Digital BW, The Print

Has anyone read Michael Reichmann's review of the Piezography system 
on his Luminous Landscape web site? (http://www.luminous-
landscape.com/piezo.htm) I'd be interested in hearing your response 
to his conclusions -- particularly with regard to the comparison of 
prints using the Piezo system with those made using Epson color inks 
(and drivers) printing duotone, tritone, etc.

Chris,

Thanks for pointing this out. A good review from a well thought of 
source. I noticed that he included Antonis's Hahnemule name cross 
reference spreadsheet and sent him a e-mail regarding it's source. 
Perhaps we will hear from him in person.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Chris Hargens" <ldmr@c...> 
wrote:
> Has anyone read Michael Reichmann's review of the Piezography 
system 
> on his Luminous Landscape web site? (http://www.luminous-
> landscape.com/piezo.htm) I'd be interested in hearing your response 
> to his conclusions -- particularly with regard to the comparison of 
> prints using the Piezo system with those made using Epson color 
inks 
> (and drivers) printing duotone, tritone, etc.

At 06:29 PM 10/9/01 +0000, you wrote:
>Has anyone read Michael Reichmann's review of the Piezography system
>on his Luminous Landscape web site? 
>(<http://www.luminous->http://www.luminous-
>landscape.com/piezo.htm) I'd be interested in hearing your response
>to his conclusions -- particularly with regard to the comparison of
>prints using the Piezo system with those made using Epson color inks
>(and drivers) printing duotone, tritone, etc.
>

Thank you for the link, Vincent.  I had not read Michael's review 
before.  I do agree with everything he said about Piezo printing.  I've 
tried using the Epson inks with duotone and tritones, but could never come 
anywhere close to the quality I get with the Piezo driver and inks.  I'm 
using a 3000 Epson and the Piezo driver completely changes the way it prints.

Tina


Tina Manley, ASMP
http://www.tinamanley.com


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

on 10/9/01 3:39 PM, Martin Wesley at mwesley250@... wrote:

> Thanks for pointing this out. A good review from a well thought of
> source. I noticed that he included Antonis's Hahnemule name cross
> reference spreadsheet and sent him a e-mail regarding it's source.
> Perhaps we will hear from him in person.

I had lunch with Michael, who runs luminous-landscape.com, yesterday as he
wanted to show me some piezo prints and compare papers. I think he was put
off joining DigitalBW because of the necessity to join Yahoo and also
probably because his plate is so full running the site... pretty much a full
time job. 

I think maybe the final impetus for him to buy the Piezo system was when we
were filming a segment for his new DVD magazine, comparing prints from our
joint shoot of the Midway at the CNE (there's a section about his on his
site). My prints were Piezo and his 1280 prints using a duotone setup in
Photoshop. I guess his must have looked pretty good under tungsten light but
out in the daylight the metamerism was nasty and they were a weird greenish
shade. The piezo prints were of course still relatively neutral.

We went through a whole bunch of papers on Monday and the cream of the crop
was Orwell. But the famous flaking was already showing up and there were
white dots in the shadows... a real pity. I can't wait to try Photorag.

-- 
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

John,

I suspected you might be the source of Michael's interest in Piezo 
considering the great photos of yours that showed up on his site 
awhile back.

He did reply to my e-mail with a short thank you. (I wish Yahoo did 
not make it so difficult to join the group, but the given the price 
it doesn't seem fair to complain.) He is a very active photographer 
and I imagine his plate is indeed over flowing.

Let us know how you like the Photo Rag. I am betting that you will.

Martin


 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Johnny Deadman <john@p...> 
wrote:
> on 10/9/01 3:39 PM, Martin Wesley at mwesley250@e... wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for pointing this out. A good review from a well thought of
> > source. I noticed that he included Antonis's Hahnemule name cross
> > reference spreadsheet and sent him a e-mail regarding it's source.
> > Perhaps we will hear from him in person.
> 
> I had lunch with Michael, who runs luminous-landscape.com, 
yesterday as he
> wanted to show me some piezo prints and compare papers. I think he 
was put
> off joining DigitalBW because of the necessity to join Yahoo and 
also
> probably because his plate is so full running the site... pretty 
much a full
> time job. 
> 
> I think maybe the final impetus for him to buy the Piezo system was 
when we
> were filming a segment for his new DVD magazine, comparing prints 
from our
> joint shoot of the Midway at the CNE (there's a section about his 
on his
> site). My prints were Piezo and his 1280 prints using a duotone 
setup in
> Photoshop. I guess his must have looked pretty good under tungsten 
light but
> out in the daylight the metamerism was nasty and they were a weird 
greenish
> shade. The piezo prints were of course still relatively neutral.
> 
> We went through a whole bunch of papers on Monday and the cream of 
the crop
> was Orwell. But the famous flaking was already showing up and there 
were
> white dots in the shadows... a real pity. I can't wait to try 
Photorag.

> 
> -- 
> John Brownlow
> 
> http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

The new piezo software now comes with drivers for ALL supported printers. It
modifies the dither pattern and increases the resolution. It also comes with
profiles for a large number of papers - something vitally important IMO.
When my current stock of inks runs out I'm going to try MIS FIS - but only
to try and reduce costs. I wouldn't ever want not to have the piezo driver.
Plug n play! (almost)

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Hargens" <ldmr@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 3:04 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Piezography Review


> In his comparison of prints made using the Piezo system with those
> made using Epson drives and color inks, Michael Reichmann states
> that "what's also much more obvious when looking directly at the
> prints is that the Piezo prints show more detail. The Epson driver
> can not take an input file of more than 360 DPI. Feed it a higher
> resolution file and the data is discarded by the driver. A Piezo
> driven printer can take a much higher resolution file, and make use
> of it." Assuming that this is the case, then wouldn't the same
> condition and result apply (perhaps to differing degrees) to all
> inksets, including the various quadtone sets available, when used
> with the Epson driver rather than the Piezo driver? I guess what I'm
> wondering is just how much of a difference there is. And, yes, I'm
> sitting on the fence, Epson 1160 in hand, trying to decide whether I
> should fork over big bucks for Piezo software -- and run the risk of
> my now out-of-production printer breaking down and then having to buy
> _new_ software for the replacement printer, etc. -- or go with the
> MIS VM inkset, sweat out the paper-profile limitations...
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Price of ink -- that's another consideration. Does the Piezo set-up 
require much tweaking to accomodate MIS inks?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" 
<julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> The new piezo software now comes with drivers for ALL supported 
printers. It
> modifies the dither pattern and increases the resolution. It also 
comes with
> profiles for a large number of papers - something vitally important 
IMO.
> When my current stock of inks runs out I'm going to try MIS FIS - 
but only
> to try and reduce costs. I wouldn't ever want not to have the piezo 
driver.
> Plug n play! (almost)
> 
> Julian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Hargens" <ldmr@c...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 3:04 PM
> Subject: [Digital BW] Piezography Review
> 
> 
> > In his comparison of prints made using the Piezo system with those
> > made using Epson drives and color inks, Michael Reichmann states
> > that "what's also much more obvious when looking directly at the
> > prints is that the Piezo prints show more detail. The Epson driver
> > can not take an input file of more than 360 DPI. Feed it a higher
> > resolution file and the data is discarded by the driver. A Piezo
> > driven printer can take a much higher resolution file, and make 
use
> > of it." Assuming that this is the case, then wouldn't the same
> > condition and result apply (perhaps to differing degrees) to all
> > inksets, including the various quadtone sets available, when used
> > with the Epson driver rather than the Piezo driver? I guess what 
I'm
> > wondering is just how much of a difference there is. And, yes, I'm
> > sitting on the fence, Epson 1160 in hand, trying to decide 
whether I
> > should fork over big bucks for Piezo software -- and run the risk 
of
> > my now out-of-production printer breaking down and then having to 
buy
> > _new_ software for the replacement printer, etc. -- or go with the
> > MIS VM inkset, sweat out the paper-profile limitations...
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/

> >
> >
> >

the only MIS inkset that you can use is the FIS - I've not used it so I
can't comment - but it is NOT the same as Piezo. I'd recomend getting the
piezo kit - you'll have as near to an out of the box solution as you can
get. Play with it, then try FIS.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Hargens" <ldmr@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Piezography Review


> Price of ink -- that's another consideration. Does the Piezo set-up
> require much tweaking to accomodate MIS inks?
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas"
> <julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> > The new piezo software now comes with drivers for ALL supported
> printers. It
> > modifies the dither pattern and increases the resolution. It also
> comes with
> > profiles for a large number of papers - something vitally important
> IMO.
> > When my current stock of inks runs out I'm going to try MIS FIS -
> but only
> > to try and reduce costs. I wouldn't ever want not to have the piezo
> driver.
> > Plug n play! (almost)
> >
> > Julian
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chris Hargens" <ldmr@c...>
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 3:04 PM
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Piezography Review
> >
> >
> > > In his comparison of prints made using the Piezo system with those
> > > made using Epson drives and color inks, Michael Reichmann states
> > > that "what's also much more obvious when looking directly at the
> > > prints is that the Piezo prints show more detail. The Epson driver
> > > can not take an input file of more than 360 DPI. Feed it a higher
> > > resolution file and the data is discarded by the driver. A Piezo
> > > driven printer can take a much higher resolution file, and make
> use
> > > of it." Assuming that this is the case, then wouldn't the same
> > > condition and result apply (perhaps to differing degrees) to all
> > > inksets, including the various quadtone sets available, when used
> > > with the Epson driver rather than the Piezo driver? I guess what
> I'm
> > > wondering is just how much of a difference there is. And, yes, I'm
> > > sitting on the fence, Epson 1160 in hand, trying to decide
> whether I
> > > should fork over big bucks for Piezo software -- and run the risk
> of
> > > my now out-of-production printer breaking down and then having to
> buy
> > > _new_ software for the replacement printer, etc. -- or go with the
> > > MIS VM inkset, sweat out the paper-profile limitations...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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/
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

I use both piezo and MIS Hextone VM inks. I find absolutely no
difference in quality between the two systems. 

Epson printers can use more than 360 DPI. This is easily proven by
making a text document, using small text. Print it at 240, 300, 360, 420
DPI. I can see that 420 produces sharper text than any of the other
settings. If you have an extremely sharp image, you can see the
difference between 420 and 360 DPI. It is VERY small, but there.

Jerry



Chris Hargens wrote:

> 
> In his comparison of prints made using the Piezo system with those
> made using Epson drives and color inks, Michael Reichmann states
> that "what's also much more obvious when looking directly at the
> prints is that the Piezo prints show more detail. The Epson driver
> can not take an input file of more than 360 DPI. Feed it a higher
> resolution file and the data is discarded by the driver. A Piezo
> driven printer can take a much higher resolution file, and make use
> of it." Assuming that this is the case, then wouldn't the same
> condition and result apply (perhaps to differing degrees) to all
> inksets, including the various quadtone sets available, when used
> with the Epson driver rather than the Piezo driver? I guess what I'm
> wondering is just how much of a difference there is. And, yes, I'm
> sitting on the fence, Epson 1160 in hand, trying to decide whether I
> should fork over big bucks for Piezo software -- and run the risk of
> my now out-of-production printer breaking down and then having to buy
> _new_ software for the replacement printer, etc. -- or go with the
> MIS VM inkset, sweat out the paper-profile limitations...
> 
> 
> 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/

> Epson printers can use more than 360 DPI. This is easily proven by
> making a text document, using small text. Print it at 240, 300, 360, 420
> DPI. I can see that 420 produces sharper text than any of the other
> settings.

Printing text and halftone images are ENTIRELY different.  Any conclusions
drawn from one do not necessarily apply to the other.

I don't disagree that more resolution, up to a certain point is better for
either, but tests like this *really* don't apply to halftoned images to a
large extent.  The text is typically a solid color, and not halftoned, so
the actual methodology used to lay the ink down is entirely different.

Austin Franklin wrote

> > Epson printers can use more than 360 DPI. This is easily proven by
> > making a text document, using small text. Print it at 240, 300, 360, 420
> > DPI. I can see that 420 produces sharper text than any of the other
> > settings.
>
> Printing text and halftone images are ENTIRELY different.  Any conclusions
> drawn from one do not necessarily apply to the other.
>
> I don't disagree that more resolution, up to a certain point is better for
> either, but tests like this *really* don't apply to halftoned images to a
> large extent.  The text is typically a solid color, and not halftoned, so
> the actual methodology used to lay the ink down is entirely different.

I'm a bit confused. .Are you saying that either the Epson or Piezo print continuous tones (like in a
photograph) as a halftone pattern?

