making
> measurements continuously. As you move it over the row of patches 
to be
> scanned it recognizes when one patch ends and another begins. After 
it
> recognizes that all patches have been scanned it stops making 
measurements
> and assumes the row is complete.
> 
> The Spectrocam software for the PC does not include monitor 
calibration like
> your monitor spyder does. I think the software is lacking in this 
regard. It
> does have the ability to measure the color temperature of your 
monitors
> white point. The monitor spyder is a tough one to beat though.
> 
> I agree with Tyler. This is the sort of tool that gets used 
infrequently.
> But when you need a spectrophotometer nothing else will do. Oddly, 
I have
> found that I use it for more than just profiling. I use it to 
measure the
> white point of different papers. I use it to measure the steps of 
gray ramps
> when printing in monochrome and even for measuring the color 
temperature of
> proofing lights.
> 
> I had a Color Mouse initially and found the process of measuring 
729 patches
> far to tedious and slow. I couldn't stand to use it. I have never 
regretted
> sending it back and purchasing the Spectrocam.
> 
> Scott
> 
(snip earlier)

>> Any thoughts or opinons on the Colormouse or Digital Swatch book
>> (which is the same price as the Spectrocam.)
>> 
>> Martin
> 
> Sorry Martin, my photospectrometer experience begins and ends with the
> Spectrocam. Dan had a Digital Swatch book, I
> think he liked it.
> Tyler

Still have it and still like it.  Dependable and easy to use.  But I have
never tried the Colormouse so I can't really compare the two.  However, the
Digital Swatchbook came with Colorshop software which has some very nice
tools like graphical and delta e spectral comparison, 2d gamut mapping,
densitometry, and dot area readings in addition to the Lab patch readings it
can export.  You may want to compare listed features and tools of the
software packages for the two devices even if the accuracy of the devices
and costs are similar.    I use the Swatchbook rather then the DTP-41 when I
need things like dot area readings and single patch color matching or
density matching since the autoscan DTP-41 is awkward to use on a small
number of patches.

By the way, Colorshop was the software developed by the original makers of
the old Colortron II device and X-Rite thought enough of the software to buy
the Colortron (and the obligation for maintenance of old units) just to get
rights to the software.  For a really cheap device designed by ergonomic
sadists (and I do mean "cheap") I think you can probably pick up a used
Colortron II for under $200.  But given an annual recalibration/rebuilding
fee of about $200 (if you want to maintain accuracy) I no longer recommend
the Colortron even at that price.  It was the only affordable device in its
day and worked well enough but other better products are now available.  The
Digital Swatchbook seems to remain accurate with no factory help as does the
DTP-41 so perhaps a used one can be found at a reasonable cost.  If you
email X-Rite perhaps they will have a list of dealers who sell used devices
(the X-Rite rep is the one who turned me on to the ColorOK retailer for good
prices on new X-Rite products).

Dan Culbertson

Martin,

here are some replies. I don't think I know everything there is to know and the 
waters are pretty murky. But there goes:


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:

...
Is this they type of situation that as you pay more and 
> more you are gaining smaller and smaller improvements in quality? In 
> other words would I see a huge improvement using Profiler Pro and a 
> Colormouse but a much smaller improvement in moving from that setup 
> to a XTP-41 and one of the high-end software packages?

I don't know that answer for sure - and I doubt anyone does without having 
both instruments. Remember that we are distinguishing between accuracy 
and convenience. A strip reading device is more expensive because of 
convenience features, but not necessarily more accurate than a 
single-reading meter.



> 
> Since I might only be doing say 20 profiles until I found my 
> ink/paper combinations and then 2 or 3 occasionally when a new paper 
> came out, it seems that the tedious patch at a time measuring still 
> might be acceptable.

....

You may want to price what this would cost you to do by sending out to a good 
source willing to make you custom profiles.

> 
> A couple of half way measures suggest themselves and perhaps you can 
> tell me if they are worth the cost. One would be to buy the 
> Swatchbook at $1400 and use it as a highly accurate densitometer to 
> measure step tables to move accurately create correction curves in 
> Photoshop. The second is to spend the $900 to just get the Profiler 
> Pro and rely on my Linoscan 1400 to get no so accurate data off the 
> targets. Would one approach be inherently better than the other?

