Digital BW, The Print

While tweaking some curves, and checking out some of the grayscale gradients
I've collected over the past few months I finally gave a serious look at
Tyler's Zees (which can be downloaded in the files section of this group on
Yahoogroups. Files: General image processing info: Tyler's Zees.

Below, I've included Tyler's explanation to me of how he made the chart, and
what to look for.

Anyway, the reason I bring it up is that it is a very challenging image to
print for my MIS VM workflow, and I would suspect any monochromatic
workflow. As I don't own the Piezo BW driver, I can't test how successful it
is at printing it, and I am most curious to know. I've been able to pass
Cone's "Piezo Challenge" test image in the past with Roark's curves, but I
believe this "test" is a greater challenge than that.

I encourage anyone who's interested in really seeing what their workflow is
capable of handling to give this test image a whirl. I'd also be interested
in hearing how well you all fare. I'm particularly curious to hear how well
Piezo handles it, at least for papers with their own profiles, as well as
any of the other workflows that have been discussed of late (black ink only,
Wolf's curves, Color ink Duo tones, etc.).

In my own case, using Roark's VMQNC curve on my 1160, with my own custom
gamma curve (which gives me my best results so far), I'm able to get
discreet separation between all but three squares, and reasonably discreet Z
separation in all but five squares.

Now I can make good looking prints in spite of this, so failure to excel at
this test is by no means cause to chuck your system, but it is terribly
revealing of where flaws live. Unfortunately it only helps us recognize
where to look for trouble, but not how to fix it....

Todd Flashner

This from Tyler Boley:

Within each square is a gradation of 5% right to left. In other words,
the bottom right square gradates from 1% to 5%, the next square from 6%
to 10%, with enough total squares to get to 100%. The last (upper left)
square is 96% to 100%.
Within each square is a Z made up of solid value of the middle
percentage of that square. So the Z in the bottom right square is 3%,
the one in the next square 8%, etc.. It was created in the 2.2 gamma
gray space.
I made this file to evaluate my sep curves on paper. The workflow is
applied to the file, and printed.
On the print, first look for a delineation from one square to the next
for overall gradation problems. Secondly, each Z should appear against a
background square that is faintly lighter behind it on the right, and
faintly darker behind it on the left. I've found areas that need work
are fairly well revealed with this.
Dan decided it was useful for actual curve development by eye on the
monitor if you are working with RGB quad profiles, that's why he put it
with his procedure.
But I use it mostly for verification, it seems to show me specifically
where things need attention that are creating problems in images. The
other interesting thing is that often curves seem fine, then suddenly a
different sort of image looks bad, but this will show almost any problem.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...> wrote:

...I'm particularly curious to hear how well
> Piezo handles it, at least for papers with their own profiles

It never occurred to me to try it since I rarely use it. You peaked my curiousity so I tried it with a 3000 on EAM with the new 
EAM profile.
Pretty impressive, as fanatical as I am about this stuff, I can barely approach this. I can't imagine the hours, expensive 
hardware and software, and expertise that go into this system and profiles. I can understand people finding it and the inks 
outside their budgets, or not liking warm prints, but I think it's important to realize how much goes into this and the 
knowledgeable support staff before dissing them for their prices. Sorry, I had to say it.

> Now I can make good looking prints in spite of this, so failure to excel at
> this test is by no means cause to chuck your system

Exactly!

, but it is terribly
> revealing of where flaws live. Unfortunately it only helps us recognize
> where to look for trouble, but not how to fix it....

So many fun ways to screw it up, so hard to fix it...
Tyler

I'm particularly curious to hear how well
> Piezo handles it, at least for papers with their own profiles, as well as
> any of the other workflows that have been discussed of late (black ink only,



I just tried it on an 1160 using EAM with Piezo inks and the new driver 
(which has a profile for EAM).  Every single Z separates...

Phil
http://philbard.com

> Pretty impressive, as fanatical as I am about this stuff, I can barely
> approach this. I can't imagine the hours, expensive
> hardware and software, and expertise that go into this system and profiles.

Thank Tyler and Phil,

Very impressive indeed.

