Digital BW, The Print

Piezo versus Lyson Small gamut

.............and the winner is: Piezo B&W!

I carried out a small, nonscientific, experiment:

During the complete month of August (very sunny in the Netherlands where I
live) I exposed two black-and-white prints to the sunlight in my roof-window
on the south. So a rather tough test.

The results are remarkable!

About the prints:
- One print was the Piezo BW sample (stairs) which I received from
Inkjetmall (paper: Somerset Enhanced)
The other was a Lyson small gamut BW print (with very rich deep solid
blacks) that was made for me by Lyson (paper: Lyson Standard Fine Art)

Half of both prints were covered by heavyweight black paper.
The other halfs were exposed to the sun.
The result was judged visually and by using a densitometer.

The results after one month sun exposure:

- The exposed part of the PiezoBW print did not change in the dark grey and
black areas. There is a very slight fading in the highlights. The exposed
part is slightly less "greenish". The print still is very acceptable.
(the slight fading is just visible to the eye and a densitometer does read a
minor change).

- The exposed part of the Lyson print shows a dramatic fading as well as a
colorshift. On the unexposed part the greys are slighly "greenish", like the
Piezo BW. After exposure the greys have a strong sepia-magenta cast.
The fading iof the Lyson print is visible in all tones from hihglights up to
the shadows but is most visible in highlights and midtones. The print became
completely useless.

The densitometer tells me:

PiezoBW
highlight		
before exposure: D 0.20
after exposure: D 0.18

midtone:
before exposure: D 0.60
after exposure: D 0.59

shadow:
before exposure: D 1.84
after exposure: D 1.84

Lyson small gamut
highlight		
before exposure: D 0.20
after exposure: D 0.02

midtone:
before exposure: D 0.60
after exposure: D 0.30

shadow:
before exposure: D 2.26
after exposure: D 2.00

	
Best regards,

Jo Brunenberg
http://www.jobrunenberg.com





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/

Jo,

Thank you for the info on the Lyson inks. I have been waiting for 
someone to post something about the Lyson.

Aside from the archival and fade issues, how would you compare the 
quality of the images prior to your test?

I ask because there might be commercial applications where long life 
and fade resistance are not so important. The initial Dmax of the 
Lyson print was on a level with silver prints.

Martin



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jo Brunenberg <jobnl@e...> 
wrote:
> 
> Piezo versus Lyson Small gamut
> 
> .............and the winner is: Piezo B&W!
> 
> I carried out a small, nonscientific, experiment:
> 
> During the complete month of August (very sunny in the Netherlands 
where I
> live) I exposed two black-and-white prints to the sunlight in my 
roof-window
> on the south. So a rather tough test.
> 
> The results are remarkable!
> 
> About the prints:
> - One print was the Piezo BW sample (stairs) which I received from
> Inkjetmall (paper: Somerset Enhanced)
> The other was a Lyson small gamut BW print (with very rich deep 
solid
> blacks) that was made for me by Lyson (paper: Lyson Standard Fine 
Art)
> 
> Half of both prints were covered by heavyweight black paper.
> The other halfs were exposed to the sun.
> The result was judged visually and by using a densitometer.
> 
> The results after one month sun exposure:
> 
> - The exposed part of the PiezoBW print did not change in the dark 
grey and
> black areas. There is a very slight fading in the highlights. The 
exposed
> part is slightly less "greenish". The print still is very 
acceptable.
> (the slight fading is just visible to the eye and a densitometer 
does read a
> minor change).
> 
> - The exposed part of the Lyson print shows a dramatic fading as 
well as a
> colorshift. On the unexposed part the greys are slighly "greenish", 
like the
> Piezo BW. After exposure the greys have a strong sepia-magenta cast.
> The fading iof the Lyson print is visible in all tones from 
hihglights up to
> the shadows but is most visible in highlights and midtones. The 
print became

> completely useless.
> 
> The densitometer tells me:
> 
> PiezoBW
> highlight		
> before exposure: D 0.20
> after exposure: D 0.18
> 
> midtone:
> before exposure: D 0.60
> after exposure: D 0.59
> 
> shadow:
> before exposure: D 1.84
> after exposure: D 1.84
> 
> Lyson small gamut
> highlight		
> before exposure: D 0.20
> after exposure: D 0.02
> 
> midtone:
> before exposure: D 0.60
> after exposure: D 0.30
> 
> shadow:
> before exposure: D 2.26
> after exposure: D 2.00
> 
> 	
> Best regards,
> 
> Jo Brunenberg
> http://www.jobrunenberg.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> Send a cool gift with your E-Card
> http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/

Martin,
Comparing Lyson and Piezo before the fading test:
- The Lyson has a richer black. I like that very much.
- However the Lyson does not have the superfine "dotsctructure" 
that the Piezo print shows. Fine detail is much better on the 
Piezo.
If you compare the prints from a distance, the Lyson looks better 
because of the richer black. At closer inspection the Piezo is the 
winner because of the better fine detail. 
My personal impression, after everything I have seen and read 
about this subject , is that the dyes in the Lyson inks are 
responsible for the richer blacks but at the same time for the 
dramatic fading behaviour. (Unacceptible for me). The pigments 
in the Piezo seem to be responsible for the better longevity of 
that system. John Cone has stated that a very small amount of 
dye has been added to the pigments. I think that small amount 
explains the slight degree of fading of the Piezo print and the fact 
that the slightly "greenish" look in the highlights and midtones 
disappears after such a long exposure in the sun.