Scanner-based profiling is something I haven't done. From comments here 
and from just theory in my head, it's a no-brainer to buy the Swatchbook or 
equivalent single-read spectrophotometer (that would double as a 
densitometer and dot gain calculator).  In this case the $500 would represent 
a huge step (as opposed to other "steps" you outlined for higher end 
products).


> 
> P.S. If you want to get rid of any of those X-rites, let me know. <g>

The only one I no longer need is a portable reflection densitometer  X-Rite 
404. As new condition, 12 years old, in its case with power supply. Useful for 
measuring across large prints and not dragging a wire behind you (it's 
rechargable). Price to be determined.
For an alternative source I would look on eBay. Last time there, I bought an 
810TR (refl/trans) for $750. Costs new $3500!!


Antonis

Antonis,

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Antonis Ricos" 
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> here are some replies. I don't think I know everything there is to 
know and the 
> waters are pretty murky. But there goes:
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
> <mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> 
> ...
> Is this they type of situation that as you pay more and 
> > more you are gaining smaller and smaller improvements in quality? 
In 
> > other words would I see a huge improvement using Profiler Pro and 
a 
> > Colormouse but a much smaller improvement in moving from that 
setup 
> > to a XTP-41 and one of the high-end software packages?
> 
> I don't know that answer for sure - and I doubt anyone does without 
having 
> both instruments. Remember that we are distinguishing between 
accuracy 
> and convenience. A strip reading device is more expensive because 
of 
> convenience features, but not necessarily more accurate than a 
> single-reading meter.
> 
Understood. I gather then that as you move up the cost ladder on 
these you are looking at instruments designed for very high volume 
work in large printing and graphics opperations.

> 
> > 
> > Since I might only be doing say 20 profiles until I found my 
> > ink/paper combinations and then 2 or 3 occasionally when a new 
paper 
> > came out, it seems that the tedious patch at a time measuring 
still 
> > might be acceptable.
> 
> ....
> 
> You may want to price what this would cost you to do by sending out 
to a good 
> source willing to make you custom profiles.

This is a good idea if there is someone out there doing quad profiles 
and the price is right. Looking at some places that provide canned 
and custom color profiles the cost for the custom profiles is in the 
$100 to $200 range. So if my estimate of 20 profiles initially is 
correct I am at a break even point. Of course I don't have to do all 
the work but then I don't have control over the process.

> 
> > 
> > A couple of half way measures suggest themselves and perhaps you 
can 
> > tell me if they are worth the cost. One would be to buy the 
> > Swatchbook at $1400 and use it as a highly accurate densitometer 
to 
> > measure step tables to move accurately create correction curves 
in 
> > Photoshop. The second is to spend the $900 to just get the 
Profiler 
> > Pro and rely on my Linoscan 1400 to get no so accurate data off 
the 
> > targets. Would one approach be inherently better than the other?
> 
> Scanner-based profiling is something I haven't done. From comments 
here 
> and from just theory in my head, it's a no-brainer to buy the 
Swatchbook or 
> equivalent single-read spectrophotometer (that would double as a 
> densitometer and dot gain calculator).  In this case the $500 would 
represent 
> a huge step (as opposed to other "steps" you outlined for higher 
end 
> products).

I was afraid that that was true. As an all round tool the 
spectrophotometer would be the think to have. Too bad you can't enter 
the data from the spectrophotometer into one of the low end scanner 
based packages like Profiler RGB which is only $200.

I need to do some soul (and wallet) searching. Having a near perfect 
screen to final print match for all the papers and inks I want to use 
sure would be nice and cut out a lot of the trial and error printing 
I am doing now.

Thanks for all the advice. 

Martin
> 
> 
> > 
> > P.S. If you want to get rid of any of those X-rites, let me know. 
<g>
> 
> The only one I no longer need is a portable reflection 
densitometer  X-Rite 
> 404. As new condition, 12 years old, in its case with power supply. 
Useful for 
> measuring across large prints and not dragging a wire behind you 
(it's 
> rechargable). Price to be determined.
> For an alternative source I would look on eBay. Last time there, I 
bought an 

> 810TR (refl/trans) for $750. Costs new $3500!!


> 
> 
> Antonis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley"  wrote:

> Thanks for all the advice. 
> 
> Martin



Martin,

you are most welcome!  A parting thought:

As you do the soul-and-wallet searching, consider whether a simple reflection 
densitometer wouldn't be a much saner idea in this case. Since you neither 
have an investment in color processes nor in becoming a business offering 
such services , all this sounds like massive overkill to me. 
A few years back a friend with a service beaureau and I configured an Iris 
Realist printer to do quad from scratch. Our entire investment was a set of 
Lyson quad inks. We used an existing X-Rite T/R instrument (like my 810TR) 
to read strips and that was it. 
He recently repeated the steps to set up a wide format Ilford inkjet printer. 
Though he owns a DTP-41, that wasn't needed. Essentially he developed a 
new product for his business with minimum investment and the results look 
great (within the limits of those printers). More money coming in, less cost!

All this is to say, once again, that I doubt your actual quad prints will see that 
much improvement if you jump from a $900 BW densitometer (Heiland TRD2, 
no software) to $10,000 worth of exotics. Just my $0.02.

I wonder what instruments Paul Roark finds most useful in developing his 
curves.....

Antonis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Antonis Ricos" <antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
...snip
> As you do the soul-and-wallet searching, consider whether a simple reflection 
> densitometer wouldn't be a much saner idea in this case...
snip
> A few years back a friend with a service beaureau and I configured an Iris 
> Realist printer to do quad from scratch. Our entire investment was a set of 
> Lyson quad inks. We used an existing X-Rite T/R instrument (like my 810TR) 
> to read strips and that was it.

The other interesting thing to me about this aproach is that you will learn a lot more about ink on paper too, you'll have to.

> He recently repeated the steps to set up a wide format Ilford inkjet printer. 
> Though he owns a DTP-41, that wasn't needed.

Antonis, I've been very curious about the new Ilford quad inks, is that what he was working on? If so, have you seen any 
output?
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> wrote:
...
> Antonis, I've been very curious about the new Ilford quad inks, is that what 
he was working on? If so, have you seen any 
> output?
> Tyler

Tyler,

I don't believe it was Ilford inks. But I'll ask him. The output I have seen I 
believe is Lyson inks on Sihl paper, laminated with a matte laminate. This 
particular printer is very coarse (big spread-out dots) but looks good at mural 
sizes.


Antonis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Antonis Ricos" 
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:

(snip)
> 
> As you do the soul-and-wallet searching, consider whether a simple 
reflection 
> densitometer wouldn't be a much saner idea in this case. Since you 
neither 
> have an investment in color processes nor in becoming a business 
offering 
> such services , all this sounds like massive overkill to me. 
> A few years back a friend with a service beaureau and I configured 
an Iris 
> Realist printer to do quad from scratch. Our entire investment was 
a set of 
> Lyson quad inks. We used an existing X-Rite T/R instrument (like my 
810TR) 
> to read strips and that was it. 
> He recently repeated the steps to set up a wide format Ilford 
inkjet printer. 
> Though he owns a DTP-41, that wasn't needed. Essentially he 
developed a 
> new product for his business with minimum investment and the 
results look 
> great (within the limits of those printers). More money coming in, 
less cost!

Antonis,

One of my major concerns is controlling colorcast. Of the three ink 
sets I have seen, Piezo, MIS VM and Spectratone none is quite to my 
taste. Hopefully with the MIS VM I will be able to dial in a tone 
that suits. I was thinking that the full-blown RGB profile would 
allow me to adjust the color cast on screen.

So if you are just measuring density then the workflow would be to 
print and measure a test wedge, make an adjustment curve using the 
measured values to push tones in the proper direction, apply the 
curve as a final step prior to printing, print and repeat until you 
have an accurately printed step wedge that divides the range evenly 
from Dmax to Dmin?

> 
> All this is to say, once again, that I doubt your actual quad 
prints will see that 
> much improvement if you jump from a $900 BW densitometer (Heiland 
TRD2, 
> no software) to $10,000 worth of exotics. Just my $0.02.

What if you jump from the $900 BW densitometer to the $1400 
spectrophotometer? Well I guess if you are just measuring density you 
don't gain anything.

Martin

> 
> I wonder what instruments Paul Roark finds most useful in 
developing his 

> curves.....
> 
> Antonis

Yep, I wouldn't put a lot of money on my results. I've never gotten good
(well, I've never gotten great) color results with my Profiler RGB and Astra
1200s combo either, but something may have been wrong in my workflow.

What I found was that if I used Dan's RGB soft proof method I could quickly
script a ball park curve from scratch (which shocked and scared me) by
previewing the curve, as I wrote it, through the profile. Unfortunately, the
profile did not preview Paul Roark's curves accurately, so I decided to just
let it go, and stay with what I know, for the moment. Perhaps I'll give it a
shot again (I mean an attempt, but as this is Dan's approach, I suppose any
shot should be of Absolute <g>) in the not too distant future. It's
definitely worth pursuing for anybody who plans to be writing their own RGB
separation curves, but I'm woefully too lazy for that at this moment.

Todd

> 
>> Someone (Todd?) posted who had Profiler RGB that they couldn't make it work,
>> I'm not sure why. Indications were it could,
>> and scanner gamut problems aren't an issue here. Anyone with WiziWIG or
>> EZcolor should give it a try too, may choke
>> though.
>> Tyler
> 
> Might have been the processing time that fooled him.  For some reason it is
> a much more difficult set of calculations and the profile can take a half
> hour or more for the computer to process (depending on the speed of the
> computer).  First couple of times I gave up because I thought the computer
> had hung up.  Then I let it process while I ran out to the store.  When I
> came back I had a profile - viola'.  Now I just start it processing and
> watch TV for a while.
> 
> Dan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:

One of my major concerns is controlling colorcast. Of the three ink 
> sets I have seen, Piezo, MIS VM and Spectratone none is quite to my 
> taste. Hopefully with the MIS VM I will be able to dial in a tone 
> that suits. I was thinking that the full-blown RGB profile would 
> allow me to adjust the color cast on screen.

OK, here is where I am being a bit theoretical about this and will have to 
respect Dan's far more practical experience: I think you can separate color 
from density in this case. Once you settle on the color you like, you don't have 
to deal with it again. This may be a simplified use of the VT possibilities 
(deliberate selective toning of tonal regions etc), but it's a start. Then you deal 
with spreading out the inks over the print densities using just densitometry.


> 
> So if you are just measuring density then the workflow would be to 
> print and measure a test wedge, make an adjustment curve using the 
> measured values to push tones in the proper direction, apply the 
> curve as a final step prior to printing, print and repeat until you 
> have an accurately printed step wedge that divides the range evenly 
> from Dmax to Dmin?

On this procedure I'd definitely defer to our local gurus. I will not second guess 
Paul or Dan. My own experience assumes that you have access to 4 
individual "plates" and can write separation actions. I have not, muself, done 
this through an RGB driver nor with 6 inks. I am still thinking that I would rather 
have a large format Epson with a RIP that I can talk postscript to, than anything 
with an RGB driver and a black box of internal separations. But that's another 
story...

....
> What if you jump from the $900 BW densitometer to the $1400 
> spectrophotometer? Well I guess if you are just measuring density you 
> don't gain anything.

You have to add the cost of the software to make the 1,400 investment 
worthwhile. Of course, if the argument is that the spectro can do double duty 
and that you can buy the software as needed later, then, sure, why not. Just 
keep in mind that the $1400 doesn't buy you a transmission unit (whereas the 
$900 does) - just in case you were going to read your negs too and calibrate 
your processing or those digital negs you are looking to buy !......  <g>

That's a loooong way to go to avoid the warming of piezo. And even then, 
aren't Paul's curves for the VT inks pretty much a done deal out of the box? (at 
least the ones completed).

Antonis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Antonis Ricos" <
antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
> <mwesley250@e...> wrote:

Antonis, it's sounding to me like you have a lot of quad experience 
yourself, certainly more than I.
> 
>> ...Hopefully with the MIS VM I will be able to dial in a tone 
> > that suits. I was thinking that the full-blown RGB profile would 
> > allow me to adjust the color cast on screen.

True, but you need to also be adjsting the non-toner inks for best 
dither and accurate grayscale reproduction, and mixing the toner ink 
in to suite, then your overall densities have changed so the non-toner 
inks have to be readjusted for density accuracy which changes the hue 
again...and doing it all in a way that forces the dirver to gring the 
K ink in apropriately...
My experience with a good RGB profile, and good CMYK setups is that 
subtle hues and near neutral colors are hard for monitors to preview 
dead on. You have to go the last 5% by eye anyway.
> 
> OK, here is where I am being a bit theoretical about this and will have to 
> respect Dan's far more practical experience: I think you can separate color 
> from density in this case. Once you settle on the color you like, you don't have 
> to deal with it again. This may be a simplified use of the VT possibilities 
> (deliberate selective toning of tonal regions etc), but it's a start. Then you deal 
> with spreading out the inks over the print densities using just densitometry.

