Digital BW, The Print

Hello everybody,

I am now completely lost with all the new published softwares 
concerning mainly RIPs: ImagePrint, QuadtoneRIP, IJC, OPM,...

I use PiezographyBW (latest version) with a 1160 and MIS inks and EAM 
(I ordered also some Photorag for the next weeks).

One of my question is : how to upgrade the system/workflow? Some of 
my prints are great, but many are disapointing from a technical point 
of view (and do not match with what I had on my screen).

So now,

- should I consider the Piezography plugin obsolet (though it 
includes many profiles for different papers and is compatible with 
the MIS FS Neutral inks)? 

-  is it worth to buy on ebay a densitometer (like the x rite 810 
which is recommanded by many of you) and withe it create a dot gain 
curve thanks to which screen images and final prints will match? 

- shall I invest in one of these RIP softwares (and apparently a 
densitometer like the x rite 810 is necessary, am I wrong?) and make 
my own profiles (but I use always the same papers and the same inks)?

Thank you for your help

JM Humbert
Paris, France

> 
> One of my question is : how to upgrade the system/workflow? Some of 
> my prints are great, but many are disapointing from a technical point 
> of view (and do not match with what I had on my screen).


Jean-Marc,

it sounds like there may be other variables than just the driver/RIP if you are 
happy with some of your prints but not others.  In any case, matching your 
screen should be a simple matter of making a dot gain curve - which you can 
do by eye, if you are careful and use more than one print to match. That's 
assuming you are familiar with the other parts of color management in 
Photoshop.



> - should I consider the Piezography plugin obsolet (though it 
> includes many profiles for different papers and is compatible with 
> the MIS FS Neutral inks)?


If it works for you it is not obsolete "de facto".  You can check the accuracy of 
the profiles by printing a reference grayscale and plotting it out with a 
densitometer and excel. If it's nice and smooth, then you just need to tweak 
the dot gain curve for your screen preview. If not, then you need to make other 
choices. Just having lots of canned profiles doesn't mean they still apply to 
what you do - but they may.


 
> 
> -  is it worth to buy on ebay a densitometer (like the x rite 810 
> which is recommanded by many of you) and withe it create a dot gain 
> curve thanks to which screen images and final prints will match?


I'd say that it's overkill to use a densitometer for that. And even if you do, you 
should use an instrument that displays dot gain, i.e. a prepress densitometer, 
not one for photographic process control.

 
> 
> - shall I invest in one of these RIP softwares (and apparently a 
> densitometer like the x rite 810 is necessary, am I wrong?) and make 
> my own profiles (but I use always the same papers and the same inks)?


I'd vote "yes", if your present solution / workflow is not working. What you buy 
depends on the platform you are on.  IJC is about $200 and will make profiles, 
but will only run on Mac OS 9.  I don't know what Windows software allows 
profile making for desktops.


I hope this helps....


Antonis

Jean-Marc:

> I use PiezographyBW (latest version) with a 1160 and MIS inks...
> ....how to upgrade the system/workflow? Some of
> my prints are great, but many are disapointing from a technical point
> of view (and do not match with what I had on my screen)....
> ... should I consider the Piezography plugin obsolet
> ...s it worth to buy on ebay a densitometer...and withe it create a 
> dot gain
> curve thanks to which screen images and final prints will match?
> ...shall I invest in one of these RIP softwares (and apparently a
> densitometer like the x rite 810 is necessary, am I wrong?) and make
> my own profiles (but I use always the same papers and the same inks)?

This seems like awfully heavy going. If you follow the  instructions in 
the PiezographyBW manual and use a 21step wedge you should easily be 
able to make a good dot-gain curve that will make your Photoshop 
monitor image match your print: it's just a matter of successive 
adjustments of the dot-gain curve and will take you no more than 15 
minutes. There is no need for a densitometer.

My own experience was that it did take just 15 minutes but, that after 
a few days, I found that the dot-gain curve needed a little more 
adjustment...and after that I found that my monitor image matched my 
prints. In other words, I was a little too eager the first day. And 
that is my advice: make your dot-gain curve and then after a few days 
look at it again using the 21step wedge, and make any additional 
adjustment that is necessary. Perhaps, the first time one does it, one 
is too hasty or to excited and needs to look at it more dispassionately 
a few days later. Again, no need for a densitometer as your eyes are 
good enough. But keep in mind that the dot-gain curve can look quite 
"extreme" -- mine does.

I don't know what you mean that your prints "are disappointing from a 
technical point of view." If you have a correct dot-gain curve and your 
monitor image matches your print, and the print is still "technically 
disappointing" then the problem might be in how look at the gradation 
(tonalities) on the screen, so that you may not be preparing the image 
in Photoshop as well as you could. What I mean is that, even if the 
monitor image matches the print, the monitor image is a monitor image 
and paper is paper, so that some adjustment in your mind is necessary 
to translate onto paper exactly what you (think) you see on the screen. 
This takes some practice and experience. No RIP or custom profiles are 
going to help you with this.

PiezographyBW and the 1160 is a great combination, which I have used, 
and can produce beautiful prints. The only reason that I now use the 
ImagePrint RIP is that I have an Epson 7600 and want to make color and 
b&w prints on the same printer. But even then, I don't use custom 
profiles as I find that the ImagePrint profiles are so accurate that I 
don't need custom profiles. I try to stay being a photographer: I don't 
want to be a profile-maker.

--Mitch/Bangkok

Hello,
I´m lost too and still don´t have a b/n quadtone printer set up
 
Now I wish to set two printers. I plan to dedicate my Epson 1290 to B/W and
purchase a new 2100 for colour. I have been reading in this forum and others
the last months trying to understand all I could about the colour
management, profiles and how to match the prints, but seems like the most I
read and try to do better the worse results I get.
What I need first is some advices in order to set the most suitable for my
needs. 
I plan to purchase the piezography system and a CIS for the 1290 unless I
have read there is a lot of other workflows available that could do a good
work too ( Quadtonerip, imageprint ,??? ). And I don´t know if it works with
OSX.

As far as the new 2200 I want to set up a versatile system. to use it to
make my portfolio prints and to make pre-press proofs too.
I have been considering another 1290 with Generation4 or 5 as other option.
In resume if you could tell me any advice about the "best"
printer/inks/paper/ combo that could enlighten me would be appreciate.

I know is the one million question but I'm now more confused than ever!

Best regards
Aitor

> I plan to purchase the piezography system and a CIS for the 1290 unless I=

> have read there is a lot of other workflows available that could do a goo=
d
> work too ( Quadtonerip, imageprint ,??? ). And I don´t know if it works w=
ith
> OSX.

Aitor,

for OSX your main choices - as you say - are ImagePrint and QTRIP. If I wer=
e 
you, I would contact Roy here, or Colorbyte directly and find out if that's=
 for 
you. The nice thing about ImagePrint is that it will do both color and bw a=
nd 
they will profile your papers for you. In fact, you may not need a dedicate=
d bw 
sytem if you have a 2200 and like the look of Ultrachromes.

If you can run OS 9 on an older Mac, you can give IJC / OPM a try: it suppo=
rts 
the 2200 and lets you make accurate bw profiles if you have a densitometer



> 
> As far as the new 2200 I want to set up a versatile system. to use it to
> make my portfolio prints and to make pre-press proofs too.

Ask Colorbyte if they feel they can accompish that on the 2200. You may nee=
d 
Postscript, too, so see what the price is. Otherwise, most prepress-type RI=
PS 
run on Windows and you may have to look into that.



> I have been considering another 1290 with Generation4 or 5 as other 
option.

Not if you have a 2200!


> In resume if you could tell me any advice about the "best"
> printer/inks/paper/ combo that could enlighten me would be appreciate.

One answer is to simplify mattters: Get a 2200 and see if that will do 
everything you need. Start with Epson papers like EAM for matte, Lustre or =
Pr. 
Glossy, try the Hahnemuhle papers for nicer look and feel in matte or the I=
lford  
Smooth Pearl / Glossy for glossy .

if you feel so lost at this point, I say don't  use a 1290/CIS. Among other=
 things, 
CIS systems are meant for daily use and high volume. If you let them sit fo=
r a 
while, things happen that require more advanced intervention. Of course, if=
 
you run a very high volume of bw prints - at least on a weekly basis - the =
CIS 
will save you money.  But there are CIS options and bulk inks also appearin=
g 
now for the 2200. So, I'd say, spend your money and initial time on that 
machine and see how it goes.

Hope this  helps a bit...

Antonis

Once again the "which scanner is best?" question arises for the group. What
desktop flatbed scanners are high quality and reasonably priced. I am
willing to spend up to $1,500 (Microtek Artixscan 1800f) but am not sure if
it is worth $1,100 more than the Epson Perfection 3200. My use for my files
is fine art prints, not snapshots of the kids and dog. I print large and my
photographic subjects are usually dimly lit, ie. Shadow detail is important.

I have been having all my negs drum scanned so am used to high quality, but
the cost is getting me down. I figure I should have a good scanner for the
bulk of my work and use a drum scan when I need the really big prints.

Thanks,

Allyen

Antonis,
Thanks for your advices. I have mail to colorbyte.