Digital BW, The Print

The 2200 finally arrived (actually 2 arrived but that's another
story)along with IP5.
If I missed a grayscale workflow for this combination, let me know. If
not, please post one if you have it. I'm very familiar with IP4, having
used it for more than a year on the 10000cf. The myriad (and cryptic)
settings are very Colorbyte and I'ver deciphered most.


Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
Author: Hands On Photoshop 7: Tutorial Workshops
 
215 751-8320
sshire@...

A few days ago Colorbyte e-mailed me an update which allows mat paper 
printing at 2880 (even though it looks as if it's available in the 
pull down). No profiles for mat paper at 2880 exist yet AFAIK though. 
But if when using this driver you want to print certain photo k COLOR 
prints at 1440 using new 2880 driver, you have to download new "2200b" 
files- sort of confusing, huh?

They just profiled Eclipse Satine BW for me at both 100% and 95% ink 
reduction. The 95% takes care of a lot of mottling, I don't know if 
they are going to also try 90% yet. Or try profiling it at 2880.
Jim H.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shire,Stanley" 
<sshire@c...> wrote:
> The 2200 finally arrived (actually 2 arrived but that's another
> story)along with IP5.
> If I missed a grayscale workflow for this combination, let me know. 
If
> not, please post one if you have it. I'm very familiar with IP4, 
having
> used it for more than a year on the 10000cf. The myriad (and 
cryptic)

> settings are very Colorbyte and I'ver deciphered most.
> 
> 
> Stan Shire
> Associate Professor/Department Chair
> Photographic Imaging
> Community College of Philadelphia
> Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
> Author: Hands On Photoshop 7: Tutorial Workshops
>  
> 215 751-8320
> sshire@c...

on 1/16/03 9:45 PM, jim hayes:

> A few days ago Colorbyte e-mailed me an update which allows mat paper
> printing at 2880 (even though it looks as if it's available in the
> pull down). No profiles for mat paper at 2880 exist yet AFAIK though.


You do NOT want to print at 2880. First, with IP or the Epson driver it
takes forever but worse, you lose variable dot dither. The 2880 is IMHO more
a high figure to look good to marketing than anything else. Print with IP at
1440; you'll get a better print and in far less time.

Andrew Rodney

There should be absolutely no difference with the 2200 at 1440 vs. 2880
because of the variable dot capability of the printer.  At 1440, when the
printer needs fine dots it uses them...at 2880 it uses them all the
time...slowing it down.  As far as dots go...using IP5 with the 2200 I have
no difficulty seeing dots in hilights with my naked eye...something reported
by others as well (some people need a loupe to see them)...quite simply the
light gray ink is just too dark to do hilights as well as a quad system
(which uses a much lighter yellow channel gray ink).  That said...for many
of my commercial shots the 2200 works just fine for quick RC style
prints...but I don't consider it a fine art option.  When the 2200 chip is
cracked the 2200 will be an incredible machine for all kinds of BW options.
It may be as simple as just using a lighter gray ink in that channel.  To
explore these options, however, you will probably need a program like Ink
Jet Control to have single channel control at your finger tips.

Robert

 On 1/17/03 7:40 AM, "Andrew Rodney" <andrew@...> wrote:

> on 1/16/03 9:45 PM, jim hayes:
> 
>> A few days ago Colorbyte e-mailed me an update which allows mat paper
>> printing at 2880 (even though it looks as if it's available in the
>> pull down). No profiles for mat paper at 2880 exist yet AFAIK though.
> 
> 
> You do NOT want to print at 2880. First, with IP or the Epson driver it
> takes forever but worse, you lose variable dot dither. The 2880 is IMHO more
> a high figure to look good to marketing than anything else. Print with IP at
> 1440; you'll get a better print and in far less time.
> 
> Andrew Rodney 
> 
> 
> 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>

andrew, so far I have been disappointed in image print for the 2200. 
for $500 bucks I expected a finer dither at 1440 and at least some
color controls (the available driver color controls are  another $500
so they tell me).   Anyway I think their 1440 is a joke...and their
2880 High speed is not great either.  both dither patterns are
coarser that the standard 2200 epson 1440 (high speed off) driver in
my experience.  maybe I'm doing something wrong but I expected to
have a finer dither pattern.  by the way 2880 on any paper using the
image print RIP with the epson 2200 is painfully slow. eleanor brown

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Rodney
<andrew@d...> wrote:
> on 1/16/03 9:45 PM, jim hayes:
> 
> > A few days ago Colorbyte e-mailed me an update which allows mat
paper
> > printing at 2880 (even though it looks as if it's available in the
> > pull down). No profiles for mat paper at 2880 exist yet AFAIK
though.
> 
> 
> You do NOT want to print at 2880. First, with IP or the Epson
driver it
> takes forever but worse, you lose variable dot dither. The 2880 is
IMHO more
> a high figure to look good to marketing than anything else. Print
with IP at

> 1440; you'll get a better print and in far less time.
> 
> Andrew Rodney

On Friday, January 17, 2003, at 05:09  PM, eleanor77027 
<elliebrown@...> wrote:

> so far I have been disappointed in image print for the 2200.
> for $500 bucks I expected a finer dither at 1440 and at least some
> color controls ... I think their 1440 is a joke ... and their
> 2880 High speed is not great either ... both dither patterns are
> coarser that the standard 2200 epson 1440 (high speed off) driver

Eleanor,

For what it's worth, I'm using IP on Mac OS X with a 7600 using 
UltraChrome inks (Matte Black) -- don't know how my observations will 
map to your experience on the 2200, but anyways...

I too agree that I expected more from the dither, after hearing and 
reading rave review feedback about how superior it was to any others 
available. It is definitely more coarse than the Epson driver (OS 9 
only) at 1440 (unidirectional/high speed off). At first, I was really 
put off by how much more coarse the dither was -- my expectations were 
really high.

However, sheer persistence and closer inspection has led me to value 
the following from this RIP, and I would like to know if you and/or 
others are seeing similar results:

1) Even though the dither is more coarse, the finished print has a 
certain overall smoothness about it that I find pleasing in some way 
that I can't quite describe.

2) Even though the dither is more coarse, the image detail is far 
superior. Fine details, curves, diagonal lines, and specular highlights 
all reproduce much more cleanly than with the Epson driver -- none of 
the "jaggies" and color fringing on high-contrast edges that plague 
Epson driver prints.

3) Much more color manageable. I generate my own custom ICC profiles, 
and so far (one paper on the 7600 as a pilot, a bunch more in progress 
as I write this) the finished results are definitely better than with 
the profiles I generated using the Epson driver.

4) Real grayscale! The special grayscale mode that IP brings to the 
7600 (& 2200??), with UltraChrome ink, renders a neutrality to the 
entire gray ramp that is just not possible with the Epson driver, even 
with my own ICC profiles (which are good profiles). It was this element 
alone that encouraged me to buy IP for my 7600, and so far I'm very 
pleased with the results. Now if I can just get ColorByte Software to 
generate their special Grayscale profiles for the rest of the media 
that I use...

All is not perfect, and I am working with ColorByte to work through 
some issues I am having. Even though I do agree with you about the 
coarseness of the dither, I do not find it so objectionable, especially 
in view of these other advantages.

Are others seeing similar things? Am I an island?

/eddie

I'm seeing very smooth dithering in the shadows with  
ImagePrint (os 9 demo) using matte black in the 9600, 
compared with the Epson driver.
But the light areas look more course? as if it's using the light 
black  to fill in the lightest transitions.

This is from my post on epson9000:
-------------------------
Thanks for the OS X info
I'm planning on testing it out very soon.
But for a quick test I've just received a Mac OS 9 demo (is there a 
os X demo?) to see how it compares with the Epson driver.

First, I've noticed that ImagePrint's profiles open up the shadows 
quite a bit and with a bit more saturation. I'll need to figure out 
how I can color adjust and soft proof in Photoshop for ImagePrint 
output. Perhaps just a few adj. layers would do it.

ImagePrint handles the black ink very well, there's a very smooth 
transition in values in the shadow areas. 

Here are a few very quick test images....

http://www.sublimatrix.com/html/Page1.html

http://www.sublimatrix.com/html/Page2.html

http://www.sublimatrix.com/html/Page3.html
Now on page 3 ImagePrint doesn't handle the light areas very 
well? much more grain. 
I'll still need to test the other IP quality settings as well as 
adjustments in Photoshop to see if there's any difference..

Anyway just some quick testing....

Andrew G

-------------------------
-
> 
> For what it's worth, I'm using IP on Mac OS X with a 7600 using 
> UltraChrome inks (Matte Black) -- don't know how my 
observations will 
> map to your experience on the 2200, but anyways...
> 
> I too agree that I expected more from the dither, after hearing 
and 
> reading rave review feedback about how superior it was to any 
others 
> available. It is definitely more coarse than the Epson driver (OS 
9 
> only) at 1440 (unidirectional/high speed off). At first, I was really 
> put off by how much more coarse the dither was -- my 
expectations were 
> really high.
> 
> However, sheer persistence and closer inspection has led me 
to value 
> the following from this RIP, and I would like to know if you 
and/or 
> others are seeing similar results:
> 
> 1) Even though the dither is more coarse, the finished print has 
a 
> certain overall smoothness about it that I find pleasing in some 
way 
> that I can't quite describe.
> 
> 2) Even though the dither is more coarse, the image detail is 
far 
> superior. Fine details, curves, diagonal lines, and specular 
highlights 
> all reproduce much more cleanly than with the Epson driver -- 
none of 
> the "jaggies" and color fringing on high-contrast edges that 
plague 
> Epson driver prints.
> 
> 3) Much more color manageable. I generate my own custom 
ICC profiles, 
> and so far (one paper on the 7600 as a pilot, a bunch more in 
progress 
> as I write this) the finished results are definitely better than with 
> the profiles I generated using the Epson driver.
> 
> 4) Real grayscale! The special grayscale mode that IP brings 
to the 
> 7600 (& 2200??), with UltraChrome ink, renders a neutrality to 
the 
> entire gray ramp that is just not possible with the Epson driver, 
even 
> with my own ICC profiles (which are good profiles). It was this 
element 
> alone that encouraged me to buy IP for my 7600, and so far I'm 
very 
> pleased with the results. Now if I can just get ColorByte 
Software to 
> generate their special Grayscale profiles for the rest of the 
media 
> that I use...
> 
> All is not perfect, and I am working with ColorByte to work 
through 
> some issues I am having. Even though I do agree with you 
about the 
> coarseness of the dither, I do not find it so objectionable, 
especially 

> in view of these other advantages.
> 
> Are others seeing similar things? Am I an island?
> 
> /eddie

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Gilbert 
<lists@e...> wrote:
> 
> On Friday, January 17, 2003, at 05:09  PM, eleanor77027 
> <elliebrown@a...> wrote:
> 
> > so far I have been disappointed in image print for the 2200.
> > for $500 bucks I expected a finer dither at 1440 and at least some
> > color controls ... I think their 1440 is a joke ... and their
> > 2880 High speed is not great either ... both dither patterns are
> > coarser that the standard 2200 epson 1440 (high speed off) driver
> 
> Eleanor,
> 
> For what it's worth, I'm using IP on Mac OS X with a 7600 using 
> UltraChrome inks (Matte Black) -- don't know how my observations 
will 
> map to your experience on the 2200, but anyways...
> 
> I too agree that I expected more from the dither, after hearing and 
> reading rave review feedback about how superior it was to any others 
> available. It is definitely more coarse than the Epson driver (OS 9 
> only) at 1440 (unidirectional/high speed off). At first, I was 
really 
> put off by how much more coarse the dither was -- my expectations 
were 
> really high.
> 
> However, sheer persistence and closer inspection has led me to value 
> the following from this RIP, and I would like to know if you and/or 
> others are seeing similar results:
> 
> 1) Even though the dither is more coarse, the finished print has a 
> certain overall smoothness about it that I find pleasing in some way 
> that I can't quite describe.
> 
> 2) Even though the dither is more coarse, the image detail is far 
> superior. Fine details, curves, diagonal lines, and specular 
highlights 
> all reproduce much more cleanly than with the Epson driver -- none 
of 
> the "jaggies" and color fringing on high-contrast edges that plague 
> Epson driver prints.
> 
> 3) Much more color manageable. I generate my own custom ICC 
profiles, 
> and so far (one paper on the 7600 as a pilot, a bunch more in 
progress 
> as I write this) the finished results are definitely better than 
with 
> the profiles I generated using the Epson driver.
> 
> 4) Real grayscale! The special grayscale mode that IP brings to the 
> 7600 (& 2200??), with UltraChrome ink, renders a neutrality to the 
> entire gray ramp that is just not possible with the Epson driver, 
even 
> with my own ICC profiles (which are good profiles). It was this 
element 
> alone that encouraged me to buy IP for my 7600, and so far I'm very 
> pleased with the results. Now if I can just get ColorByte Software 
to 
> generate their special Grayscale profiles for the rest of the media 
> that I use...
> 
> All is not perfect, and I am working with ColorByte to work through 
> some issues I am having. Even though I do agree with you about the 
> coarseness of the dither, I do not find it so objectionable, 
especially 
> in view of these other advantages.
> 
> Are others seeing similar things? Am I an island?
> 
> /eddie


