Digital BW, The Print

I was curious how prints produced on the 2200 ($595 at MIS) with ImagePrint
($495) (total $1090) compared to those produced on the C82 (now $90 at MIS)
with the "no-workflow" (light UT cyan in all 3 color spots) "quad" inkset I
mixed last week.

Here I'm just looking at the smoothness of test strips by scanning equal
density (5% & 50%) patches of the prints (at 1600 dpi) and measuring the
smoothness with the Photoshop Histogram tool.  I use the tools Standard
Deviation reading as the objective measure of smoothness.

In March, I posted the results of a similar comparison among various
printers.  In that comparison the 2200/IP5/Neutral 5% patch measured 5.54 v.
the 1280/MIS VM/Neutral of 2.56.  (Lower is smoother/better.)  The MIS VM
was also smoother at 50%, but not as dramatically so.

To eliminate as many variables as possible, I scan the test strips together.
So, today's comparison numbers should not be compared to the above numbers.

Today, the 2200/IP5/Neutral 5% patch read 6.79.  The C82/LC (warm) read
7.47.  (The IP5 prints a little lighter than the C82/LC, so I read areas on
the C82 test strip that had the same median density.)

So, the IP5, which runs the 2200 Light black into the highlights but then
neutralizes them with the light magenta and light cyan, is slightly smoother
than the C82, which has UT LC in all spots.  The UT LC is somewhat lighter
than the 2200 Light K, but much darker than the UC LC and LM.  So, the light
UC inks pull the average density of the dots down.  (An equally warm IP5
print that only used the UC LK would, presumably, be rougher than the C82.)

(You can see a 1600 dpi scan of the 2200 5% at
http://studio-nelson.com/inkjet/bw22003.htm)

At the 50% spot, the IP5 measured 8.34.  The C82 measured 8.04, slightly
better than the 2200/IP5 combination.

Overall, I think the 2 IP5 and C82 test strips are quite comparable.  The
partitioned quad is still the smoothness champ, but at normal viewing
distances and when real photos are used instead of test strips, most people
will not notice the highlight dots both systems have.  Critical views on
this list, however, might.


Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul, when  do you expect UT for C82 to be ready and is it possible 
to tone prints? As I understand, you are positively surprised with 
quality of C82 prints. Is that correct? Thanks.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I was curious how prints produced on the 2200 ($595 at MIS) with 
ImagePrint
> ($495) (total $1090) compared to those produced on the C82 (now $90 
at MIS)
> with the "no-workflow" (light UT cyan in all 3 color spots) "quad" 
inkset I
> mixed last week.
> 
> Here I'm just looking at the smoothness of test strips by scanning 
equal
> density (5% & 50%) patches of the prints (at 1600 dpi) and 
measuring the
> smoothness with the Photoshop Histogram tool.  I use the tools 
Standard
> Deviation reading as the objective measure of smoothness.
> 
> In March, I posted the results of a similar comparison among various
> printers.  In that comparison the 2200/IP5/Neutral 5% patch 
measured 5.54 v.
> the 1280/MIS VM/Neutral of 2.56.  (Lower is smoother/better.)  The 
MIS VM
> was also smoother at 50%, but not as dramatically so.
> 
> To eliminate as many variables as possible, I scan the test strips 
together.
> So, today's comparison numbers should not be compared to the above 
numbers.
> 
> Today, the 2200/IP5/Neutral 5% patch read 6.79.  The C82/LC (warm) 
read
> 7.47.  (The IP5 prints a little lighter than the C82/LC, so I read 
areas on
> the C82 test strip that had the same median density.)
> 
> So, the IP5, which runs the 2200 Light black into the highlights 
but then
> neutralizes them with the light magenta and light cyan, is slightly 
smoother
> than the C82, which has UT LC in all spots.  The UT LC is somewhat 
lighter
> than the 2200 Light K, but much darker than the UC LC and LM.  So, 
the light
> UC inks pull the average density of the dots down.  (An equally 
warm IP5
> print that only used the UC LK would, presumably, be rougher than 
the C82.)
> 
> (You can see a 1600 dpi scan of the 2200 5% at
> http://studio-nelson.com/inkjet/bw22003.htm)
> 
> At the 50% spot, the IP5 measured 8.34.  The C82 measured 8.04, 
slightly
> better than the 2200/IP5 combination.
> 
> Overall, I think the 2 IP5 and C82 test strips are quite 
comparable.  The
> partitioned quad is still the smoothness champ, but at normal 
viewing
> distances and when real photos are used instead of test strips, 
most people
> will not notice the highlight dots both systems have.  Critical 
views on

> this list, however, might.
> 
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

>... when  do you expect UT for C82 to be ready

MIS was supposed to get the new, easy to re-load carts in yesterday.  I have
not heard if they actually arrived.  We'll want to test them, but with luck
in a week MIS will be ready to go with at least the empty carts and bulk
ink.  It will take a little longer for MIS to get pre-loaded carts.

> and is it possible to tone prints?

I will test two toning methods as soon as I get the empty carts.  There will
be at least a neutral version.

> As I understand, you are positively surprised with
>quality of C82 prints. Is that correct?

Yes, with the C82 at 2880 the results are essentially as good as IP5 on a
2200.  When the carts for the C84 arrive, it's 5760 resolution should take
the quality to above the IP5/2200 level.  For the price, it's an amazing
performance -- and no Photoshop is needed either.  So, the barriers to
high-quality, archival B&W printing is about to drop dramatically.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
_____________________________________





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I was curious how prints produced on the 2200 ($595 at MIS) with
ImagePrint
> ($495) (total $1090) compared to those produced on the C82 (now $90
at MIS)
> with the "no-workflow" (light UT cyan in all 3 color spots) "quad"
inkset I
> mixed last week.
>
> Here I'm just looking at the smoothness of test strips by scanning
equal
> density (5% & 50%) patches of the prints (at 1600 dpi) and
measuring the
> smoothness with the Photoshop Histogram tool.  I use the tools
Standard
> Deviation reading as the objective measure of smoothness.
>
> In March, I posted the results of a similar comparison among various
> printers.  In that comparison the 2200/IP5/Neutral 5% patch
measured 5.54 v.
> the 1280/MIS VM/Neutral of 2.56.  (Lower is smoother/better.)  The
MIS VM
> was also smoother at 50%, but not as dramatically so.
>
> To eliminate as many variables as possible, I scan the test strips
together.
> So, today's comparison numbers should not be compared to the above
numbers.
>
> Today, the 2200/IP5/Neutral 5% patch read 6.79.  The C82/LC (warm)
read
> 7.47.  (The IP5 prints a little lighter than the C82/LC, so I read
areas on
> the C82 test strip that had the same median density.)
>
> So, the IP5, which runs the 2200 Light black into the highlights
but then
> neutralizes them with the light magenta and light cyan, is slightly
smoother
> than the C82, which has UT LC in all spots.  The UT LC is somewhat
lighter
> than the 2200 Light K, but much darker than the UC LC and LM.  So,
the light
> UC inks pull the average density of the dots down.  (An equally
warm IP5
> print that only used the UC LK would, presumably, be rougher than
the C82.)
>
> (You can see a 1600 dpi scan of the 2200 5% at
> http://studio-nelson.com/inkjet/bw22003.htm)
>
> At the 50% spot, the IP5 measured 8.34.  The C82 measured 8.04,
slightly
> better than the 2200/IP5 combination.
>
> Overall, I think the 2 IP5 and C82 test strips are quite
comparable.  The
> partitioned quad is still the smoothness champ, but at normal
viewing
> distances and when real photos are used instead of test strips,
most people
> will not notice the highlight dots both systems have.  Critical
views on
> this list, however, might.
>
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/