One conclusion from the above is that, even with as RGB preview 
profile, good sound quad separation methods necessary for any of these 
workflows still apply. Right, the profile won't do that for you.

> > So if you are just measuring density then the workflow would be to 
> > print and measure a test wedge, make an adjustment curve using the 
> > measured values to push tones in the proper direction, apply the 
> > curve as a final step prior to printing, print and repeat until you 
> > have an accurately printed step wedge that divides the range evenly 
> > from Dmax to Dmin?

You have to do that anyway. In a sense, printing and measuring a chart 
and building a profile is providing you with the same information. But 
more elaboratly (and expensively). Developing and applying the curves 
to print remains the same. The profile simply helps you make good 
curves quicker, and see it on the monitor.
> 
>...My own experience assumes that you have access to 4 
> individual "plates" and can write separation actions. I have not, muself, done 
> this through an RGB driver nor with 6 inks. I am still thinking that I would rather 
> have a large format Epson with a RIP that I can talk postscript to, than anything 
> with an RGB driver and a black box of internal separations. But that's another 
> story...

That's exactly right Antonis. But if one IS using the driver, the 
profile has the advantage of reporting to you exactly what the driver 
is doing. You probably know from your experience that having the exact 
density and dot gain of each ink does not necessarily tell you how 
they will combine at different densities. Certain combos of the MIS 
set actually reverse out, without knowing what tests to run you'd 
never know it and be trying to undo it. Since the profiler is 
reporting info about 729 different mixtures, it's pretty accurate. 
Also it does a remakable job of predicting exactly how the black ink 
replacement will effect the high CMY values, which was one of the 
major difficulties with the Epson driver before, requiering trial and 
error.
In Allen's case, a lot of reverse engineering.
> 
> ....
> > What if you jump from the $900 BW densitometer to the $1400 
> > spectrophotometer? Well I guess if you are just measuring density you 
> > don't gain anything.
> 
> You have to add the cost of the software to make the 1,400 investment 
> worthwhile. Of course, if the argument is that the spectro can do double duty 
> and that you can buy the software as needed later, then, sure, why not. Just 
> keep in mind that the $1400 doesn't buy you a transmission unit (whereas the 
> $900 does) - just in case you were going to read your negs too and calibrate 
> your processing or those digital negs you are looking to buy !......  <g>
> 
> That's a loooong way to go to avoid the warming of piezo. And even then, 
> aren't Paul's curves for the VT inks pretty much a done deal out of the box? (at 
> least the ones completed).
> 
> Antonis

I agree with you Antonis. The only thing I can say is that since I 
already had the spectro and software, I had to try Dan's idea. I've 
now used it in a few different situations and have been really 
impressed by how well it works as a solution for using the Epson 
driver for quad ink sets.
But it won't replace good sep methods, you still have to learn all 
that!
Tyler

Tyler,

thanks for your opinions on this. It is very useful for me to compare notes and 
see if I am even following this debate correctly.

> Antonis, it's sounding to me like you have a lot of quad experience 
> yourself, certainly more than I.

Maybe, but not compared to the likes of Jon Cone, the folks at MIS, Paul 
Roark,  Dan and company here who have fought the Epson battles. 
4 color Iris is a breeze by comparison!!! (even with dozens of complex controls 
at the driver level)

.......
> One conclusion from the above is that, even with as RGB preview 
> profile, good sound quad separation methods necessary for any of these 
> workflows still apply. Right, the profile won't do that for you.


That was my point exactly. That someone in Martin's position would spend 
thousands just to gain an approximate screen preview - which for mono is 
very secondary to me. It may be important to others, so I am not knocking it, 
but at what cost?


> >...My own experience assumes that you have access to 4 
> > individual "plates" and can write separation actions. 
......
> That's exactly right Antonis. But if one IS using the driver, the 
> profile has the advantage of reporting to you exactly what the driver 
> is doing. 

Yes, true.... yikes!  <g>

....
That's a loooong way to go to avoid the warming of piezo. And even then, 
> > aren't Paul's curves for the VT inks pretty much a done deal out of the 
box?
....
> I agree with you Antonis. The only thing I can say is that since I 
> already had the spectro and software, I had to try Dan's idea. I've 
> now used it in a few different situations and have been really 
> impressed by how well it works as a solution for using the Epson 
> driver for quad ink sets.
> But it won't replace good sep methods, you still have to learn all 
> that!
> Tyler

That's right. The key here is that you already had the hardware as many who 
do high-end color work would. But what if someone is only doing quad and 
not planning on seing big profits come in right away? What is cost efficient at 
the 1,000-2,000 mark? Everyone's threshold of pain will differ...


Antonis

Well, I guess it's just the diehards in here on a holiday weekend

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Antonis Ricos"
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> .......someone in Martin's position would spend 
> thousands just to gain an approximate screen preview - which for
mono is 
> very secondary to me.

Dan could say more, but here are the advantages I see to it, only
available in PS6, though there is a PS5 workaround for RGB 
softproof.
After "assigning" the profile to a grayscale step wedge (or other
useful file) that has been converted to RGB, one can create 
very good curves by watching the grayscale info pallette as you work.
Because of how PS6 reports those numbers back 
through the profile and converted back to grayscale, it's very
accurate. So curve development, which is so important, 
simplified dramatically and is very accurate.
The softproofing isn't that important to me either. But you could use
it during editing by setting it up as your custom 
softproof profile on a grayscale file converted to RGB. Have your sep
curves as a top adjustment layer while doing your 
overall adjustments to the file. Some people might like that
approach. Or, some might prefer to customize the sep curves 
on a per image basis. If profiles are worked out for variable tone
inks, you could preview your image tone options per 
image.
I prefer to do my edits in grayscale and develop a quad workflow that
converts and separates as accurately as possible. 

 snip
> That's right. The key here is that you already had the hardware as
many who 
> do high-end color work would. But what if someone is only doing
quad and 
> not planning on seing big profits come in right away? What is cost
efficient at 
> the 1,000-2,000 mark? Everyone's threshold of pain will differ...

One option that hasn't been discussed, have a custom profile made for
you, much cheaper. You will confound the people 
doing it for you, and maybe their software as well, but if it works
you're there.
Then you can get on with printing, which is what it's all about.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> wrote:
> Well, I guess it's just the diehards in here on a holiday weekend

Tyler,
you are right, except of course for the folks in Germany, France, England, Italy 
and Spain for whom labor day has something to do with May 1st. But I digress 
and the thread police is breathing down my neck...


 Because of how PS6 reports those numbers back 
> through the profile and converted back to grayscale, it's very
> accurate. So curve development, which is so important, 
> simplified dramatically and is very accurate.

Makes sense to me.

> I prefer to do my edits in grayscale and develop a quad workflow that
> converts and separates as accurately as possible. 

In either this or the RGB workflow where you rely on reading grayscale 
numbers,  be very careful with your gray setup.


> One option that hasn't been discussed, have a custom profile made for
> you, much cheaper. You will confound the people 
> doing it for you, and maybe their software as well, but if it works
> you're there.

I suggested it to Martin earlier in the thread. He figures that at $100 a pop, he 
could easily spend his money on farming out profiles and have nothing to 
show for it as hardware goes. And the whole thing is such a moving target 
anyway. What are we going to be arguing a few months from now - or a year?

I say, more time printing less time fiddling. 

Antonis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Antonis Ricos" <antonisphoto@y..=
.> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> wrot=
e:
> > Well, I guess it's just the diehards in here on a holiday weekend
> 
> Tyler,
> you are right, except of course for the folks in Germany, France, England=
, Italy 
> and Spain for whom labor day has something to do with May 1st.

My apologies, it's embarrasing to realize I'm being a typical American
> 
> > I prefer to do my edits in grayscale and develop a quad workflow that
> > converts and separates as accurately as possible. 
> In either this or the RGB workflow where you rely on reading grayscale 
> numbers,  be very careful with your gray setup.

Yup, I've run into that problem!
> 
> > One option that hasn't been discussed, have a custom profile made for
> > you, much cheaper. You will confound the people 
> > doing it for you, and maybe their software as well, but if it works
> > you're there.
> 
> I suggested it to Martin earlier in the thread. He figures that at $100 a=
 pop, he 
> could easily spend his money on farming out profiles and have nothing to =

> show for it as hardware goes. And the whole thing is such a moving target=
 
> anyway. What are we going to be arguing a few months from now - or a year=
?