I'd agree with you Eddie. There's just something unusual about the 
print- just looks better, all in all.

I have other issues though that bias me...


As I said before, I need a printer, any printer that WORKS before I 
think about getting the best print possible. And in my climate, the 
1280/1160 clogged up every day. Except for the six banding episodes, 
I've only had to clean the printer one other time to get a good nozzle 
check in the two months I've had it. In this perspective I don't worry 
about dots, dmax, etc as much as others who have the luxury of good 
reliable working printers. Not to say I don't respect the opinions of 
others on this matter.

One other thing: Colorbyte gave me lots of e-mails yesterday for 
profiles for Eclipse paper which I'm still trying to digest. But one 
test I did was to print two small prints at 2880 dpi (new curves for 
this resolution now exist for Eclipse and Photorag) and compare when 
still wet to a duplicate I had printed a month ago with an older 
version of their driver at 1440. The 2880 curve looks marginally 
better, based on this small sample.
Jim H.

I agree that the IP prints have a certain smoothness about them. 
However with that said, why is their dither so course?  I am making
prints anywhere from 5X7 to 13X19 with my 2200 and believe me, on the
smaller sized prints the courseness is evident.  I can make a small
print using the epson driver at 2880 and in my experience, the IP
2880 still doesn't match the creamy smoothness of the dither of the
epson.  Since we are paying so much for a driver only (no extras)
from IP, why shouldn't we expect a dither as smooth as that of the
epson driver to compliment those IP smooth tonal transitions?  Are
these two qualities incompatible? (I am printing from OS 10.2)
eleanor brown

on 1/17/03 8:58 PM, jim hayes:
> 
> Yes Andrew I had heard on this list, I believe from you about the 2880
> vs 1440 variable dot thing, and I assumed it certainly applied to the
> 1280 and 1160 printers.
> 
> But I wasn't sure of the 2200 on IP5 RIP.

John at ColorByte told me that this is the case with IP and they don't
recommend 2880 settings (despite putting it there so users don't bitch and
producing profiles as well). As to the 1440 setting, I'm not sure if it is
1400x1400 or 1440x720 but I think the latter. I'll have to ask John about
that one. 

Andrew Rodney

on 1/17/03 8:58 PM,  Eddie Gilbert:

> Are others seeing similar things? Am I an island?

Can't speak for others but you and I are on the same island.

As for making custom profiles, I'm finding that working well now that I know
the trick about replacing the copyright tag in the profile. But what's
shocking to me is that while my custom profile (ProfileMaker Pro, 9.88
target) are really good, the canned profile (in this case on Luster paper as
my first test) was pretty close. I didn't expect a canned profile to be this
good! 

Andrew Rodney

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Rodney 
<andrew@d...> wrote:
> on 1/17/03 8:58 PM, jim hayes:
> > 
> > Yes Andrew I had heard on this list, I believe from you about the 
2880
> > vs 1440 variable dot thing, and I assumed it certainly applied to 
the
> > 1280 and 1160 printers.
> > 
> > But I wasn't sure of the 2200 on IP5 RIP.
> 
> John at ColorByte told me that this is the case with IP and they 
don't
> recommend 2880 settings (despite putting it there so users don't 
bitch and
> producing profiles as well). As to the 1440 setting, I'm not sure if 
it is
> 1400x1400 or 1440x720 but I think the latter. I'll have to ask John 
about
> that one. 
> 
> Andrew Rodney

Well, okay. On the two prints I did where the 2880 dpi looked  
"marginally better" I used an older 1440 print using an older version 
of the driver to compare it to. This, or the fact that each image was 
only around 4 x 5 inch may be fooling me. In a way it is some relief, 
as print time more than doubles.

On the 1440 x 1440 or 1440x 720 question (and 2880 etc), they reason I 
ask is partly curioisty, and partly to know what settings to dial into 
Nik Sharpener.
Jim H.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "eleanor77027 
<elliebrown@a...>" <elliebrown@a...> wrote:
> I agree that the IP prints have a certain smoothness about them. 
> However with that said, why is their dither so course?  I am making
> prints anywhere from 5X7 to 13X19 with my 2200 and believe me, on 
the
> smaller sized prints the courseness is evident.  I can make a small
> print using the epson driver at 2880 and in my experience, the IP
> 2880 still doesn't match the creamy smoothness of the dither of the
> epson.  Since we are paying so much for a driver only (no extras)
> from IP, why shouldn't we expect a dither as smooth as that of the
> epson driver to compliment those IP smooth tonal transitions?  Are
> these two qualities incompatible? (I am printing from OS 10.2)
> eleanor brown

That's what I'm guessing (your last statement re: tonal transitons). 
The one area where the Epson driver bursts into the ring like a car 
full of clowns is it's underwhelming ability to keep tones/hue correct 
across the range. It's riding herd on a lot of colored chambers after 
all.

If so then the compromise would be between dot smoothness vs 
(continual) tonal smoothness. Or another way: sneaking in a bit of 
quasi-halftoning, actually randomized dots, gives more tonal control 
then using complete continous tone. But I'm no expert on this stuff- 
ask me about clogs maybe<g>.

Btw, sorry I didn't mention it before: I'm Win2000 SP3, using an 
updated IP5 driver e-mailed to me 1/10/03...
Jim H.

On Saturday, January 18, 2003, at 12:08  PM, Andrew Rodney wrote:

> As for making custom profiles, I'm finding that working well ... But 
> what's
> shocking to me is that while my custom profile (ProfileMaker Pro, 9.88
> target) are really good, the canned profile (in this case on Luster 
> paper as
> my first test) was pretty close. I didn't expect a canned profile to 
> be this
> good!
>

Andrew,

I'd like to comment on this observation myself.

I just finished making my own custom profiles for all my various media. 
My comments are relative to ImagePrint on Mac OS X used with my Epson 
7600, UltraChrome w/ Matte Black ink. Profiles were created using 
Monaco Proof w/DTP-41. Evaluation prints were printed using Relative 
Colorimetric rendering using my standard color management reference 
image. All color transforms were done in Photoshop using the Adobe ACE 
CMM, with color management in ImagePrint completely disabled [only way 
to assure reasonable soft-proof to print matching, and I also found 
serious differences between IP Perceptual and ACE Perceptual 
renderings, plus the IP CMM does not handle Black Point Compensation at 
all].

I agree with you that I am _very_ surprised at the level of quality of 
the "canned" ColorByte-provided profiles. Comparing prints made using 
their "Day" profiles to my own (std D50) profiles for Epson Enhanced 
Matte, Somerset Velvet for Epson, and Photo Rag, in a GTI Soft-View 
juxtaposed with proper soft proofing for evaluation, all showed very 
consistent differences from my own (probably due to tools used to 
create the respective profiles), but considering what the differences 
are, and how good the ColorByte profiles are out-of-hand, I will likely 
be keeping them around as additional tools to use under the right 
conditions.

The differences were very consistent, but the quality was unusually 
good for all.

The differences were that my profiles produced slightly more _accurate_ 
color, relative to both the soft proof display as well as physical 
MacBeth Color Checker patches (which I would expect as these profiles 
were created using my specific printer, media, and printer/RIP 
settings), but the ColorByte-provided profiles demonstrate slightly 
richer black (DMax) and somewhat better overall contrast, lending to 
better image detail and tonal separation in the lower midtones to 
shadows.

These differences were very subtle in general, and were I not a 
stickler for maximum color matching accuracy I might be happy to just 
use the ColorByte profiles. However, I am, and particularly where soft 
proofing reliability is concerned. So for the most faithful soft 
proofing accuracy and overall color accuracy is concerned, I will use 
mine, but for cases where color matching is less critical than 
preserving maximum image detail in shadow tonal separations or richest 
black DMax, then I may consider using theirs.

There is no perfect world, I guess (unless I spend a great deal more 
for my color management tools, perhaps...)

Regards,
/eddie