Digital BW, The Print

Yesterday I spent the day working with the president of ColorByte (they make 
Image Print), Photographer Greg Gorman and the new version of the software 
that drives the 9600/7600 (and within two weeks) the 2200. Gorman is trying 
get neutral B&W using all inks (like many of you). We've built custom profiles 
with the Epson driver but after yesterday, I'm understanding that this isn't 
necessary and that the huge issues with neutrality are primarily the Epson 
driver. 

The prints we made were DEAD NUTS NEUTRAL from the entire tonal range. 
NO metamerism what so ever (ColorByte's special grayscale mode doesn't 
use any yellow ink which is the cause for metamerism). We viewed prints 
under a GretagMacbeth "Judge II" light box which simulates Daylight (D50), 
Tungsten, Cool White Florescent lights etc. The prints were perfectly neutral. 

The dither is superior to Epsons. The dMax was significantly better when 
sending identical data to the printer using Epson driver (with custom profile) 
verses the canned paper profiles from ColorByte. 

We were, needless to say, blown away. We need some profiles from 
ColorByte to see what can be done in color. I've seen output from Image Print 
to a 7600 at a recent show and they looked awesome. I'd like to wait until 
we've tested color with our own set of tests before commenting further. But if 
Image Print can print B&W images like this to our Epson's, I can't see why we 
will not get awesome color. 

The smoothness of tones is like butter. Image Print uses 8000 levels of 
screening (Epson we were told uses a few hundred). All this and the print 
times are the same as using the Epson driver.

The issues with neutral prints is no longer an issue! I'm not kidding when I say 
that looking at output from the old printing methods verses with Image Print, it 
was like working with a totally new printer. This isn't the 9600 output Greg and 
I have been testing for the last 5 or 6 months (we did beta on the printer). The 
quality results are 100% superior to anything we've ever seen.

Andrew,

Prior to this post, I was convinced that the 2200 was not the right choice for 
mainly B/W output.  The problems with metamerism, color casts, blocked 
shadow details etc  that many have still noted has made me sway towards 
piezography.  Yet, your post has me excited that there is still hope that this 
machine may provide excellent B/W, and color.  Although, most of my output 
will be B/W I really would like to have the option of color and toning without 
having a separate printer.

You say that a 2200 version will be available shortly.  Now the big question.  I 
have read so many wonderful things about imageprint, but how expensive 
would the version be to drive a 2200 printer (approximately).

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "lawrencetrek" <ltitle@h...> wrote:

> have read so many wonderful things about imageprint, but how expensive 
> would the version be to drive a 2200 printer (approximately).

$495 today. But I'd sure like to see a love connection between Epson and 
ColorByte becuase if enough copies could be sold/bundled, the price could 
come WAY down. 

I'll have the 2200 drivers as soon as they are ready to test (two weeks). But 
the 2200 and 9600 are the same beast so I see no reason why the output 
from the 2200 wouldn't be as nice as what I say yesterday. 

Since Yesterday, we've printed a LOT of B&W images. The differences with 
the ColorByte product is astounding. 

I've learned that major issues with Epson is their driver. Image Print just 
makes the printer behave SO much better that it would be in Epson's best 
interest to make this product more affordable to it's customers. I only wish you 
could see the "before and after" tests (with custom profiles). The quality I'm 
seeing is such that it's hard to believe the prints are from the same printer.

What paper(s) did you use?

Jeff Greer

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., J Greer <jgpinfo@u...> wrote:
> What paper(s) did you use?

Velvet enhanced Matt

Thanks for the report, Andrew...this was my impression as well...I was with
John from Colorbyte the day before he met with Greg and I was likewise
impressed...but they still didn't equal the prints that I've gotten from
imageprint with the Piezotones in my 7000...but much, much closer than
anything I had seen from a color printer before...but I agree...Imageprint
is the key here...the epson driver just doesn't cut it.

