Digital BW, The Print

ok, someone just told me not to worry about other inksets until I was 
ready to switch.  I'm ready.  My CFS is gone.  I've got color inks in 
my 1160 and I'm ready to go with a new inkset.  I've used MIS VM for 
more than 2 years, got a lot of great prints out of it and a large 
number of bad ones as well.  The jerky tonal space causes lots of 
posterization which cannot always be fixed (though my 21 stepwedge 
always looked perfect).  Do the UT inks and new curves give a 
smoother gradient?  What about FS and Jeff Randall's MIS Full 
Spectrum Partitioned Quad Workflow?  I only print the MW warm mix as 
it is so I don't think I need VM, but I would like a smoother 
gradient etc.  Anyone still use that?  If so, willing to post a 
gradient somewhere?  I know this is probably the wrong place to ask, 
but what about the Lyson stuff?  Any other thoughts?  I'm not willing 
to pay for Peizography since I could almost get a 2200 and IP for the 
same price. 

thanks for all advice,

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn" 
<markhahn2000@y...> wrote:
> ok, someone just told me not to worry about other inksets until I 
was 
> ready to switch.  I'm ready.  My CFS is gone.  I've got color inks 
in 
> my 1160 and I'm ready to go with a new inkset.  

Mark,
I'm using an Epson 1160 with the UT inkset and Paul's curve. 
Unfortunatly, the UT2 inkset will not work on the Epson 1160.

Before using the UT inkset I used the FS-N inkset and would not go 
back. The UT inkset has a better longevity rating and my printer is 
now pretty near clog free.

But, maybe Paul has another inkset to replace the present FS-N inkset 
that would would work on the Epson 1160 ?

Cheers,
Andre

Andre and list,

> > ok, someone just told me not to worry about other inksets until I 
> Before using the UT inkset I used the FS-N inkset and would not go 
> back. The UT inkset has a better longevity rating and my printer is 
> now pretty near clog free.
> 
> But, maybe Paul has another inkset to replace the present FS-N 
inkset 
> that would would work on the Epson 1160 ?

I'm using FSN (with the Piezography driver) but I'm getting close to 
running out. Since the UT ink is the recommended replacement does 
anyone know if it can be used with the Piezography driver on the 1160?

I'm very confussed about all of these ink changes.

Thanks,

Don Bryant

>> ... 1160 and I'm ready to go with a new inkset.  

>Unfortunately, the UT2 inkset will not work on the Epson 1160.

>Before using the UT inkset I used the FS-N inkset and would not go 
>back. The UT inkset has a better longevity rating and my printer is 
>now pretty near clog free.

>But, maybe Paul has another inkset to replace the present FS-N inkset 
>that would work on the Epson 1160?

Yes, there I've formulated "UT-FSN" and "UT-FS-Warm" (carbon) inksets (as
well as intermediate tones), but MIS needs to get them on the website before
they'll be available for sale.  (Don't bother calling MIS before then.  They
can't process the orders.)  

The UT-FS-W (carbon) is warmer than the current FS or the old VM warm.  For
a "neutral-warm" tone/hue mix 1/3 warm with 2/3 neutral.  For warmth equal
to the old VM warm curve, mix 1:1.  I'm not sure if MIS is going to have
these intermediate tones pre-mixed.

I have new curves for the 1160 (and 3000) for the UT-FS inks.  Even though
they are the same densities as the old FS (& Piezo) inks, I wanted to re-do
the curves.

I am not a fan of the old partitioning curves.  Some partitioning can't be
avoided with the 3000, and the 1160 will still give very slightly smoother
highlights with partitioning.  However, the radical partitioning curves were
the source of lots of the posterization problem.  They fight the Epson
driver's built-in partitioning, and they accentuate the production
differences between printers.

So, for the 1160 in addition to fully partitioned curves for EEM and
PhotoRag, I have a grayscale curve and a "mild" RGB partitioning curve
(RGB-EEM-2).  