Yes, things do change quickly, though except for incorporating a new inkset=
, paper, tweak, or software, my workflow is 
strangely the same as it was two plus years ago.
I hope it doesn't sound like I'm arguing for this particular method. Actual=
ly it sounds like our workflows are very similar, 
large format Epson (well, my 3000 isn't that large), CMYK , RIP, Piezo ink,=
 Hahnemühle papers. I'd be very interested in 
hearing more specifics about what you are doing.
I tested this RGB profile method quickly when Dan informed us that it works=
. But I already had the tools at hand. Then when 
trying to help Steve Meyers develope a 7000 quad workflow with the Epson dr=
iver, it seemed the perfect opportunity to 
really put it to the test. Other methods would have taken much longer, the =
RGB driver is a bit of a black box, as you 
mentioned. This worked really well from my perspective, but it doesn't mean=
 I think anyone should be running out and 
getting these tools just to get a personal desktop workflow off the ground,=
 I hope it doesn't sound like I'm advocating that.
> 
> I say, more time printing less time fiddling. 

Absolutley, my fiddling ended quite some time ago. It's very easy to get ca=
ught up in this stuff, but when it's done, and your 
images are rolling out of the printer one after another, you remember why y=
ou started. I'm still amazed that it works at all. 
When Steve got his 7000, I was interested in seeing what could be done with=
 this beautiful printer, so got back into fiddle 
mode for a bit, I hope someone here may find some tidbit in these ravings r=
elevant to their current dilemmas.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> wrote:
I'd be very interested in 
> hearing more specifics about what you are doing.

Tyler,

I stick with the simplest possible: Scan in RGB, tweak in RGB while a gray 
setup matching the paper output is loaded, drop to grayscale and go to the 
piezo setup on the 1160/CIS.
Dropping to grayscale at the last minute insures that PS does all the dirty work 
to make sure that what I see in RGB exactly matches the print. Assuming of 
course that I did all the heavy lifting in the first place and created an accurate 
gray setup.
Simple. It works. I print. Out come beautiful piezo prints. I don't even use any 
of all this heavy machinery we have been talking about. But then again, I am 
"only" using piezoBW!


Antonis
<a little behind the times...>

This is probably near the end of this thread, I don't know what to 
change the subject to that reflects the contents.
I tried and tried, I just couldn't think of anything...
Please... please, dont hurt my family.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Antonis Ricos" <
antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
snip...
> Simple. It works. I print. Out come beautiful piezo prints. I don't
even use any 
> of all this heavy machinery we have been talking about. But then
again, I am 
> "only" using piezoBW!
> 
> 
> Antonis
> <a little behind the times...>

I don't know about that Antonis. It does work, and it is beautiful, 
which means it's still leading the pack as far as I'm concerned.
Perhaps sometime you can tell more about your Iris/Lyson experience 
and what the prints looked like. Iris B%W in general, for that
matter. 
I have used a lot of Lysonic quad ink but haven't had the chance to 
sit down and write about them yet.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> wrote:

> Perhaps sometime you can tell more about your Iris/Lyson experience 
> and what the prints looked like. Iris B%W in general, for that
> matter. 

Tyler,

I won't have time to get into this in detail for now. But short answer: I hated the 
color of the inks and dropped the whole thing. They were too "blue" to me, too 
cold (these were the "neutral" Lysonics). On top of that we were using the FA 
Soft paper (aka torchon) whose surface I also dislike. Concorde rag was an 
option but cold inks on warm paper were a disaster to me. 

When Piezo came out, I saw no reason to go to the iris anymore. The other big 
factor was that this is (or was) an unweildy beast with all sorts of things going 
wrong with the ink feed and the holding of the heavy papers on the drum etc 
etc and I just lost patience. 

Things have changed since, with a beautiful new upgrade that makes ink 
changing a breeze and produces no funny splotches. But for my purposes, I 
have moved on. If I want the size that the Realist is capable of, any large 
format Epson in combination with piezo or MIS is still cheaper and better. So 
why bother....  (unless you already have made the investment 10 years ago)

For now, I consider moving up to an Epson pro printer (7,9,10 K) with a (Mac) 
RIP and a quad inkset the only way to go. No purchase decisions yet, though.


Antonis