When I get that answered, I will have more to say, but I first need to get the above issue resolved (as it
were).  ;- )

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC





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

> I'm a bit confused. .Are you saying that either the Epson or
> Piezo print continuous tones (like in a
> photograph) as a halftone pattern?

Of course.  That's how printing works.  There is no true continuous
tone...it's simulated...and requires dither/halftone patterns to simulate
the intermediate tones.

> When I get that answered, I will have more to say, but I first
> need to get the above issue resolved (as it
> were).  ;- )

The answer is yes.

Austin Franklin wrote:

>
> > I'm a bit confused. .Are you saying that either the Epson or
> > Piezo print continuous tones (like in a
> > photograph) as a halftone pattern?
>
> Of course.  That's how printing works.  There is no true continuous
> tone...it's simulated...and requires dither/halftone patterns to simulate
> the intermediate tones.
>
> > When I get that answered, I will have more to say, but I first
> > need to get the above issue resolved (as it
> > were).  ;- )
>
> The answer is yes.

 I thought all these printers used 'stochastic' patterns and not halftone patterns (which I thought were in a
grid).

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


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

> > > I'm a bit confused. .Are you saying that either the Epson or
> > > Piezo print continuous tones (like in a
> > > photograph) as a halftone pattern?
> >
> > Of course.  That's how printing works.  There is no true continuous
> > tone...it's simulated...and requires dither/halftone patterns
> to simulate
> > the intermediate tones.
> >
> > > When I get that answered, I will have more to say, but I first
> > > need to get the above issue resolved (as it
> > > were).  ;- )
> >
> > The answer is yes.
>
>  I thought all these printers used 'stochastic' patterns and not
> halftone patterns (which I thought were in a
> grid).

You can use a stochastic pattern, that does not mean it isn't a halftone.
Halftone is a technique, and many different methodologies can be used to
achieve this technique.

A halftone is not limited to a grid pattern.

Dear Austin,

My understanding is that halftone is limited to a grid pattern... Stochastic
is not. 

Stochastic printing does not use a grid as halftone does, that is why it can
achieve smoother prints, it is random, there are no rosettes patterns.  I
also understand that lpi is not applicable to stochastic printing.

I'm confused by some of your comments regarding halftoning. You have give me
the impression that an inkjet printer uses halftoning to print. I don't
agree, an inkjet printer uses a stochastic approach, a dither, random
placement of dots in different densities.  Maybe I misunderstood your
postings... wouldn't be the first time. :-)

Carolyn

> You can use a stochastic pattern, that does not mean it isn't a halftone.
> Halftone is a technique, and many different methodologies can be used to
> achieve this technique.
> 
> A halftone is not limited to a grid pattern.

> Dear Austin,
>
> My understanding is that halftone is limited to a grid pattern...
> Stochastic
> is not.

Halftone is just the process/technique, the pattern used can be anything.  I
used to design and implement (in hardware) halftone patterns for a pre-press
output company.  We used many different algorithms...and they did not have
to be grid (actually called cells) based.

A very good book on this subject is "Digital Halftoning" by Robert Ulichney.
This book is one of the bibles of digital imaging...  "Digital halftoning,
also referred to as spatial dithering, is the method of rendering the
illusion of continuous tone pictures...".  Stochastic dithering is only one
of many different halftone techniques.  The book has many chapters on random
dithering, dithering with noise, and a host of other different halftone
techniques.

> Stochastic printing does not use a grid as halftone does, that is why it
can
> achieve smoother prints, it is random, there are no rosettes patterns.

That (the Moire patterns) can be eliminated in standard cell based halftone
process.  What you are referring to as "halftoning" is actually called
"ordered dither", and as I said, is only one of many algorithms that can be
used in halftoning.

They do use a stochastic pattern.

Jerry

>  I thought all these printers used 'stochastic' patterns and not halftone patterns (which I thought were in a
> grid).
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider

Yes, but that does not mean it's not a halftone.

> 
> They do use a stochastic pattern.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> >  I thought all these printers used 'stochastic' patterns and 
> not halftone patterns (which I thought were in a
> > grid).
> > 
> > Harvey Ferdschneider

Now I'm confused too.  Since I am not an expert in the "dot" area, I
have to defer to the book, "Making Digital Negatives for Contact
Printing" by Dan Burkholder (pg 36).  His definition of stachastic
(Random Dot) images is:

"Negatives that vary the dot "frequency" are called stochastic
negatives. Instead of arranging the spots of ink like so many soldiers
in formation, stochastic negatives use much smaller specks that are
randomly arranged, much like the grain in conventional film.  By
varying the concentration of these tiny specks, the shades of gray are
simulated."

