Digital BW, The Print

This is the workflow I use (so far) to get results with the RIP using 
stock inks that are, in my opinion, very close to if not equal to 
that of a Pieziography print using quadtones -- and with negligible 
metamerism. The OS on my computer is WIN98SE so descriptions of input 
fields may not apply exactly to other OS's. There is some trickery 
going on here; that is, I'm tricking the RIP into printing at 
2880x1440 dpi on Epson Enhanced Matte paper using Matte Black 
Ultrachrome ink (the RIP doesn't want to let you do this). Okay, here 
goes...

From the START button select <settings>, <printers> and then right-
click on the icon for the RIP (lablelled "Epson StylusRIP 2200" on my 
computer). This should bring up the RIP Properties dialog box. 
Settings for this box:

General: default settings
Details: default settings
Color Management: Manual, defaulting to AdobeRGB1998
Paper: default settings (and common sense, set what you want)
Graphics: Resolution 2880x1440, all other fields default settings
Fonts: default settings
Device Options:
     paper: EPSON Proofing Paper Semimatte_2880x1440
     ink: color
     high speed: off
     CMYK simulation: SWOP
     RGB simulation: Adobe RGB
     Greyscale control: image
     Auto cut: off
     Borderless: off
Installable options: Photo BK + Light BK

All other settings for the properties dialog box left at default 
settings
Click <apply>, <ok>

Open Photoshop and your image then assign the profile "Grey Gamma 
2.2" to the image.
Open the RIP, select <edit>, <color manager> and use these settings:

CMYK boxes: default settings
RGB: Custom
     Icc Profile: browse (the "+" key) to enter the profile you use 
     to print EEM at 2880 dpi on the 2200
Media: EPSON Proofing Paper Semimatte_2880x1440 (room to experiment 
here if you want)
Icc Profile: CPS SP2200 PSM84 (this field defaults to the profile  
associated with the media selected in the previous step, there is 
room to experiment here, which I haven't done yet)

Calibration: -blank-

Paper Configuration: 95% (I had to adjust down the ink density to    
compensate for the fact I'm printing on paper (EEM) different than 
the media I selected above (proofing paper), this is part of the 
trickery.
     
click <ok>

In Photoshop select <file>, <print with preview>, <color management>
Your source space should indicate Gray Gamma 2.2
For the print space select:
     Profile: Adobe RGB (1998)
     Intent: Relative Colorimetric
     Use black point compensation: checked on
Click the <print> button and then select the RIP as your printer 
(mine's labelled "Epson SylusRIP 2200") and then select <properties> 
and use the following settings:

Paper: common sense, select what applies. If you need to specify a 
custom size of paper scroll over to one of the "custom" icons then 
select the <custom> button to allow you to input your desired 
dimensions.
Graphics: Resolution 2880x1440, all other boxes to default settings
Device Options should have defaulted to the following:
     Media: EPSON proofing paper semimatte_2880x1440
     Ink: color
     High speed: off
     CMYK simulation: SWOP
     RGB simultation: RGB
     Greyscale control: image
     Auto cut: off
     Borderless: off
PostScript: default settings
Watermark: default settings

Click <apply>, <ok> which should bring you to the Print dialog box
Click <print> and you're on your way

I don't know why Epson doesn't want us printing at 2880 dpi with 
Matte Black -- I just hope I'm not harming the print nozzles, so be 
careful and remember this is a non-standard workflow (but then what 
is?). Happy printing.

Excellent info, and thanks for posting it.  Just one question.  One 
of your steps is 

"Open Photoshop and your image then assign the profile "Grey Gamma 
2.2" to the image."

I'm using a Mac, so I assume I'd do Gamma 1.8 here.  The more 
important question is, why does it make a difference what Grey 
profile you assign (or whether you leave the image in RGB mode, as 
some of my images as RGBs)?  I mean, I can easily change the profile, 
but I'm just curious as to why or if it makes a difference with the 
RIP.

The more 
> important question is, why does it make a difference what Grey 
> profile you assign (or whether you leave the image in RGB mode, as 
> some of my images as RGBs)?  I mean, I can easily change the 
profile, 

The reason I picked that profile is because its kind of a standard 
for windows systems for greyscale and resulted in better shadow 
transitions than the custom greyscale profile I was using. By all 
means try what works best for you, this is just the setting I use and 
I probably should have mentioned that. Thanks for bringing it up.

Wonderful!  Thanks so much for posting it.

Dan

Can't speak to the RIP, but gray gamma definitely matters. Images will look
significantly darker in gamma 2.2, which obviously affects your levels,
curves, etc. decisions. I learned the hard way when I was testing my web
site and found its photos looked great on Macs...and way too dark on PC
monitors. Not sure where the old adage that you use 1.8 on Macs came from,
but I now routinely ignore it, as it mainly seems to reduce compatibility in
our PC-dominated world.

Doug

> 
> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:03:11 -0000
> From: "chipcarterdc <chipcarterdc@...>" <chipcarterdc@...>
> Subject: Re: Epson 2200 RIP workflow
> 
> Excellent info, and thanks for posting it.  Just one question.  One
> of your steps is 
> 
> "Open Photoshop and your image then assign the profile "Grey Gamma
> 2.2" to the image."
> 
> I'm using a Mac, so I assume I'd do Gamma 1.8 here.  The more
> important question is, why does it make a difference what Grey
> profile you assign (or whether you leave the image in RGB mode, as
> some of my images as RGBs)?  I mean, I can easily change the profile,
> but I'm just curious as to why or if it makes a difference with the
> RIP.

Okay, 'nother EpsonRIP experimenter joining the conversation here and 
I have a vote on EpsonRIP's b&w output based on my first successful 
print:

I have not done any step-wedges to check for any microscopic color 
cross-overs in a step wedge, but I for one don't care about 
microscopic color cross-overs -- I only care about big crossovers 
that make my print look "digitized," and I don't see any of those in 
this print at all.

More importantly, Sandy's 100% correct about metamerism!! His Epson 
Stylus RIP Professional workflow produces a lovely, slightly warm, 
metamerism-free b&w print. I have a very keen eye for metamerism and 
was very frustrated with the default 2200 driver's lack of ability to 
fully deal with it. If Epson says the RIP does grayscale in the same 
manner as the regular Epson driver, then they are seriously 
uninformed. This is totally different.

I used a different paper than Sandy (semi-glossy), and I adjusted 
paper settings and paper-profiles accordingly, but other than that I 
followed his workflow exactly. The results would be considered 
slightly warm in anyone's book, but I'm ecstatic about that warmth 
because it's exactly what I was planning to aim for long-term anyway -
- a metamerism-free print that looks fairly neutral by itself but 
seems slightly warm compared to boring-old "K" black off a printing 
press. Great!

But don't expect to achieve these results by just glancing at Sandy's 
workflow and using your intuition to navigate the rest. I tried this 
at first, and I failed miserably. Listen -- there is a test of faith 
involved here, because this RIP is *very* *unintuitive* software 
designed for page layout applications like PageMaker and QuarkXPress -
- not Photoshop. Sandy's Epson RIP workflow does rely exclusively on 
Photoshop, and I followed this, but I felt like I was dabbling in 
black magic the whole time.

Here are some further caveats about Sandy's workflow that 
experimenters should keep in mind:

- Sandy is apparently starting with a photo that is in "Grayscale" 
mode (that is the only way I was able to assign the "Gray Gamma" 
profile), and this fact makes creative toning impossible. There may 
be a way to get toning control into an Epson RIP workflow, but don't 
expect that workflow to look very much like this particular workflow.

- When the Epson RIP installer asks what port you want to use, you 
will be tempted to select "USB 2200" or whatever sounds most like the 
port itself. DON'T DO THAT! You'll be bypassing an important part of 
your RIP (PSserver) if you do that. Instead, select "StylusRIP" as 
your port. "But that's not a port!" you say. Well, select it anyway. 
The RIP will then figure out all by itself where the physical port 
is, based on information it pulls from your regular Epson driver.

