Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Re: [Digital BW] UC metamerism, yellow ink & confusion

Re: [Digital BW] UC metamerism, yellow ink & confusion

2003-02-20 by Thomas Fors

I agree that we haven't proven scientifically that the yellow ink is the
source of the metamerism.  I can tell you though what testing I have done
that help support this.

1.  I'm not aware of a device that can accurately measure metamerism -- at
least one that is affordable to the general public.  All  spectros that I
know of use their own light source to illuminate the target, and the
characteristics of this light source cannot be changed.

2.  I've looked at prints of a 21-step grayscale wedge from the Epson Driver
and IP under both a loupe and a microscope.  Most of my focus has been on
the lightest patches (1-5%) since it is easiest to see the individual ink
droplets there.  Here is what I've observed:
a. The Epson Driver uses yellow ink.
b. The Epson Driver's "black only" setting does not use the LightBlack ink.
It only prints with the Black ink.
c. ImagePrint uses MatteBlack, LightBlack, LightMagenta, and LightCyan when
printing in "grayscale" mode.
d. ImagePrint changes the proportion of LightMagenta and LightCyan as you
adjust the TintPicker.

3. I've cut open "empty" cartridges of MatteBlack and LightBlack ink and
smeared the remaining ink on paper.  The light black ink is very warm in
tone.  It is more difficult to see with the MatteBlack ink, but it also
appears somewhat warm in tone.  Furthermore, Prints using the Epson Driver
with the "black only" setting are warm and prints using the combined
MatteBlack and LightBlack inks are warm. (I used the ink reduction settings
of IP to print using only MatteBlack and LightBlack).

4.  My office is lit by flourescent light and has blinds covering an outside
window.  The blinds can be adjusted so the daylight is not overpowering the
flourescent.  I can then turn a print back and forth between the window
light and flourescent light and *easily* see the shift from green to magenta
in the Epson Driver prints and the Epson RIP prints.  I don't see this in
ImagePrint prints.

So, my conclusion is:
a. ImagePrint uses the LightCyan and LightMagenta to neutralize the inherent
warm tone of the MatteBlack and LightBlack inks.
b. ImagePrint adjusts the proportions of LightCyan and LightMagenta ink to
tone the prints via the TintPicker.
c. One of the other inks: Yellow, Magenta, or Cyan (or a combination of
them) suffers from metamerism.
d. I don't care which one or combination causes metamerism as long as I have
a solution and can prevent it.

Conclusion (d) is not entirely true.  I am curious and would like to know,
but I'm not losing sleep over it.  I have a printing solution that works
well, so I can go out and take more pictures.

For the curious, I would suggest further testing by someone (not me) of the
Epson RIP.  Dial down the yellow ink so it is not used at all and then
create a profile through the RIP.  Use that profile to print a grayscale
image and then evaluate it for metamerism.  This process could be repeated
for Magenta and Cyan as well.  I'm not sure it would be possible to get
neutral prints with this method since I suspect the ink reduction occurs
*after* the rendering engine has done its thing.  Perhaps a high-
end profiling tool could do this?

--Tom

----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: <carlislematthew@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 11:58 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] UC metamerism, yellow ink & confusion


> I keep hearing that the metamerism is caused by the yellow ink, and
> that the IP RIP (and others) reduce/remove the metamerism by not
> using that particular ink.  I also heard once that is was the magenta
> ink that was the issue, but that view seems very much in the minority
> these days.
>
> In support of the "yellow=bad" crew, I've seen posts that say that IP
> prints have been looked at very closely under a loupe and that no
> yellow ink is used.  The same people say that metamerism is gone.
> Where I begin to lose faith is when people link the two.  Soooo,
> we're not using yellow ink, and we have no metamerism, therefore the
> yellow ink must have caused the metamerism!!!  YAY!!!  Problem
> solved!!!!!
>
> Using similar logic, I drank some Hales Cream Ale tonight (very nice
> beer BTW) and I did not suffer from a major heart attack.  So
> therefore I logically conclude that the beer saved me from dying.
> Riiiight.
>
> When people have asked WHY not using the yellow ink prevents
> metamerism we start to throw scientic terms around and nobody wants
> to admit that they don't know what's going on.  Apparently, the
> yellow ink has a "peaky spectral response".  Lovely.  Everyone nods
> their heads and mutters "yes, peaky spectral response - that makes
> sense".  Does it though?  Does this really mean that the yellow ink
> goes magenta in tungsten light and green in daylight?  Anyone printed
> a yellow test strip and done some kind of scientic measurement on
> it?  Or perhaps the yellow ink reacts to other inks when used
> together and makes the other inks change colors in different
> conditions.  Who knows...  Peaky spectral response?  Sure.
>
> I'm a scientist by nature.  I like to know WHY things happen.
> Unfortunately, I'm not satisfied with "peaky spectral response".
> Could someone please tell me (and everyone in this group) how this
> relates to metamerism in this case.  Be very specific, because there
> are a lot of smart people in this group.
>
> Finally, I'd like to propose the crazy, insane theory that the lack
> of yellow ink has nothing to do with the reduction in metamerism.
> Perhaps producing a neutral(ish) print with the blank and light-black
> (dark yellow!) inks really doesn't need yellow ink.  Maybe there's
> more yellow than we can eat, and putting more down would just make
> everything look, well, yellow?
>
> It may sound like I'm annoyed about all this.  In fact, I'm not.
> I've been contributing to this group a little over the past few
> weeks, but have mostly been lurking and learning.  I have MIS VM inks
> on order and Paul's curves waiting in anticipation for use on my old
> 1280, so I think I'll be just fine.  :)
>

Epson RIP - was: UC metamerism, yellow ink & confusion

2003-02-20 by plnelson2003 <peter@studio-nelson.com>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Fors" 
<tom@f...> wrote:
> For the curious, I would suggest further testing by 
> someone (not me) of the Epson RIP.

How many people here have tried the Epson RIP?  (could
we see a show of hands?)   I've been trying with difficulty
to follow that topic here but there was some confusion in the 
way some messages were quoted Monday so now I'm confused.  I'd
love to have an alternative to the IP because the IP is so
expensive.  But I need to make color prints of predominantly 
black and white subjects so quadtones or Black Only are not
options.

What I **THINK** I've seen is that two people have tried the
Epson RIP and made radically different conclusions about its
metamerism: one says it's no better than the default Epson 
drivers (i.e., it stinks) and the other says that it seems 
to fix the metamerism (but maybe there are other problems with
it, like grayscale evennes?)   Both seem to agree that the 
Epson documentation is a bad joke.

But I'm confused about some of the postings so my above 
summary may be way wide of the mark.

I asked on the Photo.Net Digital Darkroom forum and no one has
tried the Epson RIP.   Are there other good sources of
reviews or experience with this beast?

Re: Epson RIP - was: UC metamerism, yellow ink & confusion

2003-02-21 by Vincent Orlando <orlandovl@hotmail.com>

I have NOT used the Epson Rip with the 2200 but looked at several B&W 
photos that Geo DeWolfe made, at his home last week, for the review 
he did for Camera Art and no way could I see any color shift under 
diff lighting. Dead neutral

Vinny
http://www.wulfsden.com




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "plnelson2003 
<peter@s...>" <peter@s...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Fors" 
> <tom@f...> wrote:
> > For the curious, I would suggest further testing by 
> > someone (not me) of the Epson RIP.
> 
> How many people here have tried the Epson RIP?  (could
> we see a show of hands?)   I've been trying with difficulty
> to follow that topic here but there was some confusion in the 
> way some messages were quoted Monday so now I'm confused.  I'd
> love to have an alternative to the IP because the IP is so
> expensive.  But I need to make color prints of predominantly 
> black and white subjects so quadtones or Black Only are not
> options.
> 
> What I **THINK** I've seen is that two people have tried the
> Epson RIP and made radically different conclusions about its
> metamerism: one says it's no better than the default Epson 
> drivers (i.e., it stinks) and the other says that it seems 
> to fix the metamerism (but maybe there are other problems with
> it, like grayscale evennes?)   Both seem to agree that the 
> Epson documentation is a bad joke.
> 
> But I'm confused about some of the postings so my above 
> summary may be way wide of the mark.
> 
> I asked on the Photo.Net Digital Darkroom forum and no one has
> tried the Epson RIP.   Are there other good sources of
> reviews or experience with this beast?

Re: Epson RIP - was: UC metamerism, yellow ink & confusion

2003-02-21 by plnelson2003 <peter@studio-nelson.com>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Vincent Orlando 
<orlandovl@h...>" <orlandovl@h...> wrote:
> 
> I have NOT used the Epson Rip with the 2200 but looked at several 
B&W 
> photos that Geo DeWolfe made, at his home last week, for the review 
> he did for Camera Art and no way could I see any color shift under 
> diff lighting. Dead neutral
> 
> Vinny
> http://www.wulfsden.com

I'm a little confused by the above.   Are you saying that
Geo DeWolf DID use the Epson RIP for those prints?  

