Digital BW, The Print

Paul,

Thank you very much for taking the time to post the detailed report on your
efforts with PressReady and the 3000. I was sorry to hear it didn't work our
for you since I know you went to some trouble to get a hold of a copy.

I was really surprised at the results you got trying to print a double black
which sounded  very promising. I guess I don't quite understand the RIP
technology myself as I always understood that it gave you full control of
the individual inks and you should be able to lay down ink to the max of the
nozzles. I wonder if ImagePrint 4 or any of the other RIPs really let you
control the printer to a greater.

I have seen some great prints using PressReady with both a 3000 and a 1280
so I know it can be done but if it offers no advantage over the Epson driver
than it wouldn't be worth the extra expense for the RIP or the time to work
it out.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
To: "DigitalB&WPrint" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 10:06 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Adobe PressReady, 3000, & Win98


> I have been experimenting with Adobe PressReady software on my Window
> 98-Epson 3000 system for several days.  So far, the results have shown no
> net advantage over the Epson driver and the RGB curves I've been using to
> produce B&W quad prints.
>
> It may be that my experience is limited to my system -- specifically
Windows
> 98 & 3000.  And, of course, I'm only interested in the software for making
> quads, not color prints.  But my current conclusion is that the advantages
> of the RIP's independent control of the black ink are far outweighed by
the
> higher image quality of the Epson driver.
>
> The worst (& fatal) problem is that, on my 3000/Win98 system, the
PressReady
> images are plagued with banding.  Some Leben list comments indicated there
> was an update that cured some early banding problems, but none appears to
be
> available for Windows 98.  There is a Mac and a Windows 2000 update on the
> Adobe web page, but I found nothing there for Window 98.  (I have no idea
> what the Mac and Win 2k updates deal with.)  Some other comments on the
> Leben list indicate that banding was a problem with some 3000s and not
> others.
>
> The blacks that I have been able to produce through the PressReady RIP are
a
> hair weaker than what the Epson driver produces.  Comments on the Leben
list
> indicate that if one uses the "Unspecified-advanced" PressReady setting,
ink
> limits would be eliminated.  But, of course, all systems are limited by
> something.  I appear to have run into a limit that is just a hair less
than
> on the Epson driver.
>
> Following-up on a Leben list comment, I tried putting  MIS VM black ink
not
> only in the black cartridge, but also in a second, color spot.  Then with
> the "independent" control of the K & color spots, I poured ink in from
both
> jets/carts.  The interesting result is that the amount of ink I specified
> via the Photoshop CYMK curves for the two inks -- as long as the total of
> the 2 black ink spots was over 100% -- made no difference. 100% K & 100%
> color (second K), 100% & 50%, & 100% & 25% all resulted in a black patch
on
> the test strip that had a 1.65 density.
>
> This result is consistent with there being a combined ink limit that
causes
> the system to counter balance adding ink from one jet with reducing it
from
> the other jet.
>
> At any rate, the best I could get from the system with MIS VM-K was 1.65
on
> EAM.  I get 1.67 with the standard driver and MIS Vm K.  And, frankly,
that
> is fine.
>
> The, at least, more-independent control of the black ink that the RIP
gives
> is useful.  One can get a marginally smoother patch at about 85%, but the
> difference would not be significant (if even visible at all) in a display
> print.
>
> Other negatives of the RIP were that it processes slowly and has some
paper
> handling quirks that are annoying.
>
> So, I'm certainly not a RIP/PressReady expert, but I see so many negatives
> with it in my system and so few positives, that the experiment is over.
The

> Epson driver wins by a large margin.  I did not get any acceptable
> images/test strips from the PressReady, PS 6, Win 98, Epson 3000, MIS VM-S
> setup.
>
> People with different systems -- perhaps Macs & profiling software (and a
> lot of time &/or expertise) -- might be able to overcome all these
> deficiencies.  All I can do is relay my experience for what it is worth.
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

----- Original Message -----

From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Adobe PressReady, 3000, & Win98


> I was really surprised at the results you got trying to print a
double black
> which sounded  very promising. I guess I don't quite understand
the RIP
> technology myself as I always understood that it gave you full
control of
> the individual inks and you should be able to lay down ink to
the max of the
> nozzles. I wonder if ImagePrint 4 or any of the other RIPs
really let you
> control the printer to a greater.

There's no separate inklimit control + linearisation in
PressReady like most pro RIP's have. As I understand it this can
be compensated by using the custom CMYK printer profiles that
ProfilerPro is able to make in PhotoShop. Tobie and Culbertson
must know some things on that subject. I tried Profiler Pro as a
CMYK printer profiler for the Wasatch SoftRip and then it seems
to have a problem with the separate linearisation tool of the
Rip. Profiler Pro seems to be more suited for RIP's and printer
drivers that do not have ink limitation and linearisation.
My experience was with profiling for colour prints though.

Ernst