Digital BW, The Print

I have questions about StudioPrint.  Is any one in this group using
it?  Are there any user groups?  Thanks.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "agordo55441"
<agordo@v...> wrote:
> I have questions about StudioPrint.  Is any one in this group using
> it?  Are there any user groups?  Thanks.

You can add me to the mix just to confuse things.
Ask away.
Tyler

Tyler,

I'm considering Studio Print.  Question for you.  

My understanding is that SP is used for setting ink limits, partitioning, and linearization, but 
an icc profile is still needed for printing.  Is that true?  If yes, do I need their colorGPS 
profiling software too?  90% of my work is B&W so I am most curious about that, but what 
about for color too.  I already have an i1.  I'm currently running K3.

I don't see on the Ergosoft website that version 12 is released yet, but I heard that it is out.  I 
assume that I'll need v12 in order to support the 7800.  

Thanks.

Josh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "joshhackney"
<joshhackney@g...> wrote:
>
> Tyler,
> 
> I'm considering Studio Print.  Question for you.  
> 
> My understanding is that SP is used for setting ink limits,
partitioning, and linearization, but 
> an icc profile is still needed for printing.  Is that true?

Since you mention using the K#s and a 7800 below, I'd say yes. You
will be working in CMYK mode. If you were using a monochrome inkset,
no, that data path is "two dimensional", just density.

>  If yes, do I need their colorGPS 
> profiling software too?

Well, you need some kind of profiler, if not that one. You'll need
custom CMYK profiles, and hopefully a good profiler that will allow
some K generation choices. With the K3s, you want to be able to build
in a very long K with maximum GCR for good B&W work and that ink set.

>  90% of my work is B&W so I am most curious about that, but what 
> about for color too.

You'll do great color with StudioPrint as well, you might want
slightly different K generation profiles for color, but would have to
test to see if that lightest K is visible in highlights.

>  I already have an i1.  I'm currently running K3.

The i1 will work with GPS and pretty much any other good CMYK
profiling app you can get.

> 
> I don't see on the Ergosoft website that version 12 is released yet,
but I heard that it is out.  I 
> assume that I'll need v12 in order to support the 7800. 

Yes, I'm told next week. I hope it's true.
One warning. With a setup like this your life will be consumed. With
all the settings to get right, iterative linearizations, and
profiling, then start over for the nest paper, you will become MIA.

But then the results can be worth it, most of the time...
...I hope...
It's a financial commitment as well.
Tyler

by the way, I've sort of been talking people out of going the RIP
route lately, it's just such a major commitment. Particularly for an
individual artist.
The deciding line is this, in my opinion-
If you have not run into some limitation that only a RIP can address,
then you probably should not get one.
Tyler

Josh,

I agree with everything Tyler had to say in both posts (including 
getting consumed in the process).

FWIW, there is a new version of SP version 11 available on the Epson 
Wide Format forum in case you are interested.  I just saw it.  I don't 
know if that is a less expensive way to upgrade to version 12 when it 
is released or not.  Here's the link.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EpsonWideFormat/?yguid=107489918

Lou

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

>
> by the way, I've sort of been talking people out of going the RIP
> route lately, it's just such a major commitment. Particularly for an
> individual artist.
> The deciding line is this, in my opinion-
> If you have not run into some limitation that only a RIP can address,
> then you probably should not get one.
> Tyler
>

I'm going to add some general notes in here, they do not apply only 
to Studio Print, but to most any RIP.


> 
> >  90% of my work is B&W so I am most curious about that, but what 
> > about for color too.
> 
> You'll do great color with StudioPrint as well, you might want
> slightly different K generation profiles for color, but would have 
to
> test to see if that lightest K is visible in highlights.

With the use of the three black inks, probably 90% of your work could 
be done with a single GCR curve. Since the black inks are not 
neutral, you will always be getting some color ink to correct for 
this. If the black curve is properly designed to work with the 
printer and inks, it should be every bit as good as the Epson ABW 
output, but with more control since you are setting things like ink 
limits. You would also be changing the tone of the image in Photoshop 
(or other image editor). But if you find that one prfile does not 
work, generating another with a different GCR would be a simple task.

> 
> >  I already have an i1.  I'm currently running K3.
> 
> The i1 will work with GPS and pretty much any other good CMYK
> profiling app you can get.
> 

NOTE: Not all profiling applications will correct for OBA in papers! 
You may need an i1 UV with many of them. One suggested application 
that you normally don't hear about would be Heidelberg Prinect 
Profile Toolbox. The biggest "problem" about profiles from that app. 
is what it does with out of gamut colors in either of the 
colorimetric intents. If you correct the out of gamut colors like you 
should be doing, then there are no issues. Most people seem to expect 
the profile to just know what the artist wants done to those out of 
gamut colors like a couple of applications do. The other thing that 
isn't as good as it could be is the black generation. There is no way 
to make a custom GCR curve, but the standard curves should work 
really well with a three black printer. Cost if this set of tools is 
around $2000 directly from Heidelberg. Even the older Printopen 4 (I 
own this version) works very well in CMYK mode with a printer that is 
properly linearized. You can use either the i1 or the UV cut. With 
the use of Colorport (free) from Xrite, you can use a much larger 
number of measuring devices including the DTP20 (Pulse) spectro and 
the DTP70 spectro.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@t...> wrote:
>
> by the way, I've sort of been talking people out of going the RIP
> route lately...

I need to amend this. I'm talking of large complex full featured RIPs
like ColorBurst, ErgoSoft, etc., NOT QuadtoneRIP.
I tend to think of QuadtoneRIP as a special driver, though of course
it is technically a RIP.
Anyway, QTR is great, and I hope my previous comments aren't
discouraging to anyone thinking of working with it.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
...
> NOTE: Not all profiling applications will correct for OBA in papers! 
> You may need an i1 UV with many of them.

Greg, I confess to have never worked with a profiling app that
corrects for OBAs, nor do I have the UV version of the i1. I'm pretty
sure my previous Spectro, the Spectrocam, did not have a UV filter either.

And I've never experienced any problem.
On the other hand, since I've never had the option, maybe I don't know
what I'm missing.

By the way, I've heard nothing but good things about PrintOpen, is
that what you use?
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"
> <dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
> ...
> > NOTE: Not all profiling applications will correct for OBA in 
papers! 
> > You may need an i1 UV with many of them.
> 
> Greg, I confess to have never worked with a profiling app that
> corrects for OBAs, nor do I have the UV version of the i1. I'm 
pretty
> sure my previous Spectro, the Spectrocam, did not have a UV filter 
either.

What version of Profile Maker Pro did you start with? I think back 
with version 3 they started to correct automatically for the extra 
blue that shows up on papers with lots of OBA (like EEM). It would be 
very obvious if the software wasn't helping you out, the yellow cast 
is very visible under nearly every lighting condition. If you only 
ever use things like Photo Rag or German Etching, those don't have 
enough to cause problems. Even Innova Photo Fiba may not cause a huge 
problem. But EEM and many of the glossy papers will give you grief 
for your color work.


> 
> By the way, I've heard nothing but good things about PrintOpen, is
> that what you use?
> Tyler
>

I really like Printopen, but the out of gamut clipping really puts a 
lot of people off. There's a comment waiting to be said about that, 
but I'll leave it alone. Even the older Printopen 4 works really 
well, at least for CMYK (I don't ever really use the RGB part). I'm 
moving to Monaco Profiler 4.8 for the profiling service, not sure 
exactly what I'm going to use for my printer yet. The one thing about 
Profiler is that I can make a GCR that gives me real world Black Only 
printing through my RIP without having to turn off the other inks. 
That was a real advantage before I could turn off the inks (old Fiery 
RIP). However, Profiler really requires a UV spectro (I now have an 
i1UV, and a Pulse UV in addition to my regular i1, almost time for a 
sale). Before I bought Profