Digital BW, The Print

I am using the OPM/IJC software on both the 1280 and the 2200 right 
now. So far, I absolutely love what this softwarte has enabled me to 
achieve in my sepia-toned prints, after scares with green-shifiting, 
metameric Lyson Small Gamut dye inks.

I've personally found most of my initial prints to be more impressive 
on the 1280 - either due to smaller dots or due to greater sensitivity 
to detail in subtle transitions in the mid-tones. Perhaps not 
surprising considering there's just two black ink cartridges. However, 
I too am having problems with black banding on my 1280, and it's 
currently down while Joe at Bowhaus tries to remedy it.

For a few prints, the 2200 has produced beautiful comparable prints, 
but these seem to be ones with either very fine grain, or somehow, the 
mid-tone transitions work fine. I love the fact that with the 2200, I 
can control the actual color of the sepia with the light magenta and 
yellow (2 on light magenta, 1 on yellow in the IJC), getting a more 
chocolatey tone than I get with the yellower sepia of the MIS VM sepia 
I use with the MIS FS quadtones on my 1280. I also love the 
comparative speed of the 2200 - 15 minutes to get a 12x15 priont as 
opposed to one hour on the 1280. However, quality of the print is the 
most important thing at the end of the day.

So once the last few bugs - ie the bloody black banding - are ironed 
out of the IJC software for the 1280, it's going to be - hopefully - 
my salvation.

So my question is - who else out there has tried the OPM/IJC software 
on both the 1280 and 2200 and what have been your comparative r

Nick,

I don't have black banding problems on my 1280 or 2200 when used with 
OPM. However, in recent testing I have found that OPM likes 720 dpi files 
best, preferably in 16bit. Have you given that a try? For the purposes of 
testing, you can just try to res up an existing file in Photoshop, using bicubic 
interpolation. 

I am guessing you already did whatever it takes to clean the heads, including 
under the carriage, and have tested for different positions of the head lever. 
IOW, I assume you've done everything to eliminate any actual hardware / ink 
delivery problems, and have narrowed the issue to software, right?



On another issue - I am a bit confused in reading your post. You say:


> I've personally found most of my initial prints to be more impressive 
> on the 1280 - either due to smaller dots or due to greater sensitivity 
> to detail in subtle transitions in the mid-tones. Perhaps not 
> surprising considering there's just two black ink cartridges. 

The 1280 does not have 2 black ink carts (or shouldn't). You may have meant 
something else?...


Regarding 1280 vs 2200, depending on what inkset you load, the 2200 will 
have a technological advantage (speed among others as you noted), but the 
1280 is capable of very fine results. I use mine with Selenium Piezotones and 
- once properly profiled - love the results.  The problems I used to have were 
related to the canned profiles that came with the old piezo export plug-in 
which produced simply ridiculous prints. IJC took care of all that very quickly!

Antonis



Antonis

Hi Antonis

Thanks for the response. Firstly, I shall try the 720dpi 16 bit 
scenario. Joe had not mentioned that to me yet. And yes, the banding 
in the black problem seems to be the software, as it only happens in 
IJC. (Clean nozzle checks straight after banded prints). The bizarre 
thing is I got 20 fantastic prints with no banding in the blacks until 
one day, when it started. 

Re 2 black ink cartridges in the 1280 - no, that was my confusingly 
written paragraph. I was referring to the 2200.

Antonis,

I've just started experimenting with OPM on my 2200 and I'm not sure 
what you meant below - should the file actually be set to 720 dpi or 
should the printer output be set to 720 (as opposed to 1440 or 2880)? 
I haven't purchased IJC so I can't control the curves supplied with 
OPM but I do like the Blender option where I can mix warm and cool 
curves. I've found 70% warm and 30% cool to give a nice neutral (to 
my eye) tone.

I've also FINALLY successfully installed Roy Harrington's QuadToneRIP 
(many thanks Roy for all your troubleshooting help!) and while his 
neutral curve is warmer than the above mix in OPM, the tonal 
gradations seem smoother. Now for some curve tweaking!