Robert

On 8/17/02 4:11 PM, "thedigitaldog" <andrew@...> wrote:

> Yesterday I spent the day working with the president of ColorByte (they make
> Image Print), Photographer Greg Gorman and the new version of the software
> that drives the 9600/7600 (and within two weeks) the 2200. Gorman is trying
> get neutral B&W using all inks (like many of you). We've built custom profiles
> with the Epson driver but after yesterday, I'm understanding that this isn't
> necessary and that the huge issues with neutrality are primarily the Epson
> driver. 
> 
> The prints we made were DEAD NUTS NEUTRAL from the entire tonal range.
> NO metamerism what so ever (ColorByte's special grayscale mode doesn't
> use any yellow ink which is the cause for metamerism). We viewed prints
> under a GretagMacbeth "Judge II" light box which simulates Daylight (D50),
> Tungsten, Cool White Florescent lights etc. The prints were perfectly neutral.
> 
> The dither is superior to Epsons. The dMax was significantly better when
> sending identical data to the printer using Epson driver (with custom profile)
> verses the canned paper profiles from ColorByte.
> 
> We were, needless to say, blown away. We need some profiles from
> ColorByte to see what can be done in color. I've seen output from Image Print
> to a 7600 at a recent show and they looked awesome. I'd like to wait until
> we've tested color with our own set of tests before commenting further. But if
> Image Print can print B&W images like this to our Epson's, I can't see why we
> will not get awesome color.
> 
> The smoothness of tones is like butter. Image Print uses 8000 levels of
> screening (Epson we were told uses a few hundred). All this and the print
> times are the same as using the Epson driver.
> 
> The issues with neutral prints is no longer an issue! I'm not kidding when I
> say 
> that looking at output from the old printing methods verses with Image Print,
> it 
> was like working with a totally new printer. This isn't the 9600 output Greg
> and 
> I have been testing for the last 5 or 6 months (we did beta on the printer).
> The 
> quality results are 100% superior to anything we've ever seen.
> 
>

> Yesterday I spent the day working with the president of ColorByte (they make
> Image Print), Photographer Greg Gorman and the new version of the software
> that drives the 9600/7600 (and within two weeks) the 2200. Gorman is trying
> get neutral B&W using all inks (like many of you). We've built custom profiles
> with the Epson driver but after yesterday, I'm understanding that this isn't
> necessary and that the huge issues with neutrality are primarily the Epson
> driver. 

I saw one of Greg Gorman's B&W prints from the 7600 at MacWorld expo and
came very close to canceling my 7600 order on the basis of it, until some
people on the 9000 list reassured me. I kept the order in and have been very
happy with my printer, but I'm still confused about that print. The rep at
the Epson booth was all gushing about how Gorman had sold the print for
$10,000, but I went around to look at it and was struck with a distinct
emperor's new clothes feeling. The print had weak blacks, a cyan cast, and
some pretty major crossovers. Do you know what he was using to profile his
printer?

>The rep at
> the Epson booth was all gushing about how Gorman had sold the print for
> $10,000, but I went around to look at it and was struck with a distinct
> emperor's new clothes feeling. The print had weak blacks, a cyan cast, and
> some pretty major crossovers. Do you know what he was using to profile his
> printer?

Depends on now long ago. Was it from the 9600? He was printing from the 
10000 using just black ink because he wasn't happy with the color casts so 
those prints were very neutral but lacking of course due to the other inks not 
being used. After the 9600 came, he was printing full color using profiles 
made from ProfileMaker Pro and a Spectroscan. This was 4.0 which didn't 
have the new features that compensate for viewing lights. I have a print in my 
home of Greg's printed on the 9600 and I see far less metamerism but it's still 
there. Again, Tungsten looks the best, daylight a bit green. 

Greg reprinted this image for me this week using the ColorByte product and 
it's so far and away better (better dmax, neutral, smoother)! Going to cost a bit 
to reframe but worth it. 

Greg did sell tens of thousands of dollars of Epson prints at  a recent show in 
Europe (the money went to charity). I don't think the $10K figure is a lie. Don't 
think that was for a single print. 

Think what they will be worth when re-printed with ImagePrint!

Andrew:
Since the IP5 "grayscale" mode doesn't use yellow, I'm assuming that one
would do a profile in "all color" mode (i.e. rgb) and that this profile
would then be used for the grayscale mode. Correct?
 
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
 
. 


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Shire,Stanley" <sshire@c...> wrote:

> Since the IP5 "grayscale" mode doesn't use yellow, I'm assuming that one
> would do a profile in "all color" mode (i.e. rgb) and that this profile
> would then be used for the grayscale mode. Correct?

The profiles used to print B&W are special and supplied by ColorByte. I saw 
the target they use (it's included) so you can send them the output to build a 
profile for non supported papers. It's just printing grays. So there is no way I 
could use say ProfileMaker Pro's color target to build a profile and use in this 
mode. I think for regular color output, you'd simply send the ProfileMaker 
target though the RIP and once built, place in the folder where IP looks for it's 
profiles. But I'm thinking that may not be necessary. IF IP's color profiles are 
half as good as the B&W ones, there may be no need to build profiles.

It's just unfortunate that Epson couldn't produce a similar driver to run (what 
seem like state of the art inkjet printers).  I guess most 2200 buyers are going 
to print digital camera files in color and couldn't give a ... about producing 
exhibition quality B/W digital prints.  For the rest of us photographers, we have 
to come up with an extra $495 to get the full performance of a 2200.  Is there 
really a hope of seeing this terrific sounding product bundled or discounted 
with 2200 purchases?  Hell, Epson could probably buy the company.

Maybe the famous group of 12 could pull some strings with Epson and 
ColorByte.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "lawrencetrek" <ltitle@h...> wrote:
> Maybe the famous group of 12 could pull some strings with Epson and 
> ColorByte.

We are working on that. The Product Manager for the desktop line has seen it 
(came by Friday) and was very impressed. We enough people buy the 
product, the price would certainly come down in mass.

I have been very happy with Colorbyte's profiles thus far and am sure
that the ones that you used are excellent also.
Do you see profiling software (i.e. ProfileMaker Pro, etc) incorporating
grayscale targets and profiling in the future?
 
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
 
215 751-8320
 <mailto:sshire@...> sshire@...

-----Original Message-----
From: thedigitaldog [mailto:andrew@...] 
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 5:01 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Getting perfect neutral prints from Epson
7600/9600 etc
 
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Shire,Stanley" <sshire@c...>
wrote:

> Since the IP5 "grayscale" mode doesn't use yellow, I'm assuming that
one
> would do a profile in "all color" mode (i.e. rgb) and that this
profile
> would then be used for the grayscale mode. Correct?

The profiles used to print B&W are special and supplied by ColorByte. I
saw 
the target they use (it's included) so you can send them the output to
build a 
profile for non supported papers. It's just printing grays. So there is
no way I 
could use say ProfileMaker Pro's color target to build a profile and use
in this 
mode. I think for regular color output, you'd simply send the
ProfileMaker 
target though the RIP and once built, place in the folder where IP looks
for it's 
profiles. But I'm thinking that may not be necessary. IF IP's color
profiles are 
half as good as the B&W ones, there may be no need to build profiles. 






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=1182726/R=0/*http:/adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-
335%0d%0a> 

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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "thedigitaldog"
<andrew@d...> wrote:
> We are working on that. The Product Manager for the desktop line
has seen it 
> (came by Friday) and was very impressed. We enough people buy the 
> product, the price would certainly come down in mass.


Andrew,

You're usually so level-headed, factual, and flatline. Since Friday,
it's like you've come alive. Are you OK?

Everything that you say about this RIP seems interesting to me. Yet
at the same time, I can't imagine my 9600 looking any better than it
already
does, now that's it's profiled. Even the Epson canned profiles are
pretty darn 
nice.

I see little if any metamerism. Certainly not enough to bother me.
The prints and 
the tonality seems very smooth. The 21 step grey wedge is consistent
and 
neutral, top to bottom.

So I'm looking for more exact qualities that you speak of, that would
make up this radical improvement that you mention. And looking for
justification 
to spend yet another $2500 for the 9600 version of the software.

You say that you can't believe that two prints look like they've been
made from the same printer (Epson vs. ImagePrint). Are my standards
that low,
that I'm satisfied with this level of inferior quality? I thought
(past tense,
I guess) that I was pretty picky.

I'm kidding you, but also serious.

Thanks, Mark Tucker

Andrew,

Is there no price difference between the 7600 and 9600 versions?