Tyler this raises some questions for me. Do you think this is enough to have
you use the Piezo driver more in the future? If not, what in your workflow
do you prefer? Is it mostly for pride in craft, in feeling good knowing
you've built your system on your own, preference for habit; or are there
visible benefits to your workflow, in your prints, to your eyes. I ask, not
to put you on the spot in any way, but to help me sort out where I stand in
the face of this revelation. It gets to what are the important, or crucial,
components of a workflow. Yes: does one like their prints, is the final
arbiter, but what are the components of a good print system? (Please don't
anybody collapse this conversation with the one titled "Technically Perfect
Print". I don't care to discuss what does or doesn't make a print nice
(that's too personal), I want to discuss what makes a workflow or system
nice, which will allow for many different interpretations of an image, or
vision). Things like: long tonal range, discreetly separated tonal values,
pleasing color, ease of use, cost, flexibility, etc. So even for you, the
Piezo driver would seem to be at least equal to your present workflow in
regard to these characteristics. But is it enough to make you reevaluate
your use of it, or is there a component, or an intangible, or a visible
tangible, that I'm not considering, that outweighs some of the benefit of
discretely separated boxes and Zees? Do you know what I mean?

Todd

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...> wrote:

> Tyler this raises some questions for me. Do you think this is enough to have
> you use the Piezo driver more in the future? If not, what in your workflow
> do you prefer? Is it mostly for pride in craft, in feeling good knowing
> you've built your system on your own, preference for habit; or are there
> visible benefits to your workflow, in your prints, to your eyes.

I ask myself this regularly, and double checking against the Piezo driver is certainly something I do from time to time 
though I hadn't done it with Zees. Because PressReady puts down so much ink, and because I can make K a bit richer by 
adding another ink to it, I feel more confident I have maxed out the ink/paper Dmax capability. The difference is not great 
though. There are many different "dotless" ways to make many of the grays by how the inks are combined. Since the inks 
are very slightly different in hue and react to the coatings to varying degrees, I have a print color I slightly prefer. Am I 
seeing what I want to see because I'm reluctant to abandon years of work? Quite possibly, I'm probably not the objective 
judge.

I ask, not
> to put you on the spot in any way, but to help me sort out where I stand in
> the face of this revelation.

No no! these are important questions I try to honestly ask myself.
I have yet to see a quad output of Zees that doesn't have some little "problem". The niggles in mine are simply different 
than the niggles in the Piezo output, so given the above I'll stay with my workflow for now.

> tangible, that I'm not considering, that outweighs some of the benefit of
> discretely separated boxes and Zees? Do you know what I mean?

I hope so, did I?
Since Martin asked me some time ago to post my workflow, and because people find useful tidbits in workflows that are 
otherwise irrelevant, I did post it. I don't recommend it though, if you like the look of Piezography. I mean really, why 
bother? For developement with other inks, perhaps it's more relevant.
I already had the tools, some grasp of the workflow, and an obsession with getting under the hood (as Martin puts it). Had I 
not arrived at something I prefer, I hope my family and friends would have staged an intervention by now.
Really, I'm more concerned with creative output (what? you don't believe me?). When step wedges and Zees emerging from 
my printer were replaced by images it was a happy day. But I was the same way in the darkroom, and talented friends that 
bought off the shelf chemcals and papers produced amazing work with very standard procedures still couldn't make me 
stop this crap. I guess we all have to go about it our own ways...
Tyler

Tyler,

Thanks for the additional insights into your workflow. I hadn't 
realized that you methods gave you the ability to tweak the color of 
the Piezo inks.

This also jogged my memory to put your original post in the "Files" 
section.