Also, the usual qualifying question:  do you normally see
the metamerism?

Thanks in advance for clarification!

Re: Epson RIP - was: UC metamerism, yellow ink & confusion

2003-02-21 by Vincent Orlando <orlandovl@hotmail.com>

Geo DeWolfe is the editor at large for Camera Arts mag and has been 
testing the Epson 2200 with Epson Rip. Those are the prints I looked 
at.
Dead Neutral

Vinny
http://www.wulfsden.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "plnelson2003 
<peter@s...>" <peter@s...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Vincent 
Orlando 
> <orlandovl@h...>" <orlandovl@h...> wrote:
> > 
> > I have NOT used the Epson Rip with the 2200 but looked at several 
> B&W 
> > photos that Geo DeWolfe made, at his home last week, for the 
review 
> > he did for Camera Art and no way could I see any color shift 
under 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> > diff lighting. Dead neutral
> > 
> > Vinny
> > http://www.wulfsden.com
> 
> I'm a little confused by the above.   Are you saying that
> Geo DeWolf DID use the Epson RIP for those prints?  
> 
> Also, the usual qualifying question:  do you normally see
> the metamerism?
> 
> Thanks in advance for clarification!

Re: Epson RIP - was: UC metamerism, yellow ink & confusion

2003-02-21 by plnelson2003 <peter@studio-nelson.com>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Vincent Orlando 
<orlandovl@h...>" <orlandovl@h...> wrote:
> 
> Geo DeWolfe is the editor at large for Camera Arts mag and has
> been testing the Epson 2200 with Epson Rip. Those are the
> prints I looked at.
> Dead Neutral

And could you see the metamerism in the non-RIP prints?

Re: Epson RIP - was: UC metamerism, yellow ink & confusion

2003-02-22 by Vincent Orlando <orlandovl@hotmail.com>

Didn't look at any non rip prints. He was testing the rip to see if 
it would in fact print dead neutral-which it did

Vinny


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "plnelson2003 
<peter@s...>" <peter@s...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Vincent 
Orlando 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> <orlandovl@h...>" <orlandovl@h...> wrote:
> > 
> > Geo DeWolfe is the editor at large for Camera Arts mag and has
> > been testing the Epson 2200 with Epson Rip. Those are the
> > prints I looked at.
> > Dead Neutral
> 
> And could you see the metamerism in the non-RIP prints?

Re: Epson RIP - was: UC metamerism, yellow ink & confusion

2003-02-22 by culturalvisions <fmward@hotmail.com>

When I talked to Epson Tech Support they said that the new RIP 
showed no difference in b/w printing compared to the standard 
2200 driver.   ETS said there was  no consideration in improving 
b/w performance when the RIP was designed.

I have the Image Print RIP with the 2200 and the Piezo system 
with the 1160.  The IP RIP is technically cleaner with great 
rendering of shadow detail and consistent highlight 
containment.  BUT I think the 1160 Piezo looks better.  Even with 
the color variations allowed by the IP RIP the Piezo is more 
pleasing to the eye.  ALSO the 1160 Piezo system has a finer dot 
pattern than the 2200 IP RIP.  

There is almost no metamerism with the IP RIP, I believe, 
because there is no yellow ink.  This has probably been stated 
before.  

Frank

http://www.photoeye.com/frankward

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Vincent 
Orlando <orlandovl@h...>" <orlandovl@h...> wrote:
> 
> Didn't look at any non rip prints. He was testing the rip to see if 
> it would in fact print dead neutral-which it did
> 
> Vinny
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"plnelson2003 
> <peter@s...>" <peter@s...> wrote:
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"Vincent 
> Orlando 
> > <orlandovl@h...>" <orlandovl@h...> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Geo DeWolfe is the editor at large for Camera Arts mag 
and has
> > > been testing the Epson 2200 with Epson Rip. Those are 
the
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> > > prints I looked at.
> > > Dead Neutral
> > 
> > And could you see the metamerism in the non-RIP prints?

Re: Epson RIP - was: UC metamerism, yellow ink & confusion

2003-02-22 by Shilesh Jani <shilesh.jani@smith-nephew.

Hello Frank,

Can you describe how qualitatively the 1160 Piezo prints are better 
than the 2200?

Regards.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "culturalvisions 
<fmward@h...>" <fmward@h...> wrote:
> When I talked to Epson Tech Support they said that the new RIP 
> showed no difference in b/w printing compared to the standard 
> 2200 driver.   ETS said there was  no consideration in improving 
> b/w performance when the RIP was designed.
> 
> I have the Image Print RIP with the 2200 and the Piezo system 
> with the 1160.  The IP RIP is technically cleaner with great 
> rendering of shadow detail and consistent highlight 
> containment.  BUT I think the 1160 Piezo looks better.  Even with 
> the color variations allowed by the IP RIP the Piezo is more 
> pleasing to the eye.  ALSO the 1160 Piezo system has a finer dot 
> pattern than the 2200 IP RIP.  
> 
> There is almost no metamerism with the IP RIP, I believe, 
> because there is no yellow ink.  This has probably been stated 
> before.  
> 
> Frank
> 
> http://www.photoeye.com/frankward
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Vincent 
> Orlando <orlandovl@h...>" <orlandovl@h...> wrote:
> > 
> > Didn't look at any non rip prints. He was testing the rip to see 
if 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> > it would in fact print dead neutral-which it did
> > 
> > Vinny
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
> "plnelson2003 
> > <peter@s...>" <peter@s...> wrote:
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
> "Vincent 
> > Orlando 
> > > <orlandovl@h...>" <orlandovl@h...> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Geo DeWolfe is the editor at large for Camera Arts mag 
> and has
> > > > been testing the Epson 2200 with Epson Rip. Those are 
> the
> > > > prints I looked at.
> > > > Dead Neutral
> > > 
> > > And could you see the metamerism in the non-RIP prints?

Re: Epson RIP - was: UC metamerism, yellow ink & confusion

2003-02-22 by sanfo2003 <SandyCornelius@cox.net>

> When I talked to Epson Tech Support they said that the new RIP 
> showed no difference in b/w printing compared to the standard 
> 2200 driver.

Evidently Epson Tech Support made an inaccurate statement.

Re: Epson RIP - was: UC metamerism, yellow ink & confusion

2003-02-23 by culturalvisions <fmward@hotmail.com>

Shilesh,  First, the Image Print RIP does not give as fine a dot 
pattern on the 2200 as the Piezo on the 1160 does.  

Second, the IP RIP tone is much cooler.  There is a color picker 
option for toning, but this has given me problems in tonal 
seperations.  

That said, the IP RIP looks technically better in terms of clarity of 
shadow detail and brightness of highlights.  The IP RIP is also 
more trouble free.  My 1160 is giving me subtle banding even 
with all heads clean and an apparently perfect alignment.

I will probably end up using Epson RIP or IP RIP for my b/w 
printing, but Piezo still looks darn good  and I'll stick with it until 
my 1160 totally dies.  Frank

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"Shilesh Jani <shilesh.jani@s...>" <shilesh.jani@s...> wrote:
> Hello Frank,
> 
> Can you describe how qualitatively the 1160 Piezo prints are 
better 
> than the 2200?
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Shilesh
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"culturalvisions 
> <fmward@h...>" <fmward@h...> wrote:
> > When I talked to Epson Tech Support they said that the new 
RIP 
> > showed no difference in b/w printing compared to the 
standard 
> > 2200 driver.   ETS said there was  no consideration in 
improving 
> > b/w performance when the RIP was designed.
> > 
> > I have the Image Print RIP with the 2200 and the Piezo 
system 
> > with the 1160.  The IP RIP is technically cleaner with great 
> > rendering of shadow detail and consistent highlight 
> > containment.  BUT I think the 1160 Piezo looks better.  Even 
with 
> > the color variations allowed by the IP RIP the Piezo is more 
> > pleasing to the eye.  ALSO the 1160 Piezo system has a finer 
dot 
> > pattern than the 2200 IP RIP.  
> > 
> > There is almost no metamerism with the IP RIP, I believe, 
> > because there is no yellow ink.  This has probably been 
stated 
> > before.  
> > 
> > Frank
> > 
> > http://www.photoeye.com/frankward
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"Vincent 
> > Orlando <orlandovl@h...>" <orlandovl@h...> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Didn't look at any non rip prints. He was testing the rip to 
see 
> if 
> > > it would in fact print dead neutral-which it did
> > > 
> > > Vinny
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
> > "plnelson2003 
> > > <peter@s...>" <peter@s...> wrote:
> > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
> > "Vincent 
> > > Orlando 
> > > > <orlandovl@h...>" <orlandovl@h...> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Geo DeWolfe is the editor at large for Camera Arts mag 
> > and has
> > > > > been testing the Epson 2200 with Epson Rip. Those 
are 
> > the
> > > > > prints I looked at.
> > > > > Dead Neutral
> > > > 
> > > > And could you see the metamerism in the non-RIP 
prints?

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.