Digital BW, The Print

I'd like to conduct a small technical print exchange for the purposes of comparing different methods of obtaining neutral B&W prints on the Epson 2100/2200.

Specifically, I'm looking for one participant in each category:

1. Colorbyte ImagePrint (I can do this one)
2. Gimp
3. iProof PowerRIP
4. Epson Driver + Gray Balancer
5. Any other unique solutions out there

I'll provide a standard 360dpi test image and I think we should all agree to print on Enhanced Matte or Archival Matte in an attempt to compare apples to apples.

Anyone interested, please email me off-list so I can organize it.

--Tom

Tom,

I am interested in seeing prints from this exchange.  Any chance you 
would accept a print using the more traditional quad route?  I use a 
1280 printer with FS inks + Generations 4 black.  But, I don't use 
Piezography, or other published partitioned workflows.  I developed 
my own workflow, which includes switching ink positions around a 
little bit.  Let me know if this would be an interest.

Regards.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Fors 
<tom@f...> wrote:
> I'd like to conduct a small technical print exchange for the 
purposes of comparing different methods of obtaining neutral B&W 
prints on the Epson 2100/2200.
> 
> Specifically, I'm looking for one participant in each category:
> 
> 1. Colorbyte ImagePrint (I can do this one)
> 2. Gimp
> 3. iProof PowerRIP
> 4. Epson Driver + Gray Balancer
> 5. Any other unique solutions out there
> 
> I'll provide a standard 360dpi test image and I think we should all 
agree to print on Enhanced Matte or Archival Matte in an attempt to 
compare apples to apples.

> 
> Anyone interested, please email me off-list so I can organize it.
> 
> --Tom

I'm going to submit some PowerRIP prints for the exchange and I would 
certainly be interested in seeing prints made with quad inksets, as I 
have never seen anything but regular Epson prints myself. I'm very 
curious to see how they compare with my own prints.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani 
<shilesh.jani@s...>" <shilesh.jani@s...> wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> I am interested in seeing prints from this exchange.  Any chance 
you 
> would accept a print using the more traditional quad route?  I use 
a 
> 1280 printer with FS inks + Generations 4 black.  But, I don't use 
> Piezography, or other published partitioned workflows.  I developed 
> my own workflow, which includes switching ink positions around a 
> little bit.  Let me know if this would be an interest.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Shilesh
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Fors 
> <tom@f...> wrote:
> > I'd like to conduct a small technical print exchange for the 
> purposes of comparing different methods of obtaining neutral B&W 
> prints on the Epson 2100/2200.
> > 
> > Specifically, I'm looking for one participant in each category:
> > 
> > 1. Colorbyte ImagePrint (I can do this one)
> > 2. Gimp
> > 3. iProof PowerRIP
> > 4. Epson Driver + Gray Balancer
> > 5. Any other unique solutions out there
> > 
> > I'll provide a standard 360dpi test image and I think we should 
all 

> agree to print on Enhanced Matte or Archival Matte in an attempt to 
> compare apples to apples.
> > 
> > Anyone interested, please email me off-list so I can organize it.
> > 
> > --Tom

I bought a Kodak grey scale, to help me calibrate my quadtone curves. I
got a 21-step scale, to match the 21-step stepwedges commonly used in
quadtone work. But the "21-step" Kodak scale only has 20 steps! So:

1. Why is a 20-step scaled called "21-step", and
2. Why 21 steps in the first place?

Harry

on 1/2/03 8:58 PM, Harry Saddler wrote:

> I bought a Kodak grey scale, to help me calibrate my quadtone curves. I
> got a 21-step scale, to match the 21-step stepwedges commonly used in
> quadtone work. But the "21-step" Kodak scale only has 20 steps! So:
> 
> 1. Why is a 20-step scaled called "21-step", and
> 2. Why 21 steps in the first place?

Good questions.

I'll venture a guess as to why 20 steps... 5% is a convenient denomination
and 20 is not too many and not too few steps.

I've no idea why they'd call it a 21 step wedge, unless it's similar to the
notion that the year 2001 was really the 2000th year since the birth of
Christ...(don't ask me to explain that, it's already ruined a few holiday
meals...)


Todd

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

From: "Todd Flashner" <tflash@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] A conundrum


> on 1/2/03 8:58 PM, Harry Saddler wrote:
>
> > I bought a Kodak grey scale, to help me calibrate my quadtone curves. I
> > got a 21-step scale, to match the 21-step stepwedges commonly used in
> > quadtone work. But the "21-step" Kodak scale only has 20 steps! So:
> >
> > 1. Why is a 20-step scaled called "21-step", and
> > 2. Why 21 steps in the first place?
>
> Good questions.
>
> I'll venture a guess as to why 20 steps... 5% is a convenient denomination
> and 20 is not too many and not too few steps.
>
> I've no idea why they'd call it a 21 step wedge, unless it's similar to
the
> notion that the year 2001 was really the 2000th year since the birth of
> Christ...(don't ask me to explain that, it's already ruined a few holiday
> meals...)
>
Harry,

Todd's right, if you count the steps out starting with 0% and ending with
100% you get 21-steps.

The Kodak wedge would be useful for calibrating the film development and
scanning steps of the workflow if the wedge is calibrated or you have a
transmission densitometer, but it isn't going to help much on the printing
end. The 21-step wedge files will be of more use because they are
mathematically perfect.

Martin Wesley

>Todd's right, if you count the steps out starting with 0% and ending with
>100% you get 21-steps.

Ok, right... 5% steps. Got it.

>The Kodak wedge would be useful for calibrating the film development and
>scanning steps of the workflow if the wedge is calibrated or you have a
>transmission densitometer, but it isn't going to help much on the printing
>end. The 21-step wedge files will be of more use because they are
>mathematically perfect.

Mathematically perfect they may be, but I need something to physically
compare to a step wedge printed on my printer, to judge how accurate the
steps are.

Harry

(snip)
>
> >The Kodak wedge would be useful for calibrating the film development and
> >scanning steps of the workflow if the wedge is calibrated or you have a
> >transmission densitometer, but it isn't going to help much on the
printing
> >end. The 21-step wedge files will be of more use because they are
> >mathematically perfect.
>
> Mathematically perfect they may be, but I need something to physically
> compare to a step wedge printed on my printer, to judge how accurate the
> steps are.
>
 Harry,

Ideally you would print the wedge file and then measure the results with a
reflecting densitometer. You could then see if the density readings are in
5% steps and adjust your curves accordingly. You can pick up used
densitometers such as the X-Rite 810 on eBay in the $200 to $300 range. You
can also use a flatbed scanner to "measure" your printed wedge. Not as
accurate as the densitometers but still better than an eye ball comparison.
Even without these you can get a pretty good screen to print match comparing
your printed wedge to what you see on your screen.

In the Files section in folder:

Files > Image processing

Check out:

Matching Your Monitor view to Your Prints.pdf

Martin Wesley

On 1/2/03 11:22 PM, "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...> wrote:

> You can pick up used
> densitometers such as the X-Rite 810 on eBay in the $200 to $300 range.

Boy, you aren't kidding -- there are more than a dozen densitometers and
colorimeters and spectrophotometers!

Now if only I knew what the difference between them all was.  I guess it's
time to go peruse X-Rite's site.

Besides the 810, are there other ones that would be good for basic step
wedge scanning?

-- 
John Labovitz
johnl@...
www.johnlabovitz.com

Answer to #2
 
21 steps represents a 7 stop range. Each step is 1/3 stop lighter than
the last. This is just above the "normal" range of film density. Using
compensation techniques on could, of course, change the contrast range
of the film, but this is the standard.
 
Cheers,
Robert G. Hall
Robert Hall Photography
www.RobertHallPhotography.com
801-673-4510 

-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Saddler [mailto:hsaddler@...] 
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 6:58 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] A conundrum
 
I bought a Kodak grey scale, to help me calibrate my quadtone curves. I
got a 21-step scale, to match the 21-step stepwedges commonly used in
quadtone work. But the "21-step" Kodak scale only has 20 steps! So:

1. Why is a 20-step scaled called "21-step", and
2. Why 21 steps in the first place?

Harry


 


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

> 1. Why is a 20-step scaled called "21-step", and

 paper white is the 21st step.

Robert