I have put it in Files>Image Processing.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner 
<tflash@e...> wrote:
> 
> > Tyler this raises some questions for me. Do you think this is 
enough to have
> > you use the Piezo driver more in the future? If not, what in your 
workflow
> > do you prefer? Is it mostly for pride in craft, in feeling good 
knowing
> > you've built your system on your own, preference for habit; or 
are there
> > visible benefits to your workflow, in your prints, to your eyes.
> 
> I ask myself this regularly, and double checking against the Piezo 
driver is certainly something I do from time to time 
> though I hadn't done it with Zees. Because PressReady puts down so 
much ink, and because I can make K a bit richer by 
> adding another ink to it, I feel more confident I have maxed out 
the ink/paper Dmax capability. The difference is not great 
> though. There are many different "dotless" ways to make many of the 
grays by how the inks are combined. Since the inks 
> are very slightly different in hue and react to the coatings to 
varying degrees, I have a print color I slightly prefer. Am I 
> seeing what I want to see because I'm reluctant to abandon years of 
work? Quite possibly, I'm probably not the objective 
> judge.
> 
> I ask, not
> > to put you on the spot in any way, but to help me sort out where 
I stand in
> > the face of this revelation.
> 
> No no! these are important questions I try to honestly ask myself.
> I have yet to see a quad output of Zees that doesn't have some 
little "problem". The niggles in mine are simply different 
> than the niggles in the Piezo output, so given the above I'll stay 
with my workflow for now.
> 
> > tangible, that I'm not considering, that outweighs some of the 
benefit of
> > discretely separated boxes and Zees? Do you know what I mean?
> 
> I hope so, did I?
> Since Martin asked me some time ago to post my workflow, and 
because people find useful tidbits in workflows that are 
> otherwise irrelevant, I did post it. I don't recommend it though, 
if you like the look of Piezography. I mean really, why 
> bother? For developement with other inks, perhaps it's more 
relevant.
> I already had the tools, some grasp of the workflow, and an 
obsession with getting under the hood (as Martin puts it). Had I 
> not arrived at something I prefer, I hope my family and friends 
would have staged an intervention by now.
> Really, I'm more concerned with creative output (what? you don't 
believe me?). When step wedges and Zees emerging from 
> my printer were replaced by images it was a happy day. But I was 
the same way in the darkroom, and talented friends that 
> bought off the shelf chemcals and papers produced amazing work with 
very standard procedures still couldn't make me 
> stop this crap. I guess we all have to go about it our own ways...
> Tyler

on 9/20/01 1:06 PM, Tyler Boley wrote:

>> tangible, that I'm not considering, that outweighs some of the benefit of
>> discretely separated boxes and Zees? Do you know what I mean?
> 
> I hope so, did I?

Yes you did, thank you.

BTW, I was the same way in the darkroom. I hated my friends that could shoot
Plus-x, develop it in straight D-76, and some version of variable contrast
paper, developed in develop 1:2, left untoned. All right out of Photo 101,
and read off the products label. Not only were their results excellent, I
was jealous that they could be satisfied with the simplicity of it. I've
always got to try to beat the system. I'll never learn. ;-)

Todd

Oops, Same in the darkroom as you, is what I meant. I didn't mean to make it
sound like that comparison was original to me.

Todd

> 
>>> tangible, that I'm not considering, that outweighs some of the benefit of
>>> discretely separated boxes and Zees? Do you know what I mean?
>> 
>> I hope so, did I?
> 
> Yes you did, thank you.
> 
> BTW, I was the same way in the darkroom. I hated my friends that could shoot
> Plus-x, develop it in straight D-76, and some version of variable contrast
> paper, developed in develop 1:2, left untoned. All right out of Photo 101,
> and read off the products label. Not only were their results excellent, I
> was jealous that they could be satisfied with the simplicity of it. I've
> always got to try to beat the system. I'll never learn. ;-)
> 
> Todd
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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 9/19/01 9:11 PM, Todd Flashner wrote:

> Anyway, the reason I bring it up is that it is a very challenging image to
> print for my MIS VM workflow, and I would suspect any monochromatic
> workflow.


Just an update to my tests.

Black ink only from an Epson 1270, OEM ink: Very poor performance, few well
delineated Zees, you can really see what tones that grain effect comes from
(3/4 tones).

MIS VM Black only Epson 1160: Mostly as above but even poorer 3/4 tone
performance. I suspect this has more to do with how the 1160 handles the
Black Only function than the different inks.

1270 OEM inks, with good custom RGB profile: pretty good tonal delineation
throughout, would be good if it weren't for the color drift.

Todd Flashner