There is still one thing that I do not understand:
Whynot is the Pizeo process designed in such a way that in a 
100% black they use an overlay of all 4 inks.?
That is the way a duotone or tritone process in offset-printing 
works to achieve rich blacks and animproved tonescale.
As I understand from the examples on John Cones site, each of 
the four Piezo BW iks now are used just for a part of  greyscale. 
If in a 100% black all 4 tones would be present as a solid area, 
that would increase Dmax.of the Piezo process.

Best regards,

Jo Brunenberg
http://www.jobrunenberg.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> Jo,
> 
> Thank you for the info on the Lyson inks. I have been waiting for 
> someone to post something about the Lyson.
> 
> Aside from the archival and fade issues, how would you 
compare the 
> quality of the images prior to your test?
> 
> I ask because there might be commercial applications where 
long life 
> and fade resistance are not so important. The initial Dmax of 
the 
> Lyson print was on a level with silver prints.
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jo Brunenberg 
<jobnl@e...> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Piezo versus Lyson Small gamut
> > 
> > .............and the winner is: Piezo B&W!
> > 
> > I carried out a small, nonscientific, experiment:
> > 
> > During the complete month of August (very sunny in the 
Netherlands 
> where I
> > live) I exposed two black-and-white prints to the sunlight in 
my 
> roof-window
> > on the south. So a rather tough test.
> > 
> > The results are remarkable!
> > 
> > About the prints:
> > - One print was the Piezo BW sample (stairs) which I 
received from
> > Inkjetmall (paper: Somerset Enhanced)
> > The other was a Lyson small gamut BW print (with very rich 
deep 
> solid
> > blacks) that was made for me by Lyson (paper: Lyson 
Standard Fine 
> Art)
> > 
> > Half of both prints were covered by heavyweight black paper.
> > The other halfs were exposed to the sun.
> > The result was judged visually and by using a densitometer.
> > 
> > The results after one month sun exposure:
> > 
> > - The exposed part of the PiezoBW print did not change in the 
dark 
> grey and
> > black areas. There is a very slight fading in the highlights. 
The 
> exposed
> > part is slightly less "greenish". The print still is very 
> acceptable.
> > (the slight fading is just visible to the eye and a densitometer 
> does read a
> > minor change).
> > 
> > - The exposed part of the Lyson print shows a dramatic 
fading as 
> well as a
> > colorshift. On the unexposed part the greys are slighly 
"greenish", 
> like the
> > Piezo BW. After exposure the greys have a strong 
sepia-magenta cast.
> > The fading iof the Lyson print is visible in all tones from 
> hihglights up to
> > the shadows but is most visible in highlights and midtones. 
The 
> print became
> > completely useless.
> > 
> > The densitometer tells me:
> > 
> > PiezoBW
> > highlight		
> > before exposure: D 0.20
> > after exposure: D 0.18
> > 
> > midtone:
> > before exposure: D 0.60
> > after exposure: D 0.59
> > 
> > shadow:
> > before exposure: D 1.84
> > after exposure: D 1.84
> > 
> > Lyson small gamut
> > highlight		
> > before exposure: D 0.20
> > after exposure: D 0.02
> > 
> > midtone:
> > before exposure: D 0.60
> > after exposure: D 0.30
> > 
> > shadow:
> > before exposure: D 2.26
> > after exposure: D 2.00
> > 
> > 	
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > Jo Brunenberg
> > http://www.jobrunenberg.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
__________________________________________________
_____
> > Send a cool gift with your E-Card
> > http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., jobnl@e... wrote:
> Martin,
> Comparing Lyson and Piezo before the fading test:
> - The Lyson has a richer black. I like that very much.
> - However the Lyson does not have the superfine "dotsctructure" 
> that the Piezo print shows. Fine detail is much better on the 
> Piezo.

Jo,

Do you happen to know what printer/driver combination was used for 
the Lyson print?

> If you compare the prints from a distance, the Lyson looks better 
> because of the richer black. At closer inspection the Piezo is the 
> winner because of the better fine detail. 
> My personal impression, after everything I have seen and read 
> about this subject , is that the dyes in the Lyson inks are 
> responsible for the richer blacks but at the same time for the 
> dramatic fading behaviour. (Unacceptible for me).

Do you see any value to the Lyson inks for short life commercial work?

> The pigments 
> in the Piezo seem to be responsible for the better longevity of 
> that system. John Cone has stated that a very small amount of 
> dye has been added to the pigments. I think that small amount 
> explains the slight degree of fading of the Piezo print and the 
fact 
> that the slightly "greenish" look in the highlights and midtones 
> disappears after such a long exposure in the sun.
> 
> There is still one thing that I do not understand:
> Whynot is the Pizeo process designed in such a way that in a 
> 100% black they use an overlay of all 4 inks.?
> That is the way a duotone or tritone process in offset-printing 
> works to achieve rich blacks and animproved tonescale.
> As I understand from the examples on John Cones site, each of 
> the four Piezo BW iks now are used just for a part of  greyscale. 
> If in a 100% black all 4 tones would be present as a solid area, 
> that would increase Dmax.of the Piezo process.

I would agree with you that this is true in offset lithography but 
they are using dye-based inks, which add together to increase 
density. With the pigmented inks I don't think that this is 
necessarily true.

Try this. Create a new blank file in Photoshop. Draw a 1" to 2" to 
one side and fill it with 100% black. Now print the file using the 
Epson driver. In the driver choose "Black" rather than color so that 
only the ink in the black cartridge will be used. Print this out.

Now move the black square to the other side of the file space and 
export the image to the Piezo driver and print using an appropriate 
profile.

