Digital BW, The Print

In the last report on my experiences with ImagePrint 5 and the 7600, I 
dealt with color printing with Photo Black on Epson Premium Semi-Matte 
and stated that I was very happy with the results, concluding that I 
found the IP profiles slightly more accurate than Bill Atkinson's, 
particularly in the shadow detail. Since then, I recommended IP to 
several people.

Now, I have started trying to print B&W and have run into a brick wall 
when trying to print "legacy" files, that is, old files that I 
previously printed using PiezographyBW on the 1160: I have not been 
able to get decent prints with IP to match the old Piezo prints. The 
problem is that, when I place these legacy files in ImagePrint, the IP 
Preview is "washed out," with lower contrast and higher brightness than 
the view of the legacy file in Photoshop; and the new IP prints are 
also washed out and not at all like the Piezo prints.  I've seen some 
postings that other people are having the same problem.

The trouble is that whatever I try to do -- and I've tried all the 
combinations that I can think of, including saving the 
(Piezography-type) Custom Dot Gain as an ICC profile and opening the 
file in IP with this profile; converting the profile in PS from Custom 
Dot Gain to Gamma 1.8 or 2.2; assigning profiles, etc.  -- the Preview 
in IP, and the IP print, are still washed out, always having much less 
contrast and much more brightness than the Piezo print. Yet I suppose 
that there must be a way of getting the legacy file to print the same 
way they did with Piezography. Does anyone have a solution?

I've posed this question to Colorbyte last week but have not had a 
response and now, out of desperation, I also sent a message asking Jon 
Cone. Meanwhile, I'm stuck.

--Mitch/Bangkok

I have been having luck either assigning (not converting) gamma 2.2 to 
file, OR dropping the profile in IP5- while making sure it's default 
greyspace is set to gamma 2.2
I have no idea why this works. In some cases a few values are a little 
off, but I've been pleased with the output even when this happened. I 
had to give up and do a levels adjustment to one image and comb it a 
tad. Printed a modest number of old files so far.
And it DOES look washed out in IP5 window. I just ignore this. Always. 
I just let it use gamma 2.2 and well, I get good prints that 
way<shrug>.
Windows2000 SP3, 2200, photorag, Eclipse Satine, 1440 and 2880 dpi. 
From legacy files using custom dotgains and dotgain % values.
JIm H.




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mitch Alland 
<malland@x> wrote:
> In the last report on my experiences with ImagePrint 5 and the 7600, 
I 
> dealt with color printing with Photo Black on Epson Premium 
Semi-Matte 
> and stated that I was very happy with the results, concluding that I 
> found the IP profiles slightly more accurate than Bill Atkinson's, 
> particularly in the shadow detail. Since then, I recommended IP to 
> several people.
> 
> Now, I have started trying to print B&W and have run into a brick 
wall 
> when trying to print "legacy" files, that is, old files that I 
> previously printed using PiezographyBW on the 1160: I have not been 
> able to get decent prints with IP to match the old Piezo prints. The 
> problem is that, when I place these legacy files in ImagePrint, the 
IP 
> Preview is "washed out," with lower contrast and higher brightness 
than 
> the view of the legacy file in Photoshop; and the new IP prints are 
> also washed out and not at all like the Piezo prints.  I've seen 
some 
> postings that other people are having the same problem.
> 
> The trouble is that whatever I try to do -- and I've tried all the 
> combinations that I can think of, including saving the 
> (Piezography-type) Custom Dot Gain as an ICC profile and opening the 
> file in IP with this profile; converting the profile in PS from 
Custom 
> Dot Gain to Gamma 1.8 or 2.2; assigning profiles, etc.  -- the 
Preview 
> in IP, and the IP print, are still washed out, always having much 
less 
> contrast and much more brightness than the Piezo print. Yet I 
suppose 
> that there must be a way of getting the legacy file to print the 
same 
> way they did with Piezography. Does anyone have a solution?
> 
> I've posed this question to Colorbyte last week but have not had a 
> response and now, out of desperation, I also sent a message asking 
Jon 

> Cone. Meanwhile, I'm stuck.
> 
> --Mitch/Bangkok

Mitch:

I realize this may not be the kind of helpful response you were 
hoping for, but why would you expect to be able to print legacy files 
without adjustment, given that you are printing with both different 
ink and different software on a different printer?

I've recently had a similar experience.  When Cone first started 
selling Warm Neutral Piezotones in carts for the 1280, there was a 
problem with one of the grays resulting in lighter-than-expected 
midtones.  I printed with those carts anyway, and liked the prints.  
Recently, hearing that the earlier problem had been fixed, I bought 
some WN PT carts and attempted to print those same files.  Not 
surprisingly, in order to match the earlier prints, I had to adjust 
those files to compensate for the "different" ink.

Anyway, the differences that you are dealing with are far greater, 
and I expect you will simply have to create new master files tagged 
for the 7600.  One positive side effect may be that you will like 
your new files even better than the old, having had months or years 
in which to reflect on the qualities you really wanted in those 
prints.

Or not.  

Good luck!

Chuck

-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mitch Alland 
<malland@x> wrote:
> In the last report on my experiences with ImagePrint 5 and the 
7600, I 
> dealt with color printing with Photo Black on Epson Premium Semi-
Matte 
> and stated that I was very happy with the results, concluding that 
I 
> found the IP profiles slightly more accurate than Bill Atkinson's, 
> particularly in the shadow detail. Since then, I recommended IP to 
> several people.
> 
> Now, I have started trying to print B&W and have run into a brick 
wall 
> when trying to print "legacy" files, that is, old files that I 
> previously printed using PiezographyBW on the 1160: I have not been 
> able to get decent prints with IP to match the old Piezo prints. 
The 
> problem is that, when I place these legacy files in ImagePrint, the 
IP 
> Preview is "washed out," with lower contrast and higher brightness 
than 
> the view of the legacy file in Photoshop; and the new IP prints are 
> also washed out and not at all like the Piezo prints.  I've seen 
some 
> postings that other people are having the same problem.
> 
> The trouble is that whatever I try to do -- and I've tried all the 
> combinations that I can think of, including saving the 
> (Piezography-type) Custom Dot Gain as an ICC profile and opening 
the 
> file in IP with this profile; converting the profile in PS from 
Custom 
> Dot Gain to Gamma 1.8 or 2.2; assigning profiles, etc.  -- the 
Preview 
> in IP, and the IP print, are still washed out, always having much 
less 
> contrast and much more brightness than the Piezo print. Yet I 
suppose 
> that there must be a way of getting the legacy file to print the 
same 
> way they did with Piezography. Does anyone have a solution?
> 
> I've posed this question to Colorbyte last week but have not had a 
> response and now, out of desperation, I also sent a message asking 
Jon 

> Cone. Meanwhile, I'm stuck.
> 
> --Mitch/Bangkok

This brings to light a serious deficiency in the old PiezoBW workflow...it
wasn't really color managed...meaning...you couldn't simply edit in a
standard "color" space (Gamma 1.8 or 2.2) and expect to get screen to print
match.  What this really reflects is that the profiles were bad and required
further tweaking via custom dot curves to actually match the screen.  Of
course this was always passed off as being individual differences in
printers...which may be true to an extent...but it certainly doesn't appear
to be a major problem with the Imageprint workflows that I've
tried...profiles made from other people's targets are usually right on the
money on my printer.

As a result your older files will have to be redone now that you have moved
to a color managed workflow.  Of course, if you have the original files from
either your scanner or digital camera then these are probably tagged with
either 1.8 or 2.2 (or their equivalent in the color world, e.g., colormatch,
sRGB or Adoble 98, etc) and you can work from there.

Robert



On 2/20/03 9:43 AM, "cschaible94111 <cschaible@...>"
<cschaible@...> wrote:

> Mitch:
> 
> I realize this may not be the kind of helpful response you were
> hoping for, but why would you expect to be able to print legacy files
> without adjustment, given that you are printing with both different
> ink and different software on a different printer?
> 
> I've recently had a similar experience.  When Cone first started
> selling Warm Neutral Piezotones in carts for the 1280, there was a
> problem with one of the grays resulting in lighter-than-expected
> midtones.  I printed with those carts anyway, and liked the prints.
> Recently, hearing that the earlier problem had been fixed, I bought
> some WN PT carts and attempted to print those same files.  Not
> surprisingly, in order to match the earlier prints, I had to adjust
> those files to compensate for the "different" ink.
> 
> Anyway, the differences that you are dealing with are far greater,
> and I expect you will simply have to create new master files tagged
> for the 7600.  One positive side effect may be that you will like
> your new files even better than the old, having had months or years
> in which to reflect on the qualities you really wanted in those
> prints.
> 
> Or not.  
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mitch Alland
> <malland@x> wrote:
>> In the last report on my experiences with ImagePrint 5 and the
> 7600, I 
>> dealt with color printing with Photo Black on Epson Premium Semi-
> Matte 
>> and stated that I was very happy with the results, concluding that
> I 
>> found the IP profiles slightly more accurate than Bill Atkinson's,
>> particularly in the shadow detail. Since then, I recommended IP to
>> several people.
>> 
>> Now, I have started trying to print B&W and have run into a brick
> wall 
>> when trying to print "legacy" files, that is, old files that I
>> previously printed using PiezographyBW on the 1160: I have not been
>> able to get decent prints with IP to match the old Piezo prints.
> The 
>> problem is that, when I place these legacy files in ImagePrint, the
> IP 
>> Preview is "washed out," with lower contrast and higher brightness
> than 
>> the view of the legacy file in Photoshop; and the new IP prints are
>> also washed out and not at all like the Piezo prints.  I've seen
> some 
>> postings that other people are having the same problem.
>> 
>> The trouble is that whatever I try to do -- and I've tried all the
>> combinations that I can think of, including saving the
>> (Piezography-type) Custom Dot Gain as an ICC profile and opening
> the 
>> file in IP with this profile; converting the profile in PS from
> Custom 
>> Dot Gain to Gamma 1.8 or 2.2; assigning profiles, etc.  -- the
> Preview 
>> in IP, and the IP print, are still washed out, always having much
> less 
>> contrast and much more brightness than the Piezo print. Yet I
> suppose 
>> that there must be a way of getting the legacy file to print the
> same 
>> way they did with Piezography. Does anyone have a solution?
>> 
>> I've posed this question to Colorbyte last week but have not had a
>> response and now, out of desperation, I also sent a message asking
> Jon 
>> Cone. Meanwhile, I'm stuck.
>> 
>> --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
> &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/
> 
> 
>

For: Jim Hayes

> I have been having luck either assigning (not converting) gamma 2.2 to
> file,

Thanks. I tried assigning Gamma 2.2 and it works! Very close to the 
original PiezoBW print.


>  OR dropping the profile in IP5- while making sure it's default
> greyspace is set to gamma 2.2

Do you mean saving the file w/o a profile and then placing in IP while 
the default grayspace is set to Gamma 2.2?


Now, what do you do for new files that you've just prepared in PS? How 
do you make sure the PS view matches the print from IP5?

--Mitch/Bangkok

Chuck:

> I realize this may not be the kind of helpful response you were
> hoping for, but why would you expect to be able to print legacy files
> without adjustment, given that you are printing with both different
> ink and different software on a different printer?

I guess you're right; after all, I am using "printer targeting" 
adjustments to print legacy files that I used to print on the 1290. 
However, Jim Hayes' suggestion of assigning a Gamma of 2.2 to the files 
that had a Custom Dot Gain works.

For new files, what do you do to get the view in Photoshop to match the 
IP5 B&W print?

--Mitch/Bangkok


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

I had some interesting responses on the DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint 
list to my question of how to get "legacy" PiezographyBW files to print 
correctly in IP5, parts of which I will quote below. First on the 
nature of the issue:

> ...why would you expect to be able to print legacy files
> without adjustment, given that you are printing with both different
> ink and different software on a different printer?

and:

> This brings to light a serious deficiency in the old PiezoBW 
> workflow...it
> wasn't really color managed...meaning...you couldn't simply edit in a
> standard "color" space (Gamma 1.8 or 2.2) and expect to get screen to 
> print
> match.  What this really reflects is that the profiles were bad and 
> required
> further tweaking via custom dot curves to actually match the screen.

I think that both these posting are essentially correct. After all, for 
color, I'm using "printer targeting" adjustments to print 1290 legacy 
files on the 7600 with IP5. But there was also a solution posted:

> I have been having luck either assigning (not converting) gamma 2.2 to
> file, OR dropping the profile in IP5- while making sure it's default
> greyspace is set to gamma 2.2.

This was in line with a (gracious) response I got from Jon Cone:

> Well I would take the file without a profile attached, or ignored the
> profile. That's #1.  Then I would use one of the ColorByte Gamma 
> profiles
> for lightness/darkness adjustment. Then print through the inks/paper 
> profile
> in ImagePrint.

I tried assigning both 1.8 and 2.2 gammas to the PiezoBW legacy files 
and found that the Gamma 2.2 assignment resulted with a print that was 
very close to the Piezo print.


Now that the problem of printing PiezoBW legacy files is solved, I am 
moving on to printing new B&W files prepared for IP5. The issue here is 
that the unlike their color profiles, the ColorByte grayscale profiles 
canned be "previewed"
in the Photoshop "Proof Setup" facility. How are you dealing with this? 
Or is the normal PS view very close to how the print looks?

--Mitch/Bangkok

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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mitch Alland 
<malland@x> wrote:
> For: Jim Hayes
> 
> > I have been having luck either assigning (not converting) gamma 
2.2 to
> > file,
> 
> Thanks. I tried assigning Gamma 2.2 and it works! Very close to the 
> original PiezoBW print.
>

Weird huh? I've learned not to question why anything works in the last 
2 1/2 years...
I find that I have had to rarely make a minor adjustment, usually the 
middle slider in levels on a minority of my prints.

> 
> >  OR dropping the profile in IP5- while making sure it's default
> > greyspace is set to gamma 2.2
> 
> Do you mean saving the file w/o a profile and then placing in IP 
while 
> the default grayspace is set to Gamma 2.2?
>

No, I mean keep the saved file intact with the original embedded 
custom dotgain tagged to it. Then yes, set the default greyscale space 
in system tab to "gamma 2.2" in IP5 and either "prompt" or ignore for 
what it does if the image has a profile coming into IP5 from Pshop. 
Make sure that the custom dotgain is ignored (or "not used" if 
prompted). IP5 will then use "gamma 2.2"....the profile in the system 
tab. I least that's how it's supposed to work.

I suggest this second method in case you want to keep the old custom 
dotgain associated with the file for record keeping. Once you assign 
gamma 2.2 to everything, of course how will you know it's history, 
unless you maybe add a note to the image (I like those yellow things) 
with a history of it's prior embeded curve.
  
> 
> Now, what do you do for new files that you've just prepared in PS? 
How 
> do you make sure the PS view matches the print from IP5?
>

Here's what I do, see if it works for you-

After I figured out the above, I standardized on using gamma 2.2 for 
my embeded and working space. I found it matched my particular 
monitor/windows2000 very closly with the 2200/IP5/gamma 2.2 output 
print. I got lucky.

BUT, if I found that I needed to have a custom dotgain curve to get 
the print to match monitor I would go ahead and  print an image/ step 
wedge with the gamma 2.2 in IP5. After drying sample I would compare 
it to monitor and start generating a custom dotgain curve to match the 
sample done in Imageprint/gamma 2.2. Then I would save the profile and 
use it as default greyspace in pshop, and embed it into all my images. 
BUT, importantly, I would ALWAYS ignore profile when opened in IP5 and 
make sure that the system tab was always set to gamma 2.2. In this 
way, you always get output in IP5's gamma 2.2 space for your original 
sample and subsequent prints into the future. SInce this output 
corresponds to your monitor now with the custom dotgain you worked up, 
it will match.

In this event your third option might be to save the file not by 
assigning gamma 2.2 to it, nor keeping your original dotgain embedded 
curve, but choose instead to assign (not convert) your new to-be 
used-in future custom dotgain curve to your old files as they come up 
for printing one by one. You would be moderenizing them to view 
properly on your current monitor, matched to IP5/gamma 2.2 output. Of 
course you must ignore profile once in IP5 in favor of gamma 2.2. 

Of course, keep your basic monitor calibrated (Photocal, Adobe gamma) 
and keep updating the file in imageprint by copying the file over if 
you use a CRT since they do drift over time.

This procedure is outlined by someone and written up as "softproofing 
in greyscale" or some such, except that there gamma 1.8 is the space 
of choice.
Jim H.

> --Mitch/Bangkok

Oh and P.S.: Don't worry about the IP5 preview ever matching pshop. 
Just ignore it; you don't need it to match the print here anyway, just 
in pshop where the tonal adjustment tools are.
Jim H.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jim hayes 
<jimhayes@f...>" <jimhayes@f...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mitch Alland 
> <malland@x> wrote:
> > For: Jim Hayes
> > 
> > > I have been having luck either assigning (not converting) gamma 
> 2.2 to
> > > file,
> > 
> > Thanks. I tried assigning Gamma 2.2 and it works! Very close to 
the 
> > original PiezoBW print.
> >
> 
> Weird huh? I've learned not to question why anything works in the 
last 
> 2 1/2 years...
> I find that I have had to rarely make a minor adjustment, usually 
the 
> middle slider in levels on a minority of my prints.
> 
> > 
> > >  OR dropping the profile in IP5- while making sure it's default
> > > greyspace is set to gamma 2.2
> > 
> > Do you mean saving the file w/o a profile and then placing in IP 
> while 
> > the default grayspace is set to Gamma 2.2?
> >
> 
> No, I mean keep the saved file intact with the original embedded 
> custom dotgain tagged to it. Then yes, set the default greyscale 
space 
> in system tab to "gamma 2.2" in IP5 and either "prompt" or ignore 
for 
> what it does if the image has a profile coming into IP5 from Pshop. 
> Make sure that the custom dotgain is ignored (or "not used" if 
> prompted). IP5 will then use "gamma 2.2"....the profile in the 
system 
> tab. I least that's how it's supposed to work.
> 
> I suggest this second method in case you want to keep the old custom 
> dotgain associated with the file for record keeping. Once you assign 
> gamma 2.2 to everything, of course how will you know it's history, 
> unless you maybe add a note to the image (I like those yellow 
things) 
> with a history of it's prior embeded curve.
>   
> > 
> > Now, what do you do for new files that you've just prepared in PS? 
> How 
> > do you make sure the PS view matches the print from IP5?
> >
> 
> Here's what I do, see if it works for you-
> 
> After I figured out the above, I standardized on using gamma 2.2 for 
> my embeded and working space. I found it matched my particular 
> monitor/windows2000 very closly with the 2200/IP5/gamma 2.2 output 
> print. I got lucky.
> 
> BUT, if I found that I needed to have a custom dotgain curve to get 
> the print to match monitor I would go ahead and  print an image/ 
step 
> wedge with the gamma 2.2 in IP5. After drying sample I would compare 
> it to monitor and start generating a custom dotgain curve to match 
the 
> sample done in Imageprint/gamma 2.2. Then I would save the profile 
and 
> use it as default greyspace in pshop, and embed it into all my 
images. 
> BUT, importantly, I would ALWAYS ignore profile when opened in IP5 
and 
> make sure that the system tab was always set to gamma 2.2. In this 
> way, you always get output in IP5's gamma 2.2 space for your 
original 
> sample and subsequent prints into the future. SInce this output 
> corresponds to your monitor now with the custom dotgain you worked 
up, 
> it will match.
> 
> In this event your third option might be to save the file not by 
> assigning gamma 2.2 to it, nor keeping your original dotgain 
embedded 
> curve, but choose instead to assign (not convert) your new to-be 
> used-in future custom dotgain curve to your old files as they come 
up 
> for printing one by one. You would be moderenizing them to view 
> properly on your current monitor, matched to IP5/gamma 2.2 output. 
Of 
> course you must ignore profile once in IP5 in favor of gamma 2.2. 
> 
> Of course, keep your basic monitor calibrated (Photocal, Adobe 
gamma) 
> and keep updating the file in imageprint by copying the file over if 
> you use a CRT since they do drift over time.
> 
> This procedure is outlined by someone and written up as 
"softproofing 

> in greyscale" or some such, except that there gamma 1.8 is the space 
> of choice.
> Jim H.
> 
> > --Mitch/Bangkok

Mitch:

I'm still using the Cone driver on a 1280. I've considered moving to 
IP5 but find my existing setup still works pretty well.  One thing it 
doesn't provide, however, is any direct correspondence between what I 
see on the screen (Sony LCD) and what comes out of the printer.  
However, by limiting my inks (Piezotone Selenium, mostly) and papers 
(PhotoRag)I find I have a pretty good idea what the prints will look 
like.  (More than I ever had in the darkroom, anyway.) I actually 
think that, given the luminosity of screen images, it's asking too 
much to expect a one-to-one correspondence between a black and white 
image on screen and the print of that image.

Chuck

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mitch Alland 
<malland@x> wrote:
> Chuck:
> 
> > I realize this may not be the kind of helpful response you were
> > hoping for, but why would you expect to be able to print legacy 
files
> > without adjustment, given that you are printing with both 
different
> > ink and different software on a different printer?
> 
> I guess you're right; after all, I am using "printer targeting" 
> adjustments to print legacy files that I used to print on the 1290. 
> However, Jim Hayes' suggestion of assigning a Gamma of 2.2 to the 
files 
> that had a Custom Dot Gain works.
> 
> For new files, what do you do to get the view in Photoshop to match 
the 

> IP5 B&W print?
> 
> --Mitch/Bangkok
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

For: Robert Morrison

>  My main complaint is
> that the shadows in imageprint tend to be compressed...

I'm surprised. I guess I should ask, "compressed compared to what?" 
because I find the shadow detail to be quite good, with gradation 
similar to PiezographyBW, and, for color prints, the shadow detail is 
much better than the that of the Epson driver with Bill Atkinson's 
profiles.

--Mitch/Bangkok

Chuck: [cschaible94111 <cschaible@...>]

> I'm still using the Cone driver on a 1280. I've considered moving to
> IP5 but find my existing setup still works pretty well.  One thing it
> doesn't provide, however, is any direct correspondence between what I
> see on the screen (Sony LCD) and what comes out of the printer.

But why not? Why work "in the dark?" The PiezoBW documentation explains 
how to create a "Custom Dot Gain" curve to make the monitor image match 
the print -- and, as the PiezoBW documentation states, you don't even 
need a (hardware) calibrated monitor for this.

My PiezoBW setup on the 1290, with the Custom Dot Gain set in Photoshop 
Color Settings gave an excellent correspondence between the monitor 
image and the print. Just have a look at the PiezoBW manual. This is 
very easy to set up.

--Mitch/Bangkok

Chuck: [cschaible94111 <cschaible@...>]

> I'm still using the Cone driver on a 1280. I've considered moving to
> IP5 but find my existing setup still works pretty well.  One thing it
> doesn't provide, however, is any direct correspondence between what I
> see on the screen (Sony LCD) and what comes out of the printer.

But why not? Why work "in the dark?" The PiezoBW documentation explains
how to create a "Custom Dot Gain" curve to make the monitor image match
the print -- and, as the PiezoBW documentation states, you don't even
need a (hardware) calibrated monitor for this.

My PiezoBW setup on the 1290, with the Custom Dot Gain set in Photoshop
Color Settings gave an excellent correspondence between the monitor
image and the print. Just have a look at the PiezoBW manual. This is
very easy to set up.

--Mitch/Bangkok

For: Robert Morrison

>  My main complaint is
> that the shadows in imageprint tend to be compressed...

I'm surprised. I guess I should ask, "compressed compared to what?"
because I find the shadow detail to be quite good, with gradation
similar to PiezographyBW, and, for color prints, the shadow detail is
much better than the that of the Epson driver with Bill Atkinson's
profiles.

--Mitch/Bangkok

Sorry not to respond earlier, Mitch.  The Imageprint profiles are less
compressed in the shadows than those that I've seen from the Epson
driver...but they are significantly compressed compared to the piezoBW
profiles.  For instance on a recent BW profile that colorbyte made for me
there is no measurable difference between the 95% and 100% patch in a
standard stepwedge...while I have no problem seeing the difference on a
piezobw stepwedge or on the screen.  I had this discussion repeatedly with
colorbyte and they are resistant to changing it.  I think this is because it
make the images look "washed out" when they use the correct curve for people
that don't know what they are doing with shadows.  Regardless, this is the
wrong policy...output needs to match a calibrated monitor and follow a
standard Ames curve. I've been using the new Ink Jet Control beta to make
profiles for both quads and my 2200 and the shadows are right on the money
with 1% separation throughout the shadows.