Diana Park
dip@...

*********************

>Message: 18
>    Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 02:58:50 -0000
>    From: "Antonis Ricos" <antonisphoto@...>
>Subject: Re: OPM/IJC on 1280 vs 2200
>
>Nick,
>
>I don't have black banding problems on my 1280 or 2200 when used with
>OPM. However, in recent testing I have found that OPM likes 720 dpi files
>best, preferably in 16bit. Have you given that a try? For the purposes of
>testing, you can just try to res up an existing file in Photoshop, 
>using bicubic
>interpolation.
(rest of message deleted)

Diana,

I have discovered that some images look sharpest at 720 dpi when printed 
with OPM  on the 2200. If you open your image in Photoshop and check the 
resolution it should read 720 dpi. If not, you can res it up using bicubic 
interpolation. Then try printing again.  

This may or may not make a big difference in your print depending on how 
close you were to 720 dpi before you resed up.  It also depends on what kind 
of image it is - how grainy, how sharp, if it has sharp diagonals... etc.
Also, if you still see problems, it's worth  setting the image to 16 bits and 
comparing prints.  

Testing tip:you can crop a small area where a problem shows up and print it 
over and over on the same sheet with different settings. You set the x,y 
positions in OPM to avoid overlaps.

Just to be clear about the 720dpi "preference": It is unrelated to the amount of 
information a scan or digital camera file contains; it has to do with matching  
pixels-to-dots and driving the printer at its native hardware resolution. The 
Epson driver (for the 2200 at least) does this interpolation internally, so no 
matter what res you throw at it, the image will be made to look its "best" as far 
as the printer goes.

I am very interested in your comparisons between Roy's RIP and OPM - 
especially since they share some DNA between them ! (and didn't that 
originate at MIT?....) The tonal gradations in OPM are mostly the result of a 
particular profile and whether your particular system performs as well as mine 
(since I made the first 2200 profiles).
 In theory, you are supposed to have IJC and be able to tweak the profiles 
both for color and for smoothness. This system is really aimed at putting an 
end to canned profiles of any kind (including its own) ! 

As we discuss this further, it would help if you mentioned your operating 
system and other details of your setup.

If you are experiencing problems with the 2200, you may want to write to 
bowhaus and see if they will let you try the current beta which has some fixes 
for the 2200. Their email for OPM / IJC is: software@...

Antonis


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Diana Park 
<dip@m...> wrote:

> Antonis,
> 
> I've just started experimenting with OPM on my 2200 and I'm not sure 
> what you meant below - should the file actually be set to 720 dpi or 
> should the printer output be set to 720 (as opposed to 1440 or 2880)? 
> I haven't purchased IJC so I can't control the curves supplied with 
> OPM but I do like the Blender option where I can mix warm and cool 
> curves. I've found 70% warm and 30% cool to give a nice neutral (to 
> my eye) tone.
> 
> I've also FINALLY successfully installed Roy Harrington's QuadToneRIP 
> (many thanks Roy for all your troubleshooting help!) and while his 
> neutral curve is warmer than the above mix in OPM, the tonal 
> gradations seem smoother. Now for some curve tweaking!
> 
> Diana Park
> dip@M...
>

Hi,
I am shooting 35mm and am hoping to also start medium format shortly.

The thing is, I only have an Epson 1660 - and no printer yet. Obviously, my present scanner is of little use beyond my web site for 35mm and I'm going to have to upgrade, prior to my next investments, hopefully a Mamiya TLR and an Epson 1160 or 1290 printer.

For financial reasons, I can't see any other option for a scanner that will do everything (a Nikon is way out of my price-range) - but how adequate have people found the 3200 for 35mm BW negs? What size can it print to with sharpness?

It's probably hobson's choice anyway, as I can't see any other machine being in my price range.

Just thought I'd ask, anyway - sorry it it's been discussed before.

thanks,
Richard

   mailto:r.smallfield@... 
   http://photos.smallfield.vze.com
   http://smallfield.vze.com

   "Fall seven times, stand up eight."
   --Japanese Proverb

At 09:46 AM 4/19/03 +1200, you wrote:
>Hi,
>I am shooting 35mm and am hoping to also start medium format shortly.
>
>The thing is, I only have an Epson 1660 - and no printer yet. Obviously, 
>my present scanner is of little use beyond my web site for 35mm and I'm 
>going to have to upgrade, prior to my next investments, hopefully a Mamiya 
>TLR and an Epson 1160 or 1290 printer.
>
>For financial reasons, I can't see any other option for a scanner that 
>will do everything (a Nikon is way out of my price-range) - but how 
>adequate have people found the 3200 for 35mm BW negs? What size can it 
>print to with sharpness?
>
>It's probably hobson's choice anyway, as I can't see any other machine 
>being in my price range.
>
>Just thought I'd ask, anyway - sorry it it's been discussed before.
>
>thanks,
>Richard
>
>    mailto:r.smallfield@...
>    http://photos.smallfield.vze.com
>    http://smallfield.vze.com
>
>    "Fall seven times, stand up eight."
>    --Japanese Proverb

Richard,

I have a review of the E2450 on my web page.  This is a draft of a review 
for the E3200.  Run, don't walk to buy one!

The Epson 3200 Photo scanner.

I scanned some of the same pictures I used to test the Epson 2450 scanner 
with the new Epson 3200 Photo scanner.  The scanner and Silverfast software 
combination are excellent and should compare favorably with dedicated film 
scanners. The objective for panoramic films, is of course, to achieve high 
resolution scans of long negatives.

At its claimed 3200 DPI optical scan it outputs a 6-1/4 in long 35mm image 
to 8-1/2 x 57 inches at 350DPI.without interpolation.  Quad-tone black and 
white prints which rendered quite well scanned with the E2450 are 
noticeably improved.   A notable improvement was that the higher resolution 
scan renders small, contrasty details better. Credit is due the bundled 
Silverfast 6.0 SE software which nails the exposure and color balance very 
well on "auto" mode and allows fine  adjustments when needed.  The auto 
sharpening is very good for pictures that require the same sharpness over-all.

Simply put, the improvement over the E2450 is similar to the difference 
between 35mm film prints and 120 film prints.  What a gift!


Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us

on 4/18/2003 9:40 PM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:21:55 -0000
> From: "Antonis Ricos" <antonisphoto@...>
> Subject: Re: OPM/IJC on 2200



What are OPM and IJC?  Where do you get them? What do they cost? What
printers will they work on? Mac or PC?

I assume that they're some kind of rip software for epsons.

Thanks
 
-Bruce

Bruce,

this is Mac OS (8 and 9) software that allows you to print bw  inkjet prints from 
a variety of Epsons using any ink and paper combination of your choice. Its 
main strength is that you can make your own profiles and not rely on "canned" 
ones - something that has long been a reality for high-end color printing. 

We had a discussion here about all this - you may search back to my 
message 28545 - a few weeks ago when OPM (OpenPrintMaker) was 
released as a free download.  IJC (InkJetControl) sells for around $200 and is 
the part that  allows profile making (useable only with OPM).

The download site is:
http://www.bowhaus.com/inkjetcontrol/

and further info can be obtained from the company at:
software@...

I have been involved as a beta tester and have certainly seen the benefits of 
this software solution across many of my printers, so I am a very enthusiastic 
supporter of its development. It is still in release v.1, with many improvements 
to come, but it works well enough for now to have taken over from any 
previous software that I tried for bw (the piezo plug-in and ImagePrint).


Antonis

> What are OPM and IJC?  Where do you get them? What do they cost? What
> printers will they work on? Mac or PC?
> 
> I assume that they're some kind of rip software for epsons.
> 
> Thanks
>  
> -Bruce

Hello Diana;

I tried to restore this thread under its original subject heading and so repeated 
our previous messages below for anyone who wants to follow this. It's easy to 
hit reply and end up with "Digest" as your subject!.... 