If you take a look at the result, the black ink only square is a bit 
darker than square using the Piezo driver. tI looks to me that Piezo 
does run one or more of the other inks into the pure black area but 
this results in a lower Dmax. I is as if the pigment in the other 
inks are lighter and the resulting mix is then lighter than pure 
black.

Martin

P.S. Wonderful website by the way and many, many beautiful B&W 
images. I took the liberty of adding your homepage to the "Bookmarks" 
section of the group's homepage under "Photographers"

(snip)

This is because you are laying down different dither patterns (the 
piezo plugin vs the epson driver) not because the black gets dilluted 
with one of the other inks. It is probably also dependent on which 
profile you are using (maybe, I don't know)

-mikeH

> Try this. Create a new blank file in Photoshop. Draw a 1" to 2" to 
> one side and fill it with 100% black. Now print the file using the 
> Epson driver. In the driver choose "Black" rather than color so that 
> only the ink in the black cartridge will be used. Print this out.
> 
> Now move the black square to the other side of the file space and 
> export the image to the Piezo driver and print using an appropriate 
> profile.
> 
> If you take a look at the result, the black ink only square is a bit 
> darker than square using the Piezo driver. tI looks to me that Piezo 
> does run one or more of the other inks into the pure black area but 
> this results in a lower Dmax. I is as if the pigment in the other 
> inks are lighter and the resulting mix is then lighter than pure 
> black.
> 
> Martin

It shouldn't be dithering pure black...but...it could be the dot density.
"supposedly" the Piezo driver prints in higher resolution than the Epson
driver.  Also, the printers (don't know which one you are talking about, but
even the 3000) have variable droplet sizes...and that could have something
to do with it too.

There are many ways to control these printers...and get different results.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mh@... [mailto:mh@...]
> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 1:15 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: PiezoBW versus piezoBW
>
>
> This is because you are laying down different dither patterns (the
> piezo plugin vs the epson driver) not because the black gets dilluted
> with one of the other inks. It is probably also dependent on which
> profile you are using (maybe, I don't know)
>
> -mikeH
>
>
> > Try this. Create a new blank file in Photoshop. Draw a 1" to 2" to
> > one side and fill it with 100% black. Now print the file using the
> > Epson driver. In the driver choose "Black" rather than color so that
> > only the ink in the black cartridge will be used. Print this out.
> >
> > Now move the black square to the other side of the file space and
> > export the image to the Piezo driver and print using an appropriate
> > profile.
> >
> > If you take a look at the result, the black ink only square is a bit
> > darker than square using the Piezo driver. tI looks to me that Piezo
> > does run one or more of the other inks into the pure black area but
> > this results in a lower Dmax. I is as if the pigment in the other
> > inks are lighter and the resulting mix is then lighter than pure
> > black.
> >
> > Martin
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> It shouldn't be dithering pure black...but...it could be the dot density.
> "supposedly" the Piezo driver prints in higher resolution than the Epson
> driver.  Also, the printers (don't know which one you are talking about, but
> even the 3000) have variable droplet sizes...and that could have something
> to do with it too.
> 
> There are many ways to control these printers...and get different results.
> 

Austin, this is an interesting subject. Under some circumstances, I'm seeing dithering at 100%K, we noticed it recently with 
Steve's 7000 with the RGB driver. Also, do you you how the Epson driver changes density at 100% on different media settings 
if not by dithering? An interesting thing about PressReady is that at 100% it suddenly seems to literally open up the 
"screen" completely and really dump down ink, sometimes a good thing sometimes not.
Tyler

What I meant be my original comment was; the way it puts down ink. It 
doesn't just let the ink flow onto the page, it still has the lay down 
dots. And the piezo driver vs. the Epson driver lays them down 
differently. The piezo black is not lighter because of mixing with the 
lighter inks (unless, maybe, it does so intentionally because of the 
profile. In which case they would be dithered together).

-mikeH

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., tyler@t... wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > It shouldn't be dithering pure black...but...it could be the dot density.
> > "supposedly" the Piezo driver prints in higher resolution than the Epson
> > driver.  Also, the printers (don't know which one you are talking about, but
> > even the 3000) have variable droplet sizes...and that could have something
> > to do with it too.
> > 
> > There are many ways to control these printers...and get different results.
> > 
> 
> Austin, this is an interesting subject. Under some circumstances, I'm seeing dithering at 100%K, we noticed it recently with 
> Steve's 7000 with the RGB driver. Also, do you you how the Epson driver changes density at 100% on different media settings 
> if not by dithering? An interesting thing about PressReady is that at 100% it suddenly seems to literally open up the 
> "screen" completely and really dump down ink, sometimes a good thing sometimes not.
> Tyler

> What I meant be my original comment was; the way it puts down ink. It 
> doesn't just let the ink flow onto the page, it still has the lay down 
> dots. And the piezo driver vs. the Epson driver lays them down 
> differently. The piezo black is not lighter because of mixing with the 
> lighter inks (unless, maybe, it does so intentionally because of the 
> profile. In which case they would be dithered together).

THERE IS NO INK MIXING with these printers and inks.

> > It shouldn't be dithering pure black...but...it could be the
> dot density.
> > "supposedly" the Piezo driver prints in higher resolution than the Epson
> > driver.  Also, the printers (don't know which one you are
> talking about, but
> > even the 3000) have variable droplet sizes...and that could
> have something
> > to do with it too.
> >
> > There are many ways to control these printers...and get
> different results.
> >
>
> Austin, this is an interesting subject. Under some circumstances,
> I'm seeing dithering at 100%K, we noticed it recently with
> Steve's 7000 with the RGB driver. Also, do you you how the Epson
> driver changes density at 100% on different media settings
> if not by dithering?

But shouldn't 100% black be just that, no matter what the media?  At least
that's what I'd want it to be!  If, for what ever reason, someone decides to
map 100% to less than that, then, of course, it has to apply some dither
pattern to decrease the density.

Austin,

That is my original question. If the Epson driver in "Black" ink mode 
can produce a slightly darker 100% patch, why can't the Piezo driver 
be adjusted to produce an equally dark 100% patch? There may be a 
good reason for this that I am not aware of, but with the many 
requests for deeper blacks I have always been puzzled by this 
apparent failure to get the most out of the black ink.

Would it be a reasonable assumption that by selecting "Black" in the 
ink setting of the Epson driver that no dithering is applied?

Back in Post #2095 I wrote:

"I ran a test image of a 1" 100% black square four times on the same 
piece of paper. Once on Torchon and once on Hahnemule Photo Rag 
188gsm. I scanned the 8 patches together with my Linoscan 1400 and 
its cheesy software. In Photoshop I applied a levels adjustment layer 
and brought the white and black points in to slightly outside the 
ends of the histogram. I then selected each square and did a 
histogram. Here is what I got:

Torchon: Luminosity - Mean, Std. Dev., Median 

Piezo Ink and Driver: 94.28, 21.88, 90
Piezo Ink and Epson Driver Black Only: 67.26, 9.68, 66
MIS VM Ink and Neutral Curve, Epson Driver RGB: 69.00, 11.40, 67
MIS VM Ink and Epson Driver Black Only: 64.70, 8.81, 64

Hahnemule Photo Rag: Luminosity - Mean, Std. Dev., Median

Piezo Ink and Driver: 89.17, 11.92, 87
Piezo Ink and Epson Driver Black Only: 64.18, 7.50, 63
MIS VM Ink and Neutral Curve, Epson Driver RGB: 64.34, 7.23, 64
MIS VM Ink and Epson Driver Black Only: 64.33, 7.91, 63

This information is obviously meaningless as an absolute value but 
should be a reasonable comparison. On Torchon the MIS VM black is 
slightly darker. On the Photo Rag I would say they are the same. The 
difference in Std Dev on the Torchon is probably surface related."

Are the higher standard deviations of the Piezo ink and drive 
combinations indications of the possible use of a dither pattern? The 
luminosity values were on a 0 to 255 scale.

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
(snip)
> >
> > Austin, this is an interesting subject. Under some circumstances,
> > I'm seeing dithering at 100%K, we noticed it recently with
> > Steve's 7000 with the RGB driver. Also, do you you how the Epson
> > driver changes density at 100% on different media settings
> > if not by dithering?
> 
> But shouldn't 100% black be just that, no matter what the media?  
At least
> that's what I'd want it to be!  If, for what ever reason, someone 
decides to
> map 100% to less than that, then, of course, it has to apply some 
dither
> pattern to decrease the density.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
snip
> But shouldn't 100% black be just that, no matter what the media?

Nope, different 100% K densities with different media settings, as well as other differences. It's an impotant initial test to 
run, finding the best media setting to use should be done before proceeding with any workflow developement.
Tyler

Austin,

Just a slight correction, the 3000 does not have the variable droplet 
size as you indicated. The 800, 1520, and 3000 all use the same 
constant droplet (12 picoliter) head, as does the 850 but it has a 10 
picoliter droplet size. See the info below:

Those printers using 4 ink colors (black, cyan, magenta, and yellow) 
and having a consistant MicroDot size. The MicroDot is produced by an 
ink droplet of about 12 picoliters (with the exception of the 850, 
which produces a 10 picoliter drop). 1 picolitre (pl) = 0.000 000 000 
001 liter). Some of the printers using this technology are the Epson 
Stylus Color 800 (replaced by the 850), the Epson Stylus Color 1520, 
and the Epson Stylus Color 3000


Those 4-color printers that have a "Variable dot technology" 
(variable size ink droplets). The droplet sizes usually vary from 19 
pl to 6 pl. The Epson Stylus Color 740, the 1160 and the Epson Stylus 
Color 900 are examples of printers using this technology. They use 
Ultra MicroDots, the very smallest size of ink droplets available 
today. An Ultra MicroDot is only 6 picolitres in size resulting in a 
dot diameter of only 45 microns, 2 times smaller than the diameter of 
a human hair and close to the limit of resolution for the human eye. 
These new incredibly small dots lead to much finer detail with less 
graininess and even smoother Gradations. Print quality is 
considerably enhanced. The Epson Stylus Color 900 employs 3 pl Ultra 
Microdots, with ink droplets half the size of those found on the 
Stylus Color 740 and Stylus Photo 750.


Those printers using 6 ink colors (black, cyan, light cyan, magenta, 
light magenta, and yellow) and have a consistant MicroDot size, using 
an ink droplet of about 10 picoliters. The use of two extra colors 
(light magenta and light cyan) greatly enhances the color gamut and 
tonal smoothness, giving print output that has almost a true photo 
quality. Epson's 6-ink technology is called the "Perfect Picture 
Imaging System", and is used in the Epson Stylus Photo 700 and the 
Epson Stylus Photo EX.


Those printers that incorporate both the "Variable dot technology" 
and the 6-ink technology. Examples are the Epson Stylus Photo 750 and 
the Epson Stylus Photo 1200.

The above information excludes the newest Epson printer line.

Terry 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> It shouldn't be dithering pure black...but...it could be the dot 
density.
> "supposedly" the Piezo driver prints in higher resolution than the 
Epson
> driver.  Also, the printers (don't know which one you are talking 
about, but
> even the 3000) have variable droplet sizes...and that could have 
something
> to do with it too.
> 
> There are many ways to control these printers...and get different 
results.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" <
darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
> > What I meant be my original comment was; the way it puts down ink. It 
> > doesn't just let the ink flow onto the page, it still has the lay down 
> > dots. And the piezo driver vs. the Epson driver lays them down 
> > differently. The piezo black is not lighter because of mixing with the 
> > lighter inks (unless, maybe, it does so intentionally because of the 
> > profile. In which case they would be dithered together).
> 
> THERE IS NO INK MIXING with these printers and inks.

Austin, that was my point, completely, from the beginning.
I think you forgot to read all of my post before responding. For 
instance, "In which case they would be dithered together" (ie, not 
mixed)
You seem to be misunderstanding me a lot lately...    : )

-mikeH

ps. the settings you use (in the drivers) will determine, for one 
thing, the amount of ink the printers lay down. So what exactly is your 
definition of 100% black? I think dipping the paper in the black ink is 
probably your best bet, but you probably won't be able to get that from 
the epsons.

> > > What I meant be my original comment was; the way it puts down ink. It
> > > doesn't just let the ink flow onto the page, it still has the
> lay down
> > > dots. And the piezo driver vs. the Epson driver lays them down
> > > differently. The piezo black is not lighter because of mixing
> with the
> > > lighter inks (unless, maybe, it does so intentionally because of the
> > > profile. In which case they would be dithered together).
> >
> > THERE IS NO INK MIXING with these printers and inks.
>
> Austin, that was my point, completely, from the beginning.
> I think you forgot to read all of my post before responding. For
> instance, "In which case they would be dithered together" (ie, not
> mixed)
> You seem to be misunderstanding me a lot lately...    : )

My statement here was not disagreeing with anything said above...it was
emphasizing that inks are not mixed.  There has been discussion on this
issue previously.  I don't know what you do or don't understand about
dithering.  Some inks can be mixed, and that can be part of the dithering
algorithm...so you can have mixing AND dithering at the same time.

> ps. the settings you use (in the drivers) will determine, for one
> thing, the amount of ink the printers lay down. So what exactly is your
> definition of 100% black? I think dipping the paper in the black ink is
> probably your best bet, but you probably won't be able to get that from
> the epsons.

Not dithering, all nozzles providing ink to every dot within an area.

>
> Just a slight correction, the 3000 does not have the variable droplet
> size as you indicated.

Actually, Terry, according to the Epson command set documentation, it does.
If you have the Epson document "4clr_98b.pdf", go to section 4.2, which is
"ESC/P2 Select Dot Size Command".  At the bottom of the page, there is a
chart for "Series Four Printers" and lists the 3000 as one of the printers.
There are four values, default, Micro dot, Normal (single) and Normal
(double).

> Just a slight correction, the 3000 does not have the variable droplet 
> size as you indicated. 

> > driver.  Also, the printers (don't know which one you are talking 
> about, but
> > even the 3000) have variable droplet sizes...and that could have 
> something
> > to do with it too.

BTW, what I meant to say was "variable DOT sizes" not droplet.

> Austin,
>
> That is my original question. If the Epson driver in "Black" ink mode
> can produce a slightly darker 100% patch, why can't the Piezo driver
> be adjusted to produce an equally dark 100% patch?

That IS an excellent question!

> There may be a
> good reason for this that I am not aware of, but with the many
> requests for deeper blacks I have always been puzzled by this
> apparent failure to get the most out of the black ink.

I would have to agree.

Did you point this out to Jon and/or Bill?  Perhaps they are unaware of it,
and if they are, perhaps can give US an answer.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
(snip)
> 
> > There may be a
> > good reason for this that I am not aware of, but with the many
> > requests for deeper blacks I have always been puzzled by this
> > apparent failure to get the most out of the black ink.
> 
> I would have to agree.
> 
> Did you point this out to Jon and/or Bill?  Perhaps they are 
unaware of it,
> and if they are, perhaps can give US an answer.

Austin,

I recall bringing this up a long time ago on the Piezo list and did 
not get a response at the time. I have the new Piezo software on 
order and perhaps there has been a change. I will retest when it 
arrives.

Martin

Austin,

Actually it doesn't. 

What you are referring to is presetting the dot size with your dpi 
selection from the Epson driver. The variable droplet technology 
actually varies the droplet size while the printer is making the 
print, the 3000 does not have the ability to do this, thus the 
droplet size stays constant. Most of the older Epson printers work 
this way. Look up the part number for the head in the 3000, 1520, and 
800 - they are all the same part number i.e. they all use the exact 
same head. 

What you refer to as the micro dot, etc.. as you listed below just 
presets that constant dot size in the Epson driver prior to starting 
your print, but the head lacks the ability to vary the droplet size 
as it produces the print (which the newer printers can do).

The droplet size combined with the lack of the ability to vary it is 
why the "dots" are so much more visible from a 3000 using the Epson 
driver. The Piezo driver compensates for this by eliminating the 
Epson dithering in the driver and tightening up the dpi so the dot 
size isn't as obvious. Paul Roarks curves take advantage of the Epson 
dithering and the crossover points to also minimize the dot size 
appearance. Go to the Inkjetart site and look at the comparisions of 
the output of the printers under 8x and 17x magnification at this 
link:

http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/news/dot_comp.html

For a better explanation of the Variable Drop Technology go to this 
link (from Epson themselves):

http://www.epson.co.uk/whatsnew/technology/vdot.htm

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Just a slight correction, the 3000 does not have the variable 
droplet
> > size as you indicated.
> 
> Actually, Terry, according to the Epson command set documentation, 
it does.
> If you have the Epson document "4clr_98b.pdf", go to section 4.2, 
which is
> "ESC/P2 Select Dot Size Command".  At the bottom of the page, there 
is a
> chart for "Series Four Printers" and lists the 3000 as one of the 
printers.
> There are four values, default, Micro dot, Normal (single) and 
Normal
> (double).

The dot sizes using the Variable Droplet Technology actually do vary 
the dot sizes as a result while printing - see my previous post.

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
> > Just a slight correction, the 3000 does not have the variable 
droplet 
> > size as you indicated. 
> 
> > > driver.  Also, the printers (don't know which one you are 
talking 
> > about, but
> > > even the 3000) have variable droplet sizes...and that could 
have 

> > something
> > > to do with it too.
> 
> BTW, what I meant to say was "variable DOT sizes" not droplet.

> Austin,
>
> Actually it doesn't.
>
> What you are referring to is presetting the dot size with your dpi
> selection from the Epson driver.

Yes, I know EXACTLY what it does...I've written QUITE a bit of code for this
printer, including an entire set of directly driven head alignment
utilities...which required very intimate knowledge of exactly how the
printer operates.

My point was you CAN vary the dot size of the 3000 (the command is called
"Dot Size Command" for that reason ;-), and yes, it has to be preset, and
yes, it is not the same as the "variable droplet technology", all of which
do not mean you can't very the dot size...the point is, you can!

Terry,
 
Thanks for the link to the inkjetart.com page which shows the side-by-
side comparisons of the various Epson printers and associated drivers 
including the 3000, 1160, 1200, 1270, 2000, 5000 and many others. I 
put it in the "Bookmarks" section of the group homepage.
 
This helps explains some things I have noticed. Especially the 
difference between the 3000 and later models with the Epson driver. I 
noticed this on sample prints of Spectratone Quad inks. The 1200 
samples showed much less dot pattern than the 3000 samples.
 
I think that the ConeTech Piezo vs. MIS comparison images are from a 
3000. It seems likely that the "poor quality" reputation of the Epson 
driver I hear mentioned occasionally may be based upon the earlier 
technologies and not the newer versions.
 
It is interesting that the 5000, 7000, 9000 and perhaps 10,000 
printers appear to have a coarser dot pattern than the 1270, 1280, 
1290 printers but less banding pattern. There may be a trade off here 
or a realization that beyond a certain point smaller dot sizes simply 
are not noticeable.
 
It is also important to remember that with all of these printers and 
dot patterns, that they have little to no visibility at normal 
viewing distances and that people have been able to produce very 
excellent prints with all of them.
 
Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" <terryr1028@h...> 
wrote:

(snip)

> The droplet size combined with the lack of the ability to vary it 
is 
> why the "dots" are so much more visible from a 3000 using the Epson 
> driver. The Piezo driver compensates for this by eliminating the 
> Epson dithering in the driver and tightening up the dpi so the dot 
> size isn't as obvious. Paul Roarks curves take advantage of the 
Epson 
> dithering and the crossover points to also minimize the dot size 
> appearance. Go to the Inkjetart site and look at the comparisions 
of 
> the output of the printers under 8x and 17x magnification at this 
> link:
> 
> http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/news/dot_comp.html
> 
> For a better explanation of the Variable Drop Technology go to this 
> link (from Epson themselves):
> 
> http://www.epson.co.uk/whatsnew/technology/vdot.htm
> 
> Terry
> 
(snip)

Austin,

Our little string started with your statment as follows:

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> It shouldn't be dithering pure black...but...it could be the dot 
density.
> "supposedly" the Piezo driver prints in higher resolution than the 
Epson
> driver.  Also, the printers (don't know which one you are talking 
about, but
> even the 3000) have variable droplet sizes...and that could have 
something
> to do with it too.
> 
> There are many ways to control these printers...and get different 
results.

Based on your statement above, and the fact that most on this list 
print at the maximum dpi setting for their given printer (with the 
exception of maybe the 1280), I took it as you were implying that the 
3000 would have variable droplets available while printing. I think 
that I just didn't understand what you were saying in context to your 
statement (most others probably didn't either). I think we agree that 
the 3000 does not have the variable droplet technology, and the 
droplet size will be predetermined by the dpi setting prior to 
printing. 

My question based on your statement below would be this: 

If you can't vary the droplet size while printing and if the droplet 
is already at its smallest size at the highest dpi setting determined 
prior to starting the print why would you want to change the dot 
size? Was the code you were writing an attempt to emulate the 
variable droplet technology of the newer printers? If so, did you get 
it to work? Or where you just trying to create the "PiezoIcefield?<g>

Terry


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
> > Austin,
> >
> > Actually it doesn't.
> >
> > What you are referring to is presetting the dot size with your dpi
> > selection from the Epson driver.
> 
> Yes, I know EXACTLY what it does...I've written QUITE a bit of code 
for this
> printer, including an entire set of directly driven head alignment
> utilities...which required very intimate knowledge of exactly how 
the
> printer operates.
> 
> My point was you CAN vary the dot size of the 3000 (the command is 
called
> "Dot Size Command" for that reason ;-), and yes, it has to be 
preset, and
> yes, it is not the same as the "variable droplet technology", all 
of which
> do not mean you can't very the dot size...the point is, you can!