- Right after you assign the Gray Gamma profile to your image using 
Photoshop's Mode menu, Sandy's workflow advises you to "Open the 
RIP." I think what he means is "launch PSserver," which is part of 
the RIP.

- Steve Gray


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sanfo2003 
<SandyCornelius@c...>" <SandyCornelius@c...> wrote:
> This is the workflow I use (so far) to get results with the RIP 
using 
> stock inks that are, in my opinion, very close to if not equal to 
> that of a Pieziography print using quadtones -- and with negligible 
> metamerism. The OS on my computer is WIN98SE so descriptions of 
input 
> fields may not apply exactly to other OS's. There is some trickery 
> going on here; that is, I'm tricking the RIP into printing at 
> 2880x1440 dpi on Epson Enhanced Matte paper using Matte Black 
> Ultrachrome ink (the RIP doesn't want to let you do this). Okay, 
here 
> goes...
> 
> From the START button select <settings>, <printers> and then right-
> click on the icon for the RIP (lablelled "Epson StylusRIP 2200" on 
my 
> computer). This should bring up the RIP Properties dialog box. 
> Settings for this box:
> 
> General: default settings
> Details: default settings
> Color Management: Manual, defaulting to AdobeRGB1998
> Paper: default settings (and common sense, set what you want)
> Graphics: Resolution 2880x1440, all other fields default settings
> Fonts: default settings
> Device Options:
>      paper: EPSON Proofing Paper Semimatte_2880x1440
>      ink: color
>      high speed: off
>      CMYK simulation: SWOP
>      RGB simulation: Adobe RGB
>      Greyscale control: image
>      Auto cut: off
>      Borderless: off
> Installable options: Photo BK + Light BK
> 
> All other settings for the properties dialog box left at default 
> settings
> Click <apply>, <ok>
> 
> Open Photoshop and your image then assign the profile "Grey Gamma 
> 2.2" to the image.
> Open the RIP, select <edit>, <color manager> and use these settings:
> 
> CMYK boxes: default settings
> RGB: Custom
>      Icc Profile: browse (the "+" key) to enter the profile you use 
>      to print EEM at 2880 dpi on the 2200
> Media: EPSON Proofing Paper Semimatte_2880x1440 (room to experiment 
> here if you want)
> Icc Profile: CPS SP2200 PSM84 (this field defaults to the profile  
> associated with the media selected in the previous step, there is 
> room to experiment here, which I haven't done yet)
> 
> Calibration: -blank-
> 
> Paper Configuration: 95% (I had to adjust down the ink density 
to    
> compensate for the fact I'm printing on paper (EEM) different than 
> the media I selected above (proofing paper), this is part of the 
> trickery.
>      
> click <ok>
> 
> In Photoshop select <file>, <print with preview>, <color management>
> Your source space should indicate Gray Gamma 2.2
> For the print space select:
>      Profile: Adobe RGB (1998)
>      Intent: Relative Colorimetric
>      Use black point compensation: checked on
> Click the <print> button and then select the RIP as your printer 
> (mine's labelled "Epson SylusRIP 2200") and then select 
<properties> 

> and use the following settings:
> 
> Paper: common sense, select what applies. If you need to specify a 
> custom size of paper scroll over to one of the "custom" icons then 
> select the <custom> button to allow you to input your desired 
> dimensions.
> Graphics: Resolution 2880x1440, all other boxes to default settings
> Device Options should have defaulted to the following:
>      Media: EPSON proofing paper semimatte_2880x1440
>      Ink: color
>      High speed: off
>      CMYK simulation: SWOP
>      RGB simultation: RGB
>      Greyscale control: image
>      Auto cut: off
>      Borderless: off
> PostScript: default settings
> Watermark: default settings
> 
> Click <apply>, <ok> which should bring you to the Print dialog box
> Click <print> and you're on your way
> 
> I don't know why Epson doesn't want us printing at 2880 dpi with 
> Matte Black -- I just hope I'm not harming the print nozzles, so be 
> careful and remember this is a non-standard workflow (but then what 
> is?). Happy printing.