I am glad you saw an improvement in your results with the resing-up tip. There 
is continuing development on OPM, with a beta version currently being 
tested for the 2200 (no new features, just tweaks to address some of the 
issues users have reported). Should you buy IJC, you will find that it is 
capable of controlling up to 7 ink channels with smooth spline curves that 
can accept 20+ points each (normally 2 or 3 are plenty). That gives 
unprecedented controll over the amount and combination  of inks to be laid 
down for each digital value in your image file.  As has been discussed here 
before, for the full benefit  you would need a densitometer, but good results 
are also possible by visually comparing your output to a good print of the 
26-step grayscale.

A note about comparing printing software: Comparisons between OPM and 
any other bw printer driver would generally have to assume perfect profiles 
for each, so that the drivers are in fact compared, not the profiles. This gets 
tricky if drivers that rely on canned profiles are fixed to a certain performance, 
while OPM uses custom profiles (made in IJC) that can take into account 
every nuance of your particular set up. This is less of an issue with printers 
like the 2200 using OEM carts, and a bigger problem with CIS-equipped 
desktops and large formats.

I hope you can let us know what you think of the results your are getting.


Antonis


------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Antonis,

I took your advice about rezzing up a file to 720 dpi and changing to 
16 bits and I got MUCH better results with OPM, at least for 1 
particular image with lots of thin strong diagonals. There had been 
noticeable (but fine) stairsteps when the file was 300 dpi and 8 
bits. The same file printed with Roy's QuadToneRIP under OSX didn't 
have the stairstep problems though - maybe his driver can rez up the 
file like the Epson driver.

I think both programs/drivers have alot of potential. I haven't 
purchased Inkjet Control (yet) but the fact that their software lets 
you tweak every ink channel is very nice. With QuadToneRip, you tweak 
4 channels in CMYK mode, regardless of printer model (at least that 
is the case for the 2200 curves). At least with both programs I'm 
seeing no metamerism with the Matte Black ink on EAM and Eclipse 
Satine, whereas the Epson driver always gives me greens and/or 
magentas!

By the way, I have a Mac G4 and am running OPM under OS 9.1. I run 
Roy's QuadToneRIP under OSX 10.4.2.

Diana







--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis Ricos" 
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> Diana,
> 
> I have discovered that some images look sharpest at 720 dpi when printed 
> with OPM  on the 2200. If you open your image in Photoshop and check the 
> resolution it should read 720 dpi. If not, you can res it up using bicubic 
> interpolation. Then try printing again.  
> 
> This may or may not make a big difference in your print depending on how 
> close you were to 720 dpi before you resed up.  It also depends on what 
kind 
> of image it is - how grainy, how sharp, if it has sharp diagonals... etc.
> Also, if you still see problems, it's worth  setting the image to 16 bits and 
> comparing prints.  
> 
> Testing tip:you can crop a small area where a problem shows up and print it 
> over and over on the same sheet with different settings. You set the x,y 
> positions in OPM to avoid overlaps.
> 
> Just to be clear about the 720dpi "preference": It is unrelated to the amount 
of 
> information a scan or digital camera file contains; it has to do with matching  
> pixels-to-dots and driving the printer at its native hardware resolution. The 
> Epson driver (for the 2200 at least) does this interpolation internally, so no 
> matter what res you throw at it, the image will be made to look its "best" as 
far 
> as the printer goes.
> 
> I am very interested in your comparisons between Roy's RIP and OPM - 
> especially since they share some DNA between them ! (and didn't that 
> originate at MIT?....) The tonal gradations in OPM are mostly the result of a 
> particular profile and whether your particular system performs as well as 
mine 
> (since I made the first 2200 profiles).
>  In theory, you are supposed to have IJC and be able to tweak the profiles 
> both for color and for smoothness. This system is really aimed at putting an 
> end to canned profiles of any kind (including its own) ! 
> 
> As we discuss this further, it would help if you mentioned your operating 
> system and other details of your setup.
> 
> If you are experiencing problems with the 2200, you may want to write to 
> bowhaus and see if they will let you try the current beta which has some 
fixes 

> for the 2200. Their email for OPM / IJC is: software@b...
> 
> Antonis
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Diana Park 
> <dip@m...> wrote:
> > Antonis,
> > 
> > I've just started experimenting with OPM on my 2200 and I'm not sure 
> > what you meant below - should the file actually be set to 720 dpi or 
> > should the printer output be set to 720 (as opposed to 1440 or 2880)? 
> > I haven't purchased IJC so I can't control the curves supplied with 
> > OPM but I do like the Blender option where I can mix warm and cool 
> > curves. I've found 70% warm and 30% cool to give a nice neutral (to 
> > my eye) tone.
> > 
> > I've also FINALLY successfully installed Roy Harrington's QuadToneRIP 
> > (many thanks Roy for all your troubleshooting help!) and while his 
> > neutral curve is warmer than the above mix in OPM, the tonal 
> > gradations seem smoother. Now for some curve tweaking!
> > 
> > Diana Park
> > dip@M...
> >

Antonis,

Whoops - sorry about that! I usually change the Subject line before 
hitting the send button (I get the digest), but I must have forgotten 
last night.

Carl Schofield just sent me some of his tweaked profiles for OPM and 
the one test print I've done so far is really neutral to my eye (I 
used the blender with his warm and cool curves, 50% each).

As for comparing different printer drivers, I think the profiles play 
a very important part because the idea of a "perfect" print is so 
subjective. That's why OPM/IJC and QuadToneRIP both offer alot of 
promise because of the ability to tweak profiles to suit individual 
tastes. I'm really thrilled to have so many other options to the 
Epson driver with its dubious Grey Balancer software which apparently 
doesn't even work with the American 2200's!

Diana

>Message: 7
>    Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 19:40:24 -0000
>    From: "Antonis Ricos" <antonisphoto@...>
>Subject: Re: OPM/IJC on 2200
>
>Hello Diana;
>
>I tried to restore this thread under its original subject heading 
>and so repeated
>our previous messages below for anyone who wants to follow this. It's easy to
>hit reply and end up with "Digest" as your subject!....
><snip>
>A note about comparing printing software: Comparisons between OPM and
>any other bw printer driver would generally have to assume perfect profiles
>for each, so that the drivers are in fact compared, not the 
>profiles. This gets
>tricky if drivers that rely on canned profiles are fixed to a 
>certain performance,
>while OPM uses custom profiles (made in IJC) that can take into account
>every nuance of your particular set up. This is less of an issue with printers
>like the 2200 using OEM carts, and a bigger problem with CIS-equipped
>desktops and large formats.
>
>I hope you can let us know what you think of the results your are getting.
>
>
>Antonis

Diana,

glad to hear Carl's profiles worked for you. I haven't uploaded them here 
because I was going to check them with a densitometer, then i moved on to 
tests of yet another beta with newer profiles and never went back!   
However, from a testing point of view, it's useful to have input from as many 
users as possible, so your reports help.

As for the Epson driver...  it's good mostly for the Print Utility!


Antonis  





> Carl Schofield just sent me some of his tweaked profiles for OPM and 
> the one test print I've done so far is really neutral to my eye (I 
> used the blender with his warm and cool curves, 50% each).
> 
.......

>I'm really thrilled to have so many other options to the 
> Epson driver with its dubious Grey Balancer software which apparently 
> doesn't even work with the American 2200's!
> 
> Diana

Hi

Earlier I communicated directly with Carl Schofield about a problem I observed using 
OPM. His response called attention to this thread and pointed out that Diana 
apparently encountered the same problem. Our correspondence is shown below.

As a result of his inputs I did a test that  responds to Antonis's suggestion to Diana. 
Here is what I reported to Carl.

" I did print your Milkweed file (Wonderful Photograph). Printed at the original 8-Bit/
360 dpi configuration there was serious "stairsteps" in the text - particularly in the 
legs of the "M". The photo itself was OK to the eye, but with a loupe even there some 
starstepping was evident. I reprinted the image at 16-Bit/360 dpi and the results 
were near perfect even when examined with the loupe. I don't understand what 
happens when an 8-Bit file is changed in PS to a 16-bit file. It's not clear whether 
artificiality is introduced as during res-ing up.  But apparently, it does make a big 
difference to OPM.

 I did a series of prints of a particularly troublesome section of my test file varying 
Bit-Depth and Resolution. The test file was originally 8-Bit/240 dpi (which by the way 
printed very well through the Epson 2200 driver but poorly through OPM). I printed 
the section all the way up to 16-Bit/720 dpi. My conclusions were that, to the naked 
eye, increasing the resolution to 480 dpi at 8-Bit or just converting from 8 to 16-Bit 
yields a satisfactory print. With  an 8x loupe, the criteria increases to 8-Bit/720 dpi or 
16-Bit/360 to 480 dpi.  I think I could still see improvement even up to 16-Bit/720 
dpi, although only marginal improvement.

The results indicated that changing from 8 to 16-Bit yields roughly the same 
improvement as doubling the resolution. So, for the Milkweed print at 16-Bit, I am 
seeing about the same fidelity as when I print at 8-Bit/720 dpi. The results with my 
test file are comparable."

Doug Nielsen
Epson 2200
MacOSX 10.2.6/Classic 
Blue&White G3
____________________________________________________________

Here is the previous correspondence with Carl:

From: Douglas Nielsen <douglasnielsen@...>
Date: Fri May 16, 2003  11:21:15  AM America/Phoenix
To: scho@...
Subject: Bowhaus Inkjet Control and OPM Software

Carl

I have seen your posts in the Canon SLR Talk, Epson Talk and Mac Tools dpreview 
forums regarding the Bowhaus software. I have downloaded  the OJC and OPM 
software and have successfully printed a number of samples  using your profiles. I 
share your enthusiasm with the results. No color castes and extremely little 
metamerism if any. Particularly impressive to me is the ability to blend your warm and 
cool profiles to the mix of my choice. However, I encountered a significant snag.

I am not knowledgeable enough to understand the cause, but prints produced with 
OPM and your profiles appear to be of very low resolution - ie "jaggies" are clearly 
visible. Diagonals in the images as well as in text text are unacceptably 
"stairstepped". Since OPM doesn't provide any user control of resolution, maybe OPM 
just does not print at a high enough resolution. However I suppose the problem could 
also be that OPM uses a dither pattern that produces an apparent limited resolution, 
or possibly printing using only four of the inks could leave "holes" in the dither 
pattern. Finally the problem could just be with me or my system. (I am running OSX 
10.2.6 and Classic on a Blue and White G3) In any event this is a show stopper for me.

All that said my questions are 1. Have you observed similar results? and 2. Do you 
know of any solution?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Doug Nielsen
Albuquerque NM


From: Carl Schofield <scho@...>
Date: Fri May 16, 2003  1:04:27  PM America/Phoenix
To: Douglas Nielsen <douglasnielsen@...>
Subject: Re: Bowhaus Inkjet Control and OPM Software

Doug,

I did find one thread in the Digital BW archive where an OPM user ran into a similar 
problem with stairstepping.  I copied the content of the thread below along with the 
link.  Suggestion to her was use 16 bit mode and increase resolution to 720 dpi.  As I 
said earlier, I haven't found it necessary to use high resolution (more than 360 dpi) 
but there may be some strange things going on with particular systems where this 
helps.  Also, Bowhaus told me that there is an upcoming upgrade for both bug fixes 
and OS X compatibility so when the newer version is ready it might be worth trying.  
Finally, I uploaded an 8 bit greyscale tif file to my public filesharing folder (http://
homepage.mac.com/scho/FileSharing2.html) that contains both an image and some 
text with strong diagonals (it is actually a cropped section from a larger triptych 
image file) that prints fine with OPM and my profiles on my 2200.  The file name is 
"milkweed.tif".  You might want to try printing this file and see if you still have 
problems with jaggies.

Carl

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/29265


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis Ricos" 
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:

> Hello Diana;
> 
> I tried to restore this thread under its original subject heading and so repeated 
> our previous messages below for anyone who wants to follow this. It's easy to 
> hit reply and end up with "Digest" as your subject!.... 
> 
> I am glad you saw an improvement in your results with the resing-up tip. There 
> is continuing development on OPM, with a beta version currently being 
> tested for the 2200 (no new features, just tweaks to address some of the 
> issues users have reported). Should you buy IJC, you will find that it is 
> capable of controlling up to 7 ink channels with smooth spline curves that 
> can accept 20+ points each (normally 2 or 3 are plenty). That gives 
> unprecedented controll over the amount and combination  of inks to be laid 
> down for each digital value in your image file.  As has been discussed here 
> before, for the full benefit  you would need a densitometer, but good results 
> are also possible by visually comparing your output to a good print of the 
> 26-step grayscale.
> 
> A note about comparing printing software: Comparisons between OPM and 
> any other bw printer driver would generally have to assume perfect profiles 
> for each, so that the drivers are in fact compared, not the profiles. This gets 
> tricky if drivers that rely on canned profiles are fixed to a certain performance, 
> while OPM uses custom profiles (made in IJC) that can take into account 
> every nuance of your particular set up. This is less of an issue with printers 
> like the 2200 using OEM carts, and a bigger problem with CIS-equipped 
> desktops and large formats.
> 
> I hope you can let us know what you think of the results your are getting.
> 
> 
> Antonis
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Antonis,
> 
> I took your advice about rezzing up a file to 720 dpi and changing to 
> 16 bits and I got MUCH better results with OPM, at least for 1 
> particular image with lots of thin strong diagonals. There had been 
> noticeable (but fine) stairsteps when the file was 300 dpi and 8 
> bits. The same file printed with Roy's QuadToneRIP under OSX didn't 
> have the stairstep problems though - maybe his driver can rez up the 
> file like the Epson driver.
> 
> I think both programs/drivers have alot of potential. I haven't 
> purchased Inkjet Control (yet) but the fact that their software lets 
> you tweak every ink channel is very nice. With QuadToneRip, you tweak 
> 4 channels in CMYK mode, regardless of printer model (at least that 
> is the case for the 2200 curves). At least with both programs I'm 
> seeing no metamerism with the Matte Black ink on EAM and Eclipse 
> Satine, whereas the Epson driver always gives me greens and/or 
> magentas!
> 
> By the way, I have a Mac G4 and am running OPM under OS 9.1. I run 
> Roy's QuadToneRIP under OSX 10.4.2.
> 
> Diana
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis Ricos" 
> <antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> > Diana,
> > 
> > I have discovered that some images look sharpest at 720 dpi when printed 
> > with OPM  on the 2200. If you open your image in Photoshop and check the 
> > resolution it should read 720 dpi. If not, you can res it up using bicubic 
> > interpolation. Then try printing again.  
> > 
> > This may or may not make a big difference in your print depending on how 
> > close you were to 720 dpi before you resed up.  It also depends on what 
> kind 
> > of image it is - how grainy, how sharp, if it has sharp diagonals... etc.
> > Also, if you still see problems, it's worth  setting the image to 16 bits and 
> > comparing prints.  
> > 
> > Testing tip:you can crop a small area where a problem shows up and print it 
> > over and over on the same sheet with different settings. You set the x,y 
> > positions in OPM to avoid overlaps.
> > 
> > Just to be clear about the 720dpi "preference": It is unrelated to the amount 
> of 
> > information a scan or digital camera file contains; it has to do with matching  
> > pixels-to-dots and driving the printer at its native hardware resolution. The 
> > Epson driver (for the 2200 at least) does this interpolation internally, so no 
> > matter what res you throw at it, the image will be made to look its "best" as 
> far 
> > as the printer goes.
> > 
> > I am very interested in your comparisons between Roy's RIP and OPM - 
> > especially since they share some DNA between them ! (and didn't that 
> > originate at MIT?....) The tonal gradations in OPM are mostly the result of a 
> > particular profile and whether your particular system performs as well as 
> mine 
> > (since I made the first 2200 profiles).
> >  In theory, you are supposed to have IJC and be able to tweak the profiles 
> > both for color and for smoothness. This system is really aimed at putting an 
> > end to canned profiles of any kind (including its own) ! 
> > 
> > As we discuss this further, it would help if you mentioned your operating 
> > system and other details of your setup.
> > 
> > If you are experiencing problems with the 2200, you may want to write to 
> > bowhaus and see if they will let you try the current beta which has some 
> fixes 
> > for the 2200. Their email for OPM / IJC is: software@b...
> > 
> > Antonis
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Diana Park 
> > <dip@m...> wrote:
> > > Antonis,
> > > 
> > > I've just started experimenting with OPM on my 2200 and I'm not sure 
> > > what you meant below - should the file actually be set to 720 dpi or 
> > > should the printer output be set to 720 (as opposed to 1440 or 2880)? 
> > > I haven't purchased IJC so I can't control the curves supplied with 
> > > OPM but I do like the Blender option where I can mix warm and cool 
> > > curves. I've found 70% warm and 30% cool to give a nice neutral (to 
> > > my eye) tone.
> > > 
> > > I've also FINALLY successfully installed Roy Harrington's QuadToneRIP 
> > > (many thanks Roy for all your troubleshooting help!) and while his 
> > > neutral curve is warmer than the above mix in OPM, the tonal 
> > > gradations seem smoother. Now for some curve tweaking!
> > > 
> > > Diana Park
> > > dip@M...
> > >

Hi,

Does anyone know if there is any possibillity to use the OPM/IJC on a 
1290 or a 2000p?

Hans
-- 
Atelier Pictoform
Chia N-L�fqvist & Hans Nohlberg
Hed�sgatan 5
SE-412 53 G�teborg
SWEDEN

+46  (0)31181414

(Bes�k/visit Hed�sgatan 6)

www.artphotocollection.com

Doug,

just a note to say your tests pointed in the right direction. You pretty much 
answered your question: The Epson driver  internally reses up whatever you 
give it to the "ideal" res for the printer. Not so with OPM.

In my tests I found a bigger improvement simply going to 720 dpi  rather than 
switching from 8 to 16 bit - but your conclusions are valid nevertheless. I didn't 
do all the permutations you did.

OPM started life as 16bit  and added 8bit compatibility very recently. This 
move may have introduced some new  problems. My sense is that if in doubt, 
OPM "likes" 16bit, period. But an 8bit/720 file may be more manageable.
 
As for the dpi, since OPM doesn't do any internal changes to the image data, it 
is often beneficial to feed a file that matches the hardware dpi . Hence the 
choice of 720. But I have found that, depending on the image, you can go a lot 
lower (in the 400s) and not see a difference. 360 can get dicey with sharp 
edges that are not perpendicular.

As always, let the folks at bowhaus know what you find or other suggestions 
by writing directly to them (rather than relying on the list). They are working to 
improve the software, so good  feedback helps.

Antonis




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Doug Nielsen" 
<douglasnielsen@e...> wrote:
.....

> 
>  I did a series of prints of a particularly troublesome section of my test file 
varying 
> Bit-Depth and Resolution. The test file was originally 8-Bit/240 dpi (which by 
the way 
> printed very well through the Epson 2200 driver but poorly through OPM). I 
printed 
> the section all the way up to 16-Bit/720 dpi. My conclusions were that, to the 
naked 
> eye, increasing the resolution to 480 dpi at 8-Bit or just converting from 8 to 
16-Bit 
> yields a satisfactory print. With  an 8x loupe, the criteria increases to 
8-Bit/720 dpi or 
> 16-Bit/360 to 480 dpi.  I think I could still see improvement even up to 
16-Bit/720 
> dpi, although only marginal improvement.
> 
> The results indicated that changing from 8 to 16-Bit yields roughly the same 
> improvement as doubling the resolution. So, for the Milkweed print at 16-Bit, 
I am 
> seeing about the same fidelity as when I print at 8-Bit/720 dpi. The results 
with my 

> test file are comparable."
> 
> Doug Nielsen
> Epson 2200
> MacOSX 10.2.6/Classic 
> Blue&White G3