$2,500 seems way too much for the 7600.  I was beginning to get 
interested, but at that price for a 7600, it could walk on water and 
I still would not buy it.
--
Quentin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "qdfb" <qdb@b...> wrote:
> Andrew,
> 
> Is there no price difference between the 7600 and 9600 versions?

I'm not sure. I think they are the same price.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Shire,Stanley" <sshire@c...> wrote:
> Do you see profiling software (i.e. ProfileMaker Pro, etc) incorporating
> grayscale targets and profiling in the future?

I'm meeting with GretagMacbeth in 3 weeks at Seybold so it will be on my list 
of wants and needs.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "marktuckerdotcom" <
> You're usually so level-headed, factual, and flatline. Since Friday,
> it's like you've come alive. Are you OK?
> 
> Everything that you say about this RIP seems interesting to me. Yet
> at the same time, I can't imagine my 9600 looking any better than it
> already
> does, now that's it's profiled. 

With something controlling the Epson at the ink level, you'd be shocked at the 
difference. The dither and smoothness from IP and the Dmax (at least printing 
B&W) is vastly, vastly superior to anything you can get off the Epson using the 
driver supplied. The key is the driver. What we get from Epson just doesn't cut 
it!

> With something controlling the Epson at the ink level, you'd be
> shocked at the
> difference. The dither and smoothness from IP and the Dmax (at
> least printing
> B&W) is vastly, vastly superior to anything you can get off the
> Epson using the
> driver supplied. The key is the driver. What we get from Epson
> just doesn't cut
> it!

Hi TDD,

I don't understand your dMax comment.  The black ink is the blackest you can
get out of the printer...right?  If you printed a patch of the darkest black
using one "driver", and the same image using the other "driver"...how could
they differ so significantly?  There should be no dithering going on for the
darkest black with either...and it's the same ink...  Have you looked at
what it's doing under a microscope?

Regards,

Austin

P.S.  Do you actually have a name, aside from "thedigitaldog" that is?

Andrew,

I think that is a pretty big price hike over version 4.  I hope you 
are wrong about the 7600 pricing.  Epson have brought the price of 
their large format printers down in comparison with their 
predecessors.  I don't want to spend the savings on a RIP, no matter 
how good :-)
--
Quentin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "thedigitaldog" 
<andrew@d...> wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "qdfb" <qdb@b...> wrote:
> > Andrew,
> > 
> > Is there no price difference between the 7600 and 9600 versions?
> 
> I'm not sure. I think they are the same price.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@i...> 
> I don't understand your dMax comment.  The black ink is the blackest you 
can get out of the printer...right?  

Not necessarily. And how is the black created? What mix of inks is used? 

> P.S.  Do you actually have a name, aside from "thedigitaldog" that is?

Well Dog spelled backwards is god!

> > I don't understand your dMax comment.  The black ink is the 
> blackest you 
> can get out of the printer...right?  
> 
> Not necessarily. And how is the black created? What mix of inks is used? 

For the blackest black...well, NO MIX!  Should be simply black only.
 
> > P.S.  Do you actually have a name, aside from "thedigitaldog" that is?
> 
> Well Dog spelled backwards is god! 

Yeah, but what's YOUR name?

Austin

On 8/19/02 4:13 PM, "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> wrote:

> Hi TDD,
> 
> I don't understand your dMax comment.  The black ink is the blackest you can
> get out of the printer...right?  If you printed a patch of the darkest black
> using one "driver", and the same image using the other "driver"...how could
> they differ so significantly?  There should be no dithering going on for the
> darkest black with either...and it's the same ink...  Have you looked at
> what it's doing under a microscope?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> P.S.  Do you actually have a name, aside from "thedigitaldog" that is?

The dither isn't an issue in dmax.  The issue is finding the optimum ink
load for a paper...which all of us who have tried to profile epson inks
know...epson doesn't do very well.  When imageprint generates a recipe they
look at the maximum amount of ink that you can put down and still get good
shadow detail.  They they linearize that ink.  This frequently results in
better dmax...but still with good shadow detail.  In my experience the dmax
may not be much higher than the epson  driver (but is usually higher than
the piezo driver)...but the shadow detail is like night and day.