This mild partitioning curve, I think, hits a good compromise between
smoothness and not interfering with the driver's attempts to control the
inks.  It should be relatively tolerant of printer differences and easy to
modify for different papers.  All the individual color curves start at the
(0,0) and end at (256,256), and there are no reverse slopes.  The approach
puts predominantly light inks in the highlights, then has those curves go to
a very low slope in the midtones, where the dark gray (cyan ink, red curve)
goes into a nice even and manageable slope. 

I hope that this approach solves some of the partitioning problems.

Another thing to try whenever you see vertical lines in the smooth ramp of
the 21-step test file (don't just look at the steps -- those mild looking
vertical lines are trouble) or you have some flat spots in a print is to
convert the RGB file to 16 bit before applying the curve.  Once the curve is
applied the file can be re-converted to 8 bit for printing.  Whenever the
main curve that is laying down ink has a low slope, the Photoshop curves
algorithm seems to need the 16 bit mode to avoid stair-steps.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

For UT2 information, curves, and settings see:
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/

Thanks Paul!  I'll wait for the new inksets to become available and 
ask you more then.  Since I'm currently pumping out excellent 8x12s 
from my hp 7660 it isn't an urgent purchase, but I will really look 
forward to having both systems up and running so I can print from the 
most appropriate one for each image (both have different strenghts).  
I didn't think about trying to apply curves in 16bit mode, but it 
makes sense that it could help.  I usually just tried to push my 
tones away from the difficult transitions and was usually able to get 
a good print.

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> >> ... 1160 and I'm ready to go with a new inkset.  
> 
> >Unfortunately, the UT2 inkset will not work on the Epson 1160.
> 
> >Before using the UT inkset I used the FS-N inkset and would not go 
> >back. The UT inkset has a better longevity rating and my printer 
is 
> >now pretty near clog free.
> 
> >But, maybe Paul has another inkset to replace the present FS-N 
inkset 
> >that would work on the Epson 1160?
> 
> Yes, there I've formulated "UT-FSN" and "UT-FS-Warm" (carbon) 
inksets (as
> well as intermediate tones), but MIS needs to get them on the 
website before
> they'll be available for sale.  (Don't bother calling MIS before 
then.  They
> can't process the orders.)  
> 
> The UT-FS-W (carbon) is warmer than the current FS or the old VM 
warm.  For
> a "neutral-warm" tone/hue mix 1/3 warm with 2/3 neutral.  For 
warmth equal
> to the old VM warm curve, mix 1:1.  I'm not sure if MIS is going to 
have
> these intermediate tones pre-mixed.
> 
> I have new curves for the 1160 (and 3000) for the UT-FS inks.  Even 
though
> they are the same densities as the old FS (& Piezo) inks, I wanted 
to re-do
> the curves.
> 
> I am not a fan of the old partitioning curves.  Some partitioning 
can't be
> avoided with the 3000, and the 1160 will still give very slightly 
smoother
> highlights with partitioning.  However, the radical partitioning 
curves were
> the source of lots of the posterization problem.  They fight the 
Epson
> driver's built-in partitioning, and they accentuate the production
> differences between printers.
> 
> So, for the 1160 in addition to fully partitioned curves for EEM and
> PhotoRag, I have a grayscale curve and a "mild" RGB partitioning 
curve
> (RGB-EEM-2).  
> 
> This mild partitioning curve, I think, hits a good compromise 
between
> smoothness and not interfering with the driver's attempts to 
control the
> inks.  It should be relatively tolerant of printer differences and 
easy to
> modify for different papers.  All the individual color curves start 
at the
> (0,0) and end at (256,256), and there are no reverse slopes.  The 
approach
> puts predominantly light inks in the highlights, then has those 
curves go to
> a very low slope in the midtones, where the dark gray (cyan ink, 
red curve)
> goes into a nice even and manageable slope. 
> 
> I hope that this approach solves some of the partitioning problems.
> 
> Another thing to try whenever you see vertical lines in the smooth 
ramp of
> the 21-step test file (don't just look at the steps -- those mild 
looking
> vertical lines are trouble) or you have some flat spots in a print 
is to
> convert the RGB file to 16 bit before applying the curve.  Once the 
curve is
> applied the file can be re-converted to 8 bit for printing.  
Whenever the
> main curve that is laying down ink has a low slope, the Photoshop 
curves

> algorithm seems to need the 16 bit mode to avoid stair-steps.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> For UT2 information, curves, and settings see:
> http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/

but how would you compare tonal smoothness and posterization?

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sceptre12345" 
<am1000@v...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn" 
> <markhahn2000@y...> wrote:
> > ok, someone just told me not to worry about other inksets until I 
> was 
> > ready to switch.  I'm ready.  My CFS is gone.  I've got color 
inks 
> in 
> > my 1160 and I'm ready to go with a new inkset.  
> 
> Mark,
> I'm using an Epson 1160 with the UT inkset and Paul's curve. 
> Unfortunatly, the UT2 inkset will not work on the Epson 1160.
> 
> Before using the UT inkset I used the FS-N inkset and would not go 
> back. The UT inkset has a better longevity rating and my printer is 
> now pretty near clog free.
> 
> But, maybe Paul has another inkset to replace the present FS-N 
inkset 

> that would would work on the Epson 1160 ?
> 
> Cheers,
> Andre

-----Original Message-----

From: Mark Hahn [mailto:markhahn2000@...] 
Sent: 27 February 2004 04:32
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] new inkset for 1160???

I'm not willing to pay for Peizography since I could almost get a 2200 and
IP for the same price. 

Then you will never know will you, and by the way you can purchase a lot of
ice creams for the cost of a Piezo System, but you can't fuel a rolls Royce
on ice cream now can you.

Richard




---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

> I'm using FSN (with the Piezography driver) but I'm getting close 
to 
> running out. Since the UT ink is the recommended replacement does 
> anyone know if it can be used with the Piezography driver on the 
1160?
> Don Bryant

I do not think the UT inkset would work with the Piezography driver 
as the FS inkset did. The UT inkset is an entire new inkset, much 
different.

However, you can you use Paul's RGB adjustment curves with the UT 
inkset. They are available in the file section of this newsgroup 
and/or on Paul Roark website.

The UT inkset give you four tonalities to choose from: sepia, warm, 
selenium and cool. Paul's curves does not support as many papers as 
did the Piezography inkset, but I've tried them with good results on 
with Epson EEM, Premier Art Hot Press Fine Art 325g and also with 
InkjetMall Museum Bright White. There's also one Entrada paper that 
is supported (in fact it's pretty close to Inksetmall's Museum Bright 
White).

Now if the newer Permajet paper would be supported by Paul's curves 
that would be the icing on the cake!

Cheers,
Andre

Umm, I don't get your point... other than the wish to be bristly.  
No, I won't know if the Peizography is better than anything else that 
I have tried, but that is not to say that everything else is crap 
either, but I also wasn't asking about Cone systems was I?  If I went 
with a compatible inkset from MIS I could get the Cone IIC profiles 
if the Roark curves don't work out... but it isn't smart to just 
throw money at a problem, especially when the highest cost option is 
getting mixed reviews (ie. I've heard about and seen too many 
examples of posterization in cone prints to ignore).

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" 
<richard@r...> wrote:
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Hahn [mailto:markhahn2000@y...] 
> Sent: 27 February 2004 04:32
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] new inkset for 1160???
> 
> I'm not willing to pay for Peizography since I could almost get a 
2200 and
> IP for the same price. 
> 
> Then you will never know will you, and by the way you can purchase 
a lot of
> ice creams for the cost of a Piezo System, but you can't fuel a 
rolls Royce
> on ice cream now can you.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> [This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your 
responsibility 
> to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you 
are
> currently using to read this email. ]

-----Original Message-----

From: Mark Hahn [mailto:markhahn2000@...] 
Sent: 27 February 2004 20:05
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] new inkset for 1160???


No, I won't know if the Peizography is better than anything else that 
I have tried

And you never will if you don't use it will you now.
It seems to me your more concerned about money and less about image quality
my friend.

If I went with a compatible inkset from MIS I could get the Cone IIC
profiles if the Roark curves don't work out

No you could not, the current ICC profiles are specific to the Piezo ink set
and the ink set tone sequences which are specific to Piezo.

(ie. I've heard about and seen too many 
examples of posterization in cone prints to ignore).

What is "too many"? is it like say for example 2% of total customer base, is
that too many? I don't think it is myself.

You cannot fool all the B&W people all the time but any one individual can
easily fool themselves all the time and they do, all the time.

Richard




---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

ok, this seems like it will easily drift into something unpleasant... 
but I'll add my final comments.

When I went into quadtone printing I was more than willing to go with 
PiezographyBW, but there where a number of people who had paid for it 
and then ended up liking MIS better so it didn't seem to make much 
sense to immediately spend as much money as possible without knowing 
why when in the end I might also be more satisfied with something 
else.  No, I am not more concerned with cost than image quality, but 
I'm not a snob either.  I only care about producing photos that I am 
proud of, no matter what the cost.

Also, since you are implying that MIS inksets and workflows are 
inferior to Cone and are only suitable for people "more concerned 
about money and less about image quality" I have to ask you what 
experience you have with the MIS inksets?  Which inks and what 
printers have you used?  How long?

And finally, there can be fools on boths sides.  I've seen lots of 
fools convince themselves that what they have is best simply because 
it cost them more... have to justify the cost somehow.

When the MIS UTFS come out are you willing to send me an example 
Piezography print to compare with it?  I'd love to be wowed into buy 
Piezography and would have no problem with the expense if it is 
really that much better and would be help advertise the differences.

mark

...
> And you never will if you don't use it will you now.
> It seems to me your more concerned about money and less about image 
quality
> my friend.
> 
> If I went with a compatible inkset from MIS I could get the Cone IIC
> profiles if the Roark curves don't work out
> 
> No you could not, the current ICC profiles are specific to the 
Piezo ink set
> and the ink set tone sequences which are specific to Piezo.
> 
> (ie. I've heard about and seen too many 
> examples of posterization in cone prints to ignore).
> 
> What is "too many"? is it like say for example 2% of total customer 
base, is
> that too many? I don't think it is myself.
> 
> You cannot fool all the B&W people all the time but any one 
individual can
> easily fool themselves all the time and they do, all the time.
> 
> Richard
...

-----Original Message-----

From: Mark Hahn [mailto:markhahn2000@...] 
Sent: 27 February 2004 21:17
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] new inkset for 1160???

When I went into quadtone printing I was more than willing to go with 
PiezographyBW, but there where a number of people who had paid for it 
and then ended up liking MIS better so it didn't seem to make much 
sense to immediately spend as much money as possible without knowing 
why when in the end I might also be more satisfied with something 
else.  No, I am not more concerned with cost than image quality, but 
I'm not a snob either.  I only care about producing photos that I am 
proud of, no matter what the cost.

But are you using the best? With your attitude to the Piezo product you will
never know will you now?


Also, since you are implying that MIS inksets and workflows are 
inferior to Cone and are only suitable for people "more concerned 
about money and less about image quality" I have to ask you what 
experience you have with the MIS inksets?  Which inks and what 
printers have you used?  How long?

They are your words and not mine - my man you are condemning yourself with
your own words, it matters not a whit or jot what I use and for how long,
what matters is what you use, and why is that you ask, simply because you
started the thread.

When the MIS UTFS come out are you willing to send me an example 
Piezography print to compare with it?  I'd love to be wowed into buy 
Piezography and would have no problem with the expense if it is 
really that much better and would be help advertise the differences.

Certainly not, If you want to see the best results from Piezo then go to the
source itself.
Produce one of your own prints on those inks above then challenge Master
Cone to do better. After that you will surely know.

Now then are you going to be objective or objectionable?

Richard



---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

Ok, everyone needs a timeout.


don
--- Richard <richard@...-bulldog.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Hahn [mailto:markhahn2000@...] 
> Sent: 27 February 2004 21:17
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] new inkset for 1160???
> 
> When I went into quadtone printing I was more than
> willing to go with 
> PiezographyBW, but there where a number of people
> who had paid for it 
> and then ended up liking MIS better so it didn't
> seem to make much 
> sense to immediately spend as much money as possible
> without knowing 
> why when in the end I might also be more satisfied
> with something 
> else.  No, I am not more concerned with cost than
> image quality, but 
> I'm not a snob either.  I only care about producing
> photos that I am 
> proud of, no matter what the cost.
> 
> But are you using the best? With your attitude to
> the Piezo product you will
> never know will you now?
> 
> 
> Also, since you are implying that MIS inksets and
> workflows are 
> inferior to Cone and are only suitable for people
> "more concerned 
> about money and less about image quality" I have to
> ask you what 
> experience you have with the MIS inksets?  Which
> inks and what 
> printers have you used?  How long?
> 
> They are your words and not mine - my man you are
> condemning yourself with
> your own words, it matters not a whit or jot what I
> use and for how long,
> what matters is what you use, and why is that you
> ask, simply because you
> started the thread.
> 
> When the MIS UTFS come out are you willing to send
> me an example 
> Piezography print to compare with it?  I'd love to
> be wowed into buy 
> Piezography and would have no problem with the
> expense if it is 
> really that much better and would be help advertise
> the differences.
> 
> Certainly not, If you want to see the best results
> from Piezo then go to the
> source itself.
> Produce one of your own prints on those inks above
> then challenge Master
> Cone to do better. After that you will surely know.
> 
> Now then are you going to be objective or
> objectionable?
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> [This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is
> your responsibility 
> to maintain up to date anti virus software on the
> device that you are
> currently using to read this email. ]
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

A filter would be more appropriate from my point of view... but 
thanks for everyone who made useful comments.  If there is anyone 
with experience with both the Cone and MIS systems and can make 
intelligent comments regarding the benifits of each system I would 
appreciate taking them off list.

thanks,

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "D. Hill" 
<hill14701@y...> wrote:

> Ok, everyone needs a timeout.
> 
> 
> don
> --- Richard <richard@r...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Hahn [mailto:markhahn2000@y...] 
> > Sent: 27 February 2004 21:17
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] new inkset for 1160???
> > 
> > When I went into quadtone printing I was more than
> > willing to go with 
> > PiezographyBW, but there where a number of people
> > who had paid for it 
> > and then ended up liking MIS better so it didn't
> > seem to make much 
> > sense to immediately spend as much money as possible
> > without knowing 
> > why when in the end I might also be more satisfied
> > with something 
> > else.  No, I am not more concerned with cost than
> > image quality, but 
> > I'm not a snob either.  I only care about producing
> > photos that I am 
> > proud of, no matter what the cost.
> > 
> > But are you using the best? With your attitude to
> > the Piezo product you will
> > never know will you now?
> > 
> > 
> > Also, since you are implying that MIS inksets and
> > workflows are 
> > inferior to Cone and are only suitable for people
> > "more concerned 
> > about money and less about image quality" I have to
> > ask you what 
> > experience you have with the MIS inksets?  Which
> > inks and what 
> > printers have you used?  How long?
> > 
> > They are your words and not mine - my man you are
> > condemning yourself with
> > your own words, it matters not a whit or jot what I
> > use and for how long,
> > what matters is what you use, and why is that you
> > ask, simply because you
> > started the thread.
> > 
> > When the MIS UTFS come out are you willing to send
> > me an example 
> > Piezography print to compare with it?  I'd love to
> > be wowed into buy 
> > Piezography and would have no problem with the
> > expense if it is 
> > really that much better and would be help advertise
> > the differences.
> > 
> > Certainly not, If you want to see the best results
> > from Piezo then go to the
> > source itself.
> > Produce one of your own prints on those inks above
> > then challenge Master
> > Cone to do better. After that you will surely know.
> > 
> > Now then are you going to be objective or
> > objectionable?
> > 
> > Richard
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> > [This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is
> > your responsibility 
> > to maintain up to date anti virus software on the
> > device that you are
> > currently using to read this email. ]
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools