Digital BW, The Print

The 'warmth' of piezo  also changes with the paper you use. Som En is very
warm, William Turner, less so and Photorag even less - pretty near neuteral.
Julian

----- Original Message -----
From: <hgporter@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 9:37 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Getting started -- Cone or MIS?


..., Jerry Olson <jerryolson@r...> wrote:

> The 1160 is the machine of choice for black and white printing.
The 1280
> is also an excellent choice.
>
>
> The cone Piezo inks are quite warm, I would say brown on
pure white
> papers. Some people love this, I don't.

Jerry & I have exchanged "opinioinated" conversation about this.
Piezo has a slight warm tone - But it is far from brown. The tone
is no where near a sepia on every paper I have used or seen in
two print exchanges from 60+ print makers. This evaluation
includes when I hold them side by side with a print made with a
cool tone monochrome set using Paul Roarke's curves. Warm
black is quite different from brown.

>
> The Piezo inks are five times more expensive than the MIS
Variable tone
> Hextone or Quad tone inks, and they have paper profiles for the
most
> popular papers.

A set of ConeTech Pigmented Quad inks is $260 for 4-4oz
bottles. I guess that puts a set of MIS inks at about $50 for the
same.  In all my life I have rarely seen a price disparity this great
for an equal quality product.

Inkjetmall.com will send you a sample print for your evaluation.
You can even send a neg or file and have them create a sample
print from your image. It would be worth the investment before
deciding on which system to utilize.

> Piezo does give excellent results right out of the box, but with
minor
> twiddling, MIS equals that quality.
>
> Jerry
>
>

The other thing to consider is how much "twiddling" - time -
you are willing to spend. If you are selling your images, time is
valuable.



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/

Piezo is brown only on a few pure white papers, such as legion photo
matte, aspen dual sided matte, etc. On most other papers it is very warm
in daylight, quite neutral under tungsten light. On off color white
papers, it looks very nice, but on very white papers, I don't care for
the brown tones. Especially for snow scenes, which I have a lot of. No
doubt, it is a great product, but in comparison with almost every other
inkset, WAY over priced. If you send for the sample print from
inkjetmall, they may send you the same print I got, which was very
muddy, very gray/olive green/brown looking, NOT a good quality print at
all.  The piezo system is capable of MUCH higher quality than the
samples they send, and I haven't a clue as to why they would send those
samples out as showing how good the piezo system is!

Jerry


Jerry & I have exchanged "opinionated" conversation about this. 
Piezo has a slight warm tone \ufffd But it is far from brown. The tone 
is no where near a sepia on every paper I have used or seen in 
two print exchanges from 60+ print makers. This evaluation 
includes when I hold them side by side with a print made with a 
cool tone monochrome set using Paul Roarke's curves. Warm 
black is quite different from brown.

> 
> The Piezo inks are five times more expensive than the MIS 
Variable tone
> Hextone or Quad tone inks, and they have paper profiles for the 
most
> popular papers.

A set of ConeTech Pigmented Quad inks is $260 for 4-4oz 
bottles. I guess that puts a set of MIS inks at about $50 for the 
same.  In all my life I have rarely seen a price disparity this great 
for an equal quality product. 

Inkjetmall.com will send you a sample print for your evaluation. 
You can even send a neg or file and have them create a sample 
print from your image. It would be worth the investment before 
deciding on which system to utilize.

A caution: I had a problem with Piezo inks. I no longer think they are 
viable for longterm use in 1160. Hate to say that, that's just my 
experience. My experience with MIS inks is new, so they are to be 
taken as my initial impressions only.

After a year with Piezo inks, I'm discontinuing them. I can't clear my 
printer fully of what is now called "Hayes Syndrome" on the Piezo 
list. When I compare MIS Full Spectrum inks set up on a spare 1160 
with the Piezo prints from my old clogging up with Piezo printer, the 
Piezo inks definetly have a green tinge, and remnants of the other 
symptoms.

I very much like the tone of these  FS MIS inks, a bit warm but nice, 
not sickly.

Until this problem is solved (and Cone says he IS working on it) I'm 
not going back. I really don't mean to badmouth his setup<sigh>.

OTOH I find that even using John Woolf's workflow, when I examine 
prints done with Epson driver ("error diffusion" setting") vs Piezo 
driver with MIS FS inks, I can see dots in highlights and I get very 
tiny tiny microbanding with Epson driver/Woolf workflow....but the 
Piezo driver is smooth. This is counter-intuitive for microbanding, 
but there it is. Please note that I only see the highlight dots and 
microbanding when using my CRI 98 Ott-lite and viewing from 1 foot 
away. I don't know why, but viewed under typical tungsten lighting of 
varying intensity, I can't see the dots/banding at all.

The piezo driver seems  (still some uncertainy)to print a bit 
contratier than the Epson. In this case for some photos, I wonder if 
the Epson driver still might be better, if a textured paper was used. 
S. E. photo textured paper seems to "almost" hide the microbanding 
even when I put the Ott-lite up real close.

I am curious if I have the settings wrong for the Woolf workflow. His 
screen shot of settings did not match my driver dialogue choices, so I 
e-mailed him as to the discrepancies (i.e. "Halftone" setting not 
availabe, J.W.---->use "error diffusion" instead).

So, if I can swing it, I'll be using the Piezo driver with MIS FS 
inkset. I am going to conduct my usual fade testing of some papers 
profiled by Cone in this manner, as some on the Piezo list are aware I 
already do.
Jim H.

Jim H. wrote:

>...
>... I find that even using John Woolf's workflow, when I examine
>prints done with Epson driver ("error diffusion" setting") vs Piezo
>driver with MIS FS inks, I can see dots in highlights and I get very
>tiny tiny microbanding with Epson driver/Woolf workflow....but the
>Piezo driver is smooth. ...

The Woolf workflow is an 8-bit, non-partitioning method that is simple and
fast, but it really does not take full advantage of what quads with the
Epson driver and Photoshop RGB adjustment curves can to.

When I was using Piezo inks I needed the Epson driver and its Error
Diffusion to print some of my shots with plain, heavily-filtered skies.  I
had several different curves that partitioned the Piezo inks in RGB mode.
On my machine this approach gave me smoother dark, plain tones, and it
produced a somewhat deeper black.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Jim,

I'm glad to hear you are getting some good results. I also salute 
your persistence through all the problems you have had over the past 
few months. This list is new and a lot of the MIS users are new to 
the inks as well, but so far I don't think there has been any mention 
of a clogging problem with MIS inks.

I am running the MIS VM in a 1280 and three times I have had visible 
white banding that was quickly traced to one or two non-firing 
nozzles. So far only on the black cartridge. A single nozzle clean 
cycle cleared up the problem twice and once I had to run the cycle 3 
times. So at this point clogging appears to be on a level with the 
Epson inks. Time may prove differently but so far it is a great 
relief over the many over night waits I had to do with Piezo on my 
1200. In fact when I fired up the CIS with the MIS on the 1280 I was 
able to print immediately.

I have three prints by Bernd Langmack of the same image from an 8x10 
negative. One with Piezo inks, one with MIS FS inks with the Piezo 
driver and one with MIS FS inks with the Epson drivers. All were done 
on an 1160 and all three are excellent. The Piezo print is perhaps 
the best Piezo print I have ever seen with no detectable pattern 
under magnification at all (unlike my 1200). The same is true for the 
MIS with the Piezo driver. The contrast and tone are different from 
the Piezo but I would not say one is better. On the print using the 
MIS with the Epson driver I can see the dot pattern in the high 
lights but only with magnification. At a normal viewing distance the 
pattern is invisible. No banding of any kind on the three prins.

With the Piezo driver I see little or no advantage to using a 6-ink 
printer. With the Epson driver I do see an advantage. The dots are 
not smaller but with more nozzles the dot pattern gets harder to 
detect. 

I can see some microscopic banding with the MIS on the 1280 with the 
Epson driver. It is not light banding but more of a vague linear 
pattern in the darker tones. This only shows up in very smooth areas 
of the print and is completely invisible if there is any pattern or 
texture in the image. Not an issue for normal viewing in any case and 
much less noticeable then the microscopic light banding and window 
screen with Piezo on the 1200.

I will probably give Piezo another try when both the "selenium" inks 
and the 1280 driver are available. Hopefully ConeTech will have 
resolved the clogging issues with the new ink.

For new comers I have a hard time telling them which way to go. With 
the Piezo the software end is really nice and I think you can get to 
a tonally good print more quickly. On the other hand Piezo has all 
these clogging problems that get to be a major source of frustration 
plus the "Hayes syndrome" and the yellow or olive-green cast 
metamerism that some people see under artificial light.

With the MIS there appear to be none of the mechanical issues but the 
current workflows are not as well developed and you may have to spend 
more time working with your images and/or the curves to refine your 
final prints. This is an evolving situation and the gap will narrow 
with time. Actual use of the workflows is not as user friendly as 
Piezo but what you have to do is rather trivial. I see some 
metamerism with the MIS VM but it is in reverse with a blue-green 
cast in daylight and neutral under artificial light.

Please keep us posted on your progress. I sincerely hope you can get 
back to printing and can stop all the testing and cleaning!

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Jim Hayes" <jimhayes@j...> 
wrote:
> A caution: I had a problem with Piezo inks. I no longer think they 
are 
> viable for longterm use in 1160. Hate to say that, that's just my 
> experience. My experience with MIS inks is new, so they are to be 
> taken as my initial impressions only.
> 
> After a year with Piezo inks, I'm discontinuing them. I can't clear 
my 
> printer fully of what is now called "Hayes Syndrome" on the Piezo 
> list. When I compare MIS Full Spectrum inks set up on a spare 1160 
> with the Piezo prints from my old clogging up with Piezo printer, 
the 
> Piezo inks definetly have a green tinge, and remnants of the other 
> symptoms.
> 
> I very much like the tone of these  FS MIS inks, a bit warm but 
nice, 
> not sickly.
> 
> Until this problem is solved (and Cone says he IS working on it) 
I'm 
> not going back. I really don't mean to badmouth his setup<sigh>.
> 
> OTOH I find that even using John Woolf's workflow, when I examine 
> prints done with Epson driver ("error diffusion" setting") vs Piezo 
> driver with MIS FS inks, I can see dots in highlights and I get 
very 
> tiny tiny microbanding with Epson driver/Woolf workflow....but the 
> Piezo driver is smooth. This is counter-intuitive for microbanding, 
> but there it is. Please note that I only see the highlight dots and 
> microbanding when using my CRI 98 Ott-lite and viewing from 1 foot 
> away. I don't know why, but viewed under typical tungsten lighting 
of 
> varying intensity, I can't see the dots/banding at all.
> 
> The piezo driver seems  (still some uncertainy)to print a bit 
> contratier than the Epson. In this case for some photos, I wonder 
if 
> the Epson driver still might be better, if a textured paper was 
used. 
> S. E. photo textured paper seems to "almost" hide the microbanding 
> even when I put the Ott-lite up real close.
> 
> I am curious if I have the settings wrong for the Woolf workflow. 
His 
> screen shot of settings did not match my driver dialogue choices, 
so I 
> e-mailed him as to the discrepancies (i.e. "Halftone" setting not 
> availabe, J.W.---->use "error diffusion" instead).
> 
> So, if I can swing it, I'll be using the Piezo driver with MIS FS 
> inkset. I am going to conduct my usual fade testing of some papers 
> profiled by Cone in this manner, as some on the Piezo list are 
aware I 
> already do.
> Jim H.

on 9/30/01 1:38 AM, Martin Wesley wrote:

> I see some 
> metamerism with the MIS VM but it is in reverse with a blue-green
> cast in daylight and neutral under artificial light.

Ah, so you do see it. I thought I was the only one who felt they were
metameric. 

Regarding the cyan cast, I sent Paul some test strips for another reason,
he thought my inks printed warmer than his. It's possible (as with piezo?)
that different batches have different hues, and I guess even if one or two
positions of inks are different it'll show. I'm actually thinking to get
some empty carts to mess with my toner color. I'm thinking a tad more
magenta in there might counter what feels green in there, and get closer to
that eggplant selenium color. Have no idea what it'll do to my neutral curve
though...

Todd

Martin,
I think a lot of the problems with piezo are down to the printer. I have had
one 'bad' 1160. Which clogged, needed loads of care and was eventually
replaced under warranty. I now have two 1160s that work flawlessly. One
printer has just printed 25 exhibition prints (A3+), 35 portfolio prints
(A3), 25 sheets A3+ of business cards, 25 A4 press prints (glossy), plus
work prints. Without a  single clog. However, especially for those of us in
Europe, piezo inks are very expensive. Could you talk more about the
difference between Piezo and FIS with the piezo driver? I'm getting a number
of people in Spain (hi Jose!) looking at my prints and wondering which way
to jump. I'm advising to go with Piezo first as an out of the box solution,
and then to try FIS with the piezo driver. The profiles and software of
piezo are important for beginners IMO. Also  I believe that people thinking
of buying a system need to see the prints and should be wary of making
decisions based on 'list-talk'. When I show prints ot people, I always try
and show more than one paper (yesterday I showed WT and Photorag - the
difference between the two is large IMO).
Like Jerry, I think that the piezo demo print is a bad one, and Som. En is a
bad paper to use for a demo - it must be the 'warmest'  paper around for
piezo.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 7:38 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Getting started -- Cone or MIS?


> Jim,
>
> I'm glad to hear you are getting some good results. I also salute
> your persistence through all the problems you have had over the past
> few months. This list is new and a lot of the MIS users are new to
> the inks as well, but so far I don't think there has been any mention
> of a clogging problem with MIS inks.
>
> I am running the MIS VM in a 1280 and three times I have had visible
> white banding that was quickly traced to one or two non-firing
> nozzles. So far only on the black cartridge. A single nozzle clean
> cycle cleared up the problem twice and once I had to run the cycle 3
> times. So at this point clogging appears to be on a level with the
> Epson inks. Time may prove differently but so far it is a great
> relief over the many over night waits I had to do with Piezo on my
> 1200. In fact when I fired up the CIS with the MIS on the 1280 I was
> able to print immediately.
>
> I have three prints by Bernd Langmack of the same image from an 8x10
> negative. One with Piezo inks, one with MIS FS inks with the Piezo
> driver and one with MIS FS inks with the Epson drivers. All were done
> on an 1160 and all three are excellent. The Piezo print is perhaps
> the best Piezo print I have ever seen with no detectable pattern
> under magnification at all (unlike my 1200). The same is true for the
> MIS with the Piezo driver. The contrast and tone are different from
> the Piezo but I would not say one is better. On the print using the
> MIS with the Epson driver I can see the dot pattern in the high
> lights but only with magnification. At a normal viewing distance the
> pattern is invisible. No banding of any kind on the three prins.
>
> With the Piezo driver I see little or no advantage to using a 6-ink
> printer. With the Epson driver I do see an advantage. The dots are
> not smaller but with more nozzles the dot pattern gets harder to
> detect.
>
> I can see some microscopic banding with the MIS on the 1280 with the
> Epson driver. It is not light banding but more of a vague linear
> pattern in the darker tones. This only shows up in very smooth areas
> of the print and is completely invisible if there is any pattern or
> texture in the image. Not an issue for normal viewing in any case and
> much less noticeable then the microscopic light banding and window
> screen with Piezo on the 1200.
>
> I will probably give Piezo another try when both the "selenium" inks
> and the 1280 driver are available. Hopefully ConeTech will have
> resolved the clogging issues with the new ink.
>
> For new comers I have a hard time telling them which way to go. With
> the Piezo the software end is really nice and I think you can get to
> a tonally good print more quickly. On the other hand Piezo has all
> these clogging problems that get to be a major source of frustration
> plus the "Hayes syndrome" and the yellow or olive-green cast
> metamerism that some people see under artificial light.
>
> With the MIS there appear to be none of the mechanical issues but the
> current workflows are not as well developed and you may have to spend
> more time working with your images and/or the curves to refine your
> final prints. This is an evolving situation and the gap will narrow
> with time. Actual use of the workflows is not as user friendly as
> Piezo but what you have to do is rather trivial. I see some
> metamerism with the MIS VM but it is in reverse with a blue-green
> cast in daylight and neutral under artificial light.
>
> Please keep us posted on your progress. I sincerely hope you can get
> back to printing and can stop all the testing and cleaning!
>
> Martin
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Jim Hayes" <jimhayes@j...>
> wrote:
> > A caution: I had a problem with Piezo inks. I no longer think they
> are
> > viable for longterm use in 1160. Hate to say that, that's just my
> > experience. My experience with MIS inks is new, so they are to be
> > taken as my initial impressions only.
> >
> > After a year with Piezo inks, I'm discontinuing them. I can't clear
> my
> > printer fully of what is now called "Hayes Syndrome" on the Piezo
> > list. When I compare MIS Full Spectrum inks set up on a spare 1160
> > with the Piezo prints from my old clogging up with Piezo printer,
> the
> > Piezo inks definetly have a green tinge, and remnants of the other
> > symptoms.
> >
> > I very much like the tone of these  FS MIS inks, a bit warm but
> nice,
> > not sickly.
> >
> > Until this problem is solved (and Cone says he IS working on it)
> I'm
> > not going back. I really don't mean to badmouth his setup<sigh>.
> >
> > OTOH I find that even using John Woolf's workflow, when I examine
> > prints done with Epson driver ("error diffusion" setting") vs Piezo
> > driver with MIS FS inks, I can see dots in highlights and I get
> very
> > tiny tiny microbanding with Epson driver/Woolf workflow....but the
> > Piezo driver is smooth. This is counter-intuitive for microbanding,
> > but there it is. Please note that I only see the highlight dots and
> > microbanding when using my CRI 98 Ott-lite and viewing from 1 foot
> > away. I don't know why, but viewed under typical tungsten lighting
> of
> > varying intensity, I can't see the dots/banding at all.
> >
> > The piezo driver seems  (still some uncertainy)to print a bit
> > contratier than the Epson. In this case for some photos, I wonder
> if
> > the Epson driver still might be better, if a textured paper was
> used.
> > S. E. photo textured paper seems to "almost" hide the microbanding
> > even when I put the Ott-lite up real close.
> >
> > I am curious if I have the settings wrong for the Woolf workflow.
> His
> > screen shot of settings did not match my driver dialogue choices,
> so I
> > e-mailed him as to the discrepancies (i.e. "Halftone" setting not
> > availabe, J.W.---->use "error diffusion" instead).
> >
> > So, if I can swing it, I'll be using the Piezo driver with MIS FS
> > inkset. I am going to conduct my usual fade testing of some papers
> > profiled by Cone in this manner, as some on the Piezo list are
> aware I
> > already do.
> > Jim H.
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Jim Do try the VM inks and Paul Roark's curves. Absolutely no dots and
no banding.

Jerry





Jim Hayes wrote:

> 
> A caution: I had a problem with Piezo inks. I no longer think they are
> viable for longterm use in 1160. Hate to say that, that's just my
> experience. My experience with MIS inks is new, so they are to be
> taken as my initial impressions only.
> 
> After a year with Piezo inks, I'm discontinuing them. I can't clear my
> printer fully of what is now called "Hayes Syndrome" on the Piezo
> list. When I compare MIS Full Spectrum inks set up on a spare 1160
> with the Piezo prints from my old clogging up with Piezo printer, the
> Piezo inks definetly have a green tinge, and remnants of the other
> symptoms.
> 
> I very much like the tone of these  FS MIS inks, a bit warm but nice,
> not sickly.
> 
> Until this problem is solved (and Cone says he IS working on it) I'm
> not going back. I really don't mean to badmouth his setup<sigh>.
> 
> OTOH I find that even using John Woolf's workflow, when I examine
> prints done with Epson driver ("error diffusion" setting") vs Piezo
> driver with MIS FS inks, I can see dots in highlights and I get very
> tiny tiny microbanding with Epson driver/Woolf workflow....but the
> Piezo driver is smooth. This is counter-intuitive for microbanding,
> but there it is. Please note that I only see the highlight dots and
> microbanding when using my CRI 98 Ott-lite and viewing from 1 foot
> away. I don't know why, but viewed under typical tungsten lighting of
> varying intensity, I can't see the dots/banding at all.
> 
> The piezo driver seems  (still some uncertainy)to print a bit
> contratier than the Epson. In this case for some photos, I wonder if
> the Epson driver still might be better, if a textured paper was used.
> S. E. photo textured paper seems to "almost" hide the microbanding
> even when I put the Ott-lite up real close.
> 
> I am curious if I have the settings wrong for the Woolf workflow. His
> screen shot of settings did not match my driver dialogue choices, so I
> e-mailed him as to the discrepancies (i.e. "Halftone" setting not
> availabe, J.W.---->use "error diffusion" instead).
> 
> So, if I can swing it, I'll be using the Piezo driver with MIS FS
> inkset. I am going to conduct my usual fade testing of some papers
> profiled by Cone in this manner, as some on the Piezo list are aware I
> already do.
> Jim H.
> 
> 
> 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/

Hello, after reading this list it really looks like an 8bit workflow 
is "enough" for a desktop printer (like the 860/1160). Are you using a 
printer like this ones?

I still do not quite understand why the Piezo people put some effort 
in delivering a 16 bit driver for printers like the ones obove.

Comments are pretty much appreciated,
 Rodrigo
  
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson 
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> Jim Do try the VM inks and Paul Roark's curves. Absolutely no dots 
and
> no banding.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Hayes wrote:
> > 
> > A caution: I had a problem with Piezo inks. I no longer think they 
are
> > viable for longterm use in 1160. Hate to say that, that's just my
> > experience. My experience with MIS inks is new, so they are to be
> > taken as my initial impressions only.
> > 
> > After a year with Piezo inks, I'm discontinuing them. I can't 
clear my
> > printer fully of what is now called "Hayes Syndrome" on the Piezo
> > list. When I compare MIS Full Spectrum inks set up on a spare 1160
> > with the Piezo prints from my old clogging up with Piezo printer, 
the
> > Piezo inks definetly have a green tinge, and remnants of the other
> > symptoms.
> > 
> > I very much like the tone of these  FS MIS inks, a bit warm but 
nice,
> > not sickly.
> > 
> > Until this problem is solved (and Cone says he IS working on it) 
I'm
> > not going back. I really don't mean to badmouth his setup<sigh>.
> > 
> > OTOH I find that even using John Woolf's workflow, when I examine
> > prints done with Epson driver ("error diffusion" setting") vs 
Piezo
> > driver with MIS FS inks, I can see dots in highlights and I get 
very
> > tiny tiny microbanding with Epson driver/Woolf workflow....but the
> > Piezo driver is smooth. This is counter-intuitive for 
microbanding,
> > but there it is. Please note that I only see the highlight dots 
and
> > microbanding when using my CRI 98 Ott-lite and viewing from 1 foot
> > away. I don't know why, but viewed under typical tungsten lighting 
of
> > varying intensity, I can't see the dots/banding at all.
> > 
> > The piezo driver seems  (still some uncertainy)to print a bit
> > contratier than the Epson. In this case for some photos, I wonder 
if
> > the Epson driver still might be better, if a textured paper was 
used.
> > S. E. photo textured paper seems to "almost" hide the microbanding
> > even when I put the Ott-lite up real close.
> > 
> > I am curious if I have the settings wrong for the Woolf workflow. 
His
> > screen shot of settings did not match my driver dialogue choices, 
so I
> > e-mailed him as to the discrepancies (i.e. "Halftone" setting not
> > availabe, J.W.---->use "error diffusion" instead).
> > 
> > So, if I can swing it, I'll be using the Piezo driver with MIS FS
> > inkset. I am going to conduct my usual fade testing of some papers
> > profiled by Cone in this manner, as some on the Piezo list are 
aware I
> > already do.
> > Jim H.
> > 
> > 
> > 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/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" <
mwesley250@e...> wrote:
>snip...
Hopefully ConeTech will have 
> resolved the clogging issues with the new ink.
>snip...
On the other hand Piezo has all 
> these clogging problems that get to be a major source of
frustration 
> plus the "Hayes syndrome" and the yellow or olive-green cast 
> metamerism that some people see under artificial light.

Actually, I doubt Conetech has any clogging issue to resolve at all. 
There are countless users with no problem, myself and the local users 
I have contact with have never had a clog. Obviously there are those 
that have had very frustrating problems, yourself and Steadman for 
example. But almost every third party ink has had users with
problems, 
these printers are designed for Epson inks, as soon as we put someone 
elses ink in we have the possibility of glitches. All of these 
problems seem to be with CIS users after considerable use, you now 
have the added complication of another 3rd party involved. A non
Epson 
contraption is delivering a non Epson ink. Any cartridge users 
reporting any of these seemimgly unresolvable problems?
The sudden green shift also seems associated with CIS users 
specifically. The problems seems very real, but most of the 
disscussion seems to revolve around whether or not it qualifies as a 
"syndrome", and who gets it named after them.
Cone has acknowledged the problem, and has a chemist working on it.
In 
the meantime, if I were a desktop/CIS user commited to Piezo and the 
problem began, I'd flush out my printer and start filling cartridges 
myself until a solution is known.
Regarding metamerism, both inks have it. It's just a subjective
matter 
of which looks the least unpleasant to you. I have never seen a Piezo 
print with a hint of green, personal differences about print hue are 
unresolvable. People need to be looking at prints to help with these 
decisions.
If you are a MIS/CIS user with no problems, are happy with the 
workflow and print color, then you're in fat city. When it comes to 
advising a new user, I think it's important to point out that the
vast  
silent majority of Piezo users are problem free as well.
I think you should work backwards from your budget and desired print 
look when deciding. There are many happy users of both.

> With the MIS there appear to be none of the mechanical issues but
the 
> current workflows are not as well developed and you may have to
spend 
> more time working with your images and/or the curves to refine your 
> final prints. This is an evolving situation and the gap will narrow 
> with time.

I personally think that's a ways off.

> Actual use of the workflows is not as user friendly as 
> Piezo but what you have to do is rather trivial.

Really? I have yet to see a report of it being absolutely nailed, and 
perfectly reproducing any number of difficult files, including 
outstanding dithering. We have more than one report here of 7000
users 
bagging it, these users tend to be pros with high technical 
expectations. There are desktop users thrilled with prints I would 
find unacceptable, more power to them since they are probably
printing 
and not tinkering, why should they pay more if they are happy? I 
wouldn't minimize the tinker factor, the gap you mention above is 
about equal to the price gap.
Tyler

Tyler,

Normally I agree with your posts 100%, but feel that you are pointing 
in the wrong direction here. I think Jon Cone is/was innovative, and 
has helped to jump start this technology, but many of his claims and 
comparisions aren't exactly true either. My two cents mixed in with 
yours below:

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" <
> mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> >snip...
> Hopefully ConeTech will have 
> > resolved the clogging issues with the new ink.
> >snip...
> On the other hand Piezo has all 
> > these clogging problems that get to be a major source of
> frustration 
> > plus the "Hayes syndrome" and the yellow or olive-green cast 
> > metamerism that some people see under artificial light.
> 
> Actually, I doubt Conetech has any clogging issue to resolve at 
all. 

I am glad that, as you say, there are those that can use Cone Inks 
with little or no problems, but feel that you are perhaps in the 
minority, not the majority as you say. Jon Cone himself says that you 
need a technically perfect printer to optimize his products. These 
things (printers) are mass produced with an acceptable tolerance, and 
his definition of perfect requires tolerances that no mass produced 
product can meet.

Cone has always had problems with his inks. Look at the mess with the 
Color Piezo currently, and the problems aren't strictly related to 
clogging. B/W Piezo has a long history of clogging, forming crystal 
type deposits, and creating sludge in printheads. The vast majority 
of third party inks (MIS, Generations, etc...) do not exhibit these 
problems, and in fact, most of the printers that Jon likes to site as 
the "problem" when using his products work perfectly with these other 
third party inks (and CIS systems) as well as the stock Epson inks.

> There are countless users with no problem, myself and the local 
users 
> I have contact with have never had a clog. Obviously there are 
those 
> that have had very frustrating problems, yourself and Steadman for 
> example. But almost every third party ink has had users with
> problems, 
> these printers are designed for Epson inks, as soon as we put 
someone 
> elses ink in we have the possibility of glitches. 

This is true, but those inks that exhibit problems, typically aren't 
designed as an Epson ink replacement (such as Piezo), they are 
usually a derivative of another ink that wasn't initially designed to 
work with the Epson printers. Again, MIS and Generations are perfect 
examples of those that were designed specifically for the Epson 
printers. I have yet to hear of a clog that couldn't be undone with 
those inks, but can point you at many posts of those that even went 
as far as to disassemble their printers or other extreme measures and 
still couldn't clear the clog when using Piezo inks.

>All of these 
> problems seem to be with CIS users after considerable use, you now 
> have the added complication of another 3rd party involved. A non
> Epson 
> contraption is delivering a non Epson ink. 

Here is where I take a big issue with your statement. I have been 
using the CIS systems for well over a year now in a wide variety of 
printers (1200, 1160, 1270, 2000P), and I have never had a problem 
related to the CIS. You will note that even Cone himself sells these 
systems (although he does blame them for the 1270, 1280, and 2000P 
problems with the Color Piezo - talk about a contradiction, he 
himself can't even get those inks to work with carts, but blames the 
CIS?!).

>Any cartridge users 
> reporting any of these seemimgly unresolvable problems?

Yes, go read the Color Piezo board. There are cart users that are 
experiencing clogs from hell and the now famous misting problem that 
Jon swears up and down only occurs with the CIS. There are also those 
using the Piezo B/W carts that report clogs, crystal deposits, etc...

> The sudden green shift also seems associated with CIS users 
> specifically. The problems seems very real, but most of the 
> disscussion seems to revolve around whether or not it qualifies as 
a 
> "syndrome", and who gets it named after them.
> Cone has acknowledged the problem, and has a chemist working on it.

If the problem is only with the CIS as you state, why would he need a 
chemist to fix it? Better yet, why would he need a chemist at all 
since he "developed" these inks? They are a derivative of another 
brand (that was not designed to be an Epson ink replacement) that are 
manufactured for him by that company, plain and simple. There are 
truly only a few companies that manufacture all of the inks made for 
inkjet printers. The specialty inks are made from those.

> In 
> the meantime, if I were a desktop/CIS user commited to Piezo and 
the 
> problem began, I'd flush out my printer and start filling 
cartridges 
> myself until a solution is known.

This is exactly how the CIS works, it recharges the cart as it 
empties, how would refilling by hand be any different? Actually hand 
refilling is worse since it introduces much larger quantities of air 
into the cartridge, which as we all know can and does lead to even 
more problems. 

You may actually be onto something with this, but it isn't the fault 
of the CIS. The inks that are derivatives, typically rely on vast 
amounts of alcohol and/or ammonia to make them work in Epson 
printers. Since a cart is sealed until used, it prevents the 
evaporation from happening. The inks in bulk however do need to 
breathe to work in a CIS system and thus will allow these items to 
evaporate over time. This is not the fault of the CIS, just a poorly 
designed ink.

> Regarding metamerism, both inks have it. It's just a subjective
> matter 
> of which looks the least unpleasant to you. I have never seen a 
Piezo 
> print with a hint of green, personal differences about print hue 
are 
> unresolvable. People need to be looking at prints to help with 
these 
> decisions.

Very true!

> If you are a MIS/CIS user with no problems, are happy with the 
> workflow and print color, then you're in fat city. When it comes to 
> advising a new user, I think it's important to point out that the
> vast  
> silent majority of Piezo users are problem free as well.

Tyler, how do you know that the vast majority are problem free? Has 
anyone actually taken a poll of ALL the Piezo users? I know they say 
that those that are having problems complain the loudest, but silence 
doesn't lead to a lack of problems. Some people just don't have the 
time to complain and need to cut their losses and move on, or are 
seeing their problems expressed by others and figure they do not need 
to do so also. Also look at all of the Piezo users that are on this 
list looking for alternatives. I doubt they would be so interested in 
the MIS VM inks as an example if they were truly happy with Piezo.

> I think you should work backwards from your budget and desired 
print 
> look when deciding. There are many happy users of both.
> 
> > With the MIS there appear to be none of the mechanical issues but
> the 
> > current workflows are not as well developed and you may have to
> spend 
> > more time working with your images and/or the curves to refine 
your 
> > final prints. This is an evolving situation and the gap will 
narrow 
> > with time.
> 
> I personally think that's a ways off.

Why? Many people are making this a collective effort and aren't 
trying to profit from it in the process. This will typically progress 
something along at a more rapid pace than those that are limited in 
their resources and experiences. Look at the rapid pace that curves 
are being generated for the MIS inks that have only been out for a 
few months now.

> 
> > Actual use of the workflows is not as user friendly as 
> > Piezo but what you have to do is rather trivial.
> 
> Really? I have yet to see a report of it being absolutely nailed, 
and 
> perfectly reproducing any number of difficult files, including 
> outstanding dithering. We have more than one report here of 7000
> users 
> bagging it, these users tend to be pros with high technical 
> expectations. 

Didn't this user also have the 7000 for only a few weeks? Also, does 
the Piezo 7000 use dithering? The desktop versions don't (there 
Steadman, that is one of the clues you were looking for), which leads 
to the banding, window screening, etc... of those "less than perfect 
printers" that we hear so much about.

> There are desktop users thrilled with prints I would 
> find unacceptable, more power to them since they are probably
> printing 
> and not tinkering, why should they pay more if they are happy? I 
> wouldn't minimize the tinker factor, the gap you mention above is 
> about equal to the price gap.
> Tyler

Bottom line Tyler, is that no one system is perfect. You may be right 
about the "tinker factor", but if Piezo leads to mechanical problems 
right off the bat or in the very near future, that "tinker factor" 
for fixing the Piezo problems (clogs, sludge, having to replace an 
otherwise perfectly good printer, etc...) may prove to be more of a 
problem than the "tinker factor" for these other alternatives.

The perfect setup would be the use of a quality third party ink that 
was designed for the Epson, along with a CIS for economy and ease of 
use, using those portions of the Cone software that control the tone 
and allow for accurate previews all tied into the Epson driver for 
dithering and ink control. Are you paying attention Steadman? :-)

I am not advocating that one sytem is better than the other at this 
point, but do believe that what you were trying to do was balance out 
the conversation so to speak, but then took it a little too far in 
the other direction (even bringing in another third party product).
I too am probably guilty of this in my replies as stated above, and 
apologize in advance.

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...> 
wrote:
> on 9/30/01 1:38 AM, Martin Wesley wrote:
> 
> > I see some 
> > metamerism with the MIS VM but it is in reverse with a blue-green
> > cast in daylight and neutral under artificial light.
> 
> Ah, so you do see it. I thought I was the only one who felt they 
were
> metameric. 
> 
> Regarding the cyan cast, I sent Paul some test strips for another 
reason,
> he thought my inks printed warmer than his. It's possible (as with 
piezo?)
> that different batches have different hues, and I guess even if one 
or two
> positions of inks are different it'll show. I'm actually thinking 
to get
> some empty carts to mess with my toner color. I'm thinking a tad 
more
> magenta in there might counter what feels green in there, and get 
closer to
> that eggplant selenium color. Have no idea what it'll do to my 
neutral curve
> though...

Todd,

AT least the metamerism is in keeping with the light source. Cooler 
under a cooler light, warmer under a warm light. Since the time I 
spend viewing my prints is 99% under artificial light, I am inclined 
to go with what looks good under those conditions.

I think you are right about batch-to-batch consistency. It would be 
amazing if there was not some variation. Otherwise why would all the 
big color labs and prints invest in all the elaborate color 
calibration. It is an essential part of quaitly control. We are just 
going to have to wing it I guess and make individual image 
adjustments on the fly. Just like silver printing.

If you give the tinting a try we will be curious as to how it goes.

Martin

Terry,

Perhaps you could help me, offlist maybe, to gen up on who makes all these
inks. Seriously, if you know something I don't - which sounds very likely in
this case, I'd appreciate the info.

To throw another name into the hat, and based on your suggestion that inks
that don't work well with Epson weren't designed for Epson... what were
Lyson 'Small Gamut' inks designed for? I have heard _rumours_ those inks
kill print heads after a while!

In fact... are Lyson inks available in the States? There seems to be very
little talk about them, if any, on this list.

Best,
Nij



> -----Original Message-----
> From: TerryR [mailto:terryr1028@...]
<snip>
> This is true, but those inks that exhibit problems, typically aren't
> designed as an Epson ink replacement (such as Piezo), they are
> usually a derivative of another ink that wasn't initially designed to
> work with the Epson printers. Again, MIS and Generations are perfect
> examples of those that were designed specifically for the Epson
> printers. I have yet to hear of a clog that couldn't be undone with
> those inks, but can point you at many posts of those that even went
> as far as to disassemble their printers or other extreme measures and
> still couldn't clear the clog when using Piezo inks.
<snip>

Tyler,

I agree... but for different reasons. I just think people seriously
underestimate the time it _may_ take for ink to move to the print-head in
third-party carts or CIS systems or...

And I really think they underestimate the dramatically _bad_ effect a
cleaning cycle could have on the distribution of air / ink through a
cartridge / CIS that hadn't properly settled! I mean even Epson don't
recommend more than 'a small number' (not a quote, bad memory!) of cleaning
cycles in a row. My suspicion is _not_ because a cleaning cycle with it's
rubber squidgee action and high ink throughput is _damaging_ - it just
doesn't achieve anything without there being a 'body of liquid ink' to suck
on. Picture drinking a latte or cappuchino with a straw held only in the
froth ;) ...whilst someone else is blowing bubbes into the bottom of the
drink <ewwww>. But if you wait long enough, even that foam will 'soak down'
into liquid that you can drink no problems (apart from it's cold, obviously)

I really, really honestly believe that most users who experience problems
with _most_ inks will actually be experiencing problems with air, rather
than ink... and if you have air in your nozzles, the ink that is there is
much more likely to dry. Hence the success some people find with Windex /
Fantastic / Windolene - it's not in my view that they are claning anything,
but that they are creating an environment in which the inks are less likely
to dry (if there is air) and easier to flow into the nasty air-lock if there
is one. I believe that even dye inks can suffer these problems, but it is
'true' that you are more likely to experience problems with these systems if
using pigment / pigmented inks.

I really really recommend leaving systems for quite some time to allow ink
to settle, suggest storing carts (of any brand) upright so the settling is
done for you in storage. etc etc etc.

Best as ever,
nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tyler Boley [mailto:tyler@...]
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" <
> mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> >snip...
> Hopefully ConeTech will have
> > resolved the clogging issues with the new ink.
> >snip...
> On the other hand Piezo has all
> > these clogging problems that get to be a major source of
> frustration
> > plus the "Hayes syndrome" and the yellow or olive-green cast
> > metamerism that some people see under artificial light.
>
> Actually, I doubt Conetech has any clogging issue to resolve at all.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" <terryr1028@h...> 
wrote:
Terry, I was, in fact trying to balance out the posts, and was 
responding to what I thought was an unblanced post. I think this list, 
in particular, has a high percentage of members disgruntled with 
Piezo. I should know better by now to post this kind of thing here. 
Without turning this into a big back and forth thing, I'll simply tell 
you why I think what I think.

> I am glad that, as you say, there are those that can use Cone Inks 
> with little or no problems, but feel that you are perhaps in the 
> minority, not the majority as you say.

I have no idea why you would say that since I've seen nothing to 
support it, although you have no reason to accept what I say either.  
My opinion rests on my own and the experiences of every user I have 
regular personal contact with, as well as what I have been told by 
people who know more about the user base that I shouldn't quote. 
Again, you have no reason to believe them, or me. But Terry, I've seen 
nothing to support your statement that successful Piezo users are in 
the minority. I have never, ever, had a clogging problem with Piezo 
ink in an 1160 or a 3000. At the same time, I'm not denying some 
people have had unsolvable problems.

> Cone has always had problems with his inks.

I just don't know how you can make such a statement. There are 
problems with the color ink, but they seem unrelated to reported 
problems with the mono ink.

>B/W Piezo has a long history of clogging, forming crystal 
> type deposits, and creating sludge in printheads.

I've been on every Epson printing related list for a long time. I've 
seen a few isolated posts relating to some of the problems you 
mention, and as I mentioned in the first post there are those who've 
not been able to resolve clogging issues. I've never implied 
otherwise. But again, I don't see how you can make the above broad 
statement.

 The vast majority 
> of third party inks (MIS, Generations, etc...) do not exhibit these 
> problems,

I've had clogs with Lysonic, Fotonic, MIS color, and Generations. I 
don't recall problems with MIS mono clogs way back when. What else is 
there?

> Here is where I take a big issue with your statement. I have been 
> using the CIS systems for well over a year now in a wide variety of 
> printers (1200, 1160, 1270, 2000P), and I have never had a problem 
> related to the CIS. You will note that even Cone himself sells these 
> systems (although he does blame them for the 1270, 1280, and 2000P 
> problems with the Color Piezo - talk about a contradiction, he 
> himself can't even get those inks to work with carts, but blames the 
> CIS?!).

So you are implying Jon Cone is lying? I never said the problem was 
the CIS itself. I'm saying the combination of CIS and Piezo inks seems 
to be where the problems are occurring. One poster suspects, after 
careful examination, there was some chemical reaction between a 
sealant used in the CIS and the ink creating a greenish by product 
coming from the sealant working it's way into the ink flow. This has 
yet to be played out. I have no more idea than anyone else what the 
solution will be. These system and ink combos are relatively new, that 
problems are emerging doesn't justify claiming it's badly designed 
ink. 
> 
> >Any cartridge users 
> > reporting any of these seemimgly unresolvable problems?
> 
> Yes, go read the Color Piezo board.

I'm talking B&W

There are also those 
> using the Piezo B/W carts that report clogs, crystal deposits, etc...

Well, you've got me there. I don't recall particular posts or anything 
suggesting suggesting such an epidemic with cart users. I've never 
heard of crystal deposits.

> If the problem is only with the CIS as you state, why would he need a 
> chemist to fix it?

See above.

 Better yet, why would he need a chemist at all 
> since he "developed" these inks? They are a derivative of another 
> brand (that was not designed to be an Epson ink replacement) that are 
> manufactured for him by that company, plain and simple. There are 
> truly only a few companies that manufacture all of the inks made for 
> inkjet printers. The specialty inks are made from those.

Perhaps because it's a new problem requiring special techical 
expertise, or because developing an ink and being specifically 
involved at the chemcial level aren't necessarily the same thing? I 
don't know, who cares? It seems he's on the problem, why bash him?
> 
> This is exactly how the CIS works, it recharges the cart as it 
> empties, how would refilling by hand be any different?

Because of the syphon/gravity issues with CIS. Why else are people 
raising the bottles or the printer to overcome problems. Is it so hard 
to believe inks of different densities may have new problems with CIS?

> Actually hand 
> refilling is worse since it introduces much larger quantities of air 
> into the cartridge, which as we all know can and does lead to even 
> more problems.

I filled my own 1160 carts with Piezo, no problem.
> 
> You may actually be onto something with this, but it isn't the fault 
> of the CIS.

Again, I think it's the combination, and a new one.

...This is an evolving situation and the gap will 
> narrow 
> > > with time.
> > 
> > I personally think that's a ways off.
> 
> Why?

Because of the methods I see being used to address it, and the 
difficulties involved with making these quad worflows perfect. You 
forget how long quad inks have been around and how many people have 
been working on it, I don't see a great advance coming to light 
recently to accelerate progress.

> Didn't this user also have the 7000 for only a few weeks?

There were more than one, and I brought that up only in the context of 
the tinker factor. As far as whatever situation you refer to above, 
there are some who would say even a few weeks is too much tinkering, I 
wouldn't be one of them. Keep in mind all this was in reference to 
advising a new user of the pros and cons of the two approaches, what 
might their reasonable tinker factor be? He was advised it was 
minimal. Mike Kravitz, who was also appalled at my post, decided he 
needed to get some prints done and went back. He's also had Piezo 
issues as I recall, I'm not ignoring that. The subject here is the 
tinker factor.

Also, does 
> the Piezo 7000 use dithering? The desktop versions don't (there 
> Steadman, that is one of the clues you were looking for), which leads 
> to the banding, window screening, etc... of those "less than perfect 
> printers" that we hear so much about.

All drivers and RIPs of every kind dither, I don't know what this 
means.
> 
> Bottom line Tyler, is that no one system is perfect. You may be right 
> about the "tinker factor", but if Piezo leads to mechanical problems 
> right off the bat or in the very near future, that "tinker factor" 
> for fixing the Piezo problems (clogs, sludge, having to replace an 
> otherwise perfectly good printer, etc...) may prove to be more of a 
> problem than the "tinker factor" for these other alternatives.

I agree, and again, I sympathize those who have had insurmountable 
problems. In fact I mentioned a few in my post. My opinion is simply 
that the majority of Piezo users don't have problems, and most of them 
that do are here.
> 
> I am not advocating that one sytem is better than the other at this 
> point, but do believe that what you were trying to do was balance out 
> the conversation so to speak, but then took it a little too far in 
> the other direction

I can only say what I honestly think, based on my experiences, my 
friends experiences, any "inside" info I can get my hands on, and 
posts on lists. I also clearly said there are users with problems.
If we are both faced with the same info, and coming to different 
conclusions, I guess we are simply exposing the folly of being human.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" 
<julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> Martin,
> I think a lot of the problems with piezo are down to the printer. I 
have had
> one 'bad' 1160. Which clogged, needed loads of care and was 
eventually
> replaced under warranty. I now have two 1160s that work flawlessly. 
One
> printer has just printed 25 exhibition prints (A3+), 35 portfolio 
prints
> (A3), 25 sheets A3+ of business cards, 25 A4 press prints (glossy), 
plus
> work prints. Without a  single clog. 

I didn't mean to imply that Piezo always clogs but from my 
experience, your experience and that of many others it is somthing 
that occurs and is to my mind a problem.

I can't really look at it as a printer problem since the inks were 
presumably designed for the printers and not the other way around. 
Most ilkely the inks were designed for the 3000 which is not the same 
as the 1160 or 1200. The fact that it works great in some or most 
examples of a particular model of printer and it does not work well 
other examples of the same model is not very reassuring. Obviously 
Epson isn't going to solve this, so it is up to ConeTech and from the 
evidence to date on MIS it can be done.

> Europe, piezo inks are very expensive. Could you talk more about the
> difference between Piezo and FIS with the piezo driver?

Taking the three prints out just now and putting them up in my 
regular viewing location I cannot tell which is which without without 
checking the labels on the back. The difference between the Piezo ink 
and the Full Spectrum ink with the Piezo driver is much less than the 
difference between say Ilford Gallerie and Oriental Seagul silver 
papers if that helps.

You should contact Bernd for more info on this.

> I'm getting a number
> of people in Spain (hi Jose!) looking at my prints and wondering 
which way
> to jump. I'm advising to go with Piezo first as an out of the box 
solution,
> and then to try FIS with the piezo driver. The profiles and 
software of
> piezo are important for beginners IMO. Also  I believe that people 
thinking
> of buying a system need to see the prints and should be wary of 
making
> decisions based on 'list-talk'. When I show prints ot people, I 
always try
> and show more than one paper (yesterday I showed WT and Photorag - 
the
> difference between the two is large IMO).
> Like Jerry, I think that the piezo demo print is a bad one, and 
Som. En is a
> bad paper to use for a demo - it must be the 'warmest'  paper 
around for
> piezo.

Buying into this sight unseen is a major problem. I bought my Piezo 
in spite of the sample print. Perhaps the best way to go is a path 
that keeps options open in both directions. Someone starting out 
could buy a Piezo cartridge system for the 1160 and see how they like 
it. When they upgrade to a CIS they could then continue with the 
Piezo inks or give the MIS FS a try.

Martin



(snip)

Rodrigo,

In theory you should be able to get better, smoother tonality in your 
prints by doing all the work in a 16-bit space. In practice this is 
limiting in Photoshop since most of the features are available only 
in 8-bit space.

It is possible to work in 8-bit space and transfer the key 
adjustments to 16-bit space which some people do. Up until the last 
release of Piezo they were forced to drop to 8-bit at the end in 
order to use the old Piezo driver.

Practivally speaking I have not seen any discussion yet as to the 
advantages of printing from 16-bit space vs. 8-bit. You can also 
print from 16-bit space using the Epson driver. 

Martin



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., ramestic@e... wrote:
> Hello, after reading this list it really looks like an 8bit 
workflow 
> is "enough" for a desktop printer (like the 860/1160). Are you 
using a 
> printer like this ones?
> 
> I still do not quite understand why the Piezo people put some 
effort 
> in delivering a 16 bit driver for printers like the ones obove.
> 
> Comments are pretty much appreciated,
>  Rodrigo
>   
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson 
> <jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> > Jim Do try the VM inks and Paul Roark's curves. Absolutely no 
dots 
> and
> > no banding.
> > 
> > Jerry
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Jim Hayes wrote:
> > > 
> > > A caution: I had a problem with Piezo inks. I no longer think 
they 
> are
> > > viable for longterm use in 1160. Hate to say that, that's just 
my
> > > experience. My experience with MIS inks is new, so they are to 
be
> > > taken as my initial impressions only.
> > > 
> > > After a year with Piezo inks, I'm discontinuing them. I can't 
> clear my
> > > printer fully of what is now called "Hayes Syndrome" on the 
Piezo
> > > list. When I compare MIS Full Spectrum inks set up on a spare 
1160
> > > with the Piezo prints from my old clogging up with Piezo 
printer, 
> the
> > > Piezo inks definetly have a green tinge, and remnants of the 
other
> > > symptoms.
> > > 
> > > I very much like the tone of these  FS MIS inks, a bit warm but 
> nice,
> > > not sickly.
> > > 
> > > Until this problem is solved (and Cone says he IS working on 
it) 
> I'm
> > > not going back. I really don't mean to badmouth his setup<sigh>.
> > > 
> > > OTOH I find that even using John Woolf's workflow, when I 
examine
> > > prints done with Epson driver ("error diffusion" setting") vs 
> Piezo
> > > driver with MIS FS inks, I can see dots in highlights and I get 
> very
> > > tiny tiny microbanding with Epson driver/Woolf workflow....but 
the
> > > Piezo driver is smooth. This is counter-intuitive for 
> microbanding,
> > > but there it is. Please note that I only see the highlight dots 
> and
> > > microbanding when using my CRI 98 Ott-lite and viewing from 1 
foot
> > > away. I don't know why, but viewed under typical tungsten 
lighting 
> of
> > > varying intensity, I can't see the dots/banding at all.
> > > 
> > > The piezo driver seems  (still some uncertainy)to print a bit
> > > contratier than the Epson. In this case for some photos, I 
wonder 
> if
> > > the Epson driver still might be better, if a textured paper was 
> used.
> > > S. E. photo textured paper seems to "almost" hide the 
microbanding
> > > even when I put the Ott-lite up real close.
> > > 
> > > I am curious if I have the settings wrong for the Woolf 
workflow. 
> His
> > > screen shot of settings did not match my driver dialogue 
choices, 
> so I
> > > e-mailed him as to the discrepancies (i.e. "Halftone" setting 
not
> > > availabe, J.W.---->use "error diffusion" instead).
> > > 
> > > So, if I can swing it, I'll be using the Piezo driver with MIS 
FS
> > > inkset. I am going to conduct my usual fade testing of some 
papers
> > > profiled by Cone in this manner, as some on the Piezo list are 
> aware I
> > > already do.
> > > Jim H.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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/

Nij,

I could tell you, but then I would have to kill you! ;-)

Just kidding, but in fairness to these companies that would not be a 
good thing to do, since a few fare much better at adapting them for 
use with the Epson printers, but that would cast doubt against their 
products. 

Think of it as the rebranding that we hear so much about with paper, 
except apply it to the ink.

I test a lot of inks, usually on a beta basis. Some are as 
advertised, and some will absolutely wipe out a printer while trying 
to get them to work (anyone got a dead 1270 for sell cheap?). I also 
get involved with some inks after they have been released as a 
troubleshooter of sorts, but that is another story.

Terry

PS - Yes Lyson inks are available in the states.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Nij" <nigel@m...> wrote:
> Terry,
> 
> Perhaps you could help me, offlist maybe, to gen up on who makes 
all these
> inks. Seriously, if you know something I don't - which sounds very 
likely in
> this case, I'd appreciate the info.
> 
> To throw another name into the hat, and based on your suggestion 
that inks
> that don't work well with Epson weren't designed for Epson... what 
were
> Lyson 'Small Gamut' inks designed for? I have heard _rumours_ those 
inks
> kill print heads after a while!
> 
> In fact... are Lyson inks available in the States? There seems to 
be very
> little talk about them, if any, on this list.
> 
> Best,
> Nij
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: TerryR [mailto:terryr1028@h...]
> <snip>
> > This is true, but those inks that exhibit problems, typically 
aren't
> > designed as an Epson ink replacement (such as Piezo), they are
> > usually a derivative of another ink that wasn't initially 
designed to
> > work with the Epson printers. Again, MIS and Generations are 
perfect
> > examples of those that were designed specifically for the Epson
> > printers. I have yet to hear of a clog that couldn't be undone 
with
> > those inks, but can point you at many posts of those that even 
went
> > as far as to disassemble their printers or other extreme measures 
and
> > still couldn't clear the clog when using Piezo inks.
> <snip>

> Practically speaking I have not seen any discussion yet as to the
> advantages of printing from 16-bit space vs. 8-bit.

1) convenience...no need to convert.

2) IF the new driver is designed to use the higher bit depth in it's
halftoning/dithering...then, as people have said they have seen with the
PiezoPro (or what ever it's called) you can get "better" (very amorphous
term, I know) images.  I personally have not seen the PiezoPro prints...

:)

I appreciate your thoughts for not sharing...

So... just to open up that discussion... are there any Lyson Small Gamut
users on this list? Experiences?

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: TerryR [mailto:terryr1028@...]
> Sent: 01 October 2001 04:30
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Getting started -- Cone or MIS? (LONG)
>
>
> Nij,
>
> I could tell you, but then I would have to kill you! ;-)
>
> Just kidding, but in fairness to these companies that would not be a
> good thing to do, since a few fare much better at adapting them for
> use with the Epson printers, but that would cast doubt against their
> products.
>
> Think of it as the rebranding that we hear so much about with paper,
> except apply it to the ink.
>
> I test a lot of inks, usually on a beta basis. Some are as
> advertised, and some will absolutely wipe out a printer while trying
> to get them to work (anyone got a dead 1270 for sell cheap?). I also
> get involved with some inks after they have been released as a
> troubleshooter of sorts, but that is another story.
>
> Terry
>
> PS - Yes Lyson inks are available in the states.

I'd agree that this list has attracted it's fair share of Cone 
detractors, and I think that is really unfortunate.  I'm really not 
impressed with flag waving partisans.  I'd rather hear objective 
accounts of what folks are experiencing, sans venom.

In the way of facts:

I've run an 1160 with CIS and Cone inks for many months now, and well 
over a thousand prints, without so much as a single clog or shifting 
contrast, increasing green or other anomaly, outside of some initial 
clogs with cartridges which immediately cleared when I went to CIS.  
Period.

I recently purchased a 7000, and decided to give the MIS VM's a try.  I 
spent some time with Paul trying to get the curves for the Mac worked 
out, but have just recently given up as time has become a factor.  I 
think Paul is doing careful, diligent work with this approach, but I 
just needed to get something working.  I'm sure in time he will develop 
great curves, although I question the ability of the Epson driver to 
deliver the goods, based on the images I was printing.  The approach is 
also lacking in intuitiveness, which I happen to value highly.  I want 
to be able to see the image I'm printing in a more verifiable form 
onscreen.  I was impressed with the MIS inks, and would not steer 
anyone away from them if they like this approach.  I did have major 
problems with their CFS system for the 7000, which started out fine but 
began sucking air into the lines within days.  Mark Tucker had similar 
problems.  I would stay away from this system, I suspect the high 
viscosity of pigmented inks is the culprit here. The Cone people have 
indicated this is why they don't offer this system for the 7000.

I've now gone to PiezoBW24 Pro and am up and running and creating what 
I feel are spectacular prints.  Large versions of the stuff I was 
getting from my 1160.  Not without a few glitches, I'm running the new 
software and there are a few problems with speed and possibly 
inconsistent profiles, its still too early to tell about them.  The 
PiezoBW6 update I've been using for the 1160 is solid and very 
consistent.

Finally, I do think we expect a lot from this rather new technology.  
It's still young and a moving target.  Mixing proprietary and third 
party products always carries some risk of incongruities. That is not 
to say that I don't myself want to see results from invested money and 
time.  But silver printing has been around for decades now, and it 
still has plenty of inconsistencies.

Respectfully,
Phil
http://philbard.com

> wrote:
> Terry, I was, in fact trying to balance out the posts, and was 
> responding to what I thought was an unblanced post. I think this list, 
> in particular, has a high percentage of members disgruntled with 
> Piezo. I should know better by now to post this kind of thing here. 
> Without turning this into a big back and forth thing, I'll simply tell 
> you why I think what I think.
>

Tyler,

My two cents mixed with yours again.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" 
<terryr1028@h...> 
> wrote:
> Terry, I was, in fact trying to balance out the posts, and was 
> responding to what I thought was an unblanced post. I think this 
list, 
> in particular, has a high percentage of members disgruntled with 
> Piezo. 

I think this in part supports our "differences with with happy users" 
since they don't vent as often on the Piezo list.

> I should know better by now to post this kind of thing here.

Even if we disagree, that is what the list is for.
 
> Without turning this into a big back and forth thing, I'll simply 
tell 
> you why I think what I think.
> 
> > I am glad that, as you say, there are those that can use Cone 
Inks 
> > with little or no problems, but feel that you are perhaps in the 
> > minority, not the majority as you say.
> 
> I have no idea why you would say that since I've seen nothing to 
> support it, although you have no reason to accept what I say 
either. 

True, but read your own statement above, and all of the posts on the 
Piezo list that support the problems. Why should anyone need to make 
major adjustments to their printers (or worse yet, send back 
otherwise fine printers for Epson to replace) or fight clogs, etc... 
with an ink that is so expensive and "designed" to work with ALL (not 
just a select few) Epson printers?
 
> My opinion rests on my own and the experiences of every user I have 
> regular personal contact with, as well as what I have been told by 
> people who know more about the user base that I shouldn't quote. 
> Again, you have no reason to believe them, or me. But Terry, I've 
seen 
> nothing to support your statement that successful Piezo users are 
in 
> the minority.

See above.

> I have never, ever, had a clogging problem with Piezo 
> ink in an 1160 or a 3000. At the same time, I'm not denying some 
> people have had unsolvable problems.

As I stated before, it is great that you don't have a problem, but 
does that mean that since I live in an area that doesn't cause 
the "Orange Shift" problem to occur on my 870 and 1270's and 1280's, 
that it doesn't? Does this mean that there isn't a problem with that?

> 
> > Cone has always had problems with his inks.
> 
> I just don't know how you can make such a statement. There are 
> problems with the color ink, but they seem unrelated to reported 
> problems with the mono ink.

See my original statement below and go back through the archives of 
the Piezo list, it is all there.

> 
> >B/W Piezo has a long history of clogging, forming crystal 
> > type deposits, and creating sludge in printheads.
> 
> I've been on every Epson printing related list for a long time. 
I've 
> seen a few isolated posts relating to some of the problems you 
> mention, and as I mentioned in the first post there are those 
who've 
> not been able to resolve clogging issues. I've never implied 
> otherwise. But again, I don't see how you can make the above broad 
> statement.

Well, you may be right, but if these problems don't exist then why do 
so many people complain about them?

> 
>  The vast majority 
> > of third party inks (MIS, Generations, etc...) do not exhibit 
these 
> > problems,
> 
> I've had clogs with Lysonic, Fotonic, MIS color, and Generations. I 
> don't recall problems with MIS mono clogs way back when. What else 
is 
> there?

Lysonic and Fotonic I can believe since they were not specifically 
formulated for Epson printers - they aren't even compatible with the 
Epson inks if that tells you anything. MIS and Generations will clog, 
I never said they wouldn't (so will the stock Epson inks), but a 
cleaning cycle or two always clears them. Piezo on the other hand may 
take days or even weeks to become stable in the printer and will 
still come up with some exceptional clogs, also think about the fact 
that they include flush carts with the new kits. If they were 
designed to be compatible why would they take the Lysonic approach to 
this?

> 
> > Here is where I take a big issue with your statement. I have been 
> > using the CIS systems for well over a year now in a wide variety 
of 
> > printers (1200, 1160, 1270, 2000P), and I have never had a 
problem 
> > related to the CIS. You will note that even Cone himself sells 
these 
> > systems (although he does blame them for the 1270, 1280, and 
2000P 
> > problems with the Color Piezo - talk about a contradiction, he 
> > himself can't even get those inks to work with carts, but blames 
the 
> > CIS?!).
> 
> So you are implying Jon Cone is lying?

Based upon some recent events of which I was involved, let's just say 
he is in a state of denial.

> I never said the problem was 
> the CIS itself. I'm saying the combination of CIS and Piezo inks 
seems 
> to be where the problems are occurring. One poster suspects, after 
> careful examination, there was some chemical reaction between a 
> sealant used in the CIS and the ink creating a greenish by product 
> coming from the sealant working it's way into the ink flow. This 
has 
> yet to be played out. I have no more idea than anyone else what the 
> solution will be. These system and ink combos are relatively new, 
that 
> problems are emerging doesn't justify claiming it's badly designed 
> ink.

If your theory holds true, yes it does indicate a problem with the 
ink. If the ink were properly designed for the Epson printer it would 
not have a problem with the CIS. The CIS has never exhibited a 
problem with any other brand of ink that was designed for an Epson 
printer to date.
 
> > 
> > >Any cartridge users 
> > > reporting any of these seemimgly unresolvable problems?
> > 
> > Yes, go read the Color Piezo board.
> 
> I'm talking B&W
> 
> There are also those 
> > using the Piezo B/W carts that report clogs, crystal deposits, 
etc...
> 
> Well, you've got me there. I don't recall particular posts or 
anything 
> suggesting suggesting such an epidemic with cart users. I've never 
> heard of crystal deposits.