The beauty of the dither is good ink entrance...Imageprint has the smoothest
gray ramps that I've seen...no sign (to the naked eye) of the inks coming in
and going out.  I can see ink entrance in every partitioned RGB workflow
that I've ever seen using the epson driver.  Sometimes I can't see it in
piezo output...but there are frequently bumps in the ramp instead.

Robert

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Robert G. Morrison" 
<rmorrison@p...> wrote:
In my experience the dmax
> may not be much higher than the epson  driver (but is usually 
higher than
> the piezo driver)...but the shadow detail is like night and day.

This shadow detail issue is the only nagging thing that I still 
have, after a well-profiled 9600. And I've had it with the 7000 too, 
and it's the first thing I look for when somebody shows me an 
inkjet print. I call it the "falling off the cliff syndrome"; where 
everything from about 90% to pure black falls off the cliff to pure 
black. When I look at a new stepwedge, it's always where my 
attention goes first.

In my (in)experience with these printers, this is still their
Achilles 
Heel; that extreme subtlety between 90% and pure black. Maybe 
that's the shortcoming only of the Epson driver.

Still, would I shell out $2500 for that one issue alone; probably 
not. When do you cross the line from obsessive to neurotic?

MT

My thoughts exactly Mark. These posts read like sales literature for this
RIP. I guess what we are getting is just plain vanilla custom profiled
neutral, and you have to pay $2500 for the "dead nuts" version. Still, I
would like to see some output. I was hoping more people would be interested
in my technical print exchange, and especially Andrew so that we could judge
this nut death ourselves.

> You're usually so level-headed, factual, and flatline. Since Friday,
> it's like you've come alive. Are you OK?
> 
> Everything that you say about this RIP seems interesting to me. Yet
> at the same time, I can't imagine my 9600 looking any better than it
> already
> does, now that's it's profiled. Even the Epson canned profiles are
> pretty darn 
> nice.
> 
> I see little if any metamerism. Certainly not enough to bother me.
> The prints and 
> the tonality seems very smooth. The 21 step grey wedge is consistent
> and 
> neutral, top to bottom.
> 
> So I'm looking for more exact qualities that you speak of, that would
> make up this radical improvement that you mention. And looking for
> justification 
> to spend yet another $2500 for the 9600 version of the software.
> 
> You say that you can't believe that two prints look like they've been
> made from the same printer (Epson vs. ImagePrint). Are my standards
> that low,
> that I'm satisfied with this level of inferior quality? I thought
> (past tense,
> I guess) that I was pretty picky.
> 
> I'm kidding you, but also serious.
> 
> Thanks, Mark Tucker

Just noticed this blurb on the piezo site, which also might be apropos to
this thread:
 
> PiezographyBW Pro! What's up?!
> PiezographyBW Pro is about to grow up. Our exclusive all-new large format
> monochromatic version will have support for more inks, more printers (finally
> Rolands), full multi-image layout capabilities, and will give the user the
> ability to customize their systems to any inks and to their own styles. Stay
> tuned for the release date later this summer!
> We're keeping our support for the EPSON 7000, 7500, 9000, 9500. But what would
> you do if you had four different inksets of the most technically advanced quad
> black inks ever developed? Roland has eight inkjet heads and EPSON has only 6.
> We're also developing a solution for later this fall for the EPSON 7600 and
> 9600 owners who are struggling to get high-quality b&w with their printers.

I think the results I'm getting with the Eye-One profiles are pretty darn
good, but I'm not averse to being shown how/if it could be better. Not that
I think there is a couple grand worth of improvement that could be made by
any RIP, but who knows... Or is this the same RIP that's already being
discussed? Weren't they going to do a Piezopro2 based on somebody else's RIP
at one point?

I saw the postings on this site regarding ImagePrint and ordered 
it for my Epson 7600.  Guess what, it works! Perfectly neutral 
grays with the possibility of adding a tint.  It works right out of the 
box with the canned profiles, though using it on a Macintosh is 
not by any means intuitive.

It is worth the investment if B&W prints are important to you and 
the prints look good in any light - of course they change a little 
under flourescent, tungsten, daylight - what print doesn't?

Neil Folberg 
www.neilfolberg.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "thedigitaldog" 
<andrew@d...> wrote:
> >The rep at
> > the Epson booth was all gushing about how Gorman had 
sold the print for
> > $10,000, but I went around to look at it and was struck with a 
distinct
> > emperor's new clothes feeling. The print had weak blacks, a 
cyan cast, and
> > some pretty major crossovers. Do you know what he was 
using to profile his
> > printer?
> 
> Depends on now long ago. Was it from the 9600? He was 
printing from the 
> 10000 using just black ink because he wasn't happy with the 
color casts so 
> those prints were very neutral but lacking of course due to the 
other inks not 
> being used. After the 9600 came, he was printing full color 
using profiles 
> made from ProfileMaker Pro and a Spectroscan. This was 4.0 
which didn't 
> have the new features that compensate for viewing lights. I 
have a print in my 
> home of Greg's printed on the 9600 and I see far less 
metamerism but it's still 
> there. Again, Tungsten looks the best, daylight a bit green. 
> 
> Greg reprinted this image for me this week using the ColorByte 
product and 
> it's so far and away better (better dmax, neutral, smoother)! 
Going to cost a bit 
> to reframe but worth it. 
> 
> Greg did sell tens of thousands of dollars of Epson prints at  a 
recent show in 
> Europe (the money went to charity). I don't think the $10K figure 
is a lie. Don't 

> think that was for a single print. 
> 
> Think what they will be worth when re-printed with ImagePrint!

Cool.  Your experience reflects mine.

I have one problem, though.  Tint picker won't work.  I'm on a PC.  
Colorbyte are looking in to it. 

Interface is kludgy, though, and I can think of a list of fairly 
basic features as long as your arm to improve it, but the basics are 
there.

--
Quentin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "neilhfolberg" 
<folberg@n...> wrote:
> I saw the postings on this site regarding ImagePrint and ordered 
> it for my Epson 7600.  Guess what, it works! Perfectly neutral 
> grays with the possibility of adding a tint.  It works right out of 
the 

> box with the canned profiles, though using it on a Macintosh is 
> not by any means intuitive.
> 
> It is worth the investment if B&W prints are important to you and 
> the prints look good in any light - of course they change a little 
> under flourescent, tungsten, daylight - what print doesn't?
> 
> Neil Folberg 
> www.neilfolberg.com

Neil,

Is the change magenta/green?

Helene

<< It is worth the investment if B&W prints are important to you and 
the prints look good in any light - of course they change a little 
under flourescent, tungsten, daylight - what print doesn't? >>

The colors primarily seem to be blue (which looks bright 
greenish) and several shades of magenta. You can see exactly 
which ones by looking at the photo in hue/saturation, choosing 
for example Magentas and turning up the saturation to 100%.  
Then you can refine the choice to those problematic areas by 
restricting the color to a more narrow selection that matches the 
problem area in the print and lowering the saturation of that 
particular color.  This will help somewhat, but it will not eliminate 
the problem entirely.

Neil

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., grdglass@a... wrote:
> Neil,
> 
> Is the change magenta/green?
> 
> Helene
> 
> << It is worth the investment if B&W prints are important to you 
and 
> the prints look good in any light - of course they change a little 
> under flourescent, tungsten, daylight - what print doesn't? >>

On 9/10/02 4:21 AM, "neilhfolberg" <folberg@...> wrote:

> I saw the postings on this site regarding ImagePrint and ordered
> it for my Epson 7600.  Guess what, it works! Perfectly neutral
> grays with the possibility of adding a tint.


What paper and black ink are you using?

Lawrence
----------------------------------
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
lsmith@...
----------------------------------

I'm using the matte black ink set and EAM, but will soon be 
testing Photorag.

Neil
www.neilfoberg.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Lawrence Smith 
<lsmith@l...> wrote:
> On 9/10/02 4:21 AM, "neilhfolberg" <folberg@n...> wrote:
> 
> > I saw the postings on this site regarding ImagePrint and 
ordered

> > it for my Epson 7600.  Guess what, it works! Perfectly neutral
> > grays with the possibility of adding a tint.
> 
> 
> What paper and black ink are you using?
> 
> Lawrence
> ----------------------------------
> Lawrence W. Smith Photography
> http://www.lwsphoto.com
> lsmith@l...
> ----------------------------------

First, thanks all for your input on this subject i'm finding it very 
usefull and am dying to see this product (Imageprint & 7600) first 
hand.  I am  just redesigning my portfolio and trying to figure out 
how to print it.  I would like to print both color and BW on the 
same page and I was wondering if Imageprint would allow me to 
print a neutral BW and a color image, beside each other, on the 
same page, on the same run?  Does it manage color on a per 
image basis or per print run?

-Michael
www.michaelfaye.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "qdfb" <qdb@b...> 
wrote:
> Cool.  Your experience reflects mine.
> 
> I have one problem, though.  Tint picker won't work.  I'm on a 
PC.  
> Colorbyte are looking in to it. 
> 
> Interface is kludgy, though, and I can think of a list of fairly 
> basic features as long as your arm to improve it, but the basics 
are 
> there.
> 
> --
> Quentin
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "neilhfolberg" 
> <folberg@n...> wrote:
> > I saw the postings on this site regarding ImagePrint and 
ordered 
> > it for my Epson 7600.  Guess what, it works! Perfectly neutral 
> > grays with the possibility of adding a tint.  It works right out
of 
> the 
> > box with the canned profiles, though using it on a Macintosh 
is 
> > not by any means intuitive.
> > 
> > It is worth the investment if B&W prints are important to you 
and 
> > the prints look good in any light - of course they change a 
little 

> > under flourescent, tungsten, daylight - what print doesn't?
> > 
> > Neil Folberg 
> > www.neilfolberg.com

>NO metamerism what so ever (ColorByte's special grayscale mode 
>doesn't 
>use any yellow ink which is the cause for metamerism

Nonsense! Magenta makes troubles.





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "thedigitaldog" 
<andrew@d...> wrote:
> Yesterday I spent the day working with the president of ColorByte 
(they make 
> Image Print), Photographer Greg Gorman and the new version of the 
software 
> that drives the 9600/7600 (and within two weeks) the 2200. Gorman 
is trying 
> get neutral B&W using all inks (like many of you). We've built 
custom profiles 
> with the Epson driver but after yesterday, I'm understanding that 
this isn't 
> necessary and that the huge issues with neutrality are primarily 
the Epson 
> driver. 
> 
> The prints we made were DEAD NUTS NEUTRAL from the entire tonal 
range. 
> NO metamerism what so ever (ColorByte's special grayscale mode 
doesn't 
> use any yellow ink which is the cause for metamerism). We viewed 
prints 
> under a GretagMacbeth "Judge II" light box which simulates Daylight 
(D50), 
> Tungsten, Cool White Florescent lights etc. The prints were 
perfectly neutral. 
> 
> The dither is superior to Epsons. The dMax was significantly better 
when 
> sending identical data to the printer using Epson driver (with 
custom profile) 
> verses the canned paper profiles from ColorByte. 
> 
> We were, needless to say, blown away. We need some profiles from 
> ColorByte to see what can be done in color. I've seen output from 
Image Print 
> to a 7600 at a recent show and they looked awesome. I'd like to 
wait until 
> we've tested color with our own set of tests before commenting 
further. But if 
> Image Print can print B&W images like this to our Epson's, I can't 
see why we 
> will not get awesome color. 
> 
> The smoothness of tones is like butter. Image Print uses 8000 
levels of 
> screening (Epson we were told uses a few hundred). All this and the 
print 
> times are the same as using the Epson driver.
> 
> The issues with neutral prints is no longer an issue! I'm not 
kidding when I say 
> that looking at output from the old printing methods verses with 
Image Print, it 
> was like working with a totally new printer. This isn't the 9600 
output Greg and 
> I have been testing for the last 5 or 6 months (we did beta on the 
printer). The 
> quality results are 100% superior to anything we've ever seen.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "photographyworks" <> Nonsense! 
Magenta makes troubles.


I'm seeing NO metamerism on dozens of B&W prints from the RIP under all 
nature of light sources (including a Judge II light box)!