Digital BW, The Print

I recently bought a 2200 because some reviews said it did
good black and white printing.  But it has so much metamerism
that the black and white prints it makes are unacceptable.

My darkroom is just a dark corner of the basement and it needs
major upgrades in plumbing, electricity, and ventilation.
I was hoping to go all-digital and skip the upgrade but It
seems I'm still waiting for a simple-off-the-shelf solution
to digital black and white printing.

I like the 2200 because of its pigment-based inks, wide
format, 48-mil thick media spec, and flat feed tray.

Reading this forum and Photo.Net I can see people are desperate
and try a zillion different approaches to black and white ranging
from black-only to expensive RIPs to profilers to hextone printing.
Everyone has their special approach and no one method seems
to be endorsed by more than a few percent of users.

I'm reluctant to go to a hextone system because of all the hassles
I've heard about with it; the need to maintain TWO big, wide format
printers, the risk of voiding my extended warranties with third-party
inks, questions that have been raised here about color stability,
blackness, and metamerism, and the chip wars between ink
makers and Epson (Epson makes its money on INKS not printers).

My question is should I upgrade my darkroom and stick with darkroom
prints for B+W or will we SOON see a straightforward, off
the shelf solution to digital black-and-white printing?

---peter

It's already here. I've been printing with an Epson 1160 and 
quadtones inkset (MIS-FSN) and the prints when mounted and framed are 
almost indistinguishable from traditional darkroom prints. And 
besides, I've been able to produce better prints digitally.

However, when the prints are held in hand, it's another matter.

I recently visited a photo store where a salespersons showed me b&w 
prints from an Epson 2200. I immediatly recongnised the RGB printing 
and the metamerism. But there is an Epson b&w software for this 
printer if i'm not mistaken. Others can shed more light on this.

Digital is not a direct replacement for traditional b&w printing. 
Both processes stand on their own and neither replaces the other.

Dont give up. Your are on the road to making great prints.

Cheers,
Andre

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, peter nelson 
<peter@s...> wrote:
> 
> I recently bought a 2200 because some reviews said it did
> good black and white printing.  But it has so much metamerism
> that the black and white prints it makes are unacceptable.
> 
> My darkroom is just a dark corner of the basement and it needs
> major upgrades in plumbing, electricity, and ventilation.
> I was hoping to go all-digital and skip the upgrade but It
> seems I'm still waiting for a simple-off-the-shelf solution
> to digital black and white printing.
> 
> I like the 2200 because of its pigment-based inks, wide
> format, 48-mil thick media spec, and flat feed tray.
> 
> Reading this forum and Photo.Net I can see people are desperate
> and try a zillion different approaches to black and white ranging
> from black-only to expensive RIPs to profilers to hextone printing.
> Everyone has their special approach and no one method seems
> to be endorsed by more than a few percent of users.
> 
> I'm reluctant to go to a hextone system because of all the hassles
> I've heard about with it; the need to maintain TWO big, wide format
> printers, the risk of voiding my extended warranties with third-
party

> inks, questions that have been raised here about color stability,
> blackness, and metamerism, and the chip wars between ink
> makers and Epson (Epson makes its money on INKS not printers).
> 
> My question is should I upgrade my darkroom and stick with darkroom
> prints for B+W or will we SOON see a straightforward, off
> the shelf solution to digital black-and-white printing?
> 
> ---peter

As others have said, the quad/hex workflows are already a simple,
reliable printing method for B/W. (And, I might add, a far sight less
expensive than a 2200)

Yeah, it's sorta annoying to have to keep two printers around, but
even the 2200 prints I've seen really don't quite hold up in BW to
good quad/hextone prints. (Well, except that you can print them on
glossy stock for better dmax.)

Better yet, the gimp-print quad/hextone solution is almost ready for
prime time, and once suitable curves are made that will make greyscale
printing all but seamless.

For Sam McCandless:

> I've forgotten whether Stan Shire is working with a Mac or a Windows
> platform and am also curious to know whether how users feel about IP5
> depends on which platform they use.

I am using IP5 on the Mac under OSX. I had some problems with the 
original OSX versions that were issued in Nov/Dec but the current 
version but the current version seems to be rock stable. FYI, below is 
a quote of a message I posted on the EpsonWideFormat  and ImagePrint 
lists:

QUOTE:

Subject:  Further Adventures with 7600 and ImagePrint

1. After downloading the current OSX version of ImagePrint 5, I now 
have stopped using the Epson driver which currently runs only under 
System 9. And I have come to the conclusion that the IP5 color profiles 
are slightly more accurate than Atkinson's. While I had some 
difficulties with the previous OSX versions, related to the hardware 
protection key, the current OSX version of IP5 seems to be rock stable.

2. Before printing with the 7600, I used the 1290 whose (Epson) paper 
profiles were nowhere nearly as accurate as the IP5 and Atkinson 
profiles for the 7600 and, since the profiles were not that accurate, I 
did not use any "printer targeting adjustment adjustment layers" as 
described in Real World Photoshop 7 (pages 371-378). It's ironic: 
because the 1290 Epson profiles were not that accurate, the prints were 
closer to the standard monitor image rather than to the Photoshop 
"proofing image" viewed through the paper profile. Now, with both the 
IP5 and Atkinson profiles, I save the final color corrected file iand 
thern proceed to make "printer targeting adjustment layers as described 
in Real World Photoshop 7: I make a copy of the image and view it 
side-by-side on the monitor with the original image to which I apply 
the Proof Colors facility; then, I apply a curve adjustment layer and a 
hue/saturation layer for printer targeting until the original (proof) 
image looks as close as possible like the copy image. I have found 
that, for most photos, I can use the same set of adjustment layers, 
which I have saved as a PS file so that I can just drag the printe 
rtargeting  adjustment layers onto the image that I am going to proof 
and print.

3. So far, I have been printing with Photo Black on Epson Premium 
Semi-Matte paper, and this is a satisfactory solution for color prints, 
but the one B&W print I made did not look on this paper. Incidentally, 
the IP5 B&W profile was spot-on neutral. Before deciding to switch to 
Matte Black ink and matte paper I'll have to make a few more B&W print 
tests. But the question of glossy-type versus matte paper for the 
ultrachrome ink inks does not have an obvious answer. On the Digital 
B&W Forum, Julian Thomas has stated that an Ilford semi-gloss paper, 
similar to Epson Semi-Matte has better blacks than matte paper. I have 
one color photo with a lot of blacks on it which has been printer with 
PK ink on Semi-Matte and with MK on EEM and it's a hard call which has 
better blacks: it seems to depend on how the light strikes the picture 
-- under some viewing angles the blacks look better on the matte paper 
while at other angles the Semi-Matte (really semi-gloss in appearance) 
look better.  I also agree with Julian Thomas that once the prints are 
framed under glass, there may be little difference in the appearance of 
matte and semi-gloss paper. While I prefer the tactile "feel" of matte 
paper, I am more concerned how the print looks once its framed under 
glass. So, far me for color prints, matte versus semig-gloss is a 
toss-up. I'll have to see what conclusion I'll come to for B&W, which 
is what will drive the decision of whether to change to MK and matte 
paper.
END QOUTE

--Mitch/Bangkok

For Stanley Shire:

> I am using the 2200 for both color and grayscale. My results with 
> George
> Lepp's profiles are very good. My results with Imageprint 5 are 
> spectacular.

For your IP5 printing are you using PK or MK, and which paper?

--Mitch/Bangkok

For: Peter Nelson:

> I recently bought a 2200 because some reviews said it did
> good black and white printing.  But it has so much metamerism
> that the black and white prints it makes are unacceptable.

Yes, perhaps the review on Luminous Landscape is particularly 
pernicious because that forum seems to have gained much (unwarranted) 
credibility. The reviewer claims that straight prints with the 2200 
produce good, neutral B&W. But, if you look at his review of earlier 
printers, you will see that he also claimed that the 1270, and 
subsequently, the 1280 printed superb B&W "right out of the box" with 
the Epson profiles. It looks the reviewer is mainly concerned with 
color prints, or simply doesn't have a good eye for B&W prints. It 
reminds me of a New Yorker cartoon of a few years ago showing a dog 
sitting at a desk typing at a computer speaking to dog sitting on the 
floor saying, "And the great thing about the internet is that nobody 
knows you're a dog."


> Reading this forum and Photo.Net I can see people are desperate
> and try a zillion different approaches to black and white ranging
> from black-only to expensive RIPs to profilers to hextone printing.
> Everyone has their special approach and no one method seems
> to be endorsed by more than a few percent of users.

I don't think that the users of B&W printing solutions are as 
fragmented as the impression you have gained from reading this forum. 
Basically, the are three major sets of solutions:

1. Printing "Black Only":  Using only the black inks, the prints 
"neutral" but may have a tone that you may not like. More importantly, 
Black Only prints show dots in the highlights that, to me, are not 
acceptable, although some people obviously like this method. You can 
easily try it on your 2200 and see for yourself.

2. Printing with "Quad or Hex Inks": My experience is using Piezography 
on the 1160, and this produced superb prints on Hahnemuehle Photo Rag 
paper with beautiful gradation. Yes, I occasionally had some clogging 
and banding problems which I understand have been eliminated by the new 
Piezotone inks, for which there are several "tone" choice; particularly 
the Selenium tone inks of which I have seen sample prints. But the 
trouble is, as you say, that this requires a second printer dedicated 
to B&W. Nevertheless, the prints can be breath-taking, so you shouldn't 
necessarily ignore this solution. In March, there will be a new 
Piezography system that you might want to consider. But, in my own 
case, I bought a 7600 printer because I wanted to make larger prints 
than 13x19 inches (Super A3) and also because I wanted to have one 
printer for color and B&W, so I appreciate your concern. [For 
completeness, I should state that you can also use other Quad I (or 
Hex) ink solutions and use the various "work flows" often discussed on 
this forums. I am sure that these work flow solutions also produce 
beautiful prints, but I used Piezography because it seemed simpler and 
I was very have with the range and smoothness of the tones.]

3. Printing with ImagePrint: This gives spot-on neutral B&W prints with 
the possibility of "toning" using the Tint Picker in the software. In 
my view, the gradation of these prints is as good as that of 
Piezography. Also, ImagePrint will allow you to use your 2200 for both 
color and B&W. Incidentally, the ImagePrint color profiles are even 
slightly better than the Bill Atkinson profiles that are available for 
the 7600/9600 in that they provide better detail in the dark tones, in 
the manner of Piezography.


> My question is should I upgrade my darkroom and stick with darkroom
> prints for B+W or will we SOON see a straightforward, off
> the shelf solution to digital black-and-white printing?

No, the solutions are there but, like the darkroom, each of them have a 
learning curve. How long did it take you before you could make good 
darkroom prints?

--Mitch/Bangkok

I can't help you ... & I laugh, then shake my head when I read a post 
like this - Sorry Peter.  

The concept of having to maintain TWO printers is not big deal.  Why 
maintain two?  Did you do B&W + Color before you were digital?  If 
you did, then it really shouldn't be a big deal.  You 'could' get 
your printer professionally profiled to narrow the range of error and 
make nice prints in both fields from the same printer.

Photography, for it's 160+ years as a chemical process, has a vast 
variety of processes that have been developed (some dominated), gone 
defunct and even been resurrected.  Many of those processes evolved 
to grant easier access (more users) or for cost facters (more users & 
lower cost).  Remember, color wasn't even a viable option due to cost 
limitations until the 60's when changes took place allowing color to 
overtake B&W in useage.  Same arguments go for wanting to make the 
surface of this medium LOOK like the surface of the medium they've 
just left!

Most of us suffer from a modern dilemma of 'availability' chocking 
our ability to do anything.

Anyone curious about the similiarities we're encountering now with 
the development of photographic past I recommend READing "An American 
Century of Photography: from Dry-plate to Digital" by Keith Davis - 
with a push towards the second edition.  Also David Hockney's "Secret 
Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters"  The 
first is good photo-chemical/aesthetic development history book, the 
second a good example of artist investigation/observation within the 
larger history of art and the 'camera's' influence...whether you 
agree with it or not.

Rant-ingly
Cleavis

Well said, Mitch.

That is an odd site. I like it a lot, but their reviews are really
weird. It seems that every time Canon releases a new camera, the LL
guys proclaim that it's "finally, a digicam that's better than film!"
I get the feeling that they are more or less in the pockets of Canon
and Epson. (Don't get me wrong, I think those are two excellent
brands, but it's odd how their reviews seem _so_ non-critical of them.)

> Yes, perhaps the review on Luminous Landscape is particularly 
> pernicious because that forum seems to have gained much (unwarranted) 
> credibility. The reviewer claims that straight prints with the 2200 
> produce good, neutral B&W. But, if you look at his review of earlier 
> printers, you will see that he also claimed that the 1270, and 
> subsequently, the 1280 printed superb B&W "right out of the box" with 
> the Epson profiles. It looks the reviewer is mainly concerned with 
> color prints, or simply doesn't have a good eye for B&W prints. It 
> reminds me of a New Yorker cartoon of a few years ago showing a dog 
> sitting at a desk typing at a computer speaking to dog sitting on the 
> floor saying, "And the great thing about the internet is that nobody 
> knows you're a dog."
>

At 12:19 AM 2/9/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>I am using the 2200 for both color and grayscale. My results with George
>Lepp's profiles are very good. My results with Imageprint 5 are spectacular.
>Lovely tonal scale, very smooth transitions and minimal (almost not there)
>metamerism. I have carried a print to various places (tungsten, OttLite,
>fluorescent (most varieties), daylight, etc.
>I am really considering IP5 as a part of the 2200 "system."

Since metamerism is a property of the ink, how/why would a RIP
or a profile be able to fix it?

I've been reluctant to invest in a RIP that costs almost as much
as the printer, since the real purpose of a RIP is not color
adjustment, but managing and automating a commercial print shop.
Most of the features that you're paying for in the IP RIP have
no relevance to amateur photography printing.   But in any
case I still want to hear how a RIP fixes metamerism.

Also, I contacted Colorbytes to ask where i could see sample
output and they said they don't "do" that.  It made them seem
rather sleazy to me.

BTW, I've also talked to other people who say that got better
results with the Epson grayscale balancer than with the IP
RIP, and other people who say they they don't see any
metamerism with the default Epson profiles.

---peter

At 12:19 AM 2/9/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>As others have said, the quad/hex workflows are already a simple,
>reliable printing method for B/W. (And, I might add, a far sight less
>expensive than a 2200)

I've talked to a LOT of people who have tried it and had all
kinds of problems - clogged heads, not-so-black blacks,
voided printer warranties, blotchy prints and even metamerisms.
Currently on Photo.Net there's a regular there (Jeff Spirer)
who said that his first black-and-white prints EVER from his
2200 were better than anything he'd gotten in a YEAR of
quadtone printing!

My point is that quad/hextone printing works well only FOR
SOME PEOPLE.   But that it's sort of like desktop Linux (I run
both Windows 2000 and Linux here).  It's still best suited for
tinkerers, people who like to get under the hood, people who
like to spend a lot of time on newsgroups and forums like this
exchanging hits and tips, people who don't mind ideosyncracies
and esoterica, etc.   In other words it's for a small group of
devotees but it's far from clear that it's a mainstream solution
that will work for a majority.

At 02:39 PM 2/9/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>1. Printing "Black Only":  Using only the black inks, the prints
>"neutral" but may have a tone that you may not like. More importantly,
>Black Only prints show dots in the highlights that, to me, are not
>acceptable, although some people obviously like this method. You can
>easily try it on your 2200 and see for yourself.


Not only have I tried it but last week I posted scans
I made of prints using B-O on my website showing how
bad the highlight dotting was, even at 2880 DPI.  Most of
the people who say they like it say it reminds them of grain.
But I started off in photography 38 years ago shooting
PUSHED Tri-X (for astronomical and nightime street
photography) so I know grain, and the dots don't look
anything like grain.

>2. Printing with "Quad or Hex Inks"

I know some people swear by this, but some people swear AT
it.   It seems to be one of those things like desktop Linux  (I run
Linux and Win2K here)  which works well if you're either lucky
or enjoy tinkering under the hood.  But it doesn't seem to satisfy
a large enough percentage of people who try it that I can
have confidence that after I invest in a second wide-format
printer, the inks, software, etc, and climb the learning curve,
that all that money and time will be worthwhile.   I have an extended
warranty on my 2200 so I'm not about to risk putting 3rd
party products in that printer.


>3. Printing with ImagePrint: This gives spot-on neutral B&W prints

I can get neutral prints with my 2200 using the Epson gray
balancer. My problem with the 2200 isn't neutrality; it's
metamerism.  How does the IP RIP fix metamerism,. since
that's a property of the inks?

---peter

At 02:39 PM 2/9/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>The concept of having to maintain TWO printers is not big deal.

Two wide format printers double the cost and take up
space in my tiny studio.

>  . . .
>                                                       You 'could' get
>your printer professionally profiled to narrow the range of error and
>make nice prints in both fields from the same printer.

How would profiling fix metamerism?  That's a property of the ink.
I can get neutral prints just fine with the 2200 - the problem is
they are only neutral under one type of light because of metamerism.


>Photography, for it's 160+ years as a chemical process, has a vast
>variety of processes that have been developed (some dominated), gone
>defunct and even been resurrected.

<etc>

If it makes you happy to imagine yourself a pioneer in a vast
historical enterprise, enjoy yourself.  But all I want to do is
reliably and simply get good black and white prints from images
on my computer.

---peter

As a customer and user of IP (with no fiscal interest at all in
COLORBYTE (no S on the end), I can say that they are far, far from
sleazy. They are extremely responsive to customers and, as a small
company, can actually do fixes very quickly. With IP4 and some (not a
lot) of Epson 10000CF printers, there was a banding problem. They
actually wrote a new driver for this small batch of printers in a very
short period of time.
Based on your messages, I'm not sure if you are generally suspicious
(which is a good thing since it's your $$)or just not sure about new
stuff.
It would seem that the simplest solution would be to get the demo
version of Imageprint from Colorbyte and try it. You can't download
this; they'll send it.
S.

-----Original Message-----
From: peter nelson [mailto:peter@...] 
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 10:00 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: WHEN will we get simple, reliable BW
printing??