Hi there,
I've been following this forum for a couple of weeks. I'm trying to make a
decision (there is such a thing as too much information!)
I'm a commercial photographer and in general don't make a living out of
print sales- prints tend to be just a small part of sales. However I am kind
of a perfectionist and am always interested in providing the highest quality
I can and I have always loved to print B/W so this is both for professional
consideration as well as a keen interest in making beautiful digital (IJ)
prints. I just purchased the 2200 and have an old 1200. As far as I've been
able to gather so far I'm not going to be happy with Epson driver and
subsequent grayscale prints. Options so far appear to be... (I'm on a Mac.)
A.  Getting custom profiles for various paper combinations. This alone
probably won't get me the perfection I'm looking for. Completely neutral
please!!! No color casts or shifting please! Don't know if that's possible.
Apparently won't necessarily solve metamerism anyway.
B.  IP5 RIP - expensive (sort of) and mixed reviews for Mac as well as
little documentation...ie "it's difficult." That scares me. I can't handle
endless toying with no support. Will still need the custom profiles.
C.  Piezo- I can devote my 1200 to this purpose. Software not too expensive
(do I also need a RIP???) Inks look pricey. Reviews of free profiles sound
as if they're good. Is there something looming on the horizon here early
march?? Is this ultimately an expensive proposition??
D.  Epson driver- Sticking to my Epson driver and printer color management
and gritting my teeth. BTW I've toyed with the Gray Balancer and found my
printer actually has a nice smooth grayscale but there's a slight cyan cast
I can't improve upon... plus Gray Balancer  doesn't print out of OSX.
Doesn't solve the metamerism problem.

Would anyone like to make any helpful comments or suggestions. Am I leaving
out other options? I'm stuck and would truly appreciate a bit of help in
summary.
Thanks very much.

Sue

Sue Tallon Photography
suetallon@... 


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

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

From: "Sue Tallon" <suetallon@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Piezo vs. IP5 RIP

> However I am kind of a perfectionist...

I can relate to that. ;-)

> B.  IP5 RIP - expensive (sort of) and mixed reviews for Mac as well as
> little documentation...ie "it's difficult." That scares me. I can't handle
> endless toying with no support. Will still need the custom profiles.

I'm on a windows machine, but my experience has been that there is a very
sharp learning curve.  Once you're past that though, there is no endless
toying -- it really is quite easy to use.

There doesn't need to be such a painful initiation.  If Colorbyte would
simply write better documentation, things would improve dramatically.  When
I have used their support, they were excellent though.  There is also an
ImagePrint group on Yahoo now with about 200 members.

ImagePrint includes the profiles and there are *many* available for the
2200.  Check their ftp download area.  Plus, they will create custom
profiles for you free of charge.  I don't know if that offer extends past
the free support or if it requires a support contract.  Someone last year
posted that the free profiling was available beyond the initial support
timeframe, but I haven't tested that theory.

I'm convinced that IP is the best B&W printing solution out there for the
2200 at this point and is the only one that I've seen solve the metamerism
problem in B&W printing.

You might want to wait until after PMA to see what else is offered before
deciding though.

--Tom

> Would anyone like to make any helpful comments or suggestions. Am I 
leaving out other options? ...

Sounds to me like you've done your homework pretty well. When I hear 
the words "trouble free", "perfection" and "black and white" in the 
same sentence I think of Pieziography with Piezotone inks. But you're 
right, the inks are very expensive. Posts in this forum indicate a 
new version of Pieziography to be announced soon so stand by. Take 
the hype with a grain of salt and wait for users reports.

Epson has a RIP available for the 2200 that prints great (although 
not quite as great as Pieziography) black and white for $200 and uses 
the stock Epson inks. It seems some folks are having a hard time 
getting it to work right on their machine so beware. Personally, its 
worked great for me and I use it for all but my most treasured prints.
For those most treasured prints I'll use Pieziography, but only for 
those prints because of the cost of the ink -- and Pieziography uses 
a lot of ink. The Epson RIP is capable of making a black and white 
print that to me looks fantastic; that is, until the print is placed 
right next to a Pieziography print where if you look hard you can see 
a difference.