Martin,

It would be interesting to see the 10000 comparison as I understand 
they went down to 3 picoliters on the droplet. I would need to check, 
but I think the 7x00 has a slightly smaller droplet than the 
5000/9x00. Also the newer 5500 has the smaller 3 picoliter droplet, 
so it should be as good as the 12x0 series printers.

The slightly coarser look of the 7000 and up probably wouldn't be 
noticeable do to the size prints these were designed to make. I keep 
thinking about a 7000 as the prices continue to drop at a rapid pace, 
just not down to my "range" yet!<g>

I noticed the same thing in my Spectratone sample prints. I have been 
playing with both these and the color Wide Spectrums on a 1270 doing 
some beta testing (at the moment concentrating on the WS). I did 
notice that the Spectratone inks responded better to using the 
separation curves under RGB similiar to Pauls curves, I got 
reasonably close. Maybe Allen will play with that idea using the 
softproof method on the 3000 to help smooth the output.

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> Terry,
>  
> Thanks for the link to the inkjetart.com page which shows the side-
by-
> side comparisons of the various Epson printers and associated 
drivers 
> including the 3000, 1160, 1200, 1270, 2000, 5000 and many others. I 
> put it in the "Bookmarks" section of the group homepage.
>  
> This helps explains some things I have noticed. Especially the 
> difference between the 3000 and later models with the Epson driver. 
I 
> noticed this on sample prints of Spectratone Quad inks. The 1200 
> samples showed much less dot pattern than the 3000 samples.
>  
> I think that the ConeTech Piezo vs. MIS comparison images are from 
a 
> 3000. It seems likely that the "poor quality" reputation of the 
Epson 
> driver I hear mentioned occasionally may be based upon the earlier 
> technologies and not the newer versions.
>  
> It is interesting that the 5000, 7000, 9000 and perhaps 10,000 
> printers appear to have a coarser dot pattern than the 1270, 1280, 
> 1290 printers but less banding pattern. There may be a trade off 
here 
> or a realization that beyond a certain point smaller dot sizes 
simply 
> are not noticeable.
>  
> It is also important to remember that with all of these printers 
and 
> dot patterns, that they have little to no visibility at normal 
> viewing distances and that people have been able to produce very 
> excellent prints with all of them.
>  
> Martin
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" 
<terryr1028@h...> 
> wrote:
> 
> (snip)
> 
> > The droplet size combined with the lack of the ability to vary it 
> is 
> > why the "dots" are so much more visible from a 3000 using the 
Epson 
> > driver. The Piezo driver compensates for this by eliminating the 
> > Epson dithering in the driver and tightening up the dpi so the 
dot 
> > size isn't as obvious. Paul Roarks curves take advantage of the 
> Epson 
> > dithering and the crossover points to also minimize the dot size 
> > appearance. Go to the Inkjetart site and look at the comparisions 
> of 
> > the output of the printers under 8x and 17x magnification at this 
> > link:
> > 
> > http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/news/dot_comp.html
> > 
> > For a better explanation of the Variable Drop Technology go to 
this 

> > link (from Epson themselves):
> > 
> > http://www.epson.co.uk/whatsnew/technology/vdot.htm
> > 
> > Terry
> > 
> (snip)

> I took it as you were implying that the
> 3000 would have variable droplets available while printing.

No, not at all.  I was only mentioning, that the 3000 can vary the dot size,
I mistakenly wrote "droplet".

> I think we agree that
> the 3000 does not have the variable droplet technology,

That's a given...but as I said, it is little known that the 3000 can vary
the dot size...

> If you can't vary the droplet size while printing and if the droplet
> is already at its smallest size at the highest dpi setting determined
> prior to starting the print why would you want to change the dot
> size?

You CAN change it "during printing", but that depends on what you mean by
"during printing".  It is NOT pretty, but it, more or less, can be done...

> Was the code you were writing...

One of the "projects" I was doing was writing an alignment utility, since
Epson does not sell or release theirs.  This was the only way I could get
the 3000s I have to be aligned...I brought them to the service depot and
spend untold hundreds of dollars (not to mention the thousands for the
printers that did nothing but band, and the near a thousand for inks and
Piezo software) for them to align them...and they never got it right in
THREE tries...so I decided I could do a better job, if I only had the
utilities...so I wrote my own.

The alignment of the two print heads is VERY technical, and very
complicated...though, with the right software can be done reasonably
easily...but...the 3000 does not have a very good mechanical way to set the
actual alignment.  I found that one of the printers required a finer degree
of alignment than they provided...  This was not a well done printer in that
respect, but I guess that's why their driver isn't really that good...

Cone claims to get 2160DPI (3x720) out of the 3000.  I have yet to figure
out how he could possibly do that.  Do you have any ideas?  He claims secret
commands...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" <terryr1028@h...> 
wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> It would be interesting to see the 10000 comparison as I understand 
> they went down to 3 picoliters on the droplet. I would need to 
check, 
> but I think the 7x00 has a slightly smaller droplet than the 
> 5000/9x00. Also the newer 5500 has the smaller 3 picoliter droplet, 
> so it should be as good as the 12x0 series printers.

Terry,

It would indeed be interesting to see what you get for your $10,000 
which I think is the selling price of the 10000. Hmmm..
> 
> The slightly coarser look of the 7000 and up probably wouldn't be 
> noticeable do to the size prints these were designed to make. I 
keep 
> thinking about a 7000 as the prices continue to drop at a rapid 
pace, 
> just not down to my "range" yet!<g>

Print is one thing but where to but it!! I would like the quality but 
I would be happier to have a 17" wide desktop printer with the same 
quality. Maybe that huge gap will be filled by something in the new 
C80 style now that the 3000 seems to be gone.

> 
> I noticed the same thing in my Spectratone sample prints. I have 
been 
> playing with both these and the color Wide Spectrums on a 1270 
doing 
> some beta testing (at the moment concentrating on the WS). I did 
> notice that the Spectratone inks responded better to using the 
> separation curves under RGB similiar to Pauls curves, I got 
> reasonably close. Maybe Allen will play with that idea using the 
> softproof method on the 3000 to help smooth the output.

When I last looked at his site it looked like he had gone in that 
direction with the 1200 unless I misinterpreted the workflow. 

Martin

(snip)

Austin,

I have my theories, but I just really have not pursued them as I just 
don't have the available time.

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Cone claims to get 2160DPI (3x720) out of the 3000.  I have yet to 
figure
> out how he could possibly do that.  Do you have any ideas?  He 
claims secret
> commands...

Martin,

> 
> It would indeed be interesting to see what you get for your $10,000 
> which I think is the selling price of the 10000. Hmmm..

Well, I think I will just be content to look at others work at that 
price at the moment. 

> > 
> > The slightly coarser look of the 7000 and up probably wouldn't be 
> > noticeable do to the size prints these were designed to make. I 
> keep 
> > thinking about a 7000 as the prices continue to drop at a rapid 
> pace, 
> > just not down to my "range" yet!<g>
> 
> Print is one thing but where to but it!! 

Aw, come on, I know those houses on the West Coast have ceilings 
(don't they?).<g>

>I would like the quality but 
> I would be happier to have a 17" wide desktop printer with the same 
> quality. Maybe that huge gap will be filled by something in the new 
> C80 style now that the 3000 seems to be gone.

I have been keeping an eye on the C80. 

Epson seems to be playing with some ideas that are quite a departure 
from the norm for them. I am curious about the lower rating of the 
Durabrite inks - maybe they figured they could eliminate the dreaded 
Metamerism and still be happy with competing with the lower 
Metamerism third party inks in terms of longevity. It will be 
interesting to see if the new pigs are low/free of metamerism. I 
think this will lead to the 2000P replacement by years end perhaps.

I also find it interesting that they are deviating from the two 
cartridge approach. They may very well be headed in the direction of 
more colors or a combination color/b&w machine. Things will be 
getting interesting soon.

> 
> > 
> > I noticed the same thing in my Spectratone sample prints. I have 
> been 
> > playing with both these and the color Wide Spectrums on a 1270 
> doing 
> > some beta testing (at the moment concentrating on the WS). I did 
> > notice that the Spectratone inks responded better to using the 
> > separation curves under RGB similiar to Pauls curves, I got 
> > reasonably close. Maybe Allen will play with that idea using the 
> > softproof method on the 3000 to help smooth the output.
> 
> When I last looked at his site it looked like he had gone in that 
> direction with the 1200 unless I misinterpreted the workflow.

I believe he was still using a simple curve under grayscale for the 
1200, and using a rip for the 3000. It was interesting that the Epson 
driver with a curve produced better output than the 3000 with a rip. 
> 
> Martin
> 
> (snip)

Terry

I would be interested in your theories!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: TerryR [mailto:terryr1028@...]
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 7:15 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: PiezoBW versus piezoBW
>
>
> Austin,
>
> I have my theories, but I just really have not pursued them as I just
> don't have the available time.
>
> Terry
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > Cone claims to get 2160DPI (3x720) out of the 3000.  I have yet to
> figure
> > out how he could possibly do that.  Do you have any ideas?  He
> claims secret
> > commands...
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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 "flames."
> - 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" <terryr1028@h...> 
(snip)

> Aw, come on, I know those houses on the West Coast have ceilings 
> (don't they?).<g>

Terry,

Actually meant to say "where would I find room for the printer." This 
little old California farm house is a whole 900 square feet much of 
it buried under items photographic! Prints on the ceiling would work. 
Knowing me I would use the 10000 to make 8x10 and 11x14 images!
> 
(snip)

> I have been keeping an eye on the C80. 
> 
> Epson seems to be playing with some ideas that are quite a 
departure 
> from the norm for them. I am curious about the lower rating of the 
> Durabrite inks - maybe they figured they could eliminate the 
dreaded 
> Metamerism and still be happy with competing with the lower 
> Metamerism third party inks in terms of longevity. It will be 
> interesting to see if the new pigs are low/free of metamerism. I 
> think this will lead to the 2000P replacement by years end perhaps.

I suspect you are right and at a much lower price. If they are doing 
a trade off of metamerish vs. life, they probably made a good 
decision for the home and general use market. They are beatting the 
pants off traditional color prints and offering prints to span 3 
generations before noticable fade.
> 
> I also find it interesting that they are deviating from the two 
> cartridge approach. They may very well be headed in the direction 
of 
> more colors or a combination color/b&w machine. Things will be 
> getting interesting soon.
> 
I have heard something more than just rumor on this. I was told that 
in about a year Epson will have a B&W solution with CYMK inks and/or 
a 7 ink system, CcYMmKk that will do both B&W and color. Given the 
discussions that you could do nice B&W with just 3 inks this sounds 
promising.

(snip)

> I believe he was still using a simple curve under grayscale for the 
> 1200, and using a rip for the 3000. It was interesting that the 
Epson 
> driver with a curve produced better output than the 3000 with a 
rip. 
> > 
You're right. I wonder if it is an issue of total number of nozzles 
and droplet size?

Martin