At 12:19 AM 2/9/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
wrote:
>I am using the 2200 for both color and grayscale. My results with
George
>Lepp's profiles are very good. My results with Imageprint 5 are
spectacular.
>Lovely tonal scale, very smooth transitions and minimal (almost not
there)
>metamerism. I have carried a print to various places (tungsten,
OttLite,
>fluorescent (most varieties), daylight, etc.
>I am really considering IP5 as a part of the 2200 "system."

Since metamerism is a property of the ink, how/why would a RIP
or a profile be able to fix it?

I've been reluctant to invest in a RIP that costs almost as much
as the printer, since the real purpose of a RIP is not color
adjustment, but managing and automating a commercial print shop.
Most of the features that you're paying for in the IP RIP have
no relevance to amateur photography printing.   But in any
case I still want to hear how a RIP fixes metamerism.

Also, I contacted Colorbytes to ask where i could see sample
output and they said they don't "do" that.  It made them seem
rather sleazy to me.

BTW, I've also talked to other people who say that got better
results with the Epson grayscale balancer than with the IP
RIP, and other people who say they they don't see any
metamerism with the default Epson profiles.

---peter






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
"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/

Are there Atkinson profiles for the 2100/2200 as well as for the 7600?

I don't think I can cope with mattes larger than 16x20, so I'd rather 
not accommodate a 7600 unless its prints are a lot better than the 
13-inch printer's at its smaller sizes.

Sam

Sam McCandless         samcc@...


At 8:56 AM +0700 2/9/03, Mitch Alland wrote:

>For Sam McCandless:
>
> > I've forgotten whether Stan Shire is working with a Mac or a Windows
> > platform and am also curious to know whether how users feel about IP5
> > depends on which platform they use.
>
>I am using IP5 on the Mac under OSX. I had some problems with the
>original OSX versions that were issued in Nov/Dec but the current
>version but the current version seems to be rock stable. FYI, below is
>a quote of a message I posted on the EpsonWideFormat and ImagePrint
>lists:
>
>QUOTE:
>Subject:  Further Adventures with 7600 and ImagePrint
>
>1. After downloading the current OSX version of ImagePrint 5, I now
>have stopped using the Epson driver which currently runs only under
>System 9. And I have come to the conclusion that the IP5 color profiles
>are slightly more accurate than Atkinson's. While I had some
>difficulties with the previous OSX versions, related to the hardware
>protection key, the current OSX version of IP5 seems to be rock stable.
>
>2. Before printing with the 7600, I used the 1290 whose (Epson) paper
>profiles were nowhere nearly as accurate as the IP5 and Atkinson
>profiles for the 7600 ... .

Mitch:
I'm using EEM with MK ink.
I did try (just to see how the profile printed) PSG with PK
ink....looked great. Nice tonal scale on a 21 step grayscale, open
shadows.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mitch Alland [mailto:malland@...] 
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 8:57 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: WHEN will we get simple, reliable BW
printing??

For Stanley Shire:

> I am using the 2200 for both color and grayscale. My results with 
> George
> Lepp's profiles are very good. My results with Imageprint 5 are 
> spectacular.

For your IP5 printing are you using PK or MK, and which paper?

--Mitch/Bangkok


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
"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/

I've worked with IP5 on a 7000 several times - although I'm by no means an
expert. My problems with it is that the dither pattern is sometimes
'crude' - as is the Epson. And that you are totally dependent on Colourbyte
for profiles. You can't linearise the inks yourself or provide ICC profiles.
Some people have reported delays of 6 months before they receive the IP
profile for particular ink/paper. You aretotally locked into one supplier.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shire,Stanley" <sshire@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 4:49 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: WHEN will we get simple, reliable BW
printing??


> As a customer and user of IP (with no fiscal interest at all in
> COLORBYTE (no S on the end), I can say that they are far, far from
> sleazy. They are extremely responsive to customers and, as a small
> company, can actually do fixes very quickly. With IP4 and some (not a
> lot) of Epson 10000CF printers, there was a banding problem. They
> actually wrote a new driver for this small batch of printers in a very
> short period of time.
> Based on your messages, I'm not sure if you are generally suspicious
> (which is a good thing since it's your $$)or just not sure about new
> stuff.
> It would seem that the simplest solution would be to get the demo
> version of Imageprint from Colorbyte and try it. You can't download
> this; they'll send it.
> S.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter nelson [mailto:peter@...]
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 10:00 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: WHEN will we get simple, reliable BW
> printing??
>
> At 12:19 AM 2/9/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
> >I am using the 2200 for both color and grayscale. My results with
> George
> >Lepp's profiles are very good. My results with Imageprint 5 are
> spectacular.
> >Lovely tonal scale, very smooth transitions and minimal (almost not
> there)
> >metamerism. I have carried a print to various places (tungsten,
> OttLite,
> >fluorescent (most varieties), daylight, etc.
> >I am really considering IP5 as a part of the 2200 "system."
>
> Since metamerism is a property of the ink, how/why would a RIP
> or a profile be able to fix it?
>
> I've been reluctant to invest in a RIP that costs almost as much
> as the printer, since the real purpose of a RIP is not color
> adjustment, but managing and automating a commercial print shop.
> Most of the features that you're paying for in the IP RIP have
> no relevance to amateur photography printing.   But in any
> case I still want to hear how a RIP fixes metamerism.
>
> Also, I contacted Colorbytes to ask where i could see sample
> output and they said they don't "do" that.  It made them seem
> rather sleazy to me.
>
> BTW, I've also talked to other people who say that got better
> results with the Epson grayscale balancer than with the IP
> RIP, and other people who say they they don't see any
> metamerism with the default Epson profiles.
>
> ---peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

I tried to get a demo version from Colorbyte and was told that they 
don't do this any more because of the level of technical support 
they'd need to provide.  However, I was told that there is a 30 day 
money back guarantee if you're not happy, so if this is the holy 
grail of B&W printing then you just need to decide if 500 bucks is 
worth it and give it a try.  

Peter, perhaps the metamerism is a function of a specific ink, rather 
than the "inks" in general?  Someone else mentioned (so it must be 
true) that some driver/RIP didn't use one of the magentas in order to 
reduce metamerism.  Now, the black ink is actually really black, but 
the light black is actually sepia toned for some reason, and so maybe 
IP5 only needs to use Cyan(s) in order to adjust?  Maybe it's just 
using Black, Light-black(sepia), and a small amount of cyan in order 
to get the neutral grays?  This could also explain why the output is 
supposedly a little rougher than the Epson driver, although that 
could also be down to the dithering algorithm used...

My theory (i.e. Internet fact) is that the main metamerism involves 
the magenta ink, which would be why the shift goes between magenta to 
green through grey in the middle.  I mean, why would a "bad" reacting 
yellow make the image go magenta?  Surely images would get more 
yellow or more blue depending on the light-source?

I'm seriously considering getting IP5 and then sending it back if I 
don't like it.  

Finally, I got an answer from Colorbyte on a Saturday within hours 
and they don't seem to be sleazy at all.  I do think it's odd that 
they won't send test prints, but if they have a money back guarantee, 
then you can do your own testing!  :)

  Matthew

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shire,Stanley" 
<sshire@c...> wrote:
> As a customer and user of IP (with no fiscal interest at all in
> COLORBYTE (no S on the end), I can say that they are far, far from
> sleazy. They are extremely responsive to customers and, as a small
> company, can actually do fixes very quickly. With IP4 and some (not 
a
> lot) of Epson 10000CF printers, there was a banding problem. They
> actually wrote a new driver for this small batch of printers in a 
very
> short period of time.
> Based on your messages, I'm not sure if you are generally suspicious
> (which is a good thing since it's your $$)or just not sure about new
> stuff.
> It would seem that the simplest solution would be to get the demo
> version of Imageprint from Colorbyte and try it. You can't download
> this; they'll send it.
> S.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter nelson [mailto:peter@s...] 
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 10:00 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: WHEN will we get simple, reliable BW
> printing??
> 
> At 12:19 AM 2/9/2003 +0000, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com

> wrote:
> >I am using the 2200 for both color and grayscale. My results with
> George
> >Lepp's profiles are very good. My results with Imageprint 5 are
> spectacular.
> >Lovely tonal scale, very smooth transitions and minimal (almost not
> there)
> >metamerism. I have carried a print to various places (tungsten,
> OttLite,
> >fluorescent (most varieties), daylight, etc.
> >I am really considering IP5 as a part of the 2200 "system."
> 
> Since metamerism is a property of the ink, how/why would a RIP
> or a profile be able to fix it?
> 
> I've been reluctant to invest in a RIP that costs almost as much
> as the printer, since the real purpose of a RIP is not color
> adjustment, but managing and automating a commercial print shop.
> Most of the features that you're paying for in the IP RIP have
> no relevance to amateur photography printing.   But in any
> case I still want to hear how a RIP fixes metamerism.
> 
> Also, I contacted Colorbytes to ask where i could see sample
> output and they said they don't "do" that.  It made them seem
> rather sleazy to me.
> 
> BTW, I've also talked to other people who say that got better
> results with the Epson grayscale balancer than with the IP
> RIP, and other people who say they they don't see any
> metamerism with the default Epson profiles.
> 
> ---peter
> 
>

Hello Peter,

> If it makes you happy to imagine yourself a pioneer in a vast
> historical enterprise, enjoy yourself.  But all I want to do is
> reliably and simply get good black and white prints from images
> on my computer.

Well said.  You have touched on the exact issues I described in my
articles.  You have to be a dedicated tinkerer, have the patience of
Job to put up with fussy CIS equipment, love to diddle endlessly with
curves and such, and/or spend lots more $ on RIPs.  Every approach
comes at a price and has its pros and cons.  None are perfect.  At the
present time, only BO comes close to a universal, relatively easy and
inexpensive technique, but then you have the dots, which, as you know,
you either like or don't like.

The true answer to your question of WHEN will we get simple, reliable
BW printing?? is "Nobody knows".  What you and I want simply doesn't
exist right now and nobody knows if or when it will exist.  So either
stick with the darkroom or pick one of the available techniques that
has the fewest evils for you and work within it.   

I make my living as a database programmer and am extremly busy all the
time, and have neither the time nor inclination to tinker and fuss, so
I've chosen BO to be where I hang my hat until things improve.  In the
meantime I am steadily improving my Photoshop skills, so I'm happy to
be making progress and I'm content for now.

We are all working with a degree of faith that the technology will
continue to evolve.  The truth is that those of us who have chosen to
do this and leave the darkroom behind really ARE pioneers.  We are
traveling along the leading edge in creaky wagons pulled by oxen. 
Someday this territory will be paved with high speed interstate
highways and future travelers will look back on these days and marvel
at the pioneers who had the fortitude to stick it out.

Your choice is to either accept it for what it is and work with it or
stick with the darkroom and wait awhile.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

> 1. Printing "Black Only":  Using only the black inks, the prints 
> "neutral" but may have a tone that you may not like. More
importantly, 
> Black Only prints show dots in the highlights that, to me, are not 
> acceptable, although some people obviously like this method. You
can 
> easily try it on your 2200 and see for yourself.

I'm confused by this method.  Does it, or does it not, use the
"Light Black" ink in addition to the "Photo Black" or "Matte Black" ?
My impression has been that it does not.  If so, it seems like using
BOTh black cartridges might the best of both worlds - simple out-of-
the-box B&W printing without color-cast problems, and a finer
perceived dot pattern than using "Black Only".   Why can't this be
done ?

> 3. Printing with ImagePrint: This gives spot-on neutral B&W prints
with 
> the possibility of "toning" using the Tint Picker in the software.
In 
> my view, the gradation of these prints is as good as that of 
> Piezography.

Can you go into more detail about this method ?  Looks like the
Imageprint software costs as much as a second printer !  How easy
is it to get up and going with ?

John

> I've chosen BO to be where I hang my hat until things improve. 

What workflow works best for you with BO printing ?  Epson's
profiles, somebody else's, or Printer COlor Management ?

Thanks, John

> My impression has been that it does not.  If so, it seems like using
> BOTh black cartridges might the best of both worlds - simple out-of-
> the-box B&W printing without color-cast problems, and a finer
> perceived dot pattern than using "Black Only". Why can't this be
> done ?

Have a look at this:
http://daniel.staver.no/img/bo2.jpg

That's what output with black + light black looks like. The print
quality itself is excellent, but the tone is very brown. Everybody
assumes that the light black is neutral, but that is not so. It's a
little silly actually, if Epson had made both the blacks completely
neutral and included this printing mode directly in the driver there
would be a lot of happy 2200 owners out there getting great BW prints
right now.

I can reccommend you at least try iProof PowerRIP before deciding to
go for ImagePrint. I get great BW prints without metamerism from it.
They don't directly support BW printing, and don't do custom profiles,
but it's also half the price of ImagePrint.

There's a free demo here:
http://www.iproofsystems.com/epson/pcsupportepson.htm

danielstaver wrote:

 >That's what output with black + light black looks like. The print
 >quality itself is excellent, but the tone is very brown. Everybody
 >assumes that the light black is neutral, but that is not so. It's a
 >little silly actually, if Epson had made both the blacks completely
 >neutral and included this printing mode directly in the driver there
 >would be a lot of happy 2200 owners out there getting great BW prints
 >right now.
 >
 >
 >
What a HUGE assumption....

For it to be "silly" EPSON would have to easily be able to make a true
neutral, non-metameric, "light-black", that is as archival as the
maate/photo blacks AND works on media that both the matte-black and
photo-black work on..(not to mention compatible with the other inks and
the printer)  Not a small order at all.   If it was, we'd have been
there long ago...

FWIW: to expect out of the boz, perfect B&W printing that satisfies
everyone in color tonalities, and is as archival as people want is
almost axiomatically a moving target.  Look at the wide variations of
what people term "neutral," "cold," and "warm"  alone for chrissakes..
Then move to the variety of media people want to print on..

Then there are the people who want to take a shot with their P/S color
digicam and print it out in B&W from the printer without using/learning
PhotoShop or something comparable.. {SMACK!}

The demands are what get silly..

No reasonably sane individual who has done serious chemical darkroom B&W
printing ever expected to be able to simply take a photo and without a
SIGNIFICANT learning curve translate that original image into a print.

But today, I am finding, quite annoyingly I might add, that many who
waited until sometime over the last 2-3 years to even learn Photoshop
want to be able to simply shift to digital without transition costs in
time and learning (we all know the monetary costs are there). For those
who complain about the fact that the skills etc. take time, well, so did
learning those skills originally.  Transitioning to digital may
"unfairly" take away some of the advantages and skill set knowledge you
developed over the years -- unfortunately, life isn't fair..  To those
people complaining about the investment (and we all know photogs guilty
of it),  I say "grow up."  Digital is in many ways a different paradigm
and you will either make the transition and learn to exploit the tools
or you won't.  Stop expecting the tools to do all the work for you, you
didn't expect that in a chemical darkroom workflow.

Are the tools perfect?  No.. We can get better and will get better, but
if you want simple shoot polaroid B&W peel apart the prints and be done
with it..

For those willing to invest the time, money, and intellect, there are
great tools already.

I'm in great agreement with Paul Roark when he has said, that the time
to move to digital printing of B&W is now, that the prints are on a par
with traditional images.. No matter WHAT you do, they won't BE
traditional images (except maybe Lambda images etc. and those aren't
likely to be found in many studios).  That's not a bad thing, anymore
than the fact that traditional photos aren't oil paintings either. Art
has a plethora of media to choose from - if you want oils use oils, if
you want digital prints move in that direction, if you want traditional
prints B&H still sells paper and chemistry..

In a sense, the subject line of this thread is ludicrous.. Who defines
"easy"?  Who defines "reliable"?  You, me, your husband, your wife, your
kids, your grandparents..?  Keep in mind also that making a "simple"
easy to use printer that gives results most consumers will accept may
well, in many respects, conflict with making a top-flight pro printer
(and the economics of scale within the tech biz weigh in strongly on
behalf of the consumer offerings).  It's already relatively easy to
create great images, and tools will make it easier, but this whole
obsession with tools is a bit much.  Step back, take a deep breath and
make some art instead of complaining that the tools don't perfectly
reflect your vision.  That's part of the beauty of art, that the tools
are NOT independent and perfect, that they influence and affect how you
present your vision how you bring it to life...

The subject line sounds like the oft heard "how long till we have
simple, cheap, reliable, easy-to-use, computers...?"  We basically do
already, we are light years ahead of where we were only a short time
ago.  At the same time, we are far from that benchmark in other ways.
  The reality remains that the easier the technology becomes, the broader
the base of the users putting it to use, that means we have more people
crowing for even easier solutions... It's a fool's errand..and the
question itself sounds like some mainstream consumer-oriented tripe from
John Dvorak.

Think of it this way.. Can you drive your car to the store and get
bread? Probably..  Can that same car, without you learning a lot of
automotive mechanics and doing a huge deal of customization win at Le
Mans?  Unlikely.. So, similarly, to produce everyday B&Ws or the
occasional portfolio print, we have out-of-the-box answers like the
2200.  If you want more, it will involve more work, but there are options..


As for the 2200, it wasn't designed with "BO" printing as a design
target.  The history of inkjet printing is evolutionary and  B&W prints
using multiple color inks are the norm (even when using RIPs).  If that
means a wider audience is happy with B&W from that printer EXPECT EPSON
to devote time and money on that, not on the small market segment
obsessed, like us, with the "perfect" B&W image.. Given the design
targets, the black inks have to fulfill more roles than just creating a
B&W image.
Keith



"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/

"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together
guys"







</div>

Matthew:

>   This could also explain why the output is
> supposedly a little rougher than the Epson driver, although that
> could also be down to the dithering algorithm used...

In my view the output is smoother, NOT rougher, than the Epson driver, 
with the gradation as good as Piezography which is what I had been 
using previously. When I was originally considering buying IP, I sent 
an e-mail to Jon Cone and he responded that IP was as good as 
Piezography, with the same type of long tonal range and smoothness.


> Finally, I got an answer from Colorbyte on a Saturday within hours
> and they don't seem to be sleazy at all.

"Don't seem to be sleazy?" This is a weird statement! To jump to the 
conclusion initially that , just because a tiny company does not have 
the resources to send samples of prints with any ink and paper is 
simply absurd, if not stupid.

--Mitch/Bangkok

People may be having unreasonable expectations about BW printing, but
who created those expectations? I quote from Epson's UK web-site:

(http://www.epson.co.uk/product/printers/photo/styphoto2100/index.htm)

"Further enhancements include an additional light black cartridge as
standard. This improves gradations to both colour and black and white
images, widening the colour gamut to enhance greyscale and colour
tonal gradations. EPSON's `Gray Balancer' software is designed to
calibrate and customize the greyscales used in black and white photo
reproduction. It gives you the flexibility to adjust the application
of ink according to the conditions in which prints will be stored or
displayed. The results are perfectly balanced, smooth toned, vibrant
black and white photos."

Doesn't this sound like a printer that'll do great BW printing
straight out of the box? Most people aren't likely to translate this
marketing hype into the poorly balanced prints that'll either look
green in daylight or purple indoors. Or a utility that will waste
endless sheets of paper without getting you any closer to that
perfectly balanced, smooth toned, vibrant black and white photo.

Besides, ImagePrint and PowerRIP can do it, so it's not like it's
impossible either...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor P.O.V.
Image Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
> 
> 
> danielstaver wrote:
> 
>  >That's what output with black + light black looks like. The print
>  >quality itself is excellent, but the tone is very brown. Everybody
>  >assumes that the light black is neutral, but that is not so. It's a
>  >little silly actually, if Epson had made both the blacks completely
>  >neutral and included this printing mode directly in the driver there
>  >would be a lot of happy 2200 owners out there getting great BW prints
>  >right now.
>  >
>  >
>  >
> What a HUGE assumption....
> 
> For it to be "silly" EPSON would have to easily be able to make a true
> neutral, non-metameric, "light-black", that is as archival as the
> maate/photo blacks AND works on media that both the matte-black and
> photo-black work on..(not to mention compatible with the other inks and
> the printer)  Not a small order at all.   If it was, we'd have been
> there long ago...
> 
> FWIW: to expect out of the boz, perfect B&W printing that satisfies
> everyone in color tonalities, and is as archival as people want is
> almost axiomatically a moving target.  Look at the wide variations of
> what people term "neutral," "cold," and "warm"  alone for chrissakes..
> Then move to the variety of media people want to print on..
> 
> Then there are the people who want to take a shot with their P/S color
> digicam and print it out in B&W from the printer without using/learning
> PhotoShop or something comparable.. {SMACK!}
> 
> The demands are what get silly..
> 
> No reasonably sane individual who has done serious chemical darkroom B&W
> printing ever expected to be able to simply take a photo and without a
> SIGNIFICANT learning curve translate that original image into a print.
> 
> But today, I am finding, quite annoyingly I might add, that many who
> waited until sometime over the last 2-3 years to even learn Photoshop
> want to be able to simply shift to digital without transition costs in
> time and learning (we all know the monetary costs are there). For those
> who complain about the fact that the skills etc. take time, well, so did
> learning those skills originally.  Transitioning to digital may
> "unfairly" take away some of the advantages and skill set knowledge you
> developed over the years -- unfortunately, life isn't fair..  To those
> people complaining about the investment (and we all know photogs guilty
> of it),  I say "grow up."  Digital is in many ways a different paradigm
> and you will either make the transition and learn to exploit the tools
> or you won't.  Stop expecting the tools to do all the work for you, you
> didn't expect that in a chemical darkroom workflow.
> 
> Are the tools perfect?  No.. We can get better and will get better, but
> if you want simple shoot polaroid B&W peel apart the prints and be done
> with it..
> 
> For those willing to invest the time, money, and intellect, there are
> great tools already.
> 
> I'm in great agreement with Paul Roark when he has said, that the time
> to move to digital printing of B&W is now, that the prints are on a par
> with traditional images.. No matter WHAT you do, they won't BE
> traditional images (except maybe Lambda images etc. and those aren't
> likely to be found in many studios).  That's not a bad thing, anymore
> than the fact that traditional photos aren't oil paintings either. Art
> has a plethora of media to choose from - if you want oils use oils, if
> you want digital prints move in that direction, if you want traditional
> prints B&H still sells paper and chemistry..
> 
> In a sense, the subject line of this thread is ludicrous.. Who defines
> "easy"?  Who defines "reliable"?  You, me, your husband, your wife, your
> kids, your grandparents..?  Keep in mind also that making a "simple"
> easy to use printer that gives results most consumers will accept may
> well, in many respects, conflict with making a top-flight pro printer
> (and the economics of scale within the tech biz weigh in strongly on
> behalf of the consumer offerings).  It's already relatively easy to
> create great images, and tools will make it easier, but this whole
> obsession with tools is a bit much.  Step back, take a deep breath and
> make some art instead of complaining that the tools don't perfectly
> reflect your vision.  That's part of the beauty of art, that the tools
> are NOT independent and perfect, that they influence and affect how you
> present your vision how you bring it to life...
> 
> The subject line sounds like the oft heard "how long till we have
> simple, cheap, reliable, easy-to-use, computers...?"  We basically do
> already, we are light years ahead of where we were only a short time
> ago.  At the same time, we are far from that benchmark in other ways.
>   The reality remains that the easier the technology becomes, the
broader
> the base of the users putting it to use, that means we have more people
> crowing for even easier solutions... It's a fool's errand..and the
> question itself sounds like some mainstream consumer-oriented tripe from
> John Dvorak.
> 
> Think of it this way.. Can you drive your car to the store and get
> bread? Probably..  Can that same car, without you learning a lot of
> automotive mechanics and doing a huge deal of customization win at Le
> Mans?  Unlikely.. So, similarly, to produce everyday B&Ws or the
> occasional portfolio print, we have out-of-the-box answers like the
> 2200.  If you want more, it will involve more work, but there are
options..

> 
> 
> As for the 2200, it wasn't designed with "BO" printing as a design
> target.  The history of inkjet printing is evolutionary and  B&W prints
> using multiple color inks are the norm (even when using RIPs).  If that
> means a wider audience is happy with B&W from that printer EXPECT EPSON
> to devote time and money on that, not on the small market segment
> obsessed, like us, with the "perfect" B&W image.. Given the design
> targets, the black inks have to fulfill more roles than just creating a
> B&W image.
> Keith
> 
> 
> 
> "Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
> User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
> Publications), at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
> 
> "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together
> guys"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> </div>

See Clayton's workflow at his website:
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
His workflow is detailed in articles 3 & 4, but you will learn a lot
of general knowledge by reading 1 & 2 as well. 

I can personally attest to the fact that his workflow yields excellent
results with a 1280. 

Bob Michaels

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "johngeyles
<jge@c...>" <jge@c...> wrote:

> 
> > I've chosen BO to be where I hang my hat until things improve. 
> 
> What workflow works best for you with BO printing ?  Epson's
> profiles, somebody else's, or Printer COlor Management ?
> 
> Thanks, John

I would have to agree, Simple, reliable B&W printing has been around more 
than two years. Piezography Plugin 150.00 and If the Inks are to rich for ya, 
MIS Full spectrum inks provide a  great savings. Nothing difficult, and as 
simple as it gets. If you use a wide format Epson 3000 or above there is no 
CIS hassles to deal with or learn and configure. Using color printers for 
Black and white inks is old news and has historically been a very  bad move. 
At least today IP5 is available to tame the metermerism for those that must 
use color printers. Its all available now and as easy or as hard as you want 
to make it. For those on a 2200 or higher its pretty clear that more money 
needs to be spent for a workable solution or many more hours in the learning 
curve class ....\
Steve M.
>snip ..
In a message dated 2/10/2003 3:28:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
editor@... writes:

> In a sense, the subject line of this thread is ludicrous.. Who defines
> "easy"?  Who defines "reliable"?  You, me, your husband, your wife, your
> kids, your grandparents..?  Keep in mind also that making a "simple"
> easy to use printer that gives results most consumers will accept may
> well, in many respects, conflict with making a top-flight pro printer
> (and the economics of scale within the tech biz weigh in strongly on
> behalf of the consumer offerings).  It's already relatively easy to
> create great images, and tools will make it easier, but this whole
> obsession with tools is a bit much.  Step back, take a deep breath and
> make some art instead of complaining that the tools don't perfectly
> reflect your vision.  That's part of the beauty of art, that the tools
> are NOT independent and perfect, that they influence and affect how you
> present your vision how you bring it to life...Snip>>>
> 



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

At 12:28 AM 2/10/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>There have been several reports that the IP5 rip does not use Yellow ink 
>when Printing greyscale images!


Cyan+magenta = blue so just subtracting the yellow
doesn't give you a neutral print.

At 12:28 AM 2/10/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>my 1280 has BO dots that cannot be seen with the naked eye using
>the Epson driver.


Maybe not YOUR naked eye, but I can see the 1280's dots
just fine!

I've long suspected that the people who like black-only printing
simply don't have good close visual acuity.  A lot of people as
they get older and suffer from presbyopia find that they just
can't focus closely - black-only printing is ideal for them.

danielstaver wrote:

 >People may be having unreasonable expectations about BW printing, but
 >who created those expectations? I quote from Epson's UK web-site:
 >
 >
Answer #1 - the market, as more users enter, higher expectations are
engendered...

Answer #2 - Of course the vendors drive expectations as well

 >(http://www.epson.co.uk/product/printers/photo/styphoto2100/index.htm)
 >
 >"Further enhancements include an additional light black cartridge as
 >standard. This improves gradations to both colour and black and white
 >images, widening the colour gamut to enhance greyscale and colour
 >tonal gradations.
 >

Marketing hype - but proves what I said about that light black doing
more than helping B&W printing.. So, your "true neutral light black"
  might not do the whole job EPSON uses that ink for..

 >EPSON's `Gray Balancer' software is designed to
 >calibrate and customize the greyscales used in black and white photo
 >reproduction. It gives you the flexibility to adjust the application
 >of ink according to the conditions in which prints will be stored or
 >displayed.
 >
Translated - "allows you to control unacceptable color shifts and
metamerism so that the prints look neutral in ONE display condition"

If a buyer read that far and took that to mean something else, they need
to go read a bunch of printing and color theory.

 >The results are perfectly balanced, smooth toned, vibrant
 >black and white photos."
 >
 >

Yup, sure.. Under ONE lighting condition... AND NOTE, it never says,
"quality equaling traditional B&W silver gelatine prints"...

 >Doesn't this sound like a printer that'll do great BW printing
 >straight out of the box?
 >
Nope, it sounds like a printer that can do god B&W prints for one
lighting condition at a time..

 >Most people aren't likely to translate this
 >marketing hype into the poorly balanced prints that'll either look
 >green in daylight or purple indoors.
 >
Metamerism is a fact of inkjet reality, especially with pigs -- what is
the "consumer" not getting here?  The copy is pretty clear that you are
expected to tweak your images for the lighting condition.. I suppose
EPSON should put a big bold RED "WARNING METAMERISM: your B&W prints may
not appear neutral when displayed under lighting conditions different
from those they were printed for"?

It's not like the Orange Shift, nothing near that, where EPSON said
prints would last as long as traditional silver prints.. There's a
difference between saying a print is good and saying it is tone neutral
under varied lighting sources.

It's not marketed as a B&W printer either, but a Color printer that does
Good B&W imagery - if there are better inksets out there for that it is
incumbent on the consumer not the manufacturer to research that b4
buying.  If the consumer's research consists of ads from EPSON, copy in
PC Magazine, and a quick demo, then they obviously aren't investing much
in the process prior to purchase.  I feel those who got hit with Orange
Shift when expecting silver print longevity were victims.. In this case,
the printer performs as advertised.

 > Or a utility that will waste
 >endless sheets of paper without getting you any closer to that
 >perfectly balanced, smooth toned, vibrant black and white photo.
 >
 >
You are asking for a non-metameric print as well.. That's a different
ball of wax.

It's a prosumer item,

 >Besides, ImagePrint and PowerRIP can do it, so it's not like it's
 >impossible either...
 >
 >
Possible and cost-effective are VERY different. Hell, we don't even get
the grey-balancer in the US b/c it would cost too much to support..

Plus.. Ummm.. AFAIK..  not by using just/both light black and black...
and that's what you were asking for,

If you thought you were buying one printer that could make BOTH perfect
non-metameric B&W prints, as well as color prints that were equal to
current tech. dye-based inkset models, you got bitten and I have some
sympathy for you. But, one should do their research BEFORE buying a
product..

None of these are hidden flaws. The EPSON copy may be hype, but it
doesn't lie AND there was plenty of info onlist here about the
limitations inherent in the 2200 approach and its final iteration.  The
vast majority of the reviews on here said that the 2200 was NOT the
all-in-one solution to Color and B&W prinitng...If you want professional
level output than read the reviews of professionals who review the
products (as you find here), not the hype spewed out by mainstream
publications and advertising copy boys... I'm assuming you wouldn't
purchase a particular camera lens because it got a great review in PC
Magazine, Time or USA Today, would you?  Then don't expect mass market
info on printers to be any better.
Keith



"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/

"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together
guys"





</div>

peter nelson wrote:

 >My point is that quad/hextone printing works well only FOR
 >SOME PEOPLE.   But that it's sort of like desktop Linux (I run
 >both Windows 2000 and Linux here).  It's still best suited for
 >tinkerers, people who like to get under the hood, people who
 >like to spend a lot of time on newsgroups and forums like this
 >exchanging hits and tips, people who don't mind ideosyncracies
 >and esoterica, etc.   In other words it's for a small group of
 >devotees but it's far from clear that it's a mainstream solution
 >that will work for a majority.
 >
 >
 >
Which takes us straight to my point.. It's not meant to be THE
mainstream answer..

Mainstream printers of in chemical darkrooms generally didn't use the
exact same workflows or processes as someone making fine-art prints...
The former generally weren't buying chemistry from SilverPrint and the
Photographer's Formulary just to process a few rolls of Tri-X or HP5...

In the case of commercial B&W work people either processed their own or
had a lab they knew do it. B&W isn't minilab color... It hasn't been
mainstream for over 25 years at least.  Color has..

So expect better color tools and B&W tools that are not designed for the
mainstream..

Keith



"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/

"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together
guys"





</div>

At 02:00 AM 2/11/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>I'm confused by this method.  Does it, or does it not, use the
>"Light Black" ink in addition to the "Photo Black" or "Matte Black" ?

It does NOT use the "light black".   I agree that IF they
used black and "light black" AND if "light black" were a
sort of gray, which it's allegedly not, then that would
probably give us what we need.

As to why it can't be done, ask Epson, and while you're at it
ask them why they didn't include the gray balancer in the
US.

peter nelson wrote:

>As to why it can't be done, ask Epson, and while you're at it
>ask them why they didn't include the gray balancer in the
>US.
>
>  
>
Please ask them what the REAL EEM story is too while you're at it..

That'll give you the full three wishes when you find the genie bottle..

Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




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

At 02:00 AM 2/11/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>No reasonably sane individual who has done serious chemical darkroom B&W
>printing ever expected to be able to simply take a photo and without a
>SIGNIFICANT learning curve translate that original image into a print.


Oh, nonsense.  I started doing darkroom printing and
photography at age 13 (1966) in a homemade darkroom in my
basement and within a week I was making better black and
white prints, many of which I still have today, than anything
I've made with any inkjet printer.   So I would be THRILLED
to have something that has no worse a learning curve
than darkroom printing!

 > So, similarly, to produce everyday B&Ws or the
 >occasional portfolio print, we have out-of-the-box answers like the
 >2200.

No, the 2200 out of the box is not capable of producing a black
and white print half as good as what I could make at age 13
with a week's experience under my belt, because of the
metamerism problem.

At 02:00 AM 2/11/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>Besides, ImagePrint and PowerRIP can do it, so it's not like it's
>impossible either...


I'm still waiting for someone to explain how they get around
the metamerism problem. (assuming they do, which is
why I wanted Colorbytes to send me samples so I could
see for myself.)  Several theories have been advanced, mostly
involving not using one color or another but no basis has been
provided for any of these theories, even though they would
be EASY for IP owners to test.

Just a note about GIMP-PRINT: In the "printer feature" menu, there is a 
"2 level gray" option for the 2200. Examination of the print with an 8x 
loupe seems. to me. to show white, gray and black spots on the print. 
My assumption is that "light black" is indeed being used. The prints 
from my 2200 really are beautiful to my eyes. There is no color cast 
regardless of the paper used, other than the base color of the paper's 
own effect.

Jim


I'm confused by this method.  Does it, or does it not, use the
> "Light Black" ink in addition to the "Photo Black" or "Matte Black" ?
> My impression has been that it does not.  If so, it seems like using
> BOTh black cartridges might the best of both worlds - simple out-of-
> the-box B&W printing without color-cast problems, and a finer
> perceived dot pattern than using "Black Only".   Why can't this be
> done ?


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

In a message dated 2/10/2003 5:48:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
peter@... writes:

> At 12:28 AM 2/10/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> wrote:
> >There have been several reports that the IP5 rip does not use Yellow ink 
> >when Printing greyscale images!
> 
> 
> Cyan+magenta = blue so just subtracting the yellow
> doesn't give you a neutral print.Snip



So that would mean removing any color from the equation would not neutralize 
the print tone? Rememebr the second black ink is  really Brown!  Great 
profiles will get you neutral, but that doesn't help you if you have 
metamerism!!
Ok maybe I was mistaken! Perhaps it was magenta? With two black tones added 
to the mix, God knows how many combinations for neutral there might be. Any 
rate, the reports do shown IP 5 prints seem more neutral
and exhibit much less tone shifting in various lighting conditions. I even 
read someone claim it was only using 3 inks! Eliminating metamerism, by 
pulling back the offending tints(perhaps yellow?) Is a big step toward 
neutral as an added bonus. Its pretty well known only 3 inks are needed for 
continuos tone black and white ink prints.
Awhile back when Whilhelm posted his Ultrachrome Longevity ratings, there was 
some discussion about how the Black and White prints got a 100
year rating when the color prints only got 80years from the same inkset? It 
was speculated that The Gray balancer or IP prints had one of the weaker inks 
pulled back quite abit, or that something was different in the make up of the 
black and white prints.
Who knows who or how the Whilhelm prints where made, we only know the black 
and white prints tested better and there must be a reason for it.
I don't use IP 5 or ultrachrome inks, I just repeat what I think I've read, 
And I do believe IP5  is doing something other than a great profile! Its 
controlling the individual inks and there mix points!
Steve M.


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

Peter: Could be my eyes are bad. I know I'm not a "print worshiper" as
Duane Michels referred to some photo collectors. But looking at my
1280 prints using BO compared to Woolf workflow or Roark workflow, the
dots seem the same both to the naked eye and with a loupe. That's my
prints and others.

Your view certainly is the majority one. I just can't see it myself.
Nor can a few others. Your "degraded eyesight" theory is about the
most plausible one I've heard. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, peter nelson
<peter@s...> wrote:
> At 12:28 AM 2/10/2003 +0000,
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 

> wrote:
> >my 1280 has BO dots that cannot be seen with the naked eye using
> >the Epson driver.
> 
> 
> Maybe not YOUR naked eye, but I can see the 1280's dots
> just fine!
> 
> I've long suspected that the people who like black-only printing
> simply don't have good close visual acuity.  A lot of people as
> they get older and suffer from presbyopia find that they just
> can't focus closely - black-only printing is ideal for them.

Aren't regular photographic C prints also affected with metamerism?   I
remember printing them in the darkroom at night, and under tungsten
light, they looked great.  Next morning in Daylight, they appeared quite
different. 

I don't think that the MIS VM inkset has bad metamerism. There's a
SLIGHT shift towards warmth under tungsten lights if you print for
daylight conditions, but it certainly is NOT an objectionable color
shift. Just slightly towards a  brown, in my prints, but just slightly. 
If a print shifts toward green or magenta, that's really not acceptable.
 

Jerry

Peter, how much shifting has to be evident before you say metamerism is
a problem?

On a scale of 0 to 10, I'd say the MIS VM inks have about a 1 between
daylight and tungsten.  This is on papers like Aspen, EEM, EAM, Eclipse,
etc. I haven't tried all papers, of course, and some PAPERS do exhibit
much more metamerism than others. It is NOT just the ink, but a
combination of papers AND ink.  I honestly don't think you'll ever see a
100 percent lack of metamerism in all lighting conditions. I could be
wrong, but I don't think so.

Jerry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, peter 
nelson <peter@s...> wrote:
> At 02:00 AM 2/11/2003 +0000, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> wrote:
> >Besides, ImagePrint and PowerRIP can do it, so it's not like 
it's
> >impossible either...
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for someone to explain how they get around
> the metamerism problem. (assuming they do, which is
> why I wanted Colorbytes to send me samples so I could
> see for myself.)  Several theories have been advanced, mostly
> involving not using one color or another but no basis has been
> provided for any of these theories, even though they would
> be EASY for IP owners to test.

I have a B&W print from the 2200 using the ImagePrint 5 RIP.
It's quite cool/neutral and doesn't suffer much from metamerism.
Looking with a loupe there doesn't seem to be many color
inks dots.  I don't know the internals of either the Epson
driver or of IP5 so I can only speculate based on what I see.

I t appears that the Epson driver uses quite a bit of CMY inks
as well as the light black ink to produce intermediate grays.
Colorbyte with their IP5 product has on the other hand tried
to woo the B&W people --- and made a point of using the
light black ink as much as possible to replace the CMY inks.
I.e. they don't mix CMY to make gray at all they just use a 
lot more light black.   The other part of the answer is that the
black and light black inks are very warm colored i.e. they 
already have a lots of yellow in them.  So IP5 uses very small
amounts of C and M to get the correct neutral gray.  So this
is why you get the quote "it uses no yellow ink".  I don't
know if the yellow ink really is bad -- I suspect its just a 
matter of not using much color inks at all.

So its pretty much that IP5 provides a good two ink duotone
system out of the 2200.  I use an old 1160 with three gray
inks and a sepia ink.  This is a very good three ink tritone
system that stands up very well to the new stuff.

Roy

There's an awful lot of complicated discussion going on in this 
thread. The simple answer to the question posed by the title of the 
thread is this:

"Around April, 2008."

At 06:34 AM 2/11/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>Metamerism is a fact of inkjet reality, especially with pigs -- what is
>the "consumer" not getting here?  The copy is pretty clear that you are
>expected to tweak your images for the lighting condition.. I suppose
>EPSON should put a big bold RED "WARNING METAMERISM: your B&W prints may
>not appear neutral when displayed under lighting conditions different
>from those they were printed for"?

Yes because they market it as a printer capable of doing good
black and white imagery.

>It's not marketed as a B&W printer either, but a Color printer that does
>Good B&W imagery

. . . which even you acknowledge here.

Except that the metamerism is so bad that the black and white
prints from this printer are not in any sense of the word "good".
How, for example, are you supposed to make a black and
white print for a client, friend, pr customer,  since you have no
control over what light they're viewing it under?

Also, I collect lithographs from the late 1890's and early 1900's.
They were all made with pigment-based inks, so it's not like
the world hasn't known how to make metamerism-free
pigments for over a century.

At 06:34 AM 2/11/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>Just a note about GIMP-PRINT: In the "printer feature" menu, there is a
>"2 level gray" option for the 2200. Examination of the print with an 8x
>loupe seems. to me. to show white, gray and black spots on the print.


You're the first person here to say the "light black" is
actually gray.  Others have said it's brownish or sepia.
If it IS gray then the people who claim IP gets rid of metamerism
by eliminating yellow have a lot of explaining to do.

Look, when I was trying to settle a dispute about black
only printing over on Photo.Net I printed and did hi-res
flatbed scans of my prints and put them on my webage
so we had objective proof of what was going on.

Would one of you rumor-mongers PLEASE do us the
courtesy of getting us out of rumour-land and scan and
SHOW us what color that ink is?  I can't believe bobe of
you high-tech, gadget-freaks don';t have a decent flatbed
scanner in your arsenal.

At 06:34 AM 2/11/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>So that would mean removing any color from the equation would not neutralize
>the print tone? Rememebr the second black ink is  really Brown!

James Downs, the poster before you in today's list, says it's gray.
He actually examined it under a loupe.  But we don't know how
good his eyes are.

The bottom line is that to get neutral you need matching
amounts of yellow, cyan, and magenta, you can't do it
with just two.

My point, though, is that it's not exactly rocket science to
settle this.  Just make a print with IP, scan it under hi-res
and post it!   I don't have IP so I can't do it, but ONE of you
gearheads ought to be able to do that.

I've posted a scan twice now - Here and on the photo.net forum. The
light black looks like this:

http://daniel.staver.no/img/bo2.jpg

I've also tried GIMP-print and i get the exact same brown output there.

The results from the recent technical print exchange should be back
soon, then there will be many people here who can give opinions on all
of the different available print-methods based on side-by-side
comparisons of actual prints - Including PowerRIP and ImagePrint with
the 2200.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, peter nelson
<peter@s...> wrote:
> At 06:34 AM 2/11/2003 +0000,
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> wrote:
> >So that would mean removing any color from the equation would not
neutralize

> >the print tone? Rememebr the second black ink is  really Brown!
> 
> James Downs, the poster before you in today's list, says it's gray.
> He actually examined it under a loupe.  But we don't know how
> good his eyes are.
> 
> The bottom line is that to get neutral you need matching
> amounts of yellow, cyan, and magenta, you can't do it
> with just two.
> 
> My point, though, is that it's not exactly rocket science to
> settle this.  Just make a print with IP, scan it under hi-res
> and post it!   I don't have IP so I can't do it, but ONE of you
> gearheads ought to be able to do that.

At 06:34 AM 2/11/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>Your view certainly is the majority one. I just can't see it myself.
>Nor can a few others. Your "degraded eyesight" theory is about the
>most plausible one I've heard.

I've tested it quite a bit.  My wife is a (chamber) musician
who often has groups of other musicians over to play or
practice and I use them as the test audience for my
printing experiments.

Over the lest few weeks I've been trying black-only printing
using my 870 at 1440 DPI and 2200 at 2880 DPI and testing
the results on them.  Most people see the dots, some don't.
INVARIABLY the people who don't report that they can't
see things close up.   If I ask them to hold the print at a distance
they can focus on they invariably hold it farther from their
face than the others.

Obviously there are also psychological and behavioral issues,
too.  Most people don't look at 13x19" prints close-up; they
look at them from feet away, where the dots won't show.  But
we're photographers and many photographers, including me,
DO examine prints close up.  So it depends.

I could make a b-o print and give it to a non-photographer
as a gift, and they might be happy with it and hang it in their
livingroom until the day their photographer brother-in-law
comes over and points out all the dots.

At 06:34 AM 2/11/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>Peter, how much shifting has to be evident before you say metamerism is
>a problem?

Darkroom prints don't show any noticable shift, to me.
Neither does my collection of lithographs from the late
19th and early 20th century and they were made with
PIGMENTED INKS!

But even the print that Epson supplied with the printer
to show off their black-and-white printing (matte black
ink on enhanced matte paper) goes from pink to green
when you take it from indoors to outdoors.   It is totally
unacceptable.

Peter, what can I say?! Having tried all manner of BW I no longer use
inkjets to print - I output to Lambda. I've found a lab with a perfect
profiled setup and I get prints I'm happy with. If you have the PS chops and
a fully managed workflow - use inkjet (I use MIS FS and a modifed Randall
workflow) to proof, and then output to Lambda. I spent far too long
buggering around with workflows and inks and paper. No more!

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "peter nelson" <peter@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:37 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: WHEN will we get simple, reliable BW printing??


> At 06:34 AM 2/11/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
> >There's an awful lot of complicated discussion going on in this
> >thread. The simple answer to the question posed by the title of the
> >thread is this:
> >
> >"Around April, 2008."
>
> So you've heard some rumors about the 2008 PMA show?
>
> Actually your answer is the CLOSEST one I've heard since
> starting this thread!!  As I said originally, I need to decide
> whether to make a major upgrade to my darkroom, which I
> only use for black and white.   But I was kinda hoping
> that digital black and white would soon be far enough along
> that I could get comparable results with comparable consistency
> and comparable hassle and learning curve, digitally.
>
> I want to know when that's going to happen.
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

At 06:34 AM 2/11/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>There's an awful lot of complicated discussion going on in this
>thread. The simple answer to the question posed by the title of the
>thread is this:
>
>"Around April, 2008."

So you've heard some rumors about the 2008 PMA show?

Actually your answer is the CLOSEST one I've heard since
starting this thread!!  As I said originally, I need to decide
whether to make a major upgrade to my darkroom, which I
only use for black and white.   But I was kinda hoping
that digital black and white would soon be far enough along
that I could get comparable results with comparable consistency
and comparable hassle and learning curve, digitally.

I want to know when that's going to happen.

On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 02:34:25PM +0100, Julian Thomas wrote:
> Peter, what can I say?! Having tried all manner of BW I no longer use
> inkjets to print - I output to Lambda. I've found a lab with a perfect
> profiled setup and I get prints I'm happy with. If you have the PS chops and
> a fully managed workflow - use inkjet (I use MIS FS and a modifed Randall
> workflow) to proof, and then output to Lambda. I spent far too long
> buggering around with workflows and inks and paper. No more!
> 

Is that output to B&W paper or is the lab just printing a neutral print to
colour paper? Do you find shadow detail is still there or do you have to set
new endpoints for lab prints?

I'd love to find a lab that does runs with a LightJet or Lambda using B&W paper,
I've not heard of one which will do that yet. 

Tony

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "peter nelson" <peter@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:37 PM
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: WHEN will we get simple, reliable BW printing??
> 
> 
> > At 06:34 AM 2/11/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > wrote:
> > >There's an awful lot of complicated discussion going on in this
> > >thread. The simple answer to the question posed by the title of the
> > >thread is this:
> > >
> > >"Around April, 2008."
> >
> > So you've heard some rumors about the 2008 PMA show?
> >
> > Actually your answer is the CLOSEST one I've heard since
> > starting this thread!!  As I said originally, I need to decide
> > whether to make a major upgrade to my darkroom, which I
> > only use for black and white.   But I was kinda hoping
> > that digital black and white would soon be far enough along
> > that I could get comparable results with comparable consistency
> > and comparable hassle and learning curve, digitally.
> >
> > I want to know when that's going to happen.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >

Its a 'digital' BW paper i.e. RC colour paper. Laser printers are RGB
machines so all paper is going to be colour. There are labs in London that
produce good profiled neutral BW prints - the lab I use gave me their
profile so I proof through their profiles to my printer (which is also
profiled). You'll need to do some tests of how to present an RGB file, but
that is a once only test. I'm enough of a geek to get sucked in by inkjet
printing until I realised that i was spending waaaaay to much time on it.
Mwords have kindly agreed to do my printing when people specifically request
the Photorag look. I'm using various 1160s for al my proofing - including
colour. The 1160 with dyes (for colour) produces the largest gamut of any
Epson printer, so I'm sure of being able to match an output device. I'm
still spending an awful amount of time on PS - but at least that is
creative!

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Terlecki" <ajt@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: WHEN will we get simple, reliable BW
printing??


> On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 02:34:25PM +0100, Julian Thomas wrote:
> > Peter, what can I say?! Having tried all manner of BW I no longer use
> > inkjets to print - I output to Lambda. I've found a lab with a perfect
> > profiled setup and I get prints I'm happy with. If you have the PS chops
and
> > a fully managed workflow - use inkjet (I use MIS FS and a modifed
Randall
> > workflow) to proof, and then output to Lambda. I spent far too long
> > buggering around with workflows and inks and paper. No more!
> >
>
> Is that output to B&W paper or is the lab just printing a neutral print to
> colour paper? Do you find shadow detail is still there or do you have to
set
> new endpoints for lab prints?
>
> I'd love to find a lab that does runs with a LightJet or Lambda using B&W
paper,
> I've not heard of one which will do that yet.
>
> Tony
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "peter nelson" <peter@...>
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:37 PM
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: WHEN will we get simple, reliable BW
printing??
> >
> >
> > > At 06:34 AM 2/11/2003 +0000,
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > wrote:
> > > >There's an awful lot of complicated discussion going on in this
> > > >thread. The simple answer to the question posed by the title of the
> > > >thread is this:
> > > >
> > > >"Around April, 2008."
> > >
> > > So you've heard some rumors about the 2008 PMA show?
> > >
> > > Actually your answer is the CLOSEST one I've heard since
> > > starting this thread!!  As I said originally, I need to decide
> > > whether to make a major upgrade to my darkroom, which I
> > > only use for black and white.   But I was kinda hoping
> > > that digital black and white would soon be far enough along
> > > that I could get comparable results with comparable consistency
> > > and comparable hassle and learning curve, digitally.
> > >
> > > I want to know when that's going to happen.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 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/
>
>
>

Peter,

Surely that depends on the viewing distance? I've just looked at some 18x12
black-only prints (from a 1280/90) and at arms length or further I cannot
see any dots (with or without corrected eyesight). But if I look at them
from a few inches with reading glasses I can see the dotty nature of light
areas. If I look at any print with a x10 magnifier I can see dots in all of
them, however they were printed.

So, it's horses for courses; if I print large prints to be hung on a wall
and viewed at a normal viewing distance, black-only prints are totally
satisfactory (unless I want tinted ones). If I print 6x4's that people are
going to have to look at closeup, then black-only prints will not be
satisfactory.

Bob Frost.

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

From: "peter nelson" <peter@...>
>
> Maybe not YOUR naked eye, but I can see the 1280's dots
> just fine!
>
> I've long suspected that the people who like black-only printing
> simply don't have good close visual acuity.  A lot of people as
> they get older and suffer from presbyopia find that they just
> can't focus closely - black-only printing is ideal for them.

April 1, 2008 is the correct date.

Jer




"sanfo2003 " wrote:

> 
> There's an awful lot of complicated discussion going on in this
> thread. The simple answer to the question posed by the title of the
> thread is this:
> 
> "Around April, 2008."
> 
> 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 "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/

Well, this image sure looks brown on my monitor. A nice shade of sepia!

Jerry

And yes, my monitor is calibrated.






"danielstaver " wrote:

> 
> I've posted a scan twice now - Here and on the photo.net forum. The
> light black looks like this:
> 
> http://daniel.staver.no/img/bo2.jpg
> 
> I've also tried GIMP-print and i get the exact same brown output there.
> 
> The results from the recent technical print exchange should be back
> soon, then there will be many people here who can give opinions on all
> of the different available print-methods based on side-by-side
> comparisons of actual prints - Including PowerRIP and ImagePrint with
> the 2200.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, peter nelson
> <peter@s...> wrote:
> > At 06:34 AM 2/11/2003 +0000,
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > wrote:
> > >So that would mean removing any color from the equation would not
> neutralize
> > >the print tone? Rememebr the second black ink is  really Brown!
> >
> > James Downs, the poster before you in today's list, says it's gray.
> > He actually examined it under a loupe.  But we don't know how
> > good his eyes are.
> >
> > The bottom line is that to get neutral you need matching
> > amounts of yellow, cyan, and magenta, you can't do it
> > with just two.
> >
> > My point, though, is that it's not exactly rocket science to
> > settle this.  Just make a print with IP, scan it under hi-res
> > and post it!   I don't have IP so I can't do it, but ONE of you
> > gearheads ought to be able to do that.
> 
> 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/

I don't check in all that often, but it's nice to see the general tone
has come up out of the gutter.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, peter nelson
<peter@s...> wrote:

snip

> only use for black and white.   But I was kinda hoping
> that digital black and white would soon be far enough along
> that I could get comparable results with comparable consistency
> and comparable hassle and learning curve, digitally.
> 
> I want to know when that's going to happen.

And why should you be the only human on the planet with that answer?
Sounds to me like more of a demand than a want.

> Would one of you rumor-mongers...

> you high-tech, gadget-freaks...

> ...but ONE of you
> gearheads ought to be able to do that.

Why thank you, how is the view up there?
I'm just thinking, since you mastered the craft of fine black and
white printing at age 13, the first human in history to do so, perhaps
you should just stay in the darkroom. After all, it's "there".
Some of us began working with B&W printing on inkjets years ago, have
spent thousands of dollars on printers, long gone inks, papers,
various drivers, therapists, flowers and gifts for girlfriends
threatening to leave if we don't start having a life, bla bla.
We are all still working and waiting and wondering when all this will
arrive at something personally satisfying and reliable. We also
attempt to contribute to that end, if possible.
And now here you are.
Joy.
Tyler, rumor-monger/high-tech/gadget-freak/gearhead, anxious to jump
at your command.

> When I am sitting in my chair and looking at my BO prints matted and hung on
> a wall 8 feet away, I dare anyone to see a dot.  I am not saying they are not
> there, but when viewed properly they are not visible.  When a tree falls in
> the forest and there is not ear to hear, is there any sound?

Of course. Tape record it. It's there. :)

Jer

>
>> ...but ONE of you
>> gearheads ought to be able to do that.
>
>
> And now here you are.
> Joy.
> Tyler, rumor-monger/high-tech/gadget-freak/gearhead, anxious to jump
> at your command.
just don't forget the doggie treat. gearhead's are big on those.
Carolyn

ps... regarding the light black, do a nozzle check, no need for IP, 
only makes sense doesn't it,  all the inks are layed out as they are, 
no muxing....  "not rocket science to settle this".

Hello Peter,

>Maybe not YOUR naked eye, but I can see the 1280's dots
>just fine! 
>we're photographers and many photographers, including me,
>DO examine prints close up.  So it depends.

I agree with you, the dots can be seen without a glass.  When I first
began trying BO printing I was both relieved by finally being able to
get good prints and dismayed by the dots.  I went through a long
anguishing process but finally came to accept the dots for what they
are.  I'm not excusing them, or denying they exist, or saying they
look just as good as whatever, or anything else.  I simply accept them
and see BO as simply another way of making prints.   That acceptance
removed the emotional element and I am much more at ease about it.

If I was a pen-and-ink artist and created identical pics by
laboriously making millions of tiny dots with a pen I'd be famous,
would be in the G. book of world records, my pics would be in museums
and sell for big money in galleries, and others would marvel at my
pointillist technique and be trying to emulate it.  The point is that
BO prints are simply pics made with ink dots, no more, no less, and
they can stand on their own as an art form.  Some artists think
acrylic is inferior to oil, others don't.

One of the things that helped me reach the point of acceptance was
showing a small scrapbook of about 20 4x5 BO prints to several
photographer friends, one a 4x5 color guy, one a serious 35mm BW guy
with years of darkroom experience, and two BW techies in a local lab.
 All I told them was that they were inkjet prints, nothing about BO or
dots or anything.  None of them examined them with a loupe, but all
looked through the book close up with great interest.  NONE of them
said anything about them looking dotty or grainy.   All were impressed
with the sharpness, tonal gradation and shadow detail.

It helped me realize that the emotional content and quality of the
images were coming through in spite of the dots, and that if these 4x5
prints could pass muster with these guys then BO printing was an
acceptable place to hang out while deciding what to do next.

Besides making me feel better about it, this experience brought home
to  me that a big part of my anxiety was from worry about what others
would think.  I thought of past artists who broke out of the mold and
were scorned by their contemporaries, only to become famous and be
copied by others later.  I remembered that as a true artist the only
thing that matters is if _I_ like my work and find it fulfilling.  

When I brushed away all the emotional junk and anxiety I realized that
I like my BO prints very much.  They have a wonderful luminance to
them, especially when printed on PR.  I have them hanging in my work
room and around the house and am enriched by their presence.  
This was the last step I needed to fully accept them for what they are
- prints made with ink dots and they are beautiful.  

When I began sharing them with other photographers in the forum the
responses were extremly positive, with "stunning" being the most often
used term in the replies.  When I show my prints to non-photographers
without saying anything, they like them and have no clue they are even
inkjet prints.  Now that I'm offering small prints for sale
on my web site I'm getting a steady trickle of orders.  If one needs
validation from others, how much more than this is required?

It isn't necessary to carry on about it.  If it's not acceptable then
don't do it, but please recognize that some people like BO printing
and they aren't lesser photographers or have lower standards because
of it.   They simply like it.  I have been photographing since I was 8
(am now 56), and have done fine art zonie BW printing for over 18
years now.  I know very well what a fine silver print is and do not
claim that _any_ inkjet prints look the same.  They can and often do,
however, look _better_ than silver prints, in certain ways (sharper,
for example), even BO prints.  

I think it's fine if BO printing is not acceptable to you.  But I was
trying to point out in a previous reply in this thread that we simply
aren't where you want to be yet.  I think you need to decide if you
want to get on board now or wait until later.  I, too, would like the
technology to progress more rapidly.  I can't speed it up, but in the
meantime I realize I can make use of the time by improving my
Photoshop skills.  Continual griping in the forum isn't going to
change anything.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter nelson [mailto:peter@...] 
<snip>
> Look, when I was trying to settle a dispute about black
> only printing over on Photo.Net I printed and did hi-res
> flatbed scans of my prints and put them on my webage
> so we had objective proof of what was going on.

Can you provide me with a link to that page so I can "attempt" to see
(with my obviously bad eyes) if your Black Only printing is equal to
other examples I have seen?

Thanks,
Ed
http://lightandsilver.com

Hello Peter,

>But I was kinda hoping that digital black and 
>white would soon be far enough along that I could get 
>comparable results with comparable consistency
>and comparable hassle and learning curve, digitally.
>I want to know when that's going to happen.

I don't know why you keep asking this when I and others have already
clearly stated that nobody knows, and anyone with any common sense
would understand that nobody could possibly know.


>As I said originally, I need to decide whether to make a 
>major upgrade to my darkroom

From the emotional frustration that comes through in your posts and
the ignoring of the answers you have already received it seems that
you aren't ready to accept the current reality and you would probably
be happier sticking with the darkroom for awhile.

I'm sure you are a great guy and just frustrated, but you have managed
to insult the forum members with your "gearhead" comments.  You might
give that some thought...

I do sympathize with you and have shared your frustration, but you
must realize that whining and moaning isn't going to help the
technology improve.  I think enough has been said.  You have made your
position abundantly clear.  Now make a decision: continue in the
darkroom or roll up your sleeves, bite the bullet and make a positive
contribution to the digital BW community.  I, for one, am having a
great time.  You could not drag me kicking and screaming back into the
darkroom.

I'll make you a great deal on my Zone VI cold light head and
stabilizer...

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

2200 Epson BO is good for clients who are not demanding "gallery" quality
images.  Last week I produced 170 8x10" matte for a restaurant.  Mostly they
had old photos, copy photos, the stuff was not all that great to start with,
the short range of the BO actually helped these pictures, they were very
happy. I get $20 each for those.  The restaurant was happy with the price,
because they don't need to mat the prints to frame them (they would with
real photos) so their saving on the framing was a huge selling point.
Another job last week was copying Ambrotypes for a local museum, and the BO
would not even come close to getting where we needed to be because shadow
detail is critical.  So, I use them both depending on the job.

Tom Robinson

Peter:

I haven't closely followed this thread, but I gather from the number 
of posts that you've hit a nerve.  With more than a little 
trepidation, therefore, I offer the following:

Simple, reliable, black and white printing is here today.  Or to put 
it a little differently, I think my digital prints are as 
aesthetically pleasing, and as simply and reliably produced, as 
anything I ever did in a darkroom.

Just for the record:  I shoot 35mm Tri-X, Leica (mostly) or Nikon 
(sometimes).  I develop it myself or send it out.  I scan the negs 
with a Nikon 4000 using either Vuescan or Nikon software, depending 
on whether the particular negative will tolerate the Nikon software's 
tonal compression.  I edit the image in Photoshop 6 on a PC running 
Windows 2000.  I print using the Cone driver, Selenium Piezotone ink, 
and Photo Rag 308.  And I truly like the result.

Now, granted, I didn't arrive at this happy state over night.  In 
fact, it was definitely a hassle finding the process and products 
that work for me.  But it didn't take that long, and was certainly 
worth it.  And these aren't the only products or processes that work; 
I know there are lots of people on this list who achieve good results 
in other ways.

Therefore, if you can afford to just jump right in, I'd encourage you 
to leave your wet darkroom as it is, and give digital printing a 
serious try.

Good luck.

Chuck Schaible






--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, peter nelson 
<peter@s...> wrote:
> At 06:34 AM 2/11/2003 +0000, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 

> wrote:
> >There's an awful lot of complicated discussion going on in this
> >thread. The simple answer to the question posed by the title of the
> >thread is this:
> >
> >"Around April, 2008."
> 
> So you've heard some rumors about the 2008 PMA show?
> 
> Actually your answer is the CLOSEST one I've heard since
> starting this thread!!  As I said originally, I need to decide
> whether to make a major upgrade to my darkroom, which I
> only use for black and white.   But I was kinda hoping
> that digital black and white would soon be far enough along
> that I could get comparable results with comparable consistency
> and comparable hassle and learning curve, digitally.
> 
> I want to know when that's going to happen.

Hello

Am I missing something here? If I want simple reliable BW printing I hand my
film over to a lab and get them to develop and print it.

If I want to be able to express my artistic intentions in an image that I'm
happy for someone to hang on their wall, I'm expecting to have to put some
effort into it. A learning experience that hopefully will continue as long
as I keep taking photos.

The whole question does seem essentially meaningless without so many caveats
and additional clarification...

I guess that B/W Perfection will follow some 6-9 months after Colour
Perfection is available, due to the smaller market.

Hope that's not offended anyone!  :-))


bye for now   

Keith Cooper

Northlight Images
http://northlight-images.co.uk
Photography - Digital Imaging - Apple Mac Consultancy

Tel +44 (0)116 291 9092 Mobile +44 (0)780 162 9397

peter nelson wrote:

>
>Actually your answer is the CLOSEST one I've heard since
>starting this thread!!  As I said originally, I need to decide
>whether to make a major upgrade to my darkroom, which I
>only use for black and white.   But I was kinda hoping
>that digital black and white would soon be far enough along
>that I could get comparable results with comparable consistency
>and comparable hassle and learning curve, digitally.
>
>I want to know when that's going to happen.
>
>  
>
There isn't an easy answer...

As I've said, the answers are already different for fine-art and 
general-use prints...

There's always the option of outputting to a Lambda.

Your price point, how much time you are willing to invest in simply 
learning, and your quality requirements will all be key factors (right 
now, HIGH quality images - not just good ones - are still either very 
expensive to do in terms of equipment or learning curve - it's still a 
craftsmen's/craftswoman's field not a mainstream production field)

As for WHEN, that's still a ludicrous question.  As ludicrous as those 
who said  two or three years back, "when will I be able to buy a digital 
camera with a resolution equalling film?" Technology moves ahead, but 
you are asking for psychics not answers that technology can provide...

You sound like you want someone else to stand up, and make some 
statement, so you can hang your hat on it one way or another and feel 
like you made the "best business decision".. Then, if it turns out 
wrong, it wasn't really your decision.  The whole digital field is and 
has been for several years in constant flux.  Every serious photog has 
dealt with or is dealing with the implications of digital and where they 
stand on that timeline, along with what factors they need satisfied 
BEFORE they transition.  Please, don't ask others here to "make the 
decision for you."

AND, BTW, your tone throughout has really been that of someone who feels 
all this digital stuff is upsetting the nice organized little apple-cart 
you had spent all day stacking fruit on.  

TOO BAD.  Change is part of the human condition and you either adapt or 
perish. No-one here can tell you WHEN YOUR requirements will be 
satisfied.  However, looking at your bottom-line might be a guide.. When 
you find a good portion of your business going to digital purveyors for 
speed, etc, that might be the best time.  The people on this list tend 
to be craftsmen, obsessed with THE BEST.  But, we all forget, the public 
is obsessed not with the highest quality, but with change, technology, 
and fast results.. We live in a McDonald's world, not one of Medieval 
Guilds..

The decision really has to be yours. Asking craftsmen when it will be 
fast, reliable and easy is kind of an oxymoron in and of itself..
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




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

Carolyn Frayn wrote:

>>>...but ONE of you
>>>gearheads ought to be able to do that.
>>>      
>>>
>>And now here you are.
>>Joy.
>>Tyler, rumor-monger/high-tech/gadget-freak/gearhead, anxious to jump
>>at your command.
>>    
>>
>just don't forget the doggie treat. gearhead's are big on those.
>Carolyn
>
>
>  
>
This has to be about as close to consensus as we will get on this list.. 
Carolyn and I on the same side of an issue.. Next thing you know I'll be 
agreeing with Austin ad-nauseum..
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




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

cschaible94111 wrote:

>Now, granted, I didn't arrive at this happy state over night.  In 
>fact, it was definitely a hassle finding the process and products 
>that work for me.  But it didn't take that long, and was certainly 
>worth it.  And these aren't the only products or processes that work; 
>I know there are lots of people on this list who achieve good results 
>in other ways.
>
>  
>
Thanks Chuck.. That's what I and others, I think, are trying to point out..

Peter, I hate to say it, but your commentary is becoming more and more 
"troll-like," ask questions that are answerable instead of positing 
questions which are predominantly rhetorical, and please avoid the 
intolerant tone..

That is if what you really want is help and answers instead of just a 
forum to vent against the current state of Digital B&W as you see it.  

The members of this group don't control that state, but I'd venture that 
with over 2500 of us here someone MUST be doing something right.
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




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

I did my own BO vs. Hex test by printing (1280) four different
7.5x10.5 images twice. Once with MIS VM and Roark workflow and once
black only with 1280 Epson driver. Each matched pair was on the same
paper, same 1440 dpi, no different Photoshop adjustments except for
the Roark curves. 

Then I laid out the four pairs for a very critial well published fine
art photographer who lives on grants, print sales and teaching
photography. He is a master b&w wet darkroom printer (MF & 4x5) but
who knows nothing of digital printing.  I only told him the pairs were
printed by different methods without saying which were by the similar
method and please comment on the differences. I know him to be very
critical. 

He had nitpicks (other than my basic photography skill)But he never
said that one had better tonal transitions than the other. Nor did he
ever say one had bigger dots than the other. No comments about any
aspect of BO vs quad/hex being discussed here. 

Finally, I asked him to pick which of the pairs he liked best. He had
problems making the decision but finally picked the BO print of each
of the four pairs. 

I'm NOT a missionary trying to convince the world that 1280 BO is as
good / better than quadtone. I'm too old and beat up for that. I'm
only trying to understand why my 1280 BO prints look as good as my
hextones (Roark & Woolf workflows with appropriate inksets). I
honestly don't think I'm that bad at digital printing though I
certainly have seen those much better than me.

I'm still open to ideas.

Bob Michaels 

Finally, I asked him   --- In
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost"
<bobfrost@b...> wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> Surely that depends on the viewing distance? I've just looked at
some 18x12
> black-only prints (from a 1280/90) and at arms length or further I
cannot
> see any dots (with or without corrected eyesight). But if I look at them
> from a few inches with reading glasses I can see the dotty nature of
light
> areas. If I look at any print with a x10 magnifier I can see dots in
all of
> them, however they were printed.
> 
> So, it's horses for courses; if I print large prints to be hung on a
wall
> and viewed at a normal viewing distance, black-only prints are totally
> satisfactory (unless I want tinted ones). If I print 6x4's that
people are

> going to have to look at closeup, then black-only prints will not be
> satisfactory.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "peter nelson" <peter@s...>
> >
> > Maybe not YOUR naked eye, but I can see the 1280's dots
> > just fine!
> >
> > I've long suspected that the people who like black-only printing
> > simply don't have good close visual acuity.  A lot of people as
> > they get older and suffer from presbyopia find that they just
> > can't focus closely - black-only printing is ideal for them.

on 2/11/03 5:12 PM, Bob_Michaels <Bob@...> wrote:

> I'm
> only trying to understand why my 1280 BO prints look as good as my
> hextones (Roark & Woolf workflows with appropriate inksets).

What black ink are you using for BO printing in the 1280? If you are using
the stock Epson dye that could be why. You get a better dmax with more
"transparency" with Epson dye black. The only tradeoff may be, assuming you
prefer the tonality of the BO, is lower life expectancy. Of your prints,
that is.

Todd

So a few things -

1. To my eye most of the standard hextone curves seem designed to
favor shadow detail over rich blacks. So someone looking for _black_
might prefer a black-only print since, well, the blacks are going to
really be black.

2. Depending on how good your vision is, you might not be able to see
the dots in a 1440 black-only print. I sure can though.

3. It's a matter of taste - some people prefer higher contrast stuff,
some people prefer grainy stuff, some people prefer subtleties of
tonality... Black-only prints tend to have either very high or very
low contrast depending on the image. A really well-made black-only
print will often have a high-contrast, grainy look which is well
suited to some images.

4. The VM curves can be really hard to print, especially if you are
using a mac. It's possible that you're just not ekeing out as much
quality from that workflow as some others are. (I'm not sure I am
either, not trying to put you down :) ) 

5. Traditional darkroom photographers may not be the best judge here.
Reasons - 1. A lot of the time they'll be rather dismissive of digital
prints in the first place, and won't approach them with the same
critical eye they would approach silver prints. 2. The whole notion of
dots and grain is a different thing digitally than in the darkroom -
even large format negs start to show grain at relatively small
enlargements (16x20, for instance) so seeing dots is something they
will expect and probably not mind. 3. They probably haven't developed
a sophisticated eye for looking at inkjet prints yet. I say all of
this just because some of the very very best BW darkroom folks I know
are some of the very worst digital printmakers, and basically for the
reasons above. It's a whole different skill, a whole different
aesthetic, and a whole different sensibility, imho.

