--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "lawrencetrek"
<ltitle@i...> wrote:
With
> out the expensive hardware/software to do this (+expertise), I
am not sure
> how easy it would be to have someone do the profiling for you
(especially
> when you live in an isolated, small city like I do).
There are several places that will produce an ICC profile for your
particular printer. And yes, every inkset and paper combination
needs its own profile. (Although Museo and ESFA have been
known to be interchangeable to a degree). Here are a couple of
places that I know of. I post one of these at great personal risk.
http://www.chromatics.com (Ask for Scott Ward) $125
http://digitaldog.net/ (Andrew Rodney) $150?
http://www.profilecity.com $?
Each of these places will give you an initial file to print; made up
mostly of grey chips. This is the linearization part. Based on the
readings from that, the software generates several more pages
of color chips. This is done through the mail or Fedex. At
Chromatics, where I get them now, I get seven pages of color
chips to print, after linearization.
It's important to print this untagged file with Epson driver set to
No Color Adjustment, so that the driver isn't messing with the
color; you want the driver to be "dumb". Also, record your Media
Type, as you will use that same Media type later. If you really
want to get picky, there is a file around called the Culbertson
Ramp, named after Dan Culbertson. You can print this image
using various mediatype settings to show you how much ink
each setting lays down; after you pick one, then stick with that
one.
I also wonder whether you
> would have to do a new profile with each ink change, or are the
pigments
> consistent enough lot to lot. (That could get expensive for
someone doing this
> as a hobby).
See above.
>And with your custom profile, I am curious how would you
> compare the output of the b/w 9600 on archival art papers to
that of
> piezography. (subjectively and objectively)
I used the piezo system briefly years ago with my old 3000. It
was nice, but to me, very limiting, to be constrained into ONLY
using b/W ink. My personal taste is to be able to tone, and
sometimes radically. I also tried the MIS Variables, but the whole
curve thing seemed nutty to me, but others seem to like it. Was
that diplomatic?
>Yet, I used one in the store the other day to print a file, and was
> certain that it had a purplish color cast under fluoro lights, but
looked more
> neutral or even a bit warm in daylight, and with halogen lights.
I don't think I'd trust anything that I briefly tested in a store.
Like i
told that other guy; it's just not giving it a fair chance at all.
There's
so much more that they can do, but only after profiling. I wish I
could show you the test prints from my 9600; one untagged and
unprofiled, and the other profiled. It was radical difference.
I didn't try
> printing a sample grayscale. The dot pattern with a loupe was
not too bad to
> me, but I don't have any piezotone samples yet to compare
with. If you were
> not doing this for a living, but wanted to get a printer setup to
produce serious
> b/w digital output at home, which way would you go ?
Hard to say. I don't know you. I don't know how demanding you
are. But I'd bet that the 2200 is a fine printer, if given a fair
chance. And even with B/W. The only potential drag about the
2200 seems to be the cost of the ink, and until some third party
cracks the code, the only game in town are the Ultras. Not that
the quality is bad, but with those tiny inkwells, it's pretty pricey
stuff, compared to, say, the 220ml carts in the 9600. That's part
of the reason I got the bigger printer.
Good luck.