That's my two cents worth anyway.

Sue,

Cone is coming out with breaking news in a few days about a new piezo
system that will in his words "Make your jaw drop". You might want to
wait and see what thats all about.

I saw a spectacular print in our recent print exchange from a 2200, and
a RIP. THe rip is 500 bucks and no support after a year. It costs
another 500 bucks for updates and support per year. There was NO
metamerism in this print.

Jerry





Sue Tallon wrote:

> 
> Hi there,
> I've been following this forum for a couple of weeks. I'm trying to make a
> decision (there is such a thing as too much information!)
> I'm a commercial photographer and in general don't make a living out of
> print sales- prints tend to be just a small part of sales. However I am kind
> of a perfectionist and am always interested in providing the highest quality
> I can and I have always loved to print B/W so this is both for professional
> consideration as well as a keen interest in making beautiful digital (IJ)
> prints. I just purchased the 2200 and have an old 1200. As far as I've been
> able to gather so far I'm not going to be happy with Epson driver and
> subsequent grayscale prints. Options so far appear to be... (I'm on a Mac.)
> A.  Getting custom profiles for various paper combinations. This alone
> probably won't get me the perfection I'm looking for. Completely neutral
> please!!! No color casts or shifting please! Don't know if that's possible.
> Apparently won't necessarily solve metamerism anyway.
> B.  IP5 RIP - expensive (sort of) and mixed reviews for Mac as well as
> little documentation...ie "it's difficult." That scares me. I can't handle
> endless toying with no support. Will still need the custom profiles.
> C.  Piezo- I can devote my 1200 to this purpose. Software not too expensive
> (do I also need a RIP???) Inks look pricey. Reviews of free profiles sound
> as if they're good. Is there something looming on the horizon here early
> march?? Is this ultimately an expensive proposition??
> D.  Epson driver- Sticking to my Epson driver and printer color management
> and gritting my teeth. BTW I've toyed with the Gray Balancer and found my
> printer actually has a nice smooth grayscale but there's a slight cyan cast
> I can't improve upon... plus Gray Balancer  doesn't print out of OSX.
> Doesn't solve the metamerism problem.
> 
> Would anyone like to make any helpful comments or suggestions. Am I leaving
> out other options? I'm stuck and would truly appreciate a bit of help in
> summary.
> Thanks very much.
> 
> Sue
> 
> Sue Tallon Photography
> suetallon@...
> 
> [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 "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/

Epson 2200 inks are a fortune compared to the Piezotone inks...not even in
the same ball park...particularly if you use a CIS for the Piezotone
inks...I believe that your post below seemed to indicate the converse.  The
main advantage of the 2200 is being able to print on glossy stock and not
needing a dedicated BW printer...but you will need a rip like IP (or maybe
Epson's...haven't used it) to get near quad quality BW printing...but in the
long run the quad system will be cheaper to run for BW output if that is a
major factor for you.

Robert


On 2/24/03 5:44 PM, "sanfo2003 <SandyCornelius@...>"
<SandyCornelius@...> wrote:

>> Would anyone like to make any helpful comments or suggestions. Am I
> leaving out other options? ...
> 
> Sounds to me like you've done your homework pretty well. When I hear
> the words "trouble free", "perfection" and "black and white" in the
> same sentence I think of Pieziography with Piezotone inks. But you're
> right, the inks are very expensive. Posts in this forum indicate a
> new version of Pieziography to be announced soon so stand by. Take
> the hype with a grain of salt and wait for users reports.
> 
> Epson has a RIP available for the 2200 that prints great (although
> not quite as great as Pieziography) black and white for $200 and uses
> the stock Epson inks. It seems some folks are having a hard time
> getting it to work right on their machine so beware. Personally, its
> worked great for me and I use it for all but my most treasured prints.
> For those most treasured prints I'll use Pieziography, but only for
> those prints because of the cost of the ink -- and Pieziography uses
> a lot of ink. The Epson RIP is capable of making a black and white
> print that to me looks fantastic; that is, until the print is placed
> right next to a Pieziography print where if you look hard you can see
> a difference.
> 
> That's my two cents worth anyway.
> 
>

> Epson 2200 inks are a fortune compared to the Piezotone inks ...

Since Piezotone inks are not available for the 2200 I was comparing 
their cost as it applies to the 1280, since that is the machine I use 
Piezotone inks in. I can buy a 5-color cartridge for my 1280 for 
about $25 where a Piezotone grey cartridge lists for $48 -- almost 
double the cost -- and Pieziography uses more ink than the Epson 
software. Also, cleaning out the occassional clog doesn't help on the 
ink usage either. You are correct in saying the CIS system can save 
you money on ink but a Pieziography CIS kit costs an additional $250, 
then you need Pieziography software to go with it for another $150. 
Then the CIS inks are $44 each and you need five of those. If you add 
those numbers up, to get started in a Pieziography CIS system is just 
about what you'd pay for a new 2200. Pieziography works beautifully 
but I don't think its inexpensive.

On 2/24/03 10:01 PM, "sanfo2003 <SandyCornelius@...>"
<SandyCornelius@...> wrote:

>> Epson 2200 inks are a fortune compared to the Piezotone inks ...
> 
> Since Piezotone inks are not available for the 2200 I was comparing
> their cost as it applies to the 1280, since that is the machine I use
> Piezotone inks in. I can buy a 5-color cartridge for my 1280 for
> about $25 where a Piezotone grey cartridge lists for $48 -- almost
> double the cost -- and Pieziography uses more ink than the Epson
> software. Also, cleaning out the occassional clog doesn't help on the
> ink usage either. You are correct in saying the CIS system can save
> you money on ink but a Pieziography CIS kit costs an additional $250,
> then you need Pieziography software to go with it for another $150.
> Then the CIS inks are $44 each and you need five of those. If you add
> those numbers up, to get started in a Pieziography CIS system is just
> about what you'd pay for a new 2200. Pieziography works beautifully
> but I don't think its inexpensive.
> 
> 
Setting up a 1280 with CIS is about the same cost as a 2200 (the 1280 and
CIS are slightly less), but having and running both a 1280 with CIS and a
2200, I can say from experience that the quad system runs at about half the
cost of the 2200 for ink.   Even running a 7600 or 9600 where the
ultrachrome inks are much cheaper than in the 2200 costs more per ounce than
the Piezotone inks.  The new MIS VM 4.3 set will also be worth a look...but
my understanding is that it will probably be priced similar to the
Piezotones because the all pigment inks cost more.

Robert

For the web, for the web only, try 2.0.  That way you average both worlds.

Seth

=obviously affects your levels, curves, etc. decisions. I 
=learned the hard way when I was testing my web site and found 
=its photos looked great on Macs...and way too dark on PC 
=monitors. Not sure where the old adage that you use 1.8 on 
=Macs came from, but I now routinely ignore it, as it mainly

on 2/24/03 7:37 PM, Jerry Olson at jerryolson@... wrote:

> I saw a spectacular print in our recent print exchange from a 2200, and
> a RIP. THe rip is 500 bucks and no support after a year. It costs
> another 500 bucks for updates and support per year. There was NO
> metamerism in this print.

Jerry,

Are you referring to the IP5 RIP here? Can I get involved in the print
exchange?


     Sue

Sue Tallon Photography
suetallon@...






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

Sue, Image Print 5 was used. To get into an exchange, e mail Tom
O'connell, he has one every month.

His e mail address is: TomOC@...

The print I'm speaking of was by Thomas Fors, and his email is:  tom@...


Jerry

> > I saw a spectacular print in our recent print exchange from a 2200, and
> > a RIP. THe rip is 500 bucks and no support after a year. It costs
> > another 500 bucks for updates and support per year. There was NO
> > metamerism in this print.
> 
> Are you referring to the IP5 RIP here? Can I get involved in the print
> exchange?
> 
>      Sue
>