Bottom line though - if you make a print that you're proud of, who
cares what technology you used? :)

I'm currenly using the MIS FSN-E black but have also used the MIS VM
black. So I can print equivalent prints using BO and hextone. 
Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, TF <tflash@e...>
wrote:
> on 2/11/03 5:12 PM, Bob_Michaels <Bob@B...> wrote:
> 
> > I'm
> > only trying to understand why my 1280 BO prints look as good as my
> > hextones (Roark & Woolf workflows with appropriate inksets).
> 
> What black ink are you using for BO printing in the 1280? If you are
using
> the stock Epson dye that could be why. You get a better dmax with more
> "transparency" with Epson dye black. The only tradeoff may be,
assuming you

> prefer the tonality of the BO, is lower life expectancy. Of your prints,
> that is.
> 
> Todd

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Olson 
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> 
> > When I am sitting in my chair and looking at my BO prints matted 
and hung on
> > a wall 8 feet away, I dare anyone to see a dot.  I am not saying 
they are not
> > there, but when viewed properly they are not visible.  When a 
tree falls in
> > the forest and there is not ear to hear, is there any sound?
> 
> Of course. Tape record it. It's there. :)
> 
> Jer



If a man says something and his wife doesn't hear him, is he still 
worng?

Hello Charles,

>So a few things -
A few things on your few things -

>So someone looking for _black_  might prefer a black-only 
>print since, well, the blacks are going to really be black.

Quite true.  I was surprised when several experienced Q/H-tone
printers were impressed with the deep blacks of my sample prints.  It
makes sense when you think about it, though.  It's all solid black,
not mixed down with anything else.


>2. Depending on how good your vision is, you might not be 
>able to see the dots in a 1440 black-only print. I sure can 
>though.

Agreed.  And it's unrelated to print size (except that a viewer might
be looking closer at a small print).  Regardless of print size you
have to look pretty close and carefully to see them (assuming it's a
modern 4-pico printer with a well aligned head).


>Black-only prints tend to have either very high or very
>low contrast depending on the image

Quite true.  And the following three statements are equally true:

1) Quad/Hex tone prints tend to have either very high or very
low contrast depending on the image.

2) Silver prints tend to have either very high or very
low contrast depending on the image

3) All three types can have a medium degree of contrast, depending on
the image.


>A really well-made black-only print will often have a 
high-contrast, grainy look 

Yes, absolutely, especially when it's made from a high contrast grainy
negative.  Not only that, well made BO prints made from low contrast
fine grain negatives will have a low contrast smooth appearance.  And
 well made BO prints made from high contrast fine grain negatives will
have a high contrast smooth appearance.

I have printed all kinds of negatives, and have found that BO gives an
 accurate rendering and is capable of very subtle tonal gradation.  
It is not limited to a certain contrast range.

I participated in the recent technical exchange.  The file we all
printed was a collection of 4 images and Paul's enhanced scale, a
really excellent selection which tests highlight and shadow detail,
sharpness, mid-tone values and tonal gradation.  I'm confident the BO
prints will hold their own in any critical evaluation.

I also have to take issue with those who equate BO printing with
"grainy" looking prints.  I see these comments often.  My prints from
35mm negs often look grainy because they are from small Tri-X negs. 
But my prints from 4x5 negs don't look grainy at all, even though on
close inspection the dots can be seen in the highlights.  Being able
to see the dots is not the same effect as a print from a grainy neg. 
Anyone working only in 35mm probably doesn't understand this.  The BO
dots may enhance the grainy look, but if they were to print a large
neg they would see the difference.

BO prints have a certain look to them which may look better with some
images than others, just as film grain does.  But to equate BO
printing with grain is a mistake.  They are not the same at all.  

I have a couple of Alan Huntley's 8x10 BO prints made from 8x10 negs
and they are absolutely gorgeous.  The neg size makes just as much a
difference in digi printing as it does in enlarger prints.  


>Bottom line though - if you make a print that you're proud of, who
>cares what technology you used? 

Yes!  Bells and cymbals!!

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

>  But I was kinda hoping
> that digital black and white would soon be far enough along
> that I could get comparable results with comparable consistency
> and comparable hassle and learning curve, digitally.
>
> I want to know when that's going to happen.

Hello, Peter.  The answer, in a word, is never.  I have not read all the
posts, but I take it you are interested in a "digital" print that will be
comparable to a silver gel darkroom print.  They are different things.  It
is a little like asking when you can make a silver gelatin  print that is
comparable to a platinum print, or a gum dichro print, or a Van Dyke print,
or whatever.  Never.  If you like what you are doing with silver prints,
obviously go for whatever upgrades you feel you need (recalling that Edward
Weston printed with a bare light bulb with tissue wrapped around it as a
diffuser, and some pretty nifty negs...).  We all have a different take on
this.  I focus (as it were) on the image and less on the means of producing
it.  Others take rightful pride in the craft of a wet print.  For what it is
worth, I have a pretty spacey darkroom, temp controls, feedback timers,
three different enlargers, whatever gear you can buy--unused for about three
years or so.  I can get what I need from PS7 and a good printer.  I would
say that if you want to go the digital direction, spend some money and go to
some good photo-oriented classes first.  Saves a lot of time.

    Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com

At 03:54 PM 2/11/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:

>Its a 'digital' BW paper i.e. RC colour paper. Laser printers are RGB
>machines so all paper is going to be colour.


By "laser printer" do you mean laser printer or do you
mean something like a Lightjet?  There is no reason
why one couldn't expose conventional black and white
photographic paper with, say, a green laser, and produce
perfect black and white prints.

with, say, a

At 06:58 PM 2/11/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>There are standards for the proper viewing of images,
>including silver, i.e. example: an 8x10 should be in a mat, viewed from X
>distance under Y lighting, under Z conditioins

Says WHO?

There is no "correct" way to view a print anymore than
there is a correct distance from which to view a sculpture
or work or architecture!   Good grief, where do you come up
with this stuff?

I suppose you're one of those people who think there's a
formula for a good photograph, too - "sun at your back,
diagonal line for interest, equal amounts of black and white ... ",
etc.   Or a formula for a good symphony: "Must have
4 movements - first movement allegro, second movement
largo, . . . ", etc.

LOL!

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: peter nelson 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 9:37 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: WHEN will we get simple, reliable BW printing??


  At 06:58 PM 2/11/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  wrote:
  >There are standards for the proper viewing of images,
  >including silver, i.e. example: an 8x10 should be in a mat, viewed from X
  >distance under Y lighting, under Z conditioins

  Says WHO?

  There is no "correct" way to view a print anymore than
  there is a correct distance from which to view a sculpture
  or work or architecture!   Good grief, where do you come up
  with this stuff?

  I suppose you're one of those people who think there's a
  formula for a good photograph, too - "sun at your back,
  diagonal line for interest, equal amounts of black and white ... ",
  etc.   Or a formula for a good symphony: "Must have
  4 movements - first movement allegro, second movement
  largo, . . . ", etc.












  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 "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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

At 12:30 AM 2/12/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>2200 Epson BO is good for clients who are not demanding "gallery" quality
>images.

I suppose it depends on how colorblind the client is, but I passed
the SAMPLE image that Epson included with my 2200 to
show off how 'great' their black and white printing was (it's
a scene of Paris rooftops printed on their Enhanced Matte
paper with matte black ink)  at work.  The engineers with cubes
near the window commented on how GREEN it looks; the
ones on the interior of the building commented on how PINK
it looks.

So I think the metamerism problem makes black and white prints
wit the standard Epson drivers, even when used by Epson itself, to
be unacceptable.

At 12:30 AM 2/12/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>As for WHEN, that's still a ludicrous question.  As ludicrous as those
>who said  two or three years back, "when will I be able to buy a digital
>camera with a resolution equalling film?"

But that wasn't a ridiculous question 2 or 3 years ago, either.
Film resolution can be measured.  With a fine grain film and
good optics it's possible to resolve 80 lp/mm, for example,
so one could have asked at what point we'd have CCD or
CMOS arrays capable of that resolution.  And plenty of
people in the industry including people at my company
because I work for one of the companies who make image
sensors could have given some informed speculation.

And that's all I want here - people who follow this industry
might have information about products and technologies that
are in the works.  On the other hand maybe this group isn't
as well informed as I thought, given that people here can't
even agree on what colors IP uses to make neutral, non
metameristic grays.


>AND, BTW, your tone throughout has really been that of someone who feels
>all this digital stuff is upsetting the nice organized little apple-cart
>you had spent all day stacking fruit on.

It's a good thing I'm NOT asking for psychics because your
psychic abilities are limited.  In fact, I write image-processing
software for a living.  I used to write inkjet drivers back in the
1980's before most people here even knew what an inkjet
printer was.   So I've been digital longer than most people,
including probably most people here.   But I don't follow black
and white printing technology as closely as you do so I was
hoping you could tell me something about its future and direction
that's not self-evident.

So it's a perfectly reasonable question -  people who are immersed
in a field usually have some good insights into the direction
and future of that field.   I certainly do in my field.

Peter-

Are you asking when simple reliable BW printing will be available or 
when it will be available using color inks on the 2200?

If you insist on using the the 2200 and color inks you will, it seems, 
not be happy with the results.  If you use quadtone inks ( I only have 
experience with MIS or Piezotones) you will get the quality you are 
looking for.  If you opt for the piezography plugin you will get the an 
easy to use simple, reliable repeatable system that works on a variety 
of papers.  If you use an epson 3000 you will have a robust printer as 
well.

If you want to easily make quality B&W prints -- just do it.  If you 
want to use the 2200 you just bought you will have to wait to meet all 
the criteria you have set out.

--
Kevin Gulstene

On Saturday, February 8, 2003, at 07:39  AM, peter nelson wrote:

>
> I recently bought a 2200 because some reviews said it did
> good black and white printing.  But it has so much metamerism
> that the black and white prints it makes are unacceptable.
>
> My darkroom is just a dark corner of the basement and it needs
> major upgrades in plumbing, electricity, and ventilation.
> I was hoping to go all-digital and skip the upgrade but It
> seems I'm still waiting for a simple-off-the-shelf solution
> to digital black and white printing.
>
> I like the 2200 because of its pigment-based inks, wide
> format, 48-mil thick media spec, and flat feed tray.
>
> Reading this forum and Photo.Net I can see people are desperate
> and try a zillion different approaches to black and white ranging
> from black-only to expensive RIPs to profilers to hextone printing.
> Everyone has their special approach and no one method seems
> to be endorsed by more than a few percent of users.
>
> I'm reluctant to go to a hextone system because of all the hassles
> I've heard about with it; the need to maintain TWO big, wide format
> printers, the risk of voiding my extended warranties with third-party
> inks, questions that have been raised here about color stability,
> blackness, and metamerism, and the chip wars between ink
> makers and Epson (Epson makes its money on INKS not printers).
>
> My question is should I upgrade my darkroom and stick with darkroom
> prints for B+W or will we SOON see a straightforward, off
> the shelf solution to digital black-and-white printing?
>
> ---peter
>
>
>
>
> 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 
> "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/
>
>
>

Hee. Well said Clayton.

Honestly though, and I realize this may be a lack of experience thing
more than anything else, I have never seen a "normal" contrast print
from black-only printing. 

> >Black-only prints tend to have either very high or very
> >low contrast depending on the image
> 
> Quite true.  And the following three statements are equally true:
> 
> 1) Quad/Hex tone prints tend to have either very high or very
> low contrast depending on the image.
> 
> 2) Silver prints tend to have either very high or very
> low contrast depending on the image
> 
> 3) All three types can have a medium degree of contrast, depending on
> the image.

A lambda or light jet - well there is a very good reason in that reciprocity
failure would cause problems as would you having to give them a green file -
also the paper is carefully designed to handle all three - some of us have
spent a lot of time and money researching this  and if there was an easy
answer we'd be doing it!. is an RGB device.

Julian


----- Original Message -----
From: "peter nelson" <peter@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:30 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: WHEN will we get simple, reliable BW printing??


> At 03:54 PM 2/11/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
>
> >Its a 'digital' BW paper i.e. RC colour paper. Laser printers are RGB
> >machines so all paper is going to be colour.
>
>
> By "laser printer" do you mean laser printer or do you
> mean something like a Lightjet?  There is no reason
> why one couldn't expose conventional black and white
> photographic paper with, say, a green laser, and produce
> perfect black and white prints.
>
> with, say, a
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Hello Charles,

>Honestly though, and I realize this may be a lack of experience
>thing more than anything else, I have never seen a "normal" 
>contrast print from black-only printing. 

What is "normal contrast"?

Maybe you just haven't seen a really good print done in BO.  If I send
you a print will you post your honest opinion of it here in the forum?
I'd like to try to convince you that BO printing can look really good.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

At 09:27 AM 2/12/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>I take it you are interested in a "digital" print that will be
>comparable to a silver gel darkroom print.  They are different things.


My idea of "comparable" is pretty flexible.   I want a print
which has a smoothly-graded complete range of tonal values
from black to white, and is neutral and free of artifacts like
blotching, metamerism and dotting.

I want to be able to produce such prints consistently, with
no more of a learning curve than it took to learn basic
darkroom printing, and without voiding the warranties, or
damaging the heads on my printer(s).

At 09:27 AM 2/12/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>Are you asking when simple reliable BW printing will be available or
>when it will be available using color inks on the 2200?
>
>If you insist on using the the 2200 and color inks you will, it seems,
>not be happy with the results.  If you use quadtone inks ( I only have
>experience with MIS or Piezotones) you will get the quality you are
>looking for.


I don't care if I use the 2200.  I'm happy to use any wide format
(13"x19" or bigger) printer.  The requirement is that the process
does not void the printer's warranty and that I have some reason
to be confident that *I* can get good results.

As I said in my original post, I have no doubt that SOME people
can get quads to work well.   But the impression I get from
reading this forum and others is that it's hit and miss, and that
it depends on your tolerance for tweaking and playing under
the hood.   I've read tons of posts from people who tried it
really hard and never got good results.   I quoted one poster
who said he tried quads for a YEAR and didn't get as good a
result as his first print out of the box with his 2200.

I can teach anyone to make decent black and white prints
in the darkroom in a day.  Not necessarily Ansel Adams,
but black blacks, white whites, continuous tones (assuming
they exist in the negative, properly developed, fixed, etc.
It's a simple, predictable, straightforward process.  If you
can follow simple directions it's easy.  I'm looking for a
digital printing process that's similarly straightforward and
reliable.

Some people here tell me we already have it; others say it will
never exist, so there seems to be some divergence on that
point!

At 09:27 AM 2/12/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>A lambda or light jet - well there is a very good reason in that reciprocity
>failure would cause problems as would you having to give them a green file -


Why would you have to give it a green file?  A monochrome
file is R=G=B.

Also why is there an issue with reciprocity failure?
You're modulating a green light across the surface of
photosensitive material - unless the exposure is absurdly long
or short why should there be reciprocity issues?

for some reason you wanted to use a green light only - how are you
controlling how the green laser reads an RGB file. As to rec. failure - all
I can tell you is - try it. I'm sure a lab will do you a deal so you can
experiment to your heart's content! Lambda paper is not your usual colour
paper!

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "peter nelson" <peter@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:01 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: WHEN will we get simple, reliable BW printing??


> At 09:27 AM 2/12/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
> >A lambda or light jet - well there is a very good reason in that
reciprocity
> >failure would cause problems as would you having to give them a green
file -
>
>
> Why would you have to give it a green file?  A monochrome
> file is R=G=B.
>
> Also why is there an issue with reciprocity failure?
> You're modulating a green light across the surface of
> photosensitive material - unless the exposure is absurdly long
> or short why should there be reciprocity issues?
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Peter: FWIW, my expereince was that you can load MIS VM ink carts in a
1280, use the Roark workflow and get same quality prints in the amount
of time necessary to learn how to do the same in a wet darkroom.
Ditto, the MIS FSN inks with Woolf workflow. Ditto, Black Only using
Clayton Jones workflow. None will be great but at least the quality as
a beginning wet darkroom worker having spent the same time. 

BTW, Epson replaced my 1280 under warranty even after I told them it
was ruined by a 3rd party flush cart. 

Bob Michaels

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, peter nelson
<peter@s...> wrote:
> At 09:27 AM 2/12/2003 +0000,
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 

> wrote:
> >Are you asking when simple reliable BW printing will be available or
> >when it will be available using color inks on the 2200?
> >
> >If you insist on using the the 2200 and color inks you will, it seems,
> >not be happy with the results.  If you use quadtone inks ( I only have
> >experience with MIS or Piezotones) you will get the quality you are
> >looking for.
> 
> 
> I don't care if I use the 2200.  I'm happy to use any wide format
> (13"x19" or bigger) printer.  The requirement is that the process
> does not void the printer's warranty and that I have some reason
> to be confident that *I* can get good results.
> 
> As I said in my original post, I have no doubt that SOME people
> can get quads to work well.   But the impression I get from
> reading this forum and others is that it's hit and miss, and that
> it depends on your tolerance for tweaking and playing under
> the hood.   I've read tons of posts from people who tried it
> really hard and never got good results.   I quoted one poster
> who said he tried quads for a YEAR and didn't get as good a
> result as his first print out of the box with his 2200.
> 
> I can teach anyone to make decent black and white prints
> in the darkroom in a day.  Not necessarily Ansel Adams,
> but black blacks, white whites, continuous tones (assuming
> they exist in the negative, properly developed, fixed, etc.
> It's a simple, predictable, straightforward process.  If you
> can follow simple directions it's easy.  I'm looking for a
> digital printing process that's similarly straightforward and
> reliable.
> 
> Some people here tell me we already have it; others say it will
> never exist, so there seems to be some divergence on that
> point!

I think the only answer to all this is go to a lab who does all the various
kind sof printing and pay for some samples. You'll get the best output from
each source and you can work from there.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: <Bob@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 4:18 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: WHEN will we get simple, reliable BW printing??


> Peter: FWIW, my expereince was that you can load MIS VM ink carts in a
> 1280, use the Roark workflow and get same quality prints in the amount
> of time necessary to learn how to do the same in a wet darkroom.
> Ditto, the MIS FSN inks with Woolf workflow. Ditto, Black Only using
> Clayton Jones workflow. None will be great but at least the quality as
> a beginning wet darkroom worker having spent the same time.
>
> BTW, Epson replaced my 1280 under warranty even after I told them it
> was ruined by a 3rd party flush cart.
>
> Bob Michaels
>
>  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, peter nelson
> <peter@s...> wrote:
> > At 09:27 AM 2/12/2003 +0000,
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > wrote:
> > >Are you asking when simple reliable BW printing will be available or
> > >when it will be available using color inks on the 2200?
> > >
> > >If you insist on using the the 2200 and color inks you will, it seems,
> > >not be happy with the results.  If you use quadtone inks ( I only have
> > >experience with MIS or Piezotones) you will get the quality you are
> > >looking for.
> >
> >
> > I don't care if I use the 2200.  I'm happy to use any wide format
> > (13"x19" or bigger) printer.  The requirement is that the process
> > does not void the printer's warranty and that I have some reason
> > to be confident that *I* can get good results.
> >
> > As I said in my original post, I have no doubt that SOME people
> > can get quads to work well.   But the impression I get from
> > reading this forum and others is that it's hit and miss, and that
> > it depends on your tolerance for tweaking and playing under
> > the hood.   I've read tons of posts from people who tried it
> > really hard and never got good results.   I quoted one poster
> > who said he tried quads for a YEAR and didn't get as good a
> > result as his first print out of the box with his 2200.
> >
> > I can teach anyone to make decent black and white prints
> > in the darkroom in a day.  Not necessarily Ansel Adams,
> > but black blacks, white whites, continuous tones (assuming
> > they exist in the negative, properly developed, fixed, etc.
> > It's a simple, predictable, straightforward process.  If you
> > can follow simple directions it's easy.  I'm looking for a
> > digital printing process that's similarly straightforward and
> > reliable.
> >
> > Some people here tell me we already have it; others say it will
> > never exist, so there seems to be some divergence on that
> > point!
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 06:51  AM, peter nelson wrote:

> the hood.   I've read tons of posts from people who tried it
> really hard and never got good results.   I quoted one poster
> who said he tried quads for a YEAR and didn't get as good a
> result as his first print out of the box with his 2200.

You are reading and quoting from people who are on these forums 
primarily because they are having problems, there are many happily 
printing away with these inks and workflows who are not here.

usually this is the place people come for help or guidance, not to rave 
about how well they are doing.

Someone who printed quad's for a year without getting results better 
than his 2200 may have been doing something wrong, using old methods, 
going backwards, who knows... how do you trust what one person says 
about that when you aren't aware of the skill of the operator. I'm not 
ragging on this person,  I don't know who it is... perhaps he had bad 
luck with his quads, I don't know. Do you?.


>
> I can teach anyone to make decent black and white prints
> in the darkroom in a day.  Not necessarily Ansel Adams,
> but black blacks, white whites, continuous tones (assuming
> they exist in the negative, properly developed, fixed, etc.
> It's a simple, predictable, straightforward process.  If you
> can follow simple directions it's easy.  I'm looking for a
> digital printing process that's similarly straightforward and
> reliable.

why would you want to limit yourself to what you could have achieved in 
the dark room, when you can achieve so much more within that continuous 
range between black and white, find more detail before black and do so 
many wonderful tricks easier and with more precision within 
Photoshop... yup, you have to learn it, it's a very intense deep 
wonderful program and only part of the flow... Best part is, you can 
take it only as far as you need for your particular image desires.

You want to learn this in a day?  well, when the book comes out let me 
know.  I've been at it for 8 years, color for 8, monotone from color 
for 7, quads for 2.5, still learning, as things progress and technology 
changes, as you are well aware, you can't package a digital workflow up 
and use it without upgrading it, like you seem to have done with your 
traditional one. It's always in flux, moving forward. good bloody thing.

I get beautiful results, haven't had to repair a printer, had a few 
clogs, switched a few inks and work flows, spent a whack of money, so 
what. I like to change my furniture around sometimes too. Sure wouldn't 
want to be doing things the same way I did when I was 13.

>
> Some people here tell me we already have it; others say it will
> never exist, so there seems to be some divergence on that
> point!

it's called human nature, opinion, speculation... and skill, materials, 
willingness to learn all the intricacies of the process. You are in a 
forum that has a very huge gap between new user and experienced quad 
hand... a lot of misinfo gets passed around, excitement over new toys, 
problems that arise from user error passed on with certainty as failure 
of the system... that's the nature of forums. Of course a lot of good 
info, help, workflows, sharing and the like takes place too... but you 
have to accept the other with it... I prefer to find out for myself, 
and have done so.
Carolyn

Peter-

Do you do very much black and white printing.  I took a look at your 
web site and for the most part it is all color?

On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 05:51  AM, peter nelson wrote:

> At 09:27 AM 2/12/2003 +0000, 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
>> Are you asking when simple reliable BW printing will be available or
>> when it will be available using color inks on the 2200?
>>
>> If you insist on using the the 2200 and color inks you will, it seems,
>> not be happy with the results.  If you use quadtone inks ( I only have
>> experience with MIS or Piezotones) you will get the quality you are
>> looking for.
>
>
> I don't care if I use the 2200.  I'm happy to use any wide format
> (13"x19" or bigger) printer.  The requirement is that the process
> does not void the printer's warranty and that I have some reason
> to be confident that *I* can get good results.

Using third party ink will not void the warranty on an epson 3000 
printer.  From your description of your own skills I cannot think of a 
reason why you would not get good results.  Using the system I 
described it is unlikely that the limiting factor in the quality of 
your images will be the quadtone printing process.
>
> As I said in my original post, I have no doubt that SOME people
> can get quads to work well.   But the impression I get from
> reading this forum and others is that it's hit and miss, and that
> it depends on your tolerance for tweaking and playing under
> the hood.   I've read tons of posts from people who tried it
> really hard and never got good results.   I quoted one poster
> who said he tried quads for a YEAR and didn't get as good a
> result as his first print out of the box with his 2200.

The are more than SOME people using the pizography system and inks that 
get great results.  They don't often post their success to the forum 
though.  There are lots of people who have taken on projects to create 
new workflows and new methods to advance the state of the art.  They 
may have done this because they wanted lower costs, wanted deeper 
blacks, wanted a cooler/different tones to their prints, to see if they 
could do it themselves, or any other number of reasons.  They have the 
tolerance to finesse their systems.

If you do not, then don't.  Just use the system described.  There is no 
place to tinker with the Piezo system.  It has profiles for many papers 
already.  If you can read a user manual you can print with that system 
and get good/great repeatable prints.

As for the person who couldn't get quadtones to work with a year of 
trying.  I would need to know more about what he used before I would 
accept that blanket statement.  What printer, was it the Piezo system, 
a work in progress workflow or what.

>
> I can teach anyone to make decent black and white prints
> in the darkroom in a day.  Not necessarily Ansel Adams,
> but black blacks, white whites, continuous tones (assuming
> they exist in the negative, properly developed, fixed, etc.
> It's a simple, predictable, straightforward process.  If you
> can follow simple directions it's easy.  I'm looking for a
> digital printing process that's similarly straightforward and
> reliable.

I can teach anyone to make a decent digital print with quadtones.  I 
may even be able to teach them to exceed what they can do in the 
darkroom.  I know I certainly do.

I will, of course, spend years trying to perfect some of those 
techniques.  I may even get frustrated when trying to achieve some 
specific objective and complain about it on a forum like this <g>.

>
> Some people here tell me we already have it; others say it will
> never exist, so there seems to be some divergence on that
> point!

Actually, I think there is a near concensus that it is here when using 
the piezo system with their piezotone inks.   In that respect there is 
no divergence.  There is certainly lots of other ways to get black and 
white prints and there are lots of opinions on some of those other ways 
ways.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 
> "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/
>
>
>

> Honestly though, and I realize this may be a lack of experience thing
> more than anything else, I have never seen a "normal" contrast print
> from black-only printing

I just printed one! Was nearly identical to the full scale VM Hextone print.

Jerry

> 
> > >Black-only prints tend to have either very high or very
> > >low contrast depending on the image
> >
> > Quite true.  And the following three statements are equally true:
> >
> > 1) Quad/Hex tone prints tend to have either very high or very
> > low contrast depending on the image.
> >
> > 2) Silver prints tend to have either very high or very
> > low contrast depending on the image
> >
> > 3) All three types can have a medium degree of contrast, depending on
> > the image.
> 
> 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 "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/

It is against the law for 
Epson to try and void the warranty if you use other inks. Something 
like using GM gas in a GM car daaaa.

Vinny
http://www.wulfsden.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, peter nelson 
<peter@s...> wrote:
> At 09:27 AM 2/12/2003 +0000, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> wrote:
> >Are you asking when simple reliable BW printing will be available 
or
> >when it will be available using color inks on the 2200?
> >
> >If you insist on using the the 2200 and color inks you will, it 
seems,
> >not be happy with the results.  If you use quadtone inks ( I only 
have

> >experience with MIS or Piezotones) you will get the quality you are
> >looking for.
> 
> 
> I don't care if I use the 2200.  I'm happy to use any wide format
> (13"x19" or bigger) printer.  The requirement is that the process
> does not void the printer's warranty and that I have some reason
> to be confident that *I* can get good results.
> 
> As I said in my original post, I have no doubt that SOME people
> can get quads to work well.   But the impression I get from
> reading this forum and others is that it's hit and miss, and that
> it depends on your tolerance for tweaking and playing under
> the hood.   I've read tons of posts from people who tried it
> really hard and never got good results.   I quoted one poster
> who said he tried quads for a YEAR and didn't get as good a
> result as his first print out of the box with his 2200.
> 
> I can teach anyone to make decent black and white prints
> in the darkroom in a day.  Not necessarily Ansel Adams,
> but black blacks, white whites, continuous tones (assuming
> they exist in the negative, properly developed, fixed, etc.
> It's a simple, predictable, straightforward process.  If you
> can follow simple directions it's easy.  I'm looking for a
> digital printing process that's similarly straightforward and
> reliable.
> 
> Some people here tell me we already have it; others say it will
> never exist, so there seems to be some divergence on that
> point!

Sorry, Vincent, but I have been to Epson repair schools for laser,
dot-matric and ink-jet.  

It was VERY specifically stated after a student asked that same question:
Epson does NOT void your warranty for use of other types of inks. However,
if THAT ink caused a specific failure then you must pay for the repair.
Your warranty is still in effect for everything else.

Using the GM example, if the oil specifies "SF" or 10-40 weight, and use
some old "SC" or some 5-30, GM could void warranty on certain engine damage.


One thing about Epson I have seen --from both sides of the fence (I haven't
worked with them in years)-- is that they bend over backwards to keep
customers happy if the situation is reasonable.  

Seth

=From: Vincent Orlando <orlandovl@...> 
=Subject: [Digital BW] Re: WHEN will we get simple, reliable BW 
=printing??
=
=It is against the law for 
=Epson to try and void the warranty if you use other inks. Something 
=like using GM gas in a GM car daaaa.
=

Bob--I did something very similar since my BO prints look very, very good to my eyes. Reading about metamerism, black dots and color casts made me think that I was losing my eyesight since I had not seen any of these factors. I showed these prints to several of my friends who are good, amateur photographers and they were impressed with the B&W product. These were produced using the 2200, BO Epson inks and Epson Enhanced Matte paper.


I discussed several prints with a highly regarded landscape photographer who only produces B&W in a chemical darkroom. He earns his living entirely on the sale of his prints and from the number of packages at his shop going to buyers, it appears that he is doing quite well. He has published several books, calendars and has had many showings of his prints at various galleries.  

He also picked the BO prints as the ones he liked. The tonality of these prints were very close to his own prints. We were not comparing the artistic quality of the photos as clearly his were much, much better than mine. 

I then asked if he could see any dots (these were 11X14 prints) and he could not. He did, however, go for his lupe. And, with the lupe the black dots were clearly seen. We laughed at that saying that one should not look at photographs with a lupe when viewing these for pleasure. 

Interestingly, he is experimenting with PS, Mac, an Epson 7600 and Image Print RIP. He has not produced any digital prints for sale but he is quite encouraged about the results he is getting. He did not have any to show me as the digital prints were at another of his shops a good distance away. He is scanning with an Imacon but said that the new Microtec scanner at a fraction of the price is just as good. He has not used a digital camera. But, the yet-to-be-released Kodak 14n has his attention. His favorite paper is Hahnemuhle PR.

Peter Palmieri

  From: Bob_Michaels 

  I did my own BO vs. Hex test by printing (1280) four different
  7.5x10.5 images twice. Once with MIS VM and Roark workflow and once
  black only with 1280 Epson driver. Each matched pair was on the same
  paper, same 1440 dpi, no different Photoshop adjustments except for
  the Roark curves. 

  Then I laid out the four pairs for a very critial well published fine
  art photographer who lives on grants, print sales and teaching
  photography. He is a master b&w wet darkroom printer (MF & 4x5) but
  who knows nothing of digital printing.  I only told him the pairs were
  printed by different methods without saying which were by the similar
  method and please comment on the differences. I know him to be very
  critical. 

  He had nitpicks (other than my basic photography skill)But he never
  said that one had better tonal transitions than the other. Nor did he
  ever say one had bigger dots than the other. No comments about any
  aspect of BO vs quad/hex being discussed here. 

  Finally, I asked him to pick which of the pairs he liked best. He had
  problems making the decision but finally picked the BO print of each
  of the four pairs. 

  I'm NOT a missionary trying to convince the world that 1280 BO is as
  good / better than quadtone. I'm too old and beat up for that. I'm
  only trying to understand why my 1280 BO prints look as good as my
  hextones (Roark & Woolf workflows with appropriate inksets). I
  honestly don't think I'm that bad at digital printing though I
  certainly have seen those much better than me.

  I'm still open to ideas.

  Bob Michaels 



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

Sorry, Vincent, but I have been to Epson repair schools for laser,
dot-matric and ink-jet.  

It was VERY specifically stated after a student asked that same question:
Epson does NOT void your warranty for use of other types of inks. However,
if THAT ink caused a specific failure then you must pay for the repair.
Your warranty is still in effect for everything else.

Using the GM example, if the oil specifies "SF" or 10-40 weight, and use
some old "SC" or some 5-30, GM could void warranty on certain engine damage.


One thing about Epson I have seen --from both sides of the fence (I haven't
worked with them in years)-- is that they bend over backwards to keep
customers happy if the situation is reasonable.  

Seth

=From: Vincent Orlando <orlandovl@...> 
=Subject: [Digital BW] Re: WHEN will we get simple, reliable BW 
=printing??
=
=It is against the law for 
=Epson to try and void the warranty if you use other inks. Something 
=like using GM gas in a GM car daaaa.
=

At 10:30 PM 2/12/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>why would you want to limit yourself to what you could have achieved in
>the dark room, when you can achieve so much more within that continuous
>range between black and white, find more detail before black and do so
>many wonderful tricks easier and with more precision within
>Photoshop... yup, you have to learn it, it's a very intense deep
>wonderful program and only part of the flow... Best part is, you can
>take it only as far as you need for your particular image desires.


What makes you think I don't know Photoshop?  I
probably know Photoshop better than most people here.
Remember, I write image processing software for a living,
and I'm a former printer driver writer.

But when it comes to black and white desktop printing I'm
not interested in having an "experience" or enjoying the
"process".  Maybe you like to tinker with you car, too,
changing the suspension, valve timing, ignition
system, and gear ratios, or boring out your cylinders
to increase engine displacement.  I used to do that.
But now I just want a Toyota Camry that starts and runs
reliably for 130,000 miles with nothing but routine, by-the-book,
maintenance

At 10:30 PM 2/12/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>It is against the law for
>Epson to try and void the warranty if you use other inks. Something
>like using GM gas in a GM car daaaa.

This is the silliest thing I've seen here yet.  There is no
such law, at least in the US.

At 10:30 PM 2/12/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>It was VERY specifically stated after a student asked that same question:
>Epson does NOT void your warranty for use of other types of inks. However,
>if THAT ink caused a specific failure then you must pay for the repair.
>Your warranty is still in effect for everything else.


Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they void the warranty on the
whole printer but the language is very clear that they will not
pay for damage caused by using non-Epson inks.  I don't
want to pay for replacing a head on a printer with a 3 year
extended warranty.

Someone else here suggested the Epson 3000, saying it
doesn't have such a restriction.

1.  Is that really true?

2. Even if it is, for the cost of a 3000 I could buy TWO
2200's and keep one around for a backup/parts machine.

Actually, there is. No company can demand you use only their ink or it
will avoid the warranty. Its an Anti Trust thing. Ask a lawyer on the
list.  In fact next year, epson won't be able to even make that claim in
Asia and Europe,

Jerry

peter nelson wrote:

> 
> At 10:30 PM 2/12/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
> >It is against the law for
> >Epson to try and void the warranty if you use other inks. Something
> >like using GM gas in a GM car daaaa.
> 
> This is the silliest thing I've seen here yet.  There is no
> such law, at least in the US.
> 
> 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 "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/

Unless you are using a piezo driver, you will see huge dots with a 3000
printer. They have an 11 picoliter head, the 2200 has a 2 picoliter
head. They are still going for $995 most places, Epson has discontinued
the printer.

jerry

peter nelson wrote:

> 
> At 10:30 PM 2/12/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> wrote:
> >It was VERY specifically stated after a student asked that same question:
> >Epson does NOT void your warranty for use of other types of inks. However,
> >if THAT ink caused a specific failure then you must pay for the repair.
> >Your warranty is still in effect for everything else.
> 
> Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they void the warranty on the
> whole printer but the language is very clear that they will not
> pay for damage caused by using non-Epson inks.  I don't
> want to pay for replacing a head on a printer with a 3 year
> extended warranty.
> 
> Someone else here suggested the Epson 3000, saying it
> doesn't have such a restriction.
> 
> 1.  Is that really true?
> 
> 2. Even if it is, for the cost of a 3000 I could buy TWO
> 2200's and keep one around for a backup/parts machine.
> 
> 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 "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/

On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 07:00  PM, peter nelson wrote:

>
> What makes you think I don't know Photoshop?

You had stated you didn't want a steep learning curve earlier.

> probably know Photoshop better than most people here.

alrighty then.

> Remember, I write image processing software for a living,
> and I'm a former printer driver writer.

I used to create little logos on my commodore 64

>
> But when it comes to black and white desktop printing I'm
> not interested in having an "experience" or enjoying the
> "process".  Maybe you like to tinker with you car, too,
> changing the suspension, valve timing, ignition
> system, and gear ratios, or boring out your cylinders
> to increase engine displacement.  I used to do that.

I just liked to rebuild carbs.


> But now I just want a Toyota Camry that starts and runs
> reliably for 130,000 miles with nothing but routine, by-the-book,
> maintenance

yup, and I now love my jeep. don't do oil changes anymore either.

So, scan your stuff in, manipulate it the way your heart tells you in 
your image editing software and outsource it. There are plenty of 
"tinkerers" who supply beautiful quad prints as part of their 
business... better yet, just give them your neg, have them drum scan 
it, manipulate it to their own vision, and print it. No tinkering, no 
experiencing, no enjoying...
Carolyn

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Olson <
jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> Unless you are using a piezo driver, you will see huge dots with a 3000
> printer.

Actually no. If you are using quad inks, a good rgb curve set with the 
Epson driver, or CMYK curve with a RIP, you won't see dots with the 
3000. Nor with the Piezo driver as stated.

>They have an 11 picoliter head, the 2200 has a 2 picoliter
> head. They are still going for $995 most places, Epson has discontinued
> the printer.

Actually no, they haven't.
Tyler

In a message dated 2/12/2003 6:08:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
peter@... writes:

> Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they void the warranty on the
> whole printer but the language is very clear that they will not
> pay for damage caused by using non-Epson inks.  I don't
> want to pay for replacing a head on a printer with a 3 year
> extended warranty.
> 
> Someone else here suggested the Epson 3000, saying it
> doesn't have such a restriction.
> 
> 1.  Is that really true?
> 
> 2. Even if it is, for the cost of a 3000 I could buy TWO
> 2200's and keep one around for a backup/parts machine.
> 
You could also almost buy two 1280's for the price of a 2200! and easily two 
if you end up With IP5 RIP. 
No matter how many 2200's you have you still can't do 16x20's!!!!
These digital printing groups have been going at least 4 years and there are 
countless users who have had warrenty replacements
that used 3rd party inks.
Buy a 1280 399.00
Buy Piezo Plugin 150.00
Buy MIS FS inks 100.00 for 4oz bottles Or actuall piezo tone inks, a little 
more $ but extemly stable.
CIS bulk ink system ? maybe 200.00
You done and have enough ink for hundreds of prints! Dotless prints! Even for 
those that have eyes like a bald eagle!
You say you wrote printer drivers in the 80's? Well if the Piezo driver 
doesn't impress you then this isn't for you at all. 
Equal or better than darkroom prints.
Work on greyscale files, Adjust monitor according to the instructions, adjust 
your file to a visual preferance and hit print.
Thats as easy and as cheap as it gets. It really is that simple.
But go ahead and buy a 2200 and have fun, and be prepared to 
spend,spend,spend....and then give up...
Steve M.






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

At 09:38 AM 2/13/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>Since Peter is capable of writing printer drivers,
>perhaps he will roll up his sleeves and write a replacement driver
>that will make perfect continuous tone prints with the new MIS inks so
>easy a chimp could do it.  C'mon Peter...stop flappin yer gums and get
>to work.  DO something <GGG>.


I was writing inkjet drivers in the 1980's for a proprietary
operating system used in a graphics workstation by a
company (Raster Technologies)  which has long been
consigned to the dustbin of technological history.

Things were a LOT simpler in those days.  I have no
experience in writing drivers in Windoze.

>>So the grain was part of the photo from the start -
>>it's been there, done that, paid its dues, it has a
>>raison d'etre, it's a founding father.
>>
>>The point is that the dots are merely an artifact of the
>>algorithm used by the driver - they have no organic connection
>>to the original photo. they're interlopers, party crashers,
>>- THAT'S why they stand out.   Your eye tells you that somehow,
>>they don't belong there; they have no intrinsic relationship
>>to the original photo.
>>
>>At least that's my theory about why I find dots more annoying
>>than grain.

Very interesting indeed. Makes me wonder if one could  minimize some of the
problems as follows:

1) In Photoshop, create a new layer.
2) Add noise to taste (if tasteful)
3) Use displacement mapping based on the greyscale values of the original
image to shift the noise pixels.
4) Flatten and print in BO. (I hate that abbrev too, but I hate typing more)

I'll play with it later. The point is that this would give some
image-related "logic" to the noise dots, perhaps reestablishing what "the
eye tells." Thanks for the idea.

Bobbo

Artwork and Nature Photopaintings -- http://www.bobbogoldberg.com
Voice over demos and services -- http://www.bob-vo.com

I dunno, then you would probably have an even more obvious disparity between halftone dots and "film grain" noise. 

The halftone dots are not going to go away if you only use black ink (They're there in hextones too, just really hard to see) and if you also have a more "natural" looking grain/noise pattern it might draw even more attention to the obnoxious and mechanical halftone patterns. 

 Mind you, from a couple feet away the dot patterns become more or less a nonissue regardless. 

> Very interesting indeed. Makes me wonder if one could  minimize some of the
> problems as follows:
> 
> 1) In Photoshop, create a new layer.
> 2) Add noise to taste (if tasteful)
> 3) Use displacement mapping based on the greyscale values of the original
> image to shift the noise pixels.
> 4) Flatten and print in BO. (I hate that abbrev too, but I hate typing more)
> 
> I'll play with it later. The point is that this would give some
> image-related "logic" to the noise dots, perhaps reestablishing what "the
> eye tells." Thanks for the idea.
> 
> Bobbo
> 
> Artwork and Nature Photopaintings -- http://www.bobbogoldberg.com
> Voice over demos and services -- http://www.bob-vo.com

<<<My main problem with BO on the 2200 is that I simply don't like the
reddish tone of the epson black inks. I've exchanged prints with
Clayton and I think the results he gets with MIS VM inks are
incredible. I much prefer the tone of his prints to what I get on my
<<2200.

They are definitely 'warm'.  I have about 10 prints laid out from duos on
2200 to BO with matte black on the 2200 to the BO on the 1280 (BUT---here I
realized too late that Clayton used the MIS set whereas I used the Epson
black) and I'm still in a quandary LOL.  And--various papers, of course, add
their own 'mix' to the situation.

<<You may be interested to know that Lyson will announce both cartridges
and a CIS system for the 2200 in early march, and I'm pretty sure
others are going to make announcements soon as <<well.

This interests me quite a lot.  Thank you for the information.

Diane
----------
Diane B. Fields
picnic@...
photo site    http://www.pbase.com/picnic

I can understand how someone with a single printer, say a 2200, might 
want to look at BlackOnly printing vs. the color-ink mix version, but 
vs. quads?  That's crazytalk!

I have both--two 7000s--one for color with MS Gen5 inks and one for 
grayscale with Cone PiezoPro24 and Sundance 'classic' (as in 'when 
will these carts finally run out so I can pull 'em without feeling 
like I'm wasting money'?), soon to be Cone WarmNeutrals.  I have 
tried BO on the color machine, mostly just to diagnose a color-
shifted gray print.  Ultimately better profiles solved that.  But 
having the choice between BO or color-based grayscale and a true quad 
system and the choice is pretty easy...I'll take the quads.  The 
prints are lusterous and pretty much no more grainy or noisy than a 
darkroom print (though its been many years since I spend the day in a 
darkroom).

No contest.

Ernest Burden III

Tyler, in Harald Johnsons book on digital printing, he states that Epson
has discontinued the 3000 printer, but many remain in the pipeline.

Jerry




"Tyler Boley " wrote:

> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Olson <
> jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> > Unless you are using a piezo driver, you will see huge dots with a 3000
> > printer.
> 
> Actually no. If you are using quad inks, a good rgb curve set with the
> Epson driver, or CMYK curve with a RIP, you won't see dots with the
> 3000. Nor with the Piezo driver as stated.
> 
> >They have an 11 picoliter head, the 2200 has a 2 picoliter
> > head. They are still going for $995 most places, Epson has discontinued
> > the printer.
> 
> Actually no, they haven't.
> Tyler
> 
> 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/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Bandes 
<byronbulb@y...>" <byronbulb@y...> wrote:

>  Mind you, from a couple feet away the dot patterns become more or 
less a nonissue regardless. 

I agree.  I can only see them closer than 18 inches.   But
lots of photographers and other do examine prints closely.
Let me use an analogy.  I collect original stone plate 
lithographs from the late 19th and early 20th century.  From
a distance I can't tell the different between these originals
and well-done photo-offset prints and since MOST of the
time I only admire my lithographs from across the room I
could have saved thousands of dollars by buying reproductions.
But SOMETIMES I like to look closely.

Anyway, there may be other issues with black-only - see my
new post on that.

BTW, as I mentioned earlier, I actually do quite a bit of
black only in other contexts.  For instance, I often print on 
watercolor (REAL watercolor, not Epson) paper or pastel or
charcoal paper for various art projects.  On those papers the 
dots spread and blend and you can't see them at all even under
magnification.   But the spreading gives them a soft look,
which IN THAT CONTEXT I like.

Hello Ernest, Peter and Everyone,

>BO vs. quads?  That's crazytalk!

I agree.  This whole thing started off with Peter griping about the
current state of the technology and has evolved into a debate about BO
vs quad/hex printing, which I think is absurd.

I'm a bit dismayed by this, so for the record, I have _never_ stated
that BO is as good or better than good Q/H-tone.  My reasons for
promoting it are and have been:

1) To let people know it exists, that it is capable of producing
beautiful prints, that it has advantages of its own such as BW+color
from one printer, and to gain acceptance as a valid and relatively
easy alternative to other techniques.

2) To dispel myths and false concepts about it which are passed
around, most of which I believe sprang up from earlier times when
printers were not as capable as the newer ones.

I think it's fine if people want to continue discussing BO printing
(after all, it's one of my favorite subjects <g>), but please don't
turn it into a debate around the idea that it's "better" than Q/Hex
printing.  I don't think anyone has ever claimed that.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Heh, of course a really good photo-offset print will almost _never_ be black-only, because lithographers understand the inherent problems with halftoning - generally those sorts of prints are at minimum duotones, and more often have even more shades of grey in the mix.

Your other post was really interesting, and makes a lot of sense to me - it also correlates well with the tests I ran here, where the basic quality of the print was pretty good but the tonal range seemed really lacking. And I think you're right about this being why it's so common to see high-contrast and low-contrast, but not much "normal" contrast - the tonal range isn't deep enough to show the full range of tones, so shots with strong blacks and strong whites look high-contrast, and shots with lots of subtle greytones look kinda muddy. (To my eye, in my experience, at least)

> I agree.  I can only see them closer than 18 inches.   But
> lots of photographers and other do examine prints closely.
> Let me use an analogy.  I collect original stone plate 
> lithographs from the late 19th and early 20th century.  From
> a distance I can't tell the different between these originals
> and well-done photo-offset prints and since MOST of the
> time I only admire my lithographs from across the room I
> could have saved thousands of dollars by buying reproductions.
> But SOMETIMES I like to look closely.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Bandes 
<byronbulb@y...>" <byronbulb@y...> wrote:
> Heh, of course a really good photo-offset print will almost
> _never_ be black-only, because lithographers understand the
> inherent problems with halftoning - generally those sorts 
>of prints are at minimum duotones, and more often have even
> more shades of grey in the mix.

True, but many of the ones I have have a lot of black in
them.   What I can't get over is how INTENSE the colors are
in these.   I have an original of the Laskoff St Petrus
http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/_XOOM/mauro51/immagini/LaskoffStPetrus
1895c.jpg
and the black and red look like they were printed this morning.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Olson
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> Tyler, in Harald Johnsons book on digital printing, he states that Epson
> has discontinued the 3000 printer, but many remain in the pipeline.
> 
> Jerry

Never heard of him, must be a newbie.
Epson web site shows the 3000 as a current model. Them, I've heard of.
Tyler

Tyler, Harald is a Very well known in the printing industry. You really
should take a look at his book "Mastering Digital Printing".  It has a
lot of info on all the Hextone, quadtone, and color archival inks, 
papers and CIS systems we discuss here all the time.

and he is FAR from a newbie! Printer has been discontinued, there are
still lots of them around.

Jerry 

"Tyler Boley " wrote:

> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Olson
> <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> > Tyler, in Harald Johnsons book on digital printing, he states that Epson
> > has discontinued the 3000 printer, but many remain in the pipeline.
> >
> > Jerry
> 
> Never heard of him, must be a newbie.
> Epson web site shows the 3000 as a current model. Them, I've heard of.
> Tyler
> 
> 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/

>>
>> Never heard of him, must be a newbie.
>> Epson web site shows the 3000 as a current model. Them, I've heard of.
>> Tyler


> Tyler, Harald is a Very well known in the printing industry. You really
> should take a look at his book "Mastering Digital Printing".  It has a
> lot of info on all the Hextone, quadtone, and color archival inks,
> papers and CIS systems we discuss here all the time.
>
> and he is FAR from a newbie! Printer has been discontinued, there are
> still lots of them around.
>
> Jerry
>

it was a joke.
as for the rest --- go to the epson site, click on the 3000, click on 
BUY NOW, and there it is... doesn't say a word about discontinued, just 
says give me your money.
Carolyn

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carolyn Frayn 

snip
> it was a joke.
> as for the rest --- go to the epson site, click on the 3000, click on 
> BUY NOW, and there it is... doesn't say a word about discontinued, just 
> says give me your money.
> Carolyn

no, you are wrong
Epson is wrong
Harry says so
then it is so
Harry knows all
it is discontinued, Harry says so
end of story

Tyler

> snip
> > it was a joke.
> > as for the rest --- go to the epson site, click on the 3000, click on
> > BUY NOW, and there it is... doesn't say a word about discontinued, just
> > says give me your money.
> > Carolyn
>
> no, you are wrong
> Epson is wrong
> Harry says so
> then it is so
> Harry knows all
> it is discontinued, Harry says so
> end of story
>
> Tyler

So, Tyler...if I order one from Epson, and I get it...will you reimburse me
for it?  I mean, "Harry says and Harry knows all"...so what to you have to
lose?

;-)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin Franklin"
<darkroom@i...> wrote:

> So, Tyler...if I order one from Epson, and I get it...will you
reimburse me
> for it?  I mean, "Harry says and Harry knows all"...so what to you
have to
> lose?
> 
> ;-)

Austin,
I think your invoice should be going to North Dakota,
or Harry.
T

>
> snip
>> it was a joke.
>> as for the rest --- go to the epson site, click on the 3000, click on
>> BUY NOW, and there it is... doesn't say a word about discontinued, 
>> just
>> says give me your money.
>> Carolyn
>
> no, you are wrong
> Epson is wrong
> Harry says so
> then it is so
> Harry knows all
> it is discontinued, Harry says so
> end of story
>
> Tyler

that's what I love most about you T... your diplomacy
Carolyn

Carolyn, there are hundreds of 3000s in the pipeline. But epson no
longer manufacturers the 3000.

Jerry

He's in a much better position to know this than you or I.

Jerry

> no, you are wrong
> Epson is wrong
> Harry says so
> then it is so
> Harry knows all
> it is discontinued, Harry says so
> end of story
> 
> Tyler
>

But Tyler how do you know Harry is wrong?  Who do you know at Epson that
you can believe when they say the printer is still in production? Can
you ever believe Epson? Do they have a sterling reputation for correct
knowledge about anything?

J

> > So, Tyler...if I order one from Epson, and I get it...will you
> reimburse me
> > for it?  I mean, "Harry says and Harry knows all"...so what to you
> have to
> > lose?
> >
> > ;-)
> 
> Austin,
> I think your invoice should be going to North Dakota,
> or Harry.
> T
>

Er, why?

> He's in a much better position to know this than you or I.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> > no, you are wrong
> > Epson is wrong
> > Harry says so
> > then it is so
> > Harry knows all
> > it is discontinued, Harry says so
> > end of story
> > 
> > Tyler

Jerry,

> Carolyn, there are hundreds of 3000s in the pipeline. But epson no
> longer manufacturers the 3000.

How do you know that?

Austin

He is a Master digital printer, has written one of the best books on
digital printing I've ever seen, and probably has more inside
information into epson than we do. Why else would he say that Epson has
finally discontinued the 3000 printer?

If you know for a fact that epson is still manufacturing the epson 3000,
where did you get this info and how do you know for a fact that it is correct?

Jerry

Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Er, why?
>

> He is a Master digital printer, has written one of the best books on
> digital printing I've ever seen, and probably has more inside
> information into epson than we do. Why else would he say that Epson has
> finally discontinued the 3000 printer?

OK, that gives some credence...possibly...

> If you know for a fact that epson is still manufacturing the epson 3000,
> where did you get this info and how do you know for a fact that
> it is correct?

But, Jerry, I didn't make ANY claims contrary or not.  I merely questioned
why "his" claim is any more valid than anyone else's.

Austin

Calm down Jerry, I'm just having some fun with your absolutism (if
there's such a word). Well, it was fun for me anyway.
Seriously though, the 3000 is one of the best selling models in
Epson's history. Over the years I've seen many statements from
"experts" that it has been discountinued, will be replaced by a
mythical 3200, then a 3600. None of these things has come to pass,
experts still continue to declare, that's what experts do. Some non
experts, like myself, love to declare as well.
I don't know anyone at Epson, I don't know Harald, I don't know who at
Epson he knows either, or where he got this info. Do you?
Does it really matter? Epson has no incentive to drop this model, it
just keeps selling, they also have no incentive to improve it, it just
keeps selling as is.
But anything is possible. There seems to have been no statement about
it from Epson, except to Harry of course.
Whirled Peas might be a better topic to think about today.
Off list of course.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Olson
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:

> But Tyler how do you know Harry is wrong?  Who do you know at Epson that
> you can believe when they say the printer is still in production? Can
> you ever believe Epson? Do they have a sterling reputation for correct
> knowledge about anything?
> 
> J
> 
> > > So, Tyler...if I order one from Epson, and I get it...will you
> > reimburse me
> > > for it?  I mean, "Harry says and Harry knows all"...so what to you
> > have to
> > > lose?
> > >
> > > ;-)
> > 
> > Austin,
> > I think your invoice should be going to North Dakota,
> > or Harry.
> > T
> >