Robert

 On 2/22/03 8:01 PM, "Mitch Alland" <malland@...> wrote:

> For: Robert Morrison
> 
>>  My main complaint is
>> that the shadows in imageprint tend to be compressed...
> 
> I'm surprised. I guess I should ask, "compressed compared to what?"
> because I find the shadow detail to be quite good, with gradation
> similar to PiezographyBW, and, for color prints, the shadow detail is
> much better than the that of the Epson driver with Bill Atkinson's
> profiles.
> 
> --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
> &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've been using the new Ink Jet Control beta to make
profiles for both quads and my 2200 and the shadows are right on the
money
with 1% separation throughout the shadows.

 

Robert,

 

Any news on Ink Jet Control software for Windows?

Is there any website with information about the software (have searched
but can’t find any)

 

Regards

Soren

 

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Robert Morrison [mailto:rmorrison@...] 
Skickat: den 23 februari 2003 10:21
Till: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Ämne: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Further Adventures w/7600+ImagePrint:
B&WProblem

 



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

On 2/23/03 2:21 AM, "Sören Lindqvist" <soren.lindqvist@...> wrote:

> Any news on Ink Jet Control software for Windows?
> 
> Is there any website with information about the software (have searched
> but can’t find any)
> 

I don't think so...but contact ijc@... for more information.

The posts on IJC are under the thread called:

New software for mono printing

I just printed a photo with IJC for the 2200 and I'm getting spectacular
shadow detail that was completely absent in the Imageprint output.

Robert

Robert,

Thanks I read that post also.  I searched and found this:

Sounds like this is the place ?

 

http://www.bowhaus.com/news/quad.htm

 

 

Regards

Soren

 

 

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Robert Morrison [mailto:rmorrison@...] 
Skickat: den 23 februari 2003 11:31
Till: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Ämne: Re: SV: [Digital BW] Ink Jet Control (Was Further
Adventuresw/7600+ImagePrint: B&WProblem)

 

On 2/23/03 2:21 AM, "Sören Lindqvist" <soren.lindqvist@...> wrote:

> Any news on Ink Jet Control software for Windows?
> 
> Is there any website with information about the software (have
searched
> but can’t find any)
> 

I don't think so...but contact ijc@... for more information.

The posts on IJC are under the thread called:

New software for mono printing

I just printed a photo with IJC for the 2200 and I'm getting spectacular
shadow detail that was completely absent in the Imageprint output.

Robert







Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245454.2994396.4323964.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=1457554/R=0/*http:/ipunda.com/clk/beibunmaisuiyuiwabei> 


 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245454.2994396.4323964.2848452/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1457554/rand=300539166> 


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;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




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



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

Yes.  But this doesn't tell you much about the software product, but I would
contact them for current information on the product.

Robert

On 2/23/03 2:35 AM, "Sören Lindqvist" <soren.lindqvist@...> wrote:

> Robert,
> 
> Thanks I read that post also.  I searched and found this:
> 
> Sounds like this is the place ?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bowhaus.com/news/quad.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Soren
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: Robert Morrison [mailto:rmorrison@...]
> Skickat: den 23 februari 2003 11:31
> Till: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Ämne: Re: SV: [Digital BW] Ink Jet Control (Was Further
> Adventuresw/7600+ImagePrint: B&WProblem)
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/23/03 2:21 AM, "Sören Lindqvist" <soren.lindqvist@...> wrote:
> 
>> Any news on Ink Jet Control software for Windows?
>> 
>> Is there any website with information about the software (have
> searched
>> but can’t find any)
>> 
> 
> I don't think so...but contact ijc@... for more information.
> 
> The posts on IJC are under the thread called:
> 
> New software for mono printing
> 
> I just printed a photo with IJC for the 2200 and I'm getting spectacular
> shadow detail that was completely absent in the Imageprint output.
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 
> 
> 
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245454.2994396.4323964.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705
> 019182:HM/A=1457554/R=0/*http:/ipunda.com/clk/beibunmaisuiyuiwabei>
> 
> 
> 
> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245454.2994396.4323964.2848452/D=egrou
> pmail/S=:HM/A=1457554/rand=300539166>
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
> same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
>