See above. I don't know if I would call it an epidemic, just further 
proof that the Piezo ink is not in its current state an optimal 
design for Epson printers.
> 
> > If the problem is only with the CIS as you state, why would he 
need a 
> > chemist to fix it?
> 
> See above.
> 
>  Better yet, why would he need a chemist at all 
> > since he "developed" these inks? They are a derivative of another 
> > brand (that was not designed to be an Epson ink replacement) that 
are 
> > manufactured for him by that company, plain and simple. There are 
> > truly only a few companies that manufacture all of the inks made 
for 
> > inkjet printers. The specialty inks are made from those.
> 
> Perhaps because it's a new problem requiring special techical 
> expertise, or because developing an ink and being specifically 
> involved at the chemcial level aren't necessarily the same thing? I 
> don't know, who cares? It seems he's on the problem, why bash him?

I am not trying to bash him. I am just trying to point out that there 
are problems. He may very well be addressing this, only he truly 
knows for sure. As I stated originally, I feel he has done a lot to 
jump start all of this. His software is what I see as a major 
contribution, not the ink. The software may be tough to beat, but it 
doesn't mean that the ink is worth the price or praise to its users.

> > 
> > This is exactly how the CIS works, it recharges the cart as it 
> > empties, how would refilling by hand be any different?
> 
> Because of the syphon/gravity issues with CIS. Why else are people 
> raising the bottles or the printer to overcome problems. Is it so 
hard 
> to believe inks of different densities may have new problems with 
CIS?

I have never had to raise the bottles as you say with any brand of 
ink to date. If it takes this to get the inks to flow through a cart 
that was designed to handle Epson inks, then that further shows that 
the ink is not designed properly for an Epson printer.

> 
> > Actually hand 
> > refilling is worse since it introduces much larger quantities of 
air 
> > into the cartridge, which as we all know can and does lead to 
even 
> > more problems.
> 
> I filled my own 1160 carts with Piezo, no problem.

That is fine, but how long did you need to wait to use the carts? I 
also feel that you are much more experienced at this than most, and 
would likely do an excellent job of it. :-)

> > 
> > You may actually be onto something with this, but it isn't the 
fault 
> > of the CIS.
> 
> Again, I think it's the combination, and a new one.

Hasn't this combination been in existence for a while now? What makes 
it new?

> 
> ...This is an evolving situation and the gap will 
> > narrow 
> > > > with time.
> > > 
> > > I personally think that's a ways off.
> > 
> > Why?
> 
> Because of the methods I see being used to address it, and the 
> difficulties involved with making these quad worflows perfect. You 
> forget how long quad inks have been around and how many people have 
> been working on it, I don't see a great advance coming to light 
> recently to accelerate progress.

No, I haven't forgot about how long the quads have been around, and 
that is the point. More has happened in a very short time with the 
MIS VM than happened for a long time prior to it. It got people 
excited and interested that didn't have the ability to make the other 
quads work and were left with Piezo as the only game in town as a 
result. The point is that with the renewed interest and what some may 
call competition we will all win in the end. Even Jon is taking note, 
noticed the recent sale that includes the Piezo system and the inks?

> 
> > Didn't this user also have the 7000 for only a few weeks?
> 
> There were more than one, and I brought that up only in the context 
of 
> the tinker factor. As far as whatever situation you refer to above, 
> there are some who would say even a few weeks is too much 
tinkering, I 
> wouldn't be one of them. 

This is why I pay attention to your posts!! You have done as much if 
not more tinkering than any of us.

> Keep in mind all this was in reference to 
> advising a new user of the pros and cons of the two approaches, 
what 
> might their reasonable tinker factor be? He was advised it was 
> minimal. 

I can see what you are saying here, but the workflow is minimal, no 
harder than Piezo once you have the curves. THe curves are where the 
tinkering come in.

> Mike Kravitz, who was also appalled at my post, decided he 
> needed to get some prints done and went back. He's also had Piezo 
> issues as I recall, I'm not ignoring that. The subject here is the 
> tinker factor.

Well, maybe he needed to get the prints done in a hurry and isn't 
quite there yet with the MIS VM. I don't think he would have been 
tinkering with them if he were totally happy with the Piezo though.


> 
> Also, does 
> > the Piezo 7000 use dithering? The desktop versions don't (there 
> > Steadman, that is one of the clues you were looking for), which 
leads 
> > to the banding, window screening, etc... of those "less than 
perfect 
> > printers" that we hear so much about.
> 
> All drivers and RIPs of every kind dither, I don't know what this 
> means.

Well, you say you have some inside info, check into it and I think 
you will find that is one part of the Epson driver that is bypassed 
and not used (dithering), nor is it replaced in the software.

> > 
> > Bottom line Tyler, is that no one system is perfect. You may be 
right 
> > about the "tinker factor", but if Piezo leads to mechanical 
problems 
> > right off the bat or in the very near future, that "tinker 
factor" 
> > for fixing the Piezo problems (clogs, sludge, having to replace 
an 
> > otherwise perfectly good printer, etc...) may prove to be more of 
a 
> > problem than the "tinker factor" for these other alternatives.
> 
> I agree, and again, I sympathize those who have had insurmountable 
> problems. In fact I mentioned a few in my post. My opinion is 
simply 
> that the majority of Piezo users don't have problems, and most of 
them 
> that do are here.
> > 
> > I am not advocating that one sytem is better than the other at 
this 
> > point, but do believe that what you were trying to do was balance 
out 
> > the conversation so to speak, but then took it a little too far 
in 
> > the other direction
> 
> I can only say what I honestly think, based on my experiences, my 
> friends experiences, any "inside" info I can get my hands on, and 
> posts on lists. I also clearly said there are users with problems.
> If we are both faced with the same info, and coming to different 
> conclusions, I guess we are simply exposing the folly of being 
human.

> Tyler

Fair enough, as I said that is the purpose of the list. As to the 
HUMAN part of it, I can't verify your end, but my wife (and a few 
others) may disagree on my end!  :-)

Terry

PS - Just to be fair, I just ordered the newest version of the Piezo 
system and a 980 to try it with. I promise to post my experiences 
with it in a few weeks and eat crow if need be!!

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" <
> mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> >snip...
> Hopefully ConeTech will have 
> > resolved the clogging issues with the new ink.
> >snip...
> On the other hand Piezo has all 
> > these clogging problems that get to be a major source of
> frustration 
> > plus the "Hayes syndrome" and the yellow or olive-green cast 
> > metamerism that some people see under artificial light.
> 
> Actually, I doubt Conetech has any clogging issue to resolve at 
all. 

Tyler,

I can't agree with you on that one. If you go to the Piezo list and 
run a search on "clogging" I honestly don't see how you can say that 
clogging is not an issue for ConeTech. It has got to be the most 
common problem that people ask for help on.

> There are countless users with no problem, myself and the local 
users 
> I have contact with have never had a clog. Obviously there are 
those 
> that have had very frustrating problems, yourself and Steadman for 
> example.

My impression is that a very large number of people have clogging 
problems with Piezo, mostly users of the 1160 and the 1200 Epson's. 
The 3000's do not seem to suffer from clogging problems. This may 
have something to do with the 3000's nozzle design. I don't know.

> But almost every third party ink has had users with
> problems, 

I am pretty new to all this but I have not heard of any clogging 
issues with any ink set other than Piezo so far. 

> these printers are designed for Epson inks, as soon as we put 
someone 
> elses ink in we have the possibility of glitches.

Yes but all the manufacturers of these non-Epson inks have claimed 
that they will not be a problem.

> All of these 
> problems seem to be with CIS users after considerable use, you now 
> have the added complication of another 3rd party involved. A non
> Epson 
> contraption is delivering a non Epson ink. Any cartridge users 
> reporting any of these seemimgly unresolvable problems?

My clogging problems with my 1200 started from day one with Piezo 
carts. Clogging was much worse with cartridges then with the CIS. 
Every time I changed cartridges it took 24 to 48 hours to get it back 
up. With the CIS I would get some long periods without any problems 
and then come home one night planning to print and instead spend it 
trying to get a good nozzle check and waiting overnight for it to 
clear. If this is not a common problem for Piezo I am glad to hear 
it. As I said in my last post I intend to give Piezo another try on a 
1280 and hope that my past problems were just related to this 
particular 1200.

> The sudden green shift also seems associated with CIS users 
> specifically. The problems seems very real, but most of the 
> disscussion seems to revolve around whether or not it qualifies as 
a 
> "syndrome", and who gets it named after them.
> Cone has acknowledged the problem, and has a chemist working on it.
> In 
> the meantime, if I were a desktop/CIS user commited to Piezo and 
the 
> problem began, I'd flush out my printer and start filling 
cartridges 
> myself until a solution is known.

I really don't know that there would be any benefit to running 
cartridges vs. CIS in terms of clogging. They both supply ink to the 
print head in exactly the same manner. They are simply reservoirs for 
ink that the head draws from. I do not see any difference between 
having the cartridges continuously and automatically refilled vs. 
hand refilling them. The connection between the "Hayes syndrome" and 
the CIS may simply be one of print volume. Anyone making prints in 
large numbers is going to be using a CIS and the syndrome only shows 
up after making lots of prints. 

> Regarding metamerism, both inks have it. It's just a subjective
> matter 
> of which looks the least unpleasant to you. I have never seen a 
Piezo 
> print with a hint of green, personal differences about print hue 
are 
> unresolvable. People need to be looking at prints to help with 
these 
> decisions.

That is the big problem in making a recommendation. There is no way 
to sit these people down and show them a bunch of prints using the 
different ink sets. Taste in print color tone is very personal and 
very sensitive to ink and paper combinations.

> If you are a MIS/CIS user with no problems, are happy with the 
> workflow and print color, then you're in fat city. When it comes to 
> advising a new user, I think it's important to point out that the
> vast  
> silent majority of Piezo users are problem free as well.

I wish they were not so silent, so I had a better feel for this.  

> I think you should work backwards from your budget and desired 
print 
> look when deciding. There are many happy users of both.

The budget may be the most limiting factor for some but I hate to see 
people make creative decisions based on this alone. Piezo shouldn't 
get ruled out because of the cost. If Piezo gives you the results you 
want it is well worth it.

> 
> > With the MIS there appear to be none of the mechanical issues but
> the 
> > current workflows are not as well developed and you may have to
> spend 
> > more time working with your images and/or the curves to refine 
your 
> > final prints. This is an evolving situation and the gap will 
narrow 
> > with time.
> 
> I personally think that's a ways off.

Well, I have seen a lot of improvement since I started with the MIS 
MV a few weeks ago so I remain hopeful. At the moment it gives me a 
more satisfying result and is worth extra effort.

> 
> > Actual use of the workflows is not as user friendly as 
> > Piezo but what you have to do is rather trivial.
> 
> Really? I have yet to see a report of it being absolutely nailed, 
and 
> perfectly reproducing any number of difficult files, including 
> outstanding dithering. We have more than one report here of 7000
> users 
> bagging it, these users tend to be pros with high technical 
> expectations. There are desktop users thrilled with prints I would 
> find unacceptable, more power to them since they are probably
> printing 
> and not tinkering, why should they pay more if they are happy? I 
> wouldn't minimize the tinker factor, the gap you mention above is 
> about equal to the price gap.

Perhaps I was not clear. Specifically I was speaking of the printing 
workflow. I don't see that a workflow of Image>Mode>RGB followed by 
Image>Adjust>Curves>Load>select curve>OK followed by Print>Print 
Properties>make the proper settings and then print is that much 
harder than the Piezo Export>Piezography>etc. 

My impression is that the main reasons some of 7000 users gave up on 
the MIS inks was a Dmax problem (that does not seem to exist with any 
of the other printers) and a lack of available curves. Both valid 
reasons. MIS is not as easy as Piezo unless you already have the 
curve or curves you need. I hope someone will take the time to sort 
out the MIS issues on the 7000 at some point.

I know you don't mean to sound this way, but you come across as 
having a low opinion of all the people out there who are working to 
make quality prints on desktop printers. You imply that only pros 
with the expensive equipment have enough discerning taste to produce 
fine prints and that their opinions carry more weight than others. I 
don't buy that and I don't think you do either. Besides you could 
turn around and make the same argument about all the happy desktop 
Piezo users!

I think the price of Piezo more than offsets the tinker gap. But you 
have to like the end result. You told me yourself that you have to 
like the ink. Not everyone is going to like the color of Piezo. 

As I said, I am uncertain at this point as to what to recommend to 
newcomers (the vast majority of them will be desktop users) between 
Piezo and MIS solutions as a starting place. I see drawbacks to both 
and don't feel comfortable strongly saying, "Definitely go buy brand 
X. You won't be sorry!" 

Martin

Nij,

I agree with you that the "clogs" that we all talk about are very 
likely air bubbles for the most part. (probably not the severe Hayes 
issue though it could be related.) This is why the "wait and let it 
settle" process works so well. Which does lead me to feel that it is 
a formulation issue. If there was more surfactant in the formula 
perhaps this would not be such a common problem. 

I was very happy to hear Jon has gotten an ink chemist on board. 
Hopefully the issues are easy ones and can be resolved quickly.

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Nij" <nigel@m...> wrote:
> Tyler,
> 
> I agree... but for different reasons. I just think people seriously
> underestimate the time it _may_ take for ink to move to the print-
head in
> third-party carts or CIS systems or...
> 
> And I really think they underestimate the dramatically _bad_ effect 
a
> cleaning cycle could have on the distribution of air / ink through a
> cartridge / CIS that hadn't properly settled! I mean even Epson 
don't
> recommend more than 'a small number' (not a quote, bad memory!) of 
cleaning
> cycles in a row. My suspicion is _not_ because a cleaning cycle 
with it's
> rubber squidgee action and high ink throughput is _damaging_ - it 
just
> doesn't achieve anything without there being a 'body of liquid ink' 
to suck
> on. Picture drinking a latte or cappuchino with a straw held only 
in the
> froth ;) ...whilst someone else is blowing bubbes into the bottom 
of the
> drink <ewwww>. But if you wait long enough, even that foam 
will 'soak down'
> into liquid that you can drink no problems (apart from it's cold, 
obviously)
> 
> I really, really honestly believe that most users who experience 
problems
> with _most_ inks will actually be experiencing problems with air, 
rather
> than ink... and if you have air in your nozzles, the ink that is 
there is
> much more likely to dry. Hence the success some people find with 
Windex /
> Fantastic / Windolene - it's not in my view that they are claning 
anything,
> but that they are creating an environment in which the inks are 
less likely
> to dry (if there is air) and easier to flow into the nasty air-lock 
if there
> is one. I believe that even dye inks can suffer these problems, but 
it is
> 'true' that you are more likely to experience problems with these 
systems if
> using pigment / pigmented inks.
> 
> I really really recommend leaving systems for quite some time to 
allow ink
> to settle, suggest storing carts (of any brand) upright so the 
settling is
> done for you in storage. etc etc etc.
> 
> Best as ever,
> nij
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tyler Boley [mailto:tyler@t...]
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" <
> > mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> > >snip...
> > Hopefully ConeTech will have
> > > resolved the clogging issues with the new ink.
> > >snip...
> > On the other hand Piezo has all
> > > these clogging problems that get to be a major source of
> > frustration
> > > plus the "Hayes syndrome" and the yellow or olive-green cast
> > > metamerism that some people see under artificial light.
> >
> > Actually, I doubt Conetech has any clogging issue to resolve at 
all.

on 9/30/01 11:25 PM, Martin Wesley wrote:

> Practivally speaking I have not seen any discussion yet as to the
> advantages of printing from 16-bit space vs. 8-bit. You can also
> print from 16-bit space using the Epson driver.
> 
> Martin


You can print to the Epson driver from 16-bit space, but it gets downsampled
to 8-bits on the way to the driver. The new Piezo driver will allow the
16-bit data to pass through the driver, so to speak.

I've only heard one person make mention of the 16-bit option and they said
it was visibly better. Has anyone else compared?

Todd

Nij,

I am an ex Lyson SG user. Excellent support from supplier but experienced
clogs and could not obtain a smooth greyscale transient with the supplied
profile for the 1160 (Lyson branded papers). I could not come to terms with
the metamerism.

I experienced clogs with Cone inks using cartridges but the problem
evaporated when changing over to CIS.

Steve Chambers

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Nij [mailto:nigel@...]
  Sent: 01 October 2001 04:43
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Getting started -- Cone or MIS? (LONG)


  :)

  I appreciate your thoughts for not sharing...

  So... just to open up that discussion... are there any Lyson Small Gamut
  users on this list? Experiences?

  Nij


  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: TerryR [mailto:terryr1028@...]
  > Sent: 01 October 2001 04:30
  > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Getting started -- Cone or MIS? (LONG)
  >
  >
  > Nij,
  >
  > I could tell you, but then I would have to kill you! ;-)
  >
  > Just kidding, but in fairness to these companies that would not be a
  > good thing to do, since a few fare much better at adapting them for
  > use with the Epson printers, but that would cast doubt against their
  > products.
  >
  > Think of it as the rebranding that we hear so much about with paper,
  > except apply it to the ink.
  >
  > I test a lot of inks, usually on a beta basis. Some are as
  > advertised, and some will absolutely wipe out a printer while trying
  > to get them to work (anyone got a dead 1270 for sell cheap?). I also
  > get involved with some inks after they have been released as a
  > troubleshooter of sorts, but that is another story.
  >
  > Terry
  >
  > PS - Yes Lyson inks are available in the states.


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT



                          Height:
                             345678ft 01234567891011in
                          Weight:










  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

on 10/1/01 12:34 AM, Martin Wesley wrote:

> As I said, I am uncertain at this point as to what to recommend to
> newcomers (the vast majority of them will be desktop users) between
> Piezo and MIS solutions as a starting place.

I break it down along what can't you live with, and what can't you live
without.

If you can't live without glossy papers and/or high dmax go Spectratones.

If you can live with matte papers, Piezo color and cost, go Piezo software
and inks, or Piezo software and FS inks (BTW, has anybody tried to print
Tyler's Zees with the Piezo driver and FS inks?).

If you can't live with Piezo's color and/or cost try MIS VT.

If you can't live without deep hues, like sepia, or need to use one printer
for color and BW go with MIS, or Generations, or Cone color pigments.

I think clogging is likely printer, dirty carts, or location (altitude,
humidity, temperature changes, etc.) dependent. Too many people have good
results with all inks for it to be ink specific.

Todd

Martin,

You know I'm not an ink chemist by now - I don't even know what a surfactant
is (tho' I understand that my washing powder has non-ionic ones - cool!  ;)

But it surprises me that you seem to expect that 'all inks are the same' -
you know I don't mean it quite like that, and I know you don't mean it quite
like that - but aren't we talking a balancing act here? A balance between
colour/tone, amount of pigment or dye on the page without first soaking the
page in thinner or carrier solution or whatever it's called.

e.g. One way to solve the problem might be to thin the inks... but the cost
of this might be to have a 5 minute pause between print-head passes for some
thinner to off-gas - IF you wanted to achieve the same level of colourant on
the page without ruffling. Or perhaps it has no effect on that, but reduced
ink shelf-life... or whatever.

This is clearly an area that you and Terry in particular know much more than
I on the technical front - but when I read your recent comments it _sounds_
to me like you think that all these problems can be resolved without
undesireable consequences that you might find equally objectionable!

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Wesley [mailto:mwesley250@...]
>
>
> Nij,
>
> I agree with you that the "clogs" that we all talk about are very
> likely air bubbles for the most part. (probably not the severe Hayes
> issue though it could be related.) This is why the "wait and let it
> settle" process works so well. Which does lead me to feel that it is
> a formulation issue. If there was more surfactant in the formula
> perhaps this would not be such a common problem.
>
> I was very happy to hear Jon has gotten an ink chemist on board.
> Hopefully the issues are easy ones and can be resolved quickly.
>
> Martin
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
 The connection between the "Hayes syndrome" and 
> the CIS may simply be one of print volume. Anyone making prints in 
> large numbers is going to be using a CIS and the syndrome only shows 
> up after making lots of prints. 
> 

No, actually, it can be very low. In the latest case, I only did about 
15 prints over 10 weeks, being otherwise occupied. Someone else had 
recently posted that they simply turned on the printer after three 
weeks of inactivity and had the "Syndrome".

I also have a suspicion that dry climates accelerate the process, but 
I'm not sure. All I have to go on is I'm in an arid area, and a friend 
only 30 miles away has a terrible "Syndrome" as well.


I have not yet been able to return my printer's piezo output to 
original condition. I do not know if the ink is bad or if the 
printhead has been wrecked and requires removal for intense cleaning 
(replacement?) or maybe just injection of something into printhead. If 
printhead is bad, putting piezo in a brand new printer should be 
thought over carefully. I am using my spare 1160 for my MIS 
experiments.

I seem to be leaning toward VM MIS inkset with Paul's curves right 
now. I tried FS MIS inks with John Woolf's workflow and got 
micro-micro banding visible to eye, and using Paul's workflow but 
still with the FS inks installed is much better (for test purposes-now 
time to order the VM ink). Using Piezo driver with MIS FS ink seems to 
produce some "clumping" around transistional areas that go from 
70-80%k (coarser, or more mottled) on many papers but no microbanding 
is evident. However, comparing this to my recent print done on my 
other printer, with "Hayes Syndrome"...The "Syndrome" print is 
atrocious- even after Epson cart flushing.

So, please...all above comments are my opinions. And my limited 
experience. That is how they should be read.
Jim H.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Phil Bard" <phil@p...> 
wrote:
The approach is 
> also lacking in intuitiveness, which I happen to value highly.  I 
want 
> to be able to see the image I'm printing in a more verifiable 
form 
> onscreen. 


This whole Piezo/MIS thing is a tough cookie. For me, like Phil, I 
was just thrown for a loop when I actually did the whole 
applying-the-Roark-curve process. I am just so accustomed to 
using a gut-level approach when preparing and toning an image; 
when I applied the curve, and I saw the monitor image go Jimi 
Hendrix green and yellow, I didn't know what to think. At that 
point, it became so apparent that this was purely math at work 
here; the monitor image meant nothing. But that then eliminates 
gut-level intuition -- how then do you attack/alter an image if that 
first test print comes out too grey, or too contrasty, or solarized? It 
was as if I had been working in English, and then somehow I 
was required to start working in Russian all of a sudden; I was 
out of my element.

(This is in no way criticizing Paul's curves approach. He honestly 
has my vote for Workaround Solution of The Year, by devising 
this method. I'm just shocked that he's done as well as he has. 
But this way of working is just way over my head).

It also made me wonder if you really DO need SIX different grey 
tones to produce a good print. It's almost like they're too close; 
and it might make it difficult to isolate one tone from another, if 
you were trying to make adjustments in the print. Maybe four inks 
is just fine?...

It was odd when the first test prints from the hextones popped 
out of my 7000. How do you gauge what is good? How do you 
say, "There's too much dark grey ink here, and not enough light 
grey ink there"? Again, maybe with time, you'd develop a method 
of working, but for me, it was very unsettling.

On the other hand, with Piezo, where everything is done for you 
automatically, there IS comfort in the plugnplay-ness of it all. 
There's probably just as much math going on under-the-hood as 
with Paul's curves, but when you don't see it actually displayed 
on the monitor, it doesn't seem to mess with you as much. 
Sometimes, ignorance IS bliss, especially if you're on deadline, 
and you just need to produce prints. To remove the "tinker factor" 
can be a good thing.

Again, I'm a photographer, not a software engineer, or a chemist, 
or a printmaker. At some point, you've gotta cut to the chase and 
just get some prints made. Sometimes, I think it can be better to 
have some of this math going on behind the scenes, where 
you're not tempted to go in and get involved with it. That's why I 
like the Piezo approach, if I was gonna work with quads.

But I've gone back to the MIS color dyes for my work. I'm much 
more comfortable doing my toning with colors inks; if it's too 
magenta, just pull out magenta, etc. It's straightforward and easy 
to implement. Given, I'm still got the crossover enemy out there, 
ready to rear its head, but with a good profile, and not too much 
Saturation in the RGB image, it can be controlled.

Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> Tyler,
> 
> I can't agree with you on that one. If you go to the Piezo list and 
> run a search on "clogging" I honestly don't see how you can say that 
> clogging is not an issue for ConeTech. It has got to be the most 
> common problem that people ask for help on.

I never said it wasn't an issue.
> 
> Perhaps I was not clear. Specifically I was speaking of the printing 
> workflow. I don't see that a workflow of Image>Mode>RGB followed by 
> Image>Adjust>Curves>Load>select curve>OK followed by Print>Print 
> Properties>make the proper settings and then print is that much 
> harder than the Piezo Export>Piezography>etc. 

I never said a word about workflow, now did I?

> I know you don't mean to sound this way, but you come across as 
> having a low opinion of all the people out there who are working to 
> make quality prints on desktop printers. You imply that only pros 
> with the expensive equipment have enough discerning taste to produce 
> fine prints and that their opinions carry more weight than others. I 
> don't buy that and I don't think you do either. Besides you could 
> turn around and make the same argument about all the happy desktop 
> Piezo users!

I don't think that. I never said that, nor implied it. It's outright crap.
But as far as workflow developement, if you think the gap can actually be closed, in every way technically, between 
Piezography and the workflows discussed here without such assets and expertise available, I don't know what to say. 
Discerning taste has nothing to do with it, I've never said or implied that it did.
Regarding the rest, I think this thread has gotten real uninteresting real fast. If anyone is really that consumed with this, 
my opinions were already stated, aparently in french. I'm not going to say them again, or go into furthur explanation.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" <terryr1028@h...>
wrote:
> Well, you may be right, but if these problems don't exist then why
do 
> so many people complain about them?

Why do I have to say the same things over and over again? Are we
speaking two different languages? I do, and have 
repeatedly, aknowledged that there are users with problems. Are you
just trying to get me to say it again?

> If your theory holds true, yes it does indicate a problem with the 
> ink. If the ink were properly designed for the Epson printer it
would 
> not have a problem with the CIS. The CIS has never exhibited a 
> problem with any other brand of ink that was designed for an Epson 
> printer to date.

OK man, whatever you say. I put forth no theory, the fact that the
vast majority of posters with clog problems are CIS users 
must be totally irrelevant.
> > 
> proof that the Piezo ink is not in its current state an optimal 
> design for Epson printers.

I guess I'd better stop using it. What will I do with all these
prints I thought I loved?

> I can see what you are saying here, but the workflow is minimal, no 
> harder than Piezo once you have the curves. THe curves are where
the 
> tinkering come in.

I never said a word about workflow.

> Well, maybe he needed to get the prints done in a hurry and isn't 
> quite there yet with the MIS VM. I don't think he would have been 
> tinkering with them if he were totally happy with the Piezo though.

Thank you for making my point again.
> 
> > All drivers and RIPs of every kind dither, I don't know what this 
> > means.
> 
> Well, you say you have some inside info, check into it and I think 
> you will find that is one part of the Epson driver that is bypassed 
> and not used (dithering), nor is it replaced in the software.

If you want to take a hardline stance in such a disscussion, perhaps
you should learn what "dithering" means.
Tyler

Hi Phil,

I don't know if we got our "..fair share of Cone detractors,.." or 
not. Maybe we got short changed. I'll check into it. ;-)

The open poll shows that the three top ink sets used by the list 
members for printing B&W are Piezo at 43%, MIS VM 24%, Epson Inks and 
MIS original tied at 10%. Pretty much a Piezo heavy list.

So far people appear to be objectively relaying their own actual 
experiences or preferences. If recounting a bad experience with Piezo 
or any product is viewed as detraction I don't what to say. This is 
meant to be a discussion of all the products and techniques, both 
their good and bad points. People have had bad experiences with MIS 
too and have said so. I don't think of them as "Zeiss detractors" for 
their remarks. 

The bit you quote at the bottom of your message here I believe was 
from Tyler not Terry and that he is referring to my response to a 
post by Jim Hayes. Tyler feels my post was unbalanced. I have gone 
back and re-read it, and I feel it is very honest or at least how I 
honestly see the situation myself.

As far as I can see, all of the options have good things to offer and 
at the same time each has limitations. I agree about the flag waving. 
It only obstructs the view and venom has little to offer.

I am glad you have had such good experience with Piezo on your 1160 
and the 7000, and thanks for letting us know. People should make more 
of an effort to post their good experiences with products and 
equipment. I hope I have the opportunity to see your work in the 
flesh at some point.

I am keeping everything crossed that the Piezo "Selenium" and the 
1280 driver will get me to your level of satisfaction with Piezo.

You are right about the intuitive feel of the MIS VM. I sometimes 
find it difficult to know what to do next when there is a problem 
with the print. I think that this is due to imperfections in the 
tonal ramp, which show up as tonally flat areas in the print. I am 
learning how to work around this but I would just as soon not have to.

It sounds like you and Mark got to be the lucky paying beta testers 
for the MIS's CFS for the 7000. Thanks for the heads up on that one 
so that we know that Mark's experience was not just a single problem 
unit. Maybe this will motivate MIS to fix the problem.

You are right about our expectations. Money aside, having your 
creative flow interrupted and finding yourself working as a printer 
or computer troubleshooter when you meant to spend the day as a 
photographer is absolutely frustrating. I hope that the future will 
bring us better and more trouble free products. In the mean time I 
think we will just have to do the best we can with what we have and 
seeing some of the work being produced it is damn good.

Before I forget, how did you do with your LightJet digital negative 
project with A&I? Were you able to get the results you wanted? I was 
impressed by the results you last posted and it looked like you were 
getting close.

Martin



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Phil Bard" <phil@p...> 
wrote:
> I'd agree that this list has attracted it's fair share of Cone 
> detractors, and I think that is really unfortunate.  I'm really not 
> impressed with flag waving partisans.  I'd rather hear objective 
> accounts of what folks are experiencing, sans venom.
> 
> In the way of facts:
> 
> I've run an 1160 with CIS and Cone inks for many months now, and 
well 
> over a thousand prints, without so much as a single clog or 
shifting 
> contrast, increasing green or other anomaly, outside of some 
initial 
> clogs with cartridges which immediately cleared when I went to 
CIS.  
> Period.
> 
> I recently purchased a 7000, and decided to give the MIS VM's a 
try.  I 
> spent some time with Paul trying to get the curves for the Mac 
worked 
> out, but have just recently given up as time has become a factor.  
I 
> think Paul is doing careful, diligent work with this approach, but 
I 
> just needed to get something working.  I'm sure in time he will 
develop 
> great curves, although I question the ability of the Epson driver 
to 
> deliver the goods, based on the images I was printing.  The 
approach is 
> also lacking in intuitiveness, which I happen to value highly.  I 
want 
> to be able to see the image I'm printing in a more verifiable form 
> onscreen.  I was impressed with the MIS inks, and would not steer 
> anyone away from them if they like this approach.  I did have major 
> problems with their CFS system for the 7000, which started out fine 
but 
> began sucking air into the lines within days.  Mark Tucker had 
similar 
> problems.  I would stay away from this system, I suspect the high 
> viscosity of pigmented inks is the culprit here. The Cone people 
have 
> indicated this is why they don't offer this system for the 7000.
> 
> I've now gone to PiezoBW24 Pro and am up and running and creating 
what 
> I feel are spectacular prints.  Large versions of the stuff I was 
> getting from my 1160.  Not without a few glitches, I'm running the 
new 
> software and there are a few problems with speed and possibly 
> inconsistent profiles, its still too early to tell about them.  The 
> PiezoBW6 update I've been using for the 1160 is solid and very 
> consistent.
> 
> Finally, I do think we expect a lot from this rather new 
technology.  
> It's still young and a moving target.  Mixing proprietary and third 
> party products always carries some risk of incongruities. That is 
not 
> to say that I don't myself want to see results from invested money 
and 
> time.  But silver printing has been around for decades now, and it 
> still has plenty of inconsistencies.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Phil
> http://philbard.com
> 
> > wrote:
> > Terry, I was, in fact trying to balance out the posts, and was 
> > responding to what I thought was an unblanced post. I think this 
list, 
> > in particular, has a high percentage of members disgruntled with 
> > Piezo. I should know better by now to post this kind of thing 
here. 
> > Without turning this into a big back and forth thing, I'll simply 
tell 
> > you why I think what I think.
> >

TerryR,

>Tyler, how do you know that the vast majority are problem free? Has 
>anyone actually taken a poll of ALL the Piezo users? I know they say 
>that those that are having problems complain the loudest, but silence 
>doesn't lead to a lack of problems.

Oh yes, sometimes it does. I have to agree with Tyler here. I seldom post 
though I belong to both this list, the PiezoBW list and several others. I 
don't post often because I've been running PiezographyBW in an Epson 
1160/CIS for - well, since the process started shipping - and I've never 
had a serious clog or other problem. And my printer is turned off for 
sometimes two months at a time since I travel extensively. A cleaning 
cycle or two when I power up and I start printing. Once I had a clog that 
didn't clear after a couple of cleaning cycles so I put several drops of 
Fantastik on the sponge and left the printer turned off overnight. Next 
day perfect nozzle check and I was printing again. I don't think I'm an 
exception either.

I did download and try Paul's curves once but found some posterization 
and simply not the same quality prints as from the Piezo driver, though I 
thank Paul for his work and effort to widen the possibilities of BW inket 
printing. Guess I'm more interested in printing photos than tweaking 
software. Just a matter of personal choice. And I like the colour of the 
Piezo inks on all the papers I use, though I'll probably also try the 
Selinium inkset when it comes out, for curiosity's sake if for no other 
reason.

Cheers,

Nina

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> > Tyler,
> > 
> > I can't agree with you on that one. If you go to the Piezo list 
and 
> > run a search on "clogging" I honestly don't see how you can say 
that 
> > clogging is not an issue for ConeTech. It has got to be the most 
> > common problem that people ask for help on.
> 
> I never said it wasn't an issue.

Tyler,

You said, "Actually, I doubt Conetech has any clogging issue to 
resolve at all." Post #3205 


> > 
> > Perhaps I was not clear. Specifically I was speaking of the 
printing 
> > workflow. I don't see that a workflow of Image>Mode>RGB followed 
by 
> > Image>Adjust>Curves>Load>select curve>OK followed by Print>Print 
> > Properties>make the proper settings and then print is that much 
> > harder than the Piezo Export>Piezography>etc. 
> 
> I never said a word about workflow, now did I?

No, but you were responding to my comment, "Actual use of the 
workflows is not as user friendly as Piezo but what you have to do is 
rather trivial." which appeared in your post so I assumed you took 
exception to my remark and were talking about workflows.


> 
> > I know you don't mean to sound this way, but you come across as 
> > having a low opinion of all the people out there who are working 
to 
> > make quality prints on desktop printers. You imply that only pros 
> > with the expensive equipment have enough discerning taste to 
produce 
> > fine prints and that their opinions carry more weight than 
others. I 
> > don't buy that and I don't think you do either. Besides you could 
> > turn around and make the same argument about all the happy 
desktop 
> > Piezo users!
> 
> I don't think that. I never said that, nor implied it. It's 
outright crap.

As I said above I didn't think you meant it to come across that way 
but it did to me at least.

> But as far as workflow developement, if you think the gap can 
actually be closed, in every way technically, between 
> Piezography and the workflows discussed here without such assets 
and expertise available, I don't know what to say.

Tyler, all I said was that the gap would get narrower as people 
worked on the MIS curves. Will they absolutely close the gap? I don't 
see how. Anytime you take different routes to solve a problem you are 
going to end up with different results. I think that it is going to 
be tough to equal Piezo's wonderful tonality using Photoshop curves. 
There is a limit to the number of control points on a Photoshop curve 
(16?) that is likely to be a limiting factor among others.

Why do you think I was quizzing you and Dan about Profiler Pro and 
spectrophotometers a while back? I wish I had the resources to go in 
that direction. On the other hand, I think that you can make fine 
prints using the MIS curves as they exist. You are going to have to 
do some degree of manipulation inside the image to offset the non-
linearity of the curves, Epson driver, ink and paper combination. How 
much depends upon where the tonality of the image falls in relation 
to the imperfections in the system. Some images may not work at all. 
Not an ideal situation by any means but one that I have seen produces 
some nice stuff.
 
> Discerning taste has nothing to do with it, I've never said or 
implied that it did.

Oh, I think discerning taste has a lot to do with it. If you didn't 
have discerning taste you would not make great photographs and 
prints. 

> Regarding the rest, I think this thread has gotten real 
uninteresting real fast. If anyone is really that consumed with this, 
> my opinions were already stated, aparently in french. I'm not going 
to say them again, or go into furthur explanation.

Tyler, this thread seems to have gone into overdrive about my 
response to Jim Hayes (#3197). I though I was giving a balanced 
response which evolved into my expressing my honest uncertainty about 
what to recommend to new users. To me it was a rather innocuous post. 
You felt my response was unbalanced and responded. That's fine. But 
you came back pretty challenging and I returned the same.

I am very sorry if I have offended you. You should know by now that I 
greatly value your opinion and think you are a great guy. If there is 
a Tyler post it always gets read on this end. Does that mean I always 
agree with you 100%? Nope. But probably better than 99%. Can we live 
with some of it unresolved and continue to discuss the topic?

I would still like to get input from the experienced users as to what 
recommendations to make to new comers. Particularly on the desktop in 
the face of a dwindling supply of 3000's and 1160's that have been 
the backbone of quad printing.

Martin

Nina,

I agree with you that when people are not having problems they don't 
tend to say anything. On lists like this that is a real problem 
because it is impossible to know what percentage of the users are 
experiencing difficulties. The other issue I see on these lists is 
that you may have 500 members but less then 10% ever post anything.

Even a short note saying I use X and I love it would help everyone 
get a better picture of what is going on.

I have your "Trastevere, Rome 1968" from the first print exchange and 
on top of being a wonderful photograph it is one of the best examples 
of a Piezo print I have seen. Like Bernd's prints it is smooth and 
completely free of any banding or window screen pattern. If I could 
get prints like that out of my 1200 I would never have bothered with 
the MIS.

Maybe it is like the wine and they just make better Epson printers in 
Europe.

Thanks for the report. I'm glad it is working so well for you and you 
are using it so creatively.

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., ncm <ncm@m...> wrote:
> TerryR,
> 
> >Tyler, how do you know that the vast majority are problem free? 
Has 
> >anyone actually taken a poll of ALL the Piezo users? I know they 
say 
> >that those that are having problems complain the loudest, but 
silence 
> >doesn't lead to a lack of problems.
> 
> Oh yes, sometimes it does. I have to agree with Tyler here. I 
seldom post 
> though I belong to both this list, the PiezoBW list and several 
others. I 
> don't post often because I've been running PiezographyBW in an 
Epson 
> 1160/CIS for - well, since the process started shipping - and I've 
never 
> had a serious clog or other problem. And my printer is turned off 
for 
> sometimes two months at a time since I travel extensively. A 
cleaning 
> cycle or two when I power up and I start printing. Once I had a 
clog that 
> didn't clear after a couple of cleaning cycles so I put several 
drops of 
> Fantastik on the sponge and left the printer turned off overnight. 
Next 
> day perfect nozzle check and I was printing again. I don't think 
I'm an 
> exception either.
> 
> I did download and try Paul's curves once but found some 
posterization 
> and simply not the same quality prints as from the Piezo driver, 
though I 
> thank Paul for his work and effort to widen the possibilities of BW 
inket 
> printing. Guess I'm more interested in printing photos than 
tweaking 
> software. Just a matter of personal choice. And I like the colour 
of the 
> Piezo inks on all the papers I use, though I'll probably also try 
the 
> Selinium inkset when it comes out, for curiosity's sake if for no 
other 

> reason.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Nina

Good Post Todd!

  I think clogging is likely printer, dirty carts, or location (altitude,
  humidity, temperature changes, etc.) dependent. Too many people have good
  results with all inks for it to be ink specific.

  Todd


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

In a message dated 10/01/2001 11:36:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
jerryolson@... writes:


> Steve M.,
> 
> I'm surprised you are getting mottle on Somerset Enhanced. I've gone
> through about a hundred sheets and have never seen mottle in the blacks.
> Not with MIS or Piezo inks. I don't think the blacks are very deep on
> that paper, otherwise I would love it.
> 

The Mottle can be fixed with the media setting and switching to FS black, and 
of coarse paper.. The Standard black and the Double density black where not 
real winners!  I only mentioned it as its just something that might have to 
be dealt with when using MIS inks. Users of non piezo systems just need to be 
aware of the tweaking factor. The 7000 lays the ink down a little light in my 
opinion. Your 1280 printers have much finer dots from the beginning.
Steve M.






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

Todd,

Thanks for remembering to cover the people who want or need good 
glossy output. A good decision matrix too.

I changed the subject line to "Getting Started" since it really 
should be broader than a Piezo vs. MIS decision. Need to work the 
color ink sets into the decision path too.

You and Steadman have laid out two recommendations. I would like to 
get more people to do the same; combine them into one text file and 
then post it in the files section. Then when the question gets asked 
next we can just refer people to that file and say read this first 
and then ask questions. Perhaps we can do this without debating the 
merits of each person's recommendations but simply post them all and 
let the reader make up their own mind?

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...> 
wrote:
> on 10/1/01 12:34 AM, Martin Wesley wrote:
> 
> > As I said, I am uncertain at this point as to what to recommend to
> > newcomers (the vast majority of them will be desktop users) 
between
> > Piezo and MIS solutions as a starting place.
> 
> I break it down along what can't you live with, and what can't you 
live
> without.
> 
> If you can't live without glossy papers and/or high dmax go 
Spectratones.
> 
> If you can live with matte papers, Piezo color and cost, go Piezo 
software
> and inks, or Piezo software and FS inks (BTW, has anybody tried to 
print
> Tyler's Zees with the Piezo driver and FS inks?).
> 
> If you can't live with Piezo's color and/or cost try MIS VT.
> 
> If you can't live without deep hues, like sepia, or need to use one 
printer
> for color and BW go with MIS, or Generations, or Cone color 
pigments.
> 
> I think clogging is likely printer, dirty carts, or location 
(altitude,
> humidity, temperature changes, etc.) dependent. Too many people 
have good

> results with all inks for it to be ink specific.
> 
> Todd

on 10/1/01 11:53 AM, Mark Tucker wrote:

> This whole Piezo/MIS thing is a tough cookie. For me, like Phil, I
> was just thrown for a loop when I actually did the whole
> applying-the-Roark-curve process. I am just so accustomed to
> using a gut-level approach when preparing and toning an image;
> when I applied the curve, and I saw the monitor image go Jimi
> Hendrix green and yellow, I didn't know what to think. At that
> point, it became so apparent that this was purely math at work
> here; the monitor image meant nothing. But that then eliminates
> gut-level intuition -- how then do you attack/alter an image if that
> first test print comes out too grey, or too contrasty, or solarized? It
> was as if I had been working in English, and then somehow I
> was required to start working in Russian all of a sudden; I was
> out of my element.


Mark,

Just curious, were you working in 16-bit mode?

Although I do a good deal of editing in 16-bit mode, I usually do downsample
to 8-bits so I can apply Paul's curves as an adjustment layer, which I can
easily turn on or off (I use an 1160). I click it on to print, and off to
edit. When I used Paul's curves for the earlier Variable Tone inkset Paul
wrote curves for, which we mixed ourselves from Piezo quads, with
Generations Pigs for the toner, I got a pretty good screen to print match
when I viewed my image with his curve layer turned off. Now with the MIS
formulation and curves, while I get a good printed grayscale, my prints are
darker relative to my screen than the other inkset was, so I made and saved
a luminosity curve which brightens the print accordingly. I load it on an
adjustment layer just below Paul's curves. BTW, I've noticed for me it's
very important that if I have a stack of layers, that Paul's curves are
ALWAYS at the very top of the stack. Anyway, for this inkset I use Paul's
curves and my own luminosity curve together (his still at the very top, mine
just below his), and in PS 6 I can place them together into a layer set
(which again must sit at the top of the layer stack), which I can easily
click on to print and off to edit.

Works pretty well, and I get a good screen to print match. the only time I
see the image screwy is just before I hit print.

One other thing, sometimes viewing the image through the curve will
illuminate some of my bad edits that had otherwise gone unnoticed, IOW, they
can visually exacerbate some of the rough masks I may have made, and rough
tonal transitions, etc. So, they can be useful to view through now and again
after you get the hang of them. It's kinda like learning how to squint to
visualize what'll happen to your shadows on film. ;-)

Todd Flashner

Martin,

>I have your "Trastevere, Rome 1968" from the first print exchange and 
>on top of being a wonderful photograph it is one of the best examples 
>of a Piezo print I have seen. Like Bernd's prints it is smooth and 
>completely free of any banding or window screen pattern. If I could 
>get prints like that out of my 1200 I would never have bothered with 
>the MIS.
>
>Maybe it is like the wine and they just make better Epson printers in 
>Europe.

Yes, just like the wine (g)....and cheese. 

Seriously, I think it's a matter of luck. I ordered my 1160 from a mail 
order site here in France after comparing prices and it turned out to be 
a good one. Just as well because I don't think Epson Europe is as user 
friendly as its US office and as willing to replace printers that have no 
obvious problems using the Epson driver/inks.

I debated using my 1200 for Piezo but all I'd heard said 4 inks were 
plenty for BW quad work so I reserved the 6 ink printer for colour. 
Generally I don't have paper feed problems but the 1160 occasionally gets 
a bit balky after eating a large dose of 310gm paper (like the 31 print 
run for the current Print Exchange). At that point I take advantage of 
the Piezo option to pre-load the paper. That always works. And at the end 
of the run I'll occasionally clean the paper path of dust/debris. No big 
deal. Ordinary maintenance.

Cheers,

Nina

I posted this TWO days ago! (I think!)

It feels like it's lost it's relevence - somewhat...

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nij [mailto:nigel@...]
> Sent: 01 October 2001 11:07
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Getting started -- Cone or MIS?
> 
> 
> Martin,
> 
> You know I'm not an ink chemist by now - I don't even know what a 
> surfactant
> is (tho' I understand that my washing powder has non-ionic ones - 
> cool!  ;)
>

Nij-

PMFJI, I've been using the small gamut Lyson inks for about 3 months 
and the Piezo for about a month. I have a few observations you might 
appreciate.

It was a real hassle getting the Lyson inks to make the first good 
print... Clean, nozzle check, soak in windex... A week of 
frustration. But then some wonderful prints. The ability to tone is 
pretty exciting... But it takes a little work to adjust the tones to 
papers and the tendancy is to over tone. (there is no profiling like 
with piezo).

Out of the box, piezo was a snap... And has been ever since... I 
really believe there is a greater range of gray with this than small 
gamut... And it prints WAY faster than the Epson driver... But is 
harder to center and fill the page (it can be done, but it takes some 
work).

The cooler print is a clear winner on Lyson small gamut (especially 
on Lyson or Mitsibishi papers). The warmer, a clear winner on piezo.
Any glossy print is better with lyson... I have not been happy with 
any glossy paper/piezo combination so far, but have produced some 
terrific ones with Lyson.

Bottom line... I love them both. I use the Piezo more... Partly 
because it's quicker and partly because I'm still in awe of the great 
sublte shades it prints... But I wouldn't give up the small gamut... 
Glossy, cool... Etc... I think it's unbeatable there.

Cheers,

TOC

Tom O'Connell












--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Nij" <nigel@m...> wrote:
> Terry,
> 
> Perhaps you could help me, offlist maybe, to gen up on who makes 
all these
> inks. Seriously, if you know something I don't - which sounds very 
likely in
> this case, I'd appreciate the info.
> 
> To throw another name into the hat, and based on your suggestion 
that inks
> that don't work well with Epson weren't designed for Epson... what 
were
> Lyson 'Small Gamut' inks designed for? I have heard _rumours_ those 
inks
> kill print heads after a while!
> 
> In fact... are Lyson inks available in the States? There seems to 
be very
> little talk about them, if any, on this list.
> 
> Best,
> Nij
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: TerryR [mailto:terryr1028@h...]
> <snip>
> > This is true, but those inks that exhibit problems, typically 
aren't
> > designed as an Epson ink replacement (such as Piezo), they are
> > usually a derivative of another ink that wasn't initially 
designed to
> > work with the Epson printers. Again, MIS and Generations are 
perfect
> > examples of those that were designed specifically for the Epson
> > printers. I have yet to hear of a clog that couldn't be undone 
with
> > those inks, but can point you at many posts of those that even 
went
> > as far as to disassemble their printers or other extreme measures 
and
> > still couldn't clear the clog when using Piezo inks.
> <snip>

Thanks Tom!

It is good to hear about alternatives and people's actual experience with
them... can you tell us something of the Lyson workflow? I presume it is
curves oriented... I am wondering how you achieve the different tones. I
suppose, different curves for different tones, like various MIS workflows?

I see Lyson are now recommending storing your carts the right way up before
installation. I'd like to think they'd copied my advice on my website and on
various lists - but it's a fairly logical idea so maybe we each had the idea
independently  <big grins>

Thanks,
nij

Nigel Rheam
MWORD Limited www.mwords.co.uk Digital Fine Art

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tomoc@... [mailto:tomoc@...]
> Sent: 03 October 2001 02:13
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Getting started -- Cone or MIS? (LONG)
>
>
> Nij-
>
> PMFJI, I've been using the small gamut Lyson inks for about 3 months
> and the Piezo for about a month. I have a few observations you might
> appreciate.
>
> It was a real hassle getting the Lyson inks to make the first good
> print... Clean, nozzle check, soak in windex... A week of
> frustration. But then some wonderful prints. The ability to tone is
> pretty exciting... But it takes a little work to adjust the tones to
> papers and the tendancy is to over tone. (there is no profiling like
> with piezo).
>
> Out of the box, piezo was a snap... And has been ever since... I
> really believe there is a greater range of gray with this than small
> gamut... And it prints WAY faster than the Epson driver... But is
> harder to center and fill the page (it can be done, but it takes some
> work).
>
> The cooler print is a clear winner on Lyson small gamut (especially
> on Lyson or Mitsibishi papers). The warmer, a clear winner on piezo.
> Any glossy print is better with lyson... I have not been happy with
> any glossy paper/piezo combination so far, but have produced some
> terrific ones with Lyson.
>
> Bottom line... I love them both. I use the Piezo more... Partly
> because it's quicker and partly because I'm still in awe of the great
> sublte shades it prints... But I wouldn't give up the small gamut...
> Glossy, cool... Etc... I think it's unbeatable there.
>
> Cheers,
>
> TOC
>
> Tom O'Connell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Nij" <nigel@m...> wrote:
> > Terry,
> >
> > Perhaps you could help me, offlist maybe, to gen up on who makes
> all these
> > inks. Seriously, if you know something I don't - which sounds very
> likely in
> > this case, I'd appreciate the info.
> >
> > To throw another name into the hat, and based on your suggestion
> that inks
> > that don't work well with Epson weren't designed for Epson... what
> were
> > Lyson 'Small Gamut' inks designed for? I have heard _rumours_ those
> inks
> > kill print heads after a while!
> >
> > In fact... are Lyson inks available in the States? There seems to
> be very
> > little talk about them, if any, on this list.
> >
> > Best,
> > Nij
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: TerryR [mailto:terryr1028@h...]
> > <snip>
> > > This is true, but those inks that exhibit problems, typically
> aren't
> > > designed as an Epson ink replacement (such as Piezo), they are
> > > usually a derivative of another ink that wasn't initially
> designed to
> > > work with the Epson printers. Again, MIS and Generations are
> perfect
> > > examples of those that were designed specifically for the Epson
> > > printers. I have yet to hear of a clog that couldn't be undone
> with
> > > those inks, but can point you at many posts of those that even
> went
> > > as far as to disassemble their printers or other extreme measures
> and
> > > still couldn't clear the clog when using Piezo inks.
> > <snip>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

Nij,

Welcome to the wonderful world of Yahoo groups. I posted a message 
yesterday at about 6:00 that didn't show up until 12:00 after I had 
made several other posts. Well I guess we are getting what we pay for 
but we should keep in mind that if something seems out of sequence it 
may have more to do with Yahoo than the poster. You can always check 
the time and date stamp too.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Nij" <nigel@m...> wrote:

> I posted this TWO days ago! (I think!)
> 
> It feels like it's lost it's relevence - somewhat...
> 
> Nij
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nij [mailto:nigel@m...]
> > Sent: 01 October 2001 11:07
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Getting started -- Cone or MIS?
> > 
> > 
> > Martin,
> > 
> > You know I'm not an ink chemist by now - I don't even know what a 
> > surfactant
> > is (tho' I understand that my washing powder has non-ionic ones - 
> > cool!  ;)
> >

Nij,

Well now we are completely out of order unless Yahoo does us a favor 
and posts this one before my last post!

Actually I would be amazed if all the inks were the same even if they 
were trying to do that! Making a good pigment dispersion is not easy. 
Having someone on board at ConeTech who knows this stuff is really 
important and demonstrates an acknowledgement of the issues and a 
commitment to solving them.

My thought here was that bubbles are dependent upon surface tension 
and if you increased the surfactant that might help the reduce 
tendency of the bubbles to form. A way to change the viscosity 
without changing the pigment loading and causing the problems you 
mention. Without knowing a great deal more about the formulation and 
manufacturing process I could not say for sure. More of a wish that 
the solution is something simple like that, rather than something 
that would require a pigment change which would be a very big deal. 
Any change would have to be approached with caution because any 
change is going to involve a trade off. If you push in one direction, 
something else is going to shift somewhere else.

I do have an expectation that the inks would be designed to behave 
well in the printers they are being marketed for. Obviously no one 
would intentionally design ink that was going to be prone 
to "clogging". What is tough for a small outfit is that they are 
likely to buy one or two examples of a given printer model and not 
20. They then miss the fact that the ink is great in let's say 90% of 
the printers but causes problems and bad press in the remaining 10%.

(I want to stop and define a "clog" as a non-printing nozzle that 
does not clear within 4 nozzle cleaning cycles forcing an overnight 
wait. Occasional blockages with Epson inks are not uncommon, not hard 
to correct and non-Epson inks should not be held to a higher 
standard.)

This is a shot in the dark and maybe you can ask Jon if I am correct, 
but my impression is that Piezo grew out of Jon's work to print 
platinum like prints on the Iris. It may be that this ink transferred 
well to the 3000 but as they expanded into the other models the 
clogging issue came as a surprise. If that is how it occurred then 
they would be in a real jam because fixing the "clogging" issue for 
the minority of printers could lead to other problems. The other 
tough problem is that when ink is ordered from the manufacturer there 
is probably a minimum size and a little bit of ink goes a very long 
ways. So they don't get a lot of chances to tweak the product in 
process, which would be risky in any case. So the best thing to do 
might be to just gut it out. This is all speculation mind you.

That's why I am very interested in the "selenium" inks because they 
will have had a chance to not only come up with another tone but will 
have a chance to address the "clogging" issues at a formula level in 
light of past experience. 

I think the real economic pressure might come from the MIS Full 
Spectrum inks and not the MIS Variable Mix. If the MIS continues to 
be "clog" free, at the lower price and if no other problems surface, 
I would expect a fair number of people to buy Piezo and then switch 
to the FS inks. However, MIS has missed the boat here by not selling 
the FS in a hex set and the quad printers are vanishing fast. I would 
think this would put pressure on ConeTech to reformulate but it would 
make sense to do this after the "selenium" is in place.

A lot of random thoughts. It will be interesting to see how it plays 
out.

Martin




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Nij" <nigel@m...> wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> You know I'm not an ink chemist by now - I don't even know what a 
surfactant
> is (tho' I understand that my washing powder has non-ionic ones - 
cool!  ;)
> 
> But it surprises me that you seem to expect that 'all inks are the 
same' -
> you know I don't mean it quite like that, and I know you don't mean 
it quite
> like that - but aren't we talking a balancing act here? A balance 
between
> colour/tone, amount of pigment or dye on the page without first 
soaking the
> page in thinner or carrier solution or whatever it's called.
> 
> e.g. One way to solve the problem might be to thin the inks... but 
the cost
> of this might be to have a 5 minute pause between print-head passes 
for some
> thinner to off-gas - IF you wanted to achieve the same level of 
colourant on
> the page without ruffling. Or perhaps it has no effect on that, but 
reduced
> ink shelf-life... or whatever.
> 
> This is clearly an area that you and Terry in particular know much 
more than
> I on the technical front - but when I read your recent comments it 
_sounds_
> to me like you think that all these problems can be resolved without
> undesireable consequences that you might find equally objectionable!
> 
> Nij
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Wesley [mailto:mwesley250@e...]
> >
> >
> > Nij,
> >
> > I agree with you that the "clogs" that we all talk about are very
> > likely air bubbles for the most part. (probably not the severe 
Hayes
> > issue though it could be related.) This is why the "wait and let 
it
> > settle" process works so well. Which does lead me to feel that it 
is

> > a formulation issue. If there was more surfactant in the formula
> > perhaps this would not be such a common problem.
> >
> > I was very happy to hear Jon has gotten an ink chemist on board.
> > Hopefully the issues are easy ones and can be resolved quickly.
> >
> > Martin
> >

Nij

Perhaps I could quickly jump in here and mention that the Lyson web 
site  www.lyson.com  has two pdf documents available for download on 
how to set up and use Small Gamut together with profiles and a 
transcript from the recent video which covers the whole Lyson range.

I've been using SG in an 1160 for about 6 months and apart from the 
occasional clog have found it to be an excellent product especially 
the ability to slightly tone the output to obtain a neutral print 
under various display conditions.

I did look at Piezo when it was first released but users on the Epson 
and Piezo 3000 list's appeared to be having so many problems with 
clogs, banding, printer alignment, warm tones and now green output 
etc that it put me off - of course, you only tend to hear from people 
who are having problems and I expect there are many satisfied users 
as well.     

Trevor S

Thanks Trevor! Useful information for us all to know!

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tsmithers@... [mailto:tsmithers@...]
> 
> Nij
> 
> Perhaps I could quickly jump in here and mention that the Lyson web 
> site  www.lyson.com  has two pdf documents available for download on 
> how to set up and use Small Gamut together with profiles and a 
> transcript from the recent video which covers the whole Lyson range.
> 
<snip>

Trevor,

Thanks for the information. I read the two PDF files. A very 
interesting approach to the problem and I suspect closer to what we 
may see from Epson as a B&W system than Piezo or MIS.

What papers are you using with the inks?

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., tsmithers@c... wrote:
> Nij
> 
> Perhaps I could quickly jump in here and mention that the Lyson web 
> site  www.lyson.com  has two pdf documents available for download 
on 
> how to set up and use Small Gamut together with profiles and a 
> transcript from the recent video which covers the whole Lyson range.
> 
> I've been using SG in an 1160 for about 6 months and apart from the 
> occasional clog have found it to be an excellent product especially 
> the ability to slightly tone the output to obtain a neutral print 
> under various display conditions.
> 
> I did look at Piezo when it was first released but users on the 
Epson 
> and Piezo 3000 list's appeared to be having so many problems with 
> clogs, banding, printer alignment, warm tones and now green output 
> etc that it put me off - of course, you only tend to hear from 
people 

> who are having problems and I expect there are many satisfied users 
> as well.     
> 
> Trevor S

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley"
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:

I'm sorry my response is delayed. I got outa here for a while.

> > I never said it wasn't an issue.
> 
> Tyler,
> 
> You said, "Actually, I doubt Conetech has any clogging issue to 
> resolve at all." Post #3205 

I know what I was thinking when I made each of those statements, and
the context. So to me there is no inconsistency, yet 
it looks ridiculous when put like that. I've looked at the posts, I'm
still very confused about why they were characterized as 
arrogant. This means I suck at this, I've spent a lifetime in music
and photography, I can't talk. To go back and explain every 
comment, or argue it more, is just plain depressing. I'm confident
it'll lead to more of the same.
For me to become (or seem to be) offended, or offensive, in
discussions about ink, is small... for lack of a better word. Even 
more embarrassing is that I've found myself making this same kind of
statement more than once on this list. Hopefully it's 
sinking in...
> 
snip...
> I am very sorry if I have offended you. 

Well, I'm sorry if it was any concern to you, and for the part I
played in it. Please forget it. Consider it the rantings of a guy off 
his meds, someone who just paid too much for a bitter cup of coffee,
or found out his girlfriend was fooling around with his 
roadie...
I don't know, whatever it takes! Please, just forget it. Except for
the girlfriend thing, that's what I'm trying to do, assuming I 
don't distance you any more in the process.
Tyler

Tyler,

As we have discussed a few time, this text only mode is full of 
pitfalls and even with the best of intentions and much experience, we 
all seem to keep stumbling into them from time to time.

So enough said and it's all okay with me as long as it's not my 
girlfriend, my wife doesn't find out and I can still get my meds. ;-)

Martin

P.S. I would really appreciate your input on the 3000 thread.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley"
> <mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> 
(snip)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:

> > 
> > > All drivers and RIPs of every kind dither, I don't know what 
this 
> > > means.
> > 
> > Well, you say you have some inside info, check into it and I 
think 
> > you will find that is one part of the Epson driver that is 
bypassed 
> > and not used (dithering), nor is it replaced in the software.
> 
> If you want to take a hardline stance in such a disscussion, perhaps
> you should learn what "dithering" means.
> Tyler

Tyler,

This is taken directly from the Inkjetmall site:

The Piezography BW driver changes radically the way the printer 
prints.  The dots are packed as tightly as the print head will allow 
from 1% to 100% black.  Instead of dithering dots like a CMYK driver 
does - the volume of ink is changed to vary the ink density.  


The above cut and paste job is from the site and my understanding of 
how the Piezo B/W driver works also is in agreement with that. That  
is what lead to my statement. Maybe we have a different meaning 
of "dithering"? If so I would like to understand what you were trying 
to say.

Thank you,

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" <terryr1028@h...> wrote:

I don't know what to make of that quote, it seems to contradict itself. They say they don't dither dots but also say the dots 
are tightly packed! It's gotta make dots, or some pattern to map pixels to firing nozzles. Perhaps you could call it 
screening, I've always seen it refered to as dithering in any discussion about drivers or RIPs.
In the spirit of leaving the last few days behind, please don't hold me too responsible for what I've said when P.O.'d...
Thanks Terry.
Tyler

> Tyler,
> 
> This is taken directly from the Inkjetmall site:
> 
> The Piezography BW driver changes radically the way the printer 
> prints.  The dots are packed as tightly as the print head will allow 
> from 1% to 100% black.  Instead of dithering dots like a CMYK driver 
> does - the volume of ink is changed to vary the ink density.  
> 
> 
> The above cut and paste job is from the site and my understanding of 
> how the Piezo B/W driver works also is in agreement with that. That  
> is what lead to my statement. Maybe we have a different meaning 
> of "dithering"? If so I would like to understand what you were trying 
> to say.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Terry

I don't see the contradiction...it says it doesn't "dither dots LIKE a CMYK
driver does", it doesn't say it doesn't dither...of course it does!  It
doesn't mix the inks!

> I don't know what to make of that quote, it seems to contradict
> itself. They say they don't dither dots but also say the dots
> are tightly packed! It's gotta make dots, or some pattern to map
> pixels to firing nozzles. Perhaps you could call it
> screening, I've always seen it refered to as dithering in any
> discussion about drivers or RIPs.
> In the spirit of leaving the last few days behind, please don't
> hold me too responsible for what I've said when P.O.'d...
> Thanks Terry.
> Tyler
>
> > Tyler,
> >
> > This is taken directly from the Inkjetmall site:
> >
> > The Piezography BW driver changes radically the way the printer
> > prints.  The dots are packed as tightly as the print head will allow
> > from 1% to 100% black.  Instead of dithering dots like a CMYK driver
> > does - the volume of ink is changed to vary the ink density.
> >
> >
> > The above cut and paste job is from the site and my understanding of
> > how the Piezo B/W driver works also is in agreement with that. That
> > is what lead to my statement. Maybe we have a different meaning
> > of "dithering"? If so I would like to understand what you were trying
> > to say.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
> I don't see the contradiction...it says it doesn't "dither dots LIKE a CMYK
> driver does", it doesn't say it doesn't dither...of course it does!  It
> doesn't mix the inks!
> 
> 
I was hoping you'd jump in on this one Austin, you're right of course. But I still think of it differently and the quote strikes me 
as a bit off. I think of how the inks are mixed (or not) as being accomplished by either ramping in the driver, or curves built 
into the profiles. Or in the case of a CMYK RIP, preparation of the 4 channel file, and/or profiles again. To me, these are 
channel adjustments at some stage of the data flow, which is then turned into dots (dithering). Two separate issues.
Make sense?
Tyler

> I was hoping you'd jump in on this one Austin, you're right of
> course.

I'm going to frame that ;-)

> I think of how the inks are mixed (or not) as being
> accomplished by either ramping in the driver,

What do you mean by "ramping in the driver"?

> Or in the case of a CMYK RIP, preparation of
> the 4 channel file, and/or profiles again.

I absolutely no NOTHING about RIPs, I know what RIP stands for (Raster Image
Processor), but I've never really paid any attention to them...

> To me, these are
> channel adjustments at some stage of the data flow, which is then
> turned into dots (dithering). Two separate issues.
> Make sense?

Nope.  Perhaps because I don't understand CMYK RIPS?

Tyler,

I was there and did that right along with you - two "P.O.'d" people 
on one of these lists with no one right there to temper them can get 
a little out of hand. At this point, No harm, No foul.

My understanding of dithering, at the driver level anyhow, has more 
to do with blending the dots to get as close as possible to a 
continuous tone. Since the Piezo driver controls the head movement so 
tightly if it were to dither it would actually run the dots together 
causing a loss of detail. The driver places these dots as close 
together as possible while maintaining the tiniest of space to 
simulate a continuos tone. I have two theories about what the driver 
does in this regard:

1 - Jon has tapped into a version of the variable dot technology, not 
quite the same but close (the older models don't have the split 
droplet technology in the heads). This may partly explain why the 
1160 exhibits the window screen pattern since the driver is combining 
a similiar technology.

2 - By bypassing the dithering in the Epson driver and replacing 
the "progressive" nature of the driver he is actually firing the 
nozzles in a linear fashion in the same row. When this is combined 
with what I mentioned in 1 above the Piezo driver actually does the 
same thing in one row of nozzles that the Epson driver does in 
multiple rows while dithering. This allows the increase in dpi (at 
least in the older models). The Epson driver dithers intentionally to 
hide the misalignment that may exist between the row of nozzles as it 
progresses through the print as well as less than perfect feed. This 
may also partly explain the banding that takes place when the feed is 
not dead on, since the dithering is not there to hide it.

Just my theories and I may be a mile off. Make sense?

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" 
<terryr1028@h...> wrote:
> 
> I don't know what to make of that quote, it seems to contradict 
itself. They say they don't dither dots but also say the dots 
> are tightly packed! It's gotta make dots, or some pattern to map 
pixels to firing nozzles. Perhaps you could call it 
> screening, I've always seen it refered to as dithering in any 
discussion about drivers or RIPs.
> In the spirit of leaving the last few days behind, please don't 
hold me too responsible for what I've said when P.O.'d...
> Thanks Terry.
> Tyler
> 
> > Tyler,
> > 
> > This is taken directly from the Inkjetmall site:
> > 
> > The Piezography BW driver changes radically the way the printer 
> > prints.  The dots are packed as tightly as the print head will 
allow 
> > from 1% to 100% black.  Instead of dithering dots like a CMYK 
driver 
> > does - the volume of ink is changed to vary the ink density.  
> > 
> > 
> > The above cut and paste job is from the site and my understanding 
of 
> > how the Piezo B/W driver works also is in agreement with that. 
That  
> > is what lead to my statement. Maybe we have a different meaning 
> > of "dithering"? If so I would like to understand what you were 
trying 

> > to say.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > 
> > Terry

> I was there and did that right along with you - two "P.O.'d" people
> on one of these lists with no one right there to temper them can get
> a little out of hand. At this point, No harm, No foul.

I guess I missed something...probably just as well ;-)

> My understanding of dithering, at the driver level anyhow, has more
> to do with blending the dots to get as close as possible to a
> continuous tone.

I don't know what you mean by "blending" but NO ink is blended, and no dots
are overlaid.

> Since the Piezo driver controls the head movement so
> tightly if it were to dither it would actually run the dots together
> causing a loss of detail.

What does dithering have to do with that?  For maximum contrast you need one
dot on, and one dot off and one dot on...being that the dots don't overlap,
I don't see how close together causes a loss of detail.  May be I'm not
understanding you.

> The driver places these dots as close
> together as possible while maintaining the tiniest of space to
> simulate a continuos tone.

That I agree with completely.

> Just my theories and I may be a mile off. Make sense?

Hum.  I'd have to think about them...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
snip
> What do you mean by "ramping in the driver"?

I'm right on the edge of jumping into areas I know nothing about here. In some posts by the Gimp Print developer, I got the 
impression that there is flexibility in how tonal values are assigned to dithers within the driver, and the process in general 
was referred to as ramping. So some ink partitioning could be happenning at that point.
I'm going to ignore the whole postscript aspect of RIPs because that's out of my realm. Beyond that, think of a CMYK RIP as 
simply a 4 channel driver, directly connecting each of your 4 channels in a Photoshop CMYK file to the apropriate color in 
the printer. Like any other printer driver, it has to dither as well. Many RIPs do NOT dither well compared the the Epson 
driver.
But, assuming you're not going through a profile or some other adjustment on the fly, any change you make to your 
magenta channel (for example) in Photoshop, will directly affect that ink on paper, and none other. No muxing it up through 
a CMYK to RGB to CMYK transition like the Epson driver. They tend to have many other built in controls too, and there's the 
whole postscript thing, but that's the jist of it for our purposes.
More sensible?
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" <terryr1028@h...> wrote:
big snip
> Just my theories and I may be a mile off. Make sense?
> 
> Terry

Yes it does make sense. So I think the term applies to the actual dot creation, and you understand it to apply to how the 
dots are put down. There is definitely a difference and I don't know for sure which is correct, not sure it matters much any 
more.
As far as your thinking on the driver itself, it all sounds reasonable. I think I know the evolution of the driver, but it doesn't 
help me understand it really, since I'm way out of my element at that point.
This is one black box that is really sown up.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" 
<terryr1028@h...> wrote:
> big snip
> > Just my theories and I may be a mile off. Make sense?
> > 
> > Terry
> 
> Yes it does make sense. So I think the term applies to the actual 
dot creation, and you understand it to apply to how the 
> dots are put down. There is definitely a difference and I don't 
know for sure which is correct, not sure it matters much any 
> more.
> As far as your thinking on the driver itself, it all sounds 
reasonable. I think I know the evolution of the driver, but it 
doesn't 
> help me understand it really, since I'm way out of my element at 
that point.
> This is one black box that is really sown up.
> Tyler

I think you are right, we are using the term for two different 
things. I believe though that we are both correct. 

I think dithering as you mean it does apply to the initial dot 
creation at the software level of the imaging program and is the 
correct term. In Photoshop they use the term dither to apply to 
conversions for 8 bit images at the color space level. While this 
actually doesn't create the dot it does map the information for the 
creation of the dot.

I think dithering at the driver level takes that created dot 
information and then determines how the dot is actually applied to 
the paper to match both the dot information and the placement of the 
dot. Maybe this isn't the proper term on my end, but it sounds like 
Jon has interpreted it that way also.

Maybe Steadman has the definitive answer?

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" <terryr1028@h...> wrote:
snip
...Maybe this isn't the proper term on my end, but it sounds like 
> Jon has interpreted it that way also.

I suspect there's no separating between the two descriptions, it might all be part of the same process. Maybe I'm naive 
again, but I'd take Jon's use of the term over mine any day.
> 
> Maybe Steadman has the definitive answer?

Well, between Austin, you, and I, I think we've got it sufficiently screwed up. Steadman might just clarify it too much.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" <terryr1028@h...> 
wrote:
snip...
the Piezo driver actually does the 
> same thing in one row of nozzles that the Epson driver does in 
> multiple rows while dithering. This allows the increase in dpi (at 
> least in the older models). The Epson driver dithers intentionally 
to 
> hide the misalignment that may exist between the row of nozzles as 
it 
> progresses through the print as well as less than perfect feed. This 
> may also partly explain the banding that takes place when the feed 
is 
> not dead on, since the dithering is not there to hide it.

one more thing, as long as I'm clarifying my terminology. I always 
thought what you describe above was "super microweave". No?

>What papers are you using with the inks?

Lyson's:

300gsm Cotton Rag (William Turner)
310gsm Standard Fine Art

Trevor S

I think this is where the term 'proprietary broad-band microweave' comes
into play. I couldn't find the quotew on piezography.com when I last looked,
but I think it's probably accurate. Plus... "...am optical resolution of
2160dpi. The perceived resolution is continuous tone!" I suspect this
phrasing comes about from people saying 'you can't get an inkjet printer not
to use dots' (which as far as I know, is true.

In other words... I think you are both right :) But of course, end result is
that the ink is so tightly packed we can not see the dots of a dither, or
microweave... so does it count???

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tyler Boley [mailto:tyler@...]
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR"
> <terryr1028@h...> wrote:
>
> I don't know what to make of that quote, it seems to contradict
> itself. They say they don't dither dots but also say the dots
> are tightly packed! It's gotta make dots, or some pattern to map
> pixels to firing nozzles. Perhaps you could call it
> screening, I've always seen it refered to as dithering in any
> discussion about drivers or RIPs.
> In the spirit of leaving the last few days behind, please don't
> hold me too responsible for what I've said when P.O.'d...
> Thanks Terry.
> Tyler
>
> > Tyler,
> >
> > This is taken directly from the Inkjetmall site:
> >
> > The Piezography BW driver changes radically the way the printer
> > prints.  The dots are packed as tightly as the print head will allow
> > from 1% to 100% black.  Instead of dithering dots like a CMYK driver
> > does - the volume of ink is changed to vary the ink density.
> >
> >
> > The above cut and paste job is from the site and my understanding of
> > how the Piezo B/W driver works also is in agreement with that. That
> > is what lead to my statement. Maybe we have a different meaning
> > of "dithering"? If so I would like to understand what you were trying
> > to say.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Terry

Guys,

I don't have any major technical data, but here are a few thoughts for you,
based on the last few posts on 'dithering'.
I don't believe that Piezography uses variable dot sizes - that is, I do not
believe it changes dot-sizes during a print. It may do so for different
'quality' output settings. And it my use different dot-sizes for different
printers at the same quality setting... which I think to get some of the
extra performance of the newer machines.

One of you mentioned 'curves' and I'd like to suggest that using that term
is misleading (perhaps not entirely innacurate, but misleading). What _I_
would do to print greyscale images using quads (using a program) is to map
'image tones' to 'output tones' using some kind of map of which dither / dot
/ whatever pattern achieves that tone on a particular media. And, that may
sound familiar to you - page 6 of the plugin manual shows the workflow...
and I think this would come under 'QMM'. So, although it's a minor point, I
see this as a once-off mapping, rather than applying curves to channels or
anything like that some have used. Just my world view.

Whichever way, hope the thought might be useful to you,
Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tyler Boley [mailto:tyler@...]

>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" <terryr1028@h...>
> wrote:
> snip...
> the Piezo driver actually does the
> > same thing in one row of nozzles that the Epson driver does in
> > multiple rows while dithering. This allows the increase in dpi (at
> > least in the older models). The Epson driver dithers intentionally
> to
> > hide the misalignment that may exist between the row of nozzles as
> it
> > progresses through the print as well as less than perfect feed. This
> > may also partly explain the banding that takes place when the feed
> is
> > not dead on, since the dithering is not there to hide it.
>
> one more thing, as long as I'm clarifying my terminology. I always
> thought what you describe above was "super microweave". No?
>

Recently I got an error message when using the Piezography BW24Pro RIP. It said something about a "Pixel Professor Error" and could not continue printing. I re-booted my computer and all was well.

I believe that Piezography is using this program to create the "screen door" dither which looks surprisingly similar to the Iris Print dither pattern.

Regards,

Michael J. Kravit, AIA
Architect/Photographer
www.kravit.net/photography

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Nij 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 6:27 AM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Dithering THOUGHTS


  Guys,

  I don't have any major technical data, but here are a few thoughts for you,
  based on the last few posts on 'dithering'.
  I don't believe that Piezography uses variable dot sizes - that is, I do not
  believe it changes dot-sizes during a print. It may do so for different
  'quality' output settings. And it my use different dot-sizes for different
  printers at the same quality setting... which I think to get some of the
  extra performance of the newer machines.

  One of you mentioned 'curves' and I'd like to suggest that using that term
  is misleading (perhaps not entirely innacurate, but misleading). What _I_
  would do to print greyscale images using quads (using a program) is to map
  'image tones' to 'output tones' using some kind of map of which dither / dot
  / whatever pattern achieves that tone on a particular media. And, that may
  sound familiar to you - page 6 of the plugin manual shows the workflow...
  and I think this would come under 'QMM'. So, although it's a minor point, I
  see this as a once-off mapping, rather than applying curves to channels or
  anything like that some have used. Just my world view.

  Whichever way, hope the thought might be useful to you,
  Nij


  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Tyler Boley [mailto:tyler@...]

  >
  > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "TerryR" <terryr1028@h...>
  > wrote:
  > snip...
  > the Piezo driver actually does the
  > > same thing in one row of nozzles that the Epson driver does in
  > > multiple rows while dithering. This allows the increase in dpi (at
  > > least in the older models). The Epson driver dithers intentionally
  > to
  > > hide the misalignment that may exist between the row of nozzles as
  > it
  > > progresses through the print as well as less than perfect feed. This
  > > may also partly explain the banding that takes place when the feed
  > is
  > > not dead on, since the dithering is not there to hide it.
  >
  > one more thing, as long as I'm clarifying my terminology. I always
  > thought what you describe above was "super microweave". No?
  >


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

As one who stared at the heads passing over the paper
in my (partially disassembled) 3000 for too many hours,
the dot pattern (dither) is very different in the v6 driver than
the original piezo driver. 

Long ago this was a main topic on the piezo list.
The "unforgiving" nature of the original driver
required absolutely perfect paper feed to avoid banding.
To my eye the v6 driver uses something similar
to the famous epson dither combined with
a) separation of tones into ink channels and
b) tighter dot placement.

If you watch the leading edge of the image
with v6, the image "develops" in a soft gradation
as the head makes successive passes. The old driver
used to create distinct bands of tone trying
to do everything at once.

This is with my 3000 only.
No knowledge of anything else.

;-))

Thanks
Bob

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Nij" <nigel@m...> wrote:
Nij, I also think increased resolution comes from the very nature of partitioned quads. Tightly packed dots of a light ink can 
describe a line better than loosely packed dots of a darker ink, even though they both result in the same gray value. At 
least that's my experience with separating quads with the RGB driver or PressReady. Make sense?
Tyler

> I think this is where the term 'proprietary broad-band microweave' comes
> into play. I couldn't find the quotew on piezography.com when I last looked,
> but I think it's probably accurate. Plus... "...am optical resolution of
> 2160dpi. The perceived resolution is continuous tone!" I suspect this
> phrasing comes about from people saying 'you can't get an inkjet printer not
> to use dots' (which as far as I know, is true.
> 
> In other words... I think you are both right :) But of course, end result is
> that the ink is so tightly packed we can not see the dots of a dither, or
> microweave... so does it count???
> 
> Nij

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Nij" <nigel@m...> wrote:
snip
> One of you mentioned 'curves' and I'd like to suggest that using that term
> is misleading (perhaps not entirely innacurate, but misleading). What _I_
> would do to print greyscale images using quads (using a program) is to map
> 'image tones' to 'output tones' using some kind of map of which dither / dot
> / whatever pattern achieves that tone on a particular media. And, that may
> sound familiar to you - page 6 of the plugin manual shows the workflow...
> and I think this would come under 'QMM'. So, although it's a minor point, I
> see this as a once-off mapping, rather than applying curves to channels or
> anything like that some have used. Just my world view.

Right, I just visualize such mapping as a curve, at least for a single channel. O ther cross channel mapping like color 
changes are more than just curves obviously. Any tonal edit is such a mapping, if it occurs at the driver level then it may be 
as you suggest. However, Bill has stated the the separation curves (each for the paper characteristics) are contained 
within the profiles. Also, I have edited profiles for quad use by applying the sep curves to the profile itself (that doesn't 
mean I have any idea how they do it). So how much tonal mapping occurs at the dither stage, and how much occurs at the 
profile application stage, is an open question. But yeah... mapping.
Tyler

I see what you're saying!

The use of quads is clearly so different from the requirements for the
laying-down of colour inks. Unfortunately, I don't really understand the
science (of ink) works... particularly with 'dithering' technologies.
Like... how do you lay down a 25% ink with no dots, yet still make 1%, 2%
etc with no visible dots.
i.e. My logic says... you can get 1%, but by putting down LOTS less ink...
one would have thought so much less that dots would 'become visible'

What do you think? To an extent, this is an area I don't feel I need to
understand - for me - it's a marvel of the Piezo driver (!) - but I know
someone here may know this :)

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tyler Boley [mailto:tyler@...]
> Nij, I also think increased resolution comes from the very nature
> of partitioned quads. Tightly packed dots of a light ink can
> describe a line better than loosely packed dots of a darker ink,
> even though they both result in the same gray value. At
> least that's my experience with separating quads with the RGB
> driver or PressReady. Make sense?
> Tyler
>

I'm still not sure I got that right! I mean, actually your description of
four curves (like with all our favourite worlflows :) does make more sense.
I just wanted to try and get across the point that, whatever the transform
or curve or technique used... this is a 'profiled' transformation and is not
a 'random' transform.

As you say, there are differing points at which the transform could be
applied. If you could conceptualise a 'perfect medium' one set of defined
'dither patterns' will give you up to, say, 10,000 different 'theoretical'
tones. What I would then do with the 'profile' is cut off all the values
that gave too much ink, all the values that left too little ink, or 'dotty'
ink. ie you set your end-points. So with a STANDARD mathematical dither
pattern set, you can set a profile that maybe makes 4000+ available output
tones for each media type. WHen printing, you'd go the other way, you have
the desired output value, use the profile to find out which 'pattern' to
print.

I have no idea!

nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tyler Boley [mailto:tyler@...]
> Sent: 04 October 2001 17:31
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Dithering THOUGHTS
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Nij" <nigel@m...> wrote:
> snip
> > One of you mentioned 'curves' and I'd like to suggest that
> using that term
> > is misleading (perhaps not entirely innacurate, but
> misleading). What _I_
> > would do to print greyscale images using quads (using a
> program) is to map
> > 'image tones' to 'output tones' using some kind of map of which
> dither / dot
> > / whatever pattern achieves that tone on a particular media.
> And, that may
> > sound familiar to you - page 6 of the plugin manual shows the
> workflow...
> > and I think this would come under 'QMM'. So, although it's a
> minor point, I
> > see this as a once-off mapping, rather than applying curves to
> channels or
> > anything like that some have used. Just my world view.
>
> Right, I just visualize such mapping as a curve, at least for a
> single channel. O ther cross channel mapping like color
> changes are more than just curves obviously. Any tonal edit is
> such a mapping, if it occurs at the driver level then it may be
> as you suggest. However, Bill has stated the the separation
> curves (each for the paper characteristics) are contained
> within the profiles. Also, I have edited profiles for quad use by
> applying the sep curves to the profile itself (that doesn't
> mean I have any idea how they do it). So how much tonal mapping
> occurs at the dither stage, and how much occurs at the
> profile application stage, is an open question. But yeah... mapping.
> Tyler
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Nij" <nigel@m...> wrote:
> Guys,
> 
> I don't have any major technical data, but here are a few thoughts 
for you,
> based on the last few posts on 'dithering'.
> I don't believe that Piezography uses variable dot sizes - that is, 
I do not
> believe it changes dot-sizes during a print. It may do so for 
different
> 'quality' output settings. And it my use different dot-sizes for 
different
> printers at the same quality setting... which I think to get some 
of the
> extra performance of the newer machines.

Nij,

I agree 100% with what you said above. What I was trying to say was 
the the density of the ink is being controlled through the voltages 
the driver is applying to the head, IOW it can actually vary the ink 
density for each droplet, kinda like the variable droplet technology 
of the Epson driver.

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Bob Obenland" 
<bobenland@m...> wrote:
> As one who stared at the heads passing over the paper
> in my (partially disassembled) 3000 for too many hours,
> the dot pattern (dither) is very different in the v6 driver than
> the original piezo driver. 
> 
> Long ago this was a main topic on the piezo list.
> The "unforgiving" nature of the original driver
> required absolutely perfect paper feed to avoid banding.
> To my eye the v6 driver uses something similar
> to the famous epson dither combined with
> a) separation of tones into ink channels and
> b) tighter dot placement.
> 
> If you watch the leading edge of the image
> with v6, the image "develops" in a soft gradation
> as the head makes successive passes. The old driver
> used to create distinct bands of tone trying
> to do everything at once.
> 
> This is with my 3000 only.
> No knowledge of anything else.
> 
> ;-))
> 
> Thanks
> Bob

This makes perfect sense. I wonder if v6 is actually using the Epson 
driver in this area on the newer printers with smaller droplets and a 
modified version for the older printers to take into account the 
larger droplets? What you described about the older driver is what I 
was saying in terms of one row of nozzles acting in a linear fashion 
to accomplish what the Epson driver does with multiple rows. Which 
leads me to think that now if it is progressive, either a form of the 
Epson driver is being used, or maybe rows of nozzles are now being 
paired.

With the v6 driver have you lost speed in print time? If so, is it 
roughly the same speed as the Epson driver or slightly faster?

Thanks,

Terry

OK Terry, this is getting too esoteric for me! Or maybe not...

But I can't think how you could control voltage without effecting the dot
size... or did you mean obviously, any Quad driver has the choice of four
densities rather than the one?

Whichever way, this reminded me of something I read recently in an Epson
Stylus pro brochure (covering the whole range)... on Variable Droplet Size
Technology: one image showed a (presumably simulated) 'signal' being applied
to the nozzle. One frequency pattern produced a 5pl drop... a different one
11pl... and a third one 23pl. The third one was actually shown as being the
same signal for the 5pl drop, followed by the same signal for the 11pl drop
size... the image in this case literally showed a tiny drop of ink followed
by a larger one.

It can't be quite that simple... as after all 11pl + 5pl does not equal
23pl!

But it made me think... what would happen if you added one 5pl drop of say
25% ink exactly over a same 5pl drop of 25% ink. Would that enable 'mixing'
of ink and somehow change the ink to a xx% value, without having increased
the dot size? I think we may have covered this before with over-printing
(did not work, as I think Todd??? tested it) - but this would potentially be
mixing ink rather than overlaying it. I don't think you could do it with two
_different_ tone inks.

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: TerryR [mailto:terryr1028@...]
>
> Nij,
>
> I agree 100% with what you said above. What I was trying to say was
> the the density of the ink is being controlled through the voltages
> the driver is applying to the head, IOW it can actually vary the ink
> density for each droplet, kinda like the variable droplet technology
> of the Epson driver.
>
> Terry

As someone who spent a little effort reverse-engineering the commands sent
by the Epson printer driver (perversely, not to find out how to dither, but
how to send commands to the printer directly - was trying to figure out if
the clean cycle could be done on one print-head only. I think I found out
it's under firmware control :)

I do not yet have v6 installed... but I can tell you that the 'progressive'
development of the image is present on an 1160 in the v5.x driver - so I
guess I had assumed it was a feature of the software. Perhaps it wasn't on
the 3000, either because it came first, or because some feature did not
exist in Epson 3000 firmware, and the majorly successful 5.x upgrade for the
3000 in fact had to implement the missing firmware feature in software????

It's semantics again... but unless v6 surprises me, I am fairly certain that
it really is true - this control is coming from the Piezo driver - utilising
features in the printer firmware for sure - but very, very much decided by
the plugin. All a gut feeling mixed in with a little tinkering at the
beginning of the year.

Nij


> -----Original Message-----
> From: TerryR [mailto:terryr1028@...]
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Bob Obenland"
> <bobenland@m...> wrote:
<snip>

> > If you watch the leading edge of the image
> > with v6, the image "develops" in a soft gradation
> > as the head makes successive passes. The old driver
> > used to create distinct bands of tone trying
> > to do everything at once.
> >
> > This is with my 3000 only.
> > No knowledge of anything else.
> >
> > ;-))
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bob
>
> This makes perfect sense. I wonder if v6 is actually using the Epson
> driver in this area on the newer printers with smaller droplets and a
> modified version for the older printers to take into account the
> larger droplets? What you described about the older driver is what I
> was saying in terms of one row of nozzles acting in a linear fashion
> to accomplish what the Epson driver does with multiple rows. Which
> leads me to think that now if it is progressive, either a form of the
> Epson driver is being used, or maybe rows of nozzles are now being
> paired.
>
> With the v6 driver have you lost speed in print time? If so, is it
> roughly the same speed as the Epson driver or slightly faster?
>

> But it made me think... what would happen if you added one 5pl drop of say
> 25% ink exactly over a same 5pl drop of 25% ink. Would that enable 'mixing'
> of ink and somehow change the ink to a xx% value, without having increased
> the dot size? I think we may have covered this before with over-printing
> (did not work, as I think Todd??? tested it)

Nij

I'm not exactly sure I was testing the overprinting in the context you are
referring to, but I did overprint my "blacks" with good results on an 1160
with EAM. Perfect registration with a VISIBLE doubling of density. But in my
tests I really limited the overprinting to about 95-100% tonal densities,
through masking.

I still recommend others try this for those images that really demand a deep
black, especially broad areas which contain few details.

My limited testing (3-4 prints; not enough to be truly meaningful) showed
this to be a very viable technique, at least in the way I applied it, though
it is quite a bit more time and ink consuming, so not practical for everyday
work.

Todd

Nij,

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Nij" <nigel@m...> wrote:
> OK Terry, this is getting too esoteric for me! Or maybe not...
> 
> But I can't think how you could control voltage without effecting 
the dot
> size... or did you mean obviously, any Quad driver has the choice 
of four
> densities rather than the one?

No, the actual ink density of the droplet, but I can't think of a way 
to express it so that it would make sense at the moment....

SNIP

> 
> But it made me think... what would happen if you added one 5pl drop 
of say
> 25% ink exactly over a same 5pl drop of 25% ink. Would that 
enable 'mixing'
> of ink and somehow change the ink to a xx% value, without having 
increased
> the dot size? I think we may have covered this before with over-
printing
> (did not work, as I think Todd??? tested it) - but this would 
potentially be
> mixing ink rather than overlaying it. I don't think you could do it 
with two
> _different_ tone inks.
> 
> Nij

IF the nozzles are firing in a linear fashion using what I can't 
figure out how to express from above this can be accomplished in the 
same row of nozzles in one pass. Maybe "mixing" would be a good 
analogy? You could effectively vary the tone of a fixed tone ink  
(within its tonal range) by varying the density of the ink droplet 
and overlaying these different densities in one pass to extend that 
tone before the next tone would come into play. As I have said Nij, I 
may be a mile off. Maybe it is truly just magic <g>

Terry,

I'll be interested when you think of a way!

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: TerryR [mailto:terryr1028@...]
> No, the actual ink density of the droplet, but I can't think of a way 
> to express it so that it would make sense at the moment....

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Nij" <nigel@m...> wrote:
> Terry,
> 
> I'll be interested when you think of a way!
> 
> Nij
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: TerryR [mailto:terryr1028@h...]
> > No, the actual ink density of the droplet, but I can't think of a 
way 
> > to express it so that it would make sense at the moment....

Nij, 

I am not sure this will express it, but here goes:

If you can control the voltage through timing you can still get the 
same sized dot since the voltage is brought to what it would normally 
be at the point of actually firing, but the overall density of the 
droplet would be lower as a result. In reverse you could increase the 
droplet density by overcharging and then reducing to the firing 
voltage. Since the final voltage determines the droplet size, then by 
varying the timing you change the overall density by changing the 
available ink at that point to be fired. I don't know if that makes 
any sense at all to you, but at the moment my gray matter is 
insisting on a rest, and it is the best it will allow me to offer.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Nij" <nigel@m...> wrote:

> Like... how do you lay down a 25% ink with no dots, yet still make 1%, 2%
> etc with no visible dots.
> i.e. My logic says... you can get 1%, but by putting down LOTS less ink...
> one would have thought so much less that dots would 'become visible'

Let's see if I can do this coherently...
So you want to make 1% and 2% print values with a 25% ink. First of all it's a light ink, so it doesn't have much contrast 
against the white paper base and the dots will be hard to see. Secondly, since it's only 25% print value at 100% ink load 
(hypothetically), it'll take a higher percentage of that ink to reach a 2% "print" value than a black ink. So already the dots 
are closer together than they would have been with darker ink.
Dots of lighter ink that are closer together are very hard to see compared to the same print value created with black ink on 
white paper with widely spaced dots. Argh! I can't talk! Anyway, things only get better as you move down the scale, but 
new problems arise as you reach the max each ink can do and bring in progressively darker inks, as well as total ink load 
the paper can take without getting muddy.
Is that what you were asking? Did it make sense as an answer? Is there life after death?
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Nij" <nigel@m...> wrote:
> I'm still not sure I got that right! I mean, actually your description of
> four curves (like with all our favourite worlflows :) does make more sense.
> I just wanted to try and get across the point that, whatever the transform
> or curve or technique used... this is a 'profiled' transformation and is not
> a 'random' transform.
> 
> As you say, there are differing points at which the transform could be
> applied. If you could conceptualise a 'perfect medium' one set of defined
> 'dither patterns' will give you up to, say, 10,000 different 'theoretical'
> tones. What I would then do with the 'profile' is cut off all the values
> that gave too much ink, all the values that left too little ink, or 'dotty'
> ink. ie you set your end-points. So with a STANDARD mathematical dither
> pattern set, you can set a profile that maybe makes 4000+ available output
> tones for each media type. WHen printing, you'd go the other way, you have
> the desired output value, use the profile to find out which 'pattern' to
> print.
> 
> I have no idea!

Yeah, what you said!
I could be dead wrong, but I think there is some individual linear separations done in the driver ramping/dithering. Then 
the profiles have corrections for dot gain etc. that each paper needs. There is no profile in the prefs folder called 
"unspecified", so I assume selecting that in the driver applies "none", and you're seeing the driver's actions alone.
Now I'm really talking out of my butt.
Tyler

> I'm not exactly sure I was testing the overprinting in the context you are
> referring to, but I did overprint my "blacks" with good results on an 1160
> with EAM. Perfect registration with a VISIBLE doubling of
> density.

I don't know that you really mean visibly doubling, I certainly believe it's
darker...

But my real point is, the driver COULD if it wanted to, overprint anywhere
it wanted to as a course of routine business.  I don't know why Cone doesn't
do that just to increase the black density...  It should be pretty
deterministic, I would believe?

Terry,

I see where you're going - certainly, mentally separating the charging cycle
from the ejection (should that be 'giclee') cycle makes a lot of sense.

As I don't understand the detailed physics, I am still having trouble
understanding how the final voltage would effect only droplet size - one
logic says "If I have 5cc of ink in a syringe, and I pump the syringe, I'll
get a 5cc of ink out whichever way" - another says something a bit more in
line with your point - if I fill a bottle with a pint of water, you can
still control (to some extent) how much water flicks out when you flick the
bottle... and you would do that with control of speed and 'impulse' (how
quickly you stop) which may in some way reflect the ideas of frequency and
voltage in the control signal.

Hmmm

4:30am

bed time

<sudden clarity on why I have no life>   :)

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: TerryR [mailto:terryr1028@...]
> Sent: 05 October 2001 04:13
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Dithering THOUGHTS
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Nij" <nigel@m...> wrote:
> > Terry,
> >
> > I'll be interested when you think of a way!
> >
> > Nij
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: TerryR [mailto:terryr1028@h...]
> > > No, the actual ink density of the droplet, but I can't think of a
> way
> > > to express it so that it would make sense at the moment....
>
> Nij,
>
> I am not sure this will express it, but here goes:
>
> If you can control the voltage through timing you can still get the
> same sized dot since the voltage is brought to what it would normally
> be at the point of actually firing, but the overall density of the
> droplet would be lower as a result. In reverse you could increase the
> droplet density by overcharging and then reducing to the firing
> voltage. Since the final voltage determines the droplet size, then by
> varying the timing you change the overall density by changing the
> available ink at that point to be fired. I don't know if that makes
> any sense at all to you, but at the moment my gray matter is
> insisting on a rest, and it is the best it will allow me to offer.
>

> As someone who spent a little effort reverse-engineering the commands sent
> by the Epson printer driver (perversely, not to find out how to
> dither, but
> how to send commands to the printer directly - was trying to figure out if
> the clean cycle could be done on one print-head only. I think I found out
> it's under firmware control :)

Doesn't the Epson available printer command set documentation cover this?  I
haven't looked, but am curious.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
> 
> > As someone who spent a little effort reverse-engineering the commands sent
> > by the Epson printer driver (perversely, not to find out how to
> > dither, but
> > how to send commands to the printer directly - was trying to figure out if
> > the clean cycle could be done on one print-head only. I think I found out
> > it's under firmware control :)
> 
> Doesn't the Epson available printer command set documentation cover this?  I
> haven't looked, but am curious.

See Austin? That's why I thought you should be in this thread...
yeah... yeah...
that's it...
the... uh...
comand set...
I think you might be on to something there...
where's my documentation? I know it's around here somewhere...

Your K overprinting within the driver is an interesting idea.
Tyler

I couldn't find anything. But what I did find, as I recall, was the control
codes that the Epson driver send to the printer when you request a clean.
It's one of those newest style two-way communication control-codes.

Basically, I got to a point where I was fed up searching through about 20
different manuals for xxx different printers - most with partial or
incorrect or outdated or just plain unhelpful 'information'. So although I
found the command, I still could not find documentation for it, and lack the
resources or time to actually persuade Epson that I could get on their
developer program (their dev site is ironic, in that it mentions there is
this thing you can sign up to to get the level 2 manuals... but doesn't tell
you how :)  One of the advantages with the disarray of the manuals is that I
am sure they give away information about certain control codes in certain
manuals that they really didn't mean to (in a Level 1 doco anyway)

Meanwhile... in the UK... all Epson tech support - after several calls and
emails - were denying that any such information could be made available
under any circumstances. Intriguing. Given that 'me giving them money' was a
scenario I had suggested ;)

All a very far cry from the days when my Epson LQ xxxxx was delivered with a
form inside to request a programming manual; it came within the week in a
very nice folder (and was free)

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
> Sent: 05 October 2001 04:41
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Dithering
>
>
>
>
> > As someone who spent a little effort reverse-engineering the
> commands sent
> > by the Epson printer driver (perversely, not to find out how to
> > dither, but
> > how to send commands to the printer directly - was trying to
> figure out if
> > the clean cycle could be done on one print-head only. I think I
> found out
> > it's under firmware control :)
>
> Doesn't the Epson available printer command set documentation
> cover this?  I
> haven't looked, but am curious.
>
>

> > > As someone who spent a little effort reverse-engineering the
> commands sent
> > > by the Epson printer driver (perversely, not to find out how to
> > > dither, but
> > > how to send commands to the printer directly - was trying to
> figure out if
> > > the clean cycle could be done on one print-head only. I think
> I found out
> > > it's under firmware control :)
> >
> > Doesn't the Epson available printer command set documentation
> cover this?  I
> > haven't looked, but am curious.
>
> See Austin? That's why I thought you should be in this thread...
> yeah... yeah...
> that's it...
> the... uh...
> comand set...
> I think you might be on to something there...
> where's my documentation? I know it's around here somewhere...
>
> Your K overprinting within the driver is an interesting idea.
> Tyler

If you want it, I can email it to you, or put it on my web site for you to
download?

> It's semantics again... but unless v6 surprises me, I am fairly certain
that
> it really is true - this control is coming from the Piezo driver -
utilising
> features in the printer firmware for sure - but very, very much decided by
> the plugin. All a gut feeling mixed in with a little tinkering at the
> beginning of the year.
>
> Nij

Absolutely.
Its the piezo driver written by Cone & friends.

All I meant to say is that the driver has
evolved from the original 3000 driver
and the Piezo driver is now more
"epson-like" than the original "banding" driver..

Thanks
Bob Obenland

> This makes perfect sense. I wonder if v6 is actually using the Epson 
> driver in this area on the newer printers with smaller droplets and a 
> modified version for the older printers to take into account the 
> larger droplets?

Don't really know about smaller printers.
But I didn't mean to imply that the new V6
Piezo driver was anything other than unique to Piezo.
To my mind its just better than the original driver.

>What you described about the older driver is what I 
> was saying in terms of one row of nozzles acting in a linear fashion 
> to accomplish what the Epson driver does with multiple rows. Which 
> leads me to think that now if it is progressive, either a form of the 
> Epson driver is being used, or maybe rows of nozzles are now being 
> paired.

They did something with the nozzle firing sequence.
What I'm not sure.
Thats why I "buy" stuff that the wizards "do".  ;-))
 
> With the v6 driver have you lost speed in print time? If so, is it 
> roughly the same speed as the Epson driver or slightly faster?

15 X 19 image on 17 X 22 sheet takes 1 hour and 20 minutes approx.
on my 3000

Thanks
Bob Obenland

on 10/4/01 11:38 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

>> I'm not exactly sure I was testing the overprinting in the context you are
>> referring to, but I did overprint my "blacks" with good results on an 1160
>> with EAM. Perfect registration with a VISIBLE doubling of
>> density.
> 
> I don't know that you really mean visibly doubling, I certainly believe it's
> darker...


Your right, I didn't mean to accentuate the word so as to mean an exact
doubling, just that the effect was indeed visible. If anyone is curious to
see the effect just make two black squares in PS and get them to partially
overlap.

Like I say, it's probably not worth the extra work for most images, but it's
worth keeping in one's bag of tricks.

> But my real point is, the driver COULD if it wanted to, overprint anywhere
> it wanted to as a course of routine business.  I don't know why Cone doesn't
> do that just to increase the black density...  It should be pretty
> deterministic, I would believe?

Hmm, My guess is that if the driver were doing it on-the-fly you might get
ink bleed / dot gain, which would sacrifice detail, but with some dry time
between applications the paper holds the ink better?

Todd

> >> I'm not exactly sure I was testing the overprinting in the
> context you are
> >> referring to, but I did overprint my "blacks" with good
> results on an 1160
> >> with EAM. Perfect registration with a VISIBLE doubling of
> >> density.
> >
> > I don't know that you really mean visibly doubling, I certainly
> believe it's
> > darker...
>
>
> Your right, I didn't mean to accentuate the word so as to mean an exact
> doubling, just that the effect was indeed visible. If anyone is curious to
> see the effect just make two black squares in PS and get them to partially
> overlap.
>
> Like I say, it's probably not worth the extra work for most
> images, but it's
> worth keeping in one's bag of tricks.

I really like the idea though...since deep blacks ARE the number one
complaint about Piezo.

> > But my real point is, the driver COULD if it wanted to,
> overprint anywhere
> > it wanted to as a course of routine business.  I don't know why
> Cone doesn't
> > do that just to increase the black density...  It should be pretty
> > deterministic, I would believe?
>
> Hmm, My guess is that if the driver were doing it on-the-fly you might get
> ink bleed / dot gain, which would sacrifice detail, but with some dry time
> between applications the paper holds the ink better?

You're right.  I hadn't thought about dry time.  I know my prints feel "wet"
when they come off the printer!