Dan Burkholder goes on to talk about two kinds of Random dot images
that he uses, which are (1)Diffusion dither bitmaps made in Photoshop,
and (2)Icefields stachastic images (from a stand-alone program).

I'm only assuming that if you don't use the Diffusion dither bitmaps
SPECIFICALLY in Photoshop you're going to get virtually Halftone dot
images from your jpeg or tiff or photoshop files, and the printer
drivers take it from there.

I don't worry about Diffusion dither bitmaps because I know that the
Piezography driver on my Epson will take care of the straight dot
output that I send it.  I also know that Epson has its own stochastic
method, but don't know what it is (other than it uses piezoelectric
principles to make ink dots of variable size). 

I do know that I have NEVER seen the term Halftone used without
meaning LINE (or grid) Screen. I also know that you can specify
Halftone in the Epson printer setup, but I have only ever used it to
make print screens for photo-intaglio printmaking where I wanted the grid.

Anybody know anything more?
Thanks,
Cathy



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Carolyn  Frayn
<carolyn@u...> wrote:
> Dear Austin,
> 
> My understanding is that halftone is limited to a grid pattern...
Stochastic
> is not. 
> 
> Stochastic printing does not use a grid as halftone does, that is
why it can
> achieve smoother prints, it is random, there are no rosettes
patterns.  I
> also understand that lpi is not applicable to stochastic printing.
> 
> I'm confused by some of your comments regarding halftoning. You have
give me
> the impression that an inkjet printer uses halftoning to print. I don't
> agree, an inkjet printer uses a stochastic approach, a dither, random
> placement of dots in different densities.  Maybe I misunderstood your
> postings... wouldn't be the first time. :-)
> 
> Carolyn
> 
> 
> 
> > You can use a stochastic pattern, that does not mean it isn't a
halftone.
> > Halftone is a technique, and many different methodologies can be
used to

> > achieve this technique.
> > 
> > A halftone is not limited to a grid pattern.

Austin,

> Halftone is just the process/technique, the pattern used can be anything.  I
> used to design and implement (in hardware) halftone patterns for a pre-press
> output company.  We used many different algorithms...and they did not have
> to be grid (actually called cells) based.

Thank you, this makes more sense.  It is very frustrating when the printing
companies I have dealt with are not aware of the different options when I
request an alternative screening method. I have gone thru four different
printers until I found one that could at least talk to me about color
management and work flow technique.  Two of these printers told me outright
that I could not get a CMYK profile for their presses because you can only
profile an RGB output device!!!  I left them right away.

> A very good book on this subject is "Digital Halftoning" by Robert Ulichney.
> This book is one of the bibles of digital imaging...  "Digital halftoning,
> also referred to as spatial dithering, is the method of rendering the
> illusion of continuous tone pictures...".  Stochastic dithering is only one
> of many different halftone techniques.  The book has many chapters on random
> dithering, dithering with noise, and a host of other different halftone
> techniques.

I'll get this book, I have others but this sounds like the book I need to
put it all together.

> That (the Moire patterns) can be eliminated in standard cell based halftone
> process.  What you are referring to as "halftoning" is actually called
> "ordered dither", and as I said, is only one of many algorithms that can be
> used in halftoning.

I'm curious about how they can deliver a print without the moire pattern
visible while using a halftone technique other than stochastic... There must
be other techniques I'm not familiar with.

So offset press prints with visible moire patterns are "ordered dither", the
prints without are "stochastic dither"... or something else?  Then are
inkjet prints "stochastic dither" or are they a different beast altogether?

Carolyn

> Now I'm confused too.  Since I am not an expert in the "dot" area, I
> have to defer to the book, "Making Digital Negatives for Contact
> Printing" by Dan Burkholder (pg 36).  His definition of stachastic
> (Random Dot) images is:
>
> "Negatives that vary the dot "frequency" are called stochastic
> negatives. Instead of arranging the spots of ink like so many soldiers
> in formation, stochastic negatives use much smaller specks that are
> randomly arranged, much like the grain in conventional film.  By
> varying the concentration of these tiny specks, the shades of gray are
> simulated."
>
> Dan Burkholder goes on to talk about two kinds of Random dot images
> that he uses, which are (1)Diffusion dither bitmaps made in Photoshop,
> and (2)Icefields stachastic images (from a stand-alone program).

That's all fine, but they are STILL all considered a halftone technique!

> I'm only assuming that if you don't use the Diffusion dither bitmaps
> SPECIFICALLY in Photoshop you're going to get

>>>> virtually Halftone dot images

I don't know what you mean by that...but if you are referring to the cell
based halftone pattern, those are simply an ordered dither...periodic, point
based and may be either clustered or dispersed, depending on the algorithm.
That is but one methodology of halftoning.

> I do know that I have NEVER seen the term Halftone used without
> meaning LINE (or grid) Screen.

In every digital imaging book I have, as well as my experience developing
and designing digital imaging systems for 20+ years, halftone does not
necessarily denote an ordered dither method.  Halftone is a term used just
to describe the use of solid ink(s) and white space in a varying pattern to
simulate the illusion of continuous tone.  Halftone does NOT specify the
algorithm.

> I also know that you can specify
> Halftone in the Epson printer setup, but I have only ever used it to
> make print screens for photo-intaglio printmaking where I wanted the grid.

In the 3000 printer setup, you can specify any of THREE  "halftone" (that's
the title to the selection they chose to use) patterns...coarse dithering,
fine dithering and error diffusion.  Again, these are ALL different halftone
techniques.  Even Epson calls them all "halftone".

It could be that the term "halftone" was used to define the "ordered dither"
you spoke of up until other dithering techniques became developed.  This
could be the cause of a lot of confusion. Stochastic and other dithering
techniques are relatively new in the scheme of things, basically with the
advent of the computer. Prior to that, offset presses used only one method
of halftoning(?)... which is perhaps why we use this term incorrectly now.

As I understand you "halftone" is like saying "bird"... "stochastic" is like
saying "Robin"... does that make sense?

Carolyn

> In every digital imaging book I have, as well as my experience developing
> and designing digital imaging systems for 20+ years, halftone does not
> necessarily denote an ordered dither method.  Halftone is a term used just
> to describe the use of solid ink(s) and white space in a varying pattern to
> simulate the illusion of continuous tone.  Halftone does NOT specify the
> algorithm.

> As I understand you "halftone" is like saying "bird"... 
> "stochastic" is like
> saying "Robin"... does that make sense?

Works for me ;-)

> > That (the Moire patterns) can be eliminated in standard cell
> based halftone
> > process.  What you are referring to as "halftoning" is actually called
> > "ordered dither", and as I said, is only one of many algorithms
> that can be
> > used in halftoning.
>
> I'm curious about how they can deliver a print without the moire pattern
> visible while using a halftone technique other than stochastic...
> There must
> be other techniques I'm not familiar with.
>
> So offset press prints with visible moire patterns are "ordered
> dither", the
> prints without are "stochastic dither"... or something else?  Then are
> inkjet prints "stochastic dither" or are they a different beast
> altogether?

If you are getting moire patterns, then the halftone algorithm is not very
good.  As I said, ordered dither doesn't have to give moire, and there are
different methods to do ordered dither too...

I did this work some 10 years ago, I would have thought it would be old hat
by now!  I may even still have the microcode from back then...but it would
take some digging.

> If you are getting moire patterns, then the halftone algorithm is not very
> good.  As I said, ordered dither doesn't have to give moire, and there are
> different methods to do ordered dither too...

In almost every magazine I scrutinize I see the rosettes, I thought that was
a very acceptable thing.  I was truly under the impression that if I did not
see the pattern then it was printed with stochastic screening. I'm going to
do some research, thanks.

> I did this work some 10 years ago, I would have thought it would be old hat
> by now!  I may even still have the microcode from back then...but it would
> take some digging.

Austin, I would not know what to do with it if you found it! ;-)

Thanks! Carolyn

> As I understand you "halftone" is like saying "bird"...
> "stochastic" is like
> saying "Robin"... does that make sense?

Works for me ;-)

Cool! <g>

> 
> In almost every magazine I scrutinize I see the rosettes, I thought that was
> a very acceptable thing.  I was truly under the impression that if I did not
> see the pattern then it was printed with stochastic screening. I'm going to
> do some research, thanks.
> 

The rosette you refer to is the very principle of off-set printing, and it
will be present in every piece of paper which was printed with a halftoned
image (as long as printed on an ordered dither). It shows up from the
different angles the CMYK colors are printed.
Moire is what happens when, say, the pattern of a digital back (mainly
one-shot) "coincides" with the pattern of fabric, or any repeated tiny lines
or dots - like a fence, for instance. It can be avoided if you increase or
decrease - up to a certain extent - the resolution of the scan or the
distance from the subject. Usually is impossible to eliminate luminance
moire, but you can handle very well the moire colors.
Hope this helps,
-- 
Rodolpho Pajuaba
www.pajuaba.com.br

Thank you Rodolpho, I am aware of how the rosettes form from offset press
printing, my question was how can you print in this fashion *without*
getting the rosette pattern as Austin said. (by using an ordered dither)

Your description of Moire is most accurate except that there is a further
discription in offset printing... this undesirable effect occurs when the
screens are improperly aligned. I'm not sure why we started calling the
rosette a moire pattern... Austin?

Carolyn

> The rosette you refer to is the very principle of off-set printing, and it
> will be present in every piece of paper which was printed with a halftoned
> image (as long as printed on an ordered dither). It shows up from the
> different angles the CMYK colors are printed.
> Moire is what happens when, say, the pattern of a digital back (mainly
> one-shot) "coincides" with the pattern of fabric, or any repeated tiny lines
> or dots - like a fence, for instance. It can be avoided if you increase or
> decrease - up to a certain extent - the resolution of the scan or the
> distance from the subject. Usually is impossible to eliminate luminance
> moire, but you can handle very well the moire colors.
> Hope this helps,

Dear Austin, When I asked about the rosettes you changed that name to moire
and I went with it. They are two different things and we were talking about
two different things. When the exchange (I've included at the bottom)
changed from rosettes to moire that is where I got confused. You said that
if I was getting moire patterns the halftone algorithym was not very good...
but I was referring to rosettes (not moire, sorry). So I'm going to re-ask
my question to avoid confusion. ;-)

Can you print from offset press without visible rosettes while using an
ordered dither... but without using stochastic screening?

Thanks, Carolyn

............

C wrote:
> Stochastic printing does not use a grid as halftone does, that is why it
can
> achieve smoother prints, it is random, there are no rosette patterns.

A wrote:
That (the Moire patterns) can be eliminated in standard cell based halftone
process.  What you are referring to as "halftoning" is actually called
"ordered dither", and as I said, is only one of many algorithms that can be
used in halftoning.

Above is where I asked about Rosettes and you responded with Moire. So I
continued to respond using Moire but I did mean Rosettes.

C wrote:
> I'm curious about how they can deliver a print without the moire pattern
> visible while using a halftone technique other than stochastic...
> There must
> be other techniques I'm not familiar with.
>
> So offset press prints with visible moire patterns are "ordered
> dither", the
> prints without are "stochastic dither"... or something else?  Then are
> inkjet prints "stochastic dither" or are they a different beast
> altogether?

A wrote:
If you are getting moire patterns, then the halftone algorithm is not very
good.  As I said, ordered dither doesn't have to give moire, and there are
different methods to do ordered dither too...

Above I totally agree with you when you are referring to moire patterns, but
thought we were talking about rosettes...

Bored of me yet?

> Dear Austin, When I asked about the rosettes you changed that
> name to moire
> and I went with it. They are two different things and we were
> talking about
> two different things.

Yes, I thought you were calling the moire pattern rosettes, but I know what
you are talking about.  Sorry, since my head is in B&W (as well as what this
forum is about ;-) I think in terms of B&W only these days...my mistake.

> When the exchange (I've included at the bottom)
> changed from rosettes to moire that is where I got confused. You said that
> if I was getting moire patterns the halftone algorithym was not
> very good...

That is true.

> but I was referring to rosettes (not moire, sorry). So I'm going to re-ask
> my question to avoid confusion. ;-)
>
> Can you print from offset press without visible rosettes while using an
> ordered dither... but without using stochastic screening?

I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head.  I only worked on
B&W, not color.  I certainly have reference material I can take a look at
for you.  It'll probably be in "Principles of Color Proofing" by Bruno, but
that's a bit of an old reference...but it's a good start, I'd say.

Austin,

So are you saying that all these Epson injet printers, even when using
Piezography (drivers(software) and technology(hardware + software))
are actually just printing a good algorithm of a halftone method? 
Does dot size count at all?  How about variability of frequency of
dots within a square inch (or any size area)?  In the book "Adobe
Photoshop for Photographers" by Martin Evening, he cites that "The
line screen resolution (lpi) is the frequency of halftone dots or
cells per inch."  That implies to me that halftone frequency is fixed.
 Isn't it true that in stochastic methods, the frequency is variable?

Thanks! Trying hard to understand...
Cathy


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > > That (the Moire patterns) can be eliminated in standard cell
> > based halftone
> > > process.  What you are referring to as "halftoning" is actually
called
> > > "ordered dither", and as I said, is only one of many algorithms
> > that can be
> > > used in halftoning.
> >
> > I'm curious about how they can deliver a print without the moire
pattern
> > visible while using a halftone technique other than stochastic...
> > There must
> > be other techniques I'm not familiar with.
> >
> > So offset press prints with visible moire patterns are "ordered
> > dither", the
> > prints without are "stochastic dither"... or something else?  Then are
> > inkjet prints "stochastic dither" or are they a different beast
> > altogether?
> 
> If you are getting moire patterns, then the halftone algorithm is
not very
> good.  As I said, ordered dither doesn't have to give moire, and
there are
> different methods to do ordered dither too...
> 
> I did this work some 10 years ago, I would have thought it would be
old hat
> by now!  I may even still have the microcode from back then...but it
would
> take some digging.

>> Can you print from offset press without visible rosettes while using an
>> ordered dither... but without using stochastic screening?
> 
> I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head.  I only worked on
> B&W, not color.  I certainly have reference material I can take a look at
> for you.  It'll probably be in "Principles of Color Proofing" by Bruno, but
> that's a bit of an old reference...but it's a good start, I'd say.

Thank you Austin, that is a very kind offer... Let me look into it first and
if I cannot find the info I'll write you off list... is that ok?

Best, Carolyn

> >> Can you print from offset press without visible rosettes while using an
> >> ordered dither... but without using stochastic screening?
> >
> > I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head.  I only
> worked on
> > B&W, not color.  I certainly have reference material I can take
> a look at
> > for you.  It'll probably be in "Principles of Color Proofing"
> by Bruno, but
> > that's a bit of an old reference...but it's a good start, I'd say.
>
> Thank you Austin, that is a very kind offer... Let me look into
> it first and
> if I cannot find the info I'll write you off list... is that ok?

Of course!

> Austin,
>
> So are you saying that all these Epson injet printers, even when using
> Piezography (drivers(software) and technology(hardware + software))
> are actually just printing a good algorithm of a halftone method?

Any time you are simulating continuous tone with solid ink colors, I'd call
it halftone.

> Does dot size count at all?  How about variability of frequency of
> dots within a square inch (or any size area)?

Sure to both.

> In the book "Adobe
> Photoshop for Photographers" by Martin Evening, he cites that "The
> line screen resolution (lpi) is the frequency of halftone dots or
> cells per inch."  That implies to me that halftone frequency is fixed.

For that particular halftone it sounds like it.

>  Isn't it true that in stochastic methods, the frequency is variable?

I don't believe that only stochastic methods vary the frequency...
Stochastic only means "involving chance or probability", as in random.  You
can vary the frequency, and not be random...it can be very deterministic
(opposite of random).

> Thank you Rodolpho, I am aware of how the rosettes form from offset press
> printing, my question was how can you print in this fashion *without*
> getting the rosette pattern as Austin said. (by using an ordered dither)
> 

I'm not quite sure if this is what you're talking about, but...
If you use only one plate, there is not an actual "rosette" pattern, but
parallel lines of dots. I read on this list, a few days ago, a message where
was said that a 405 Lpi (or something around) film plate could be used as a
negative to make contact prints on silver paper (or any other form of
contact printing), because the size of the dots would be almost
imperceptible (well, this is what I undertood).
Hope this helps,
-- 
Rodolpho Pajuaba
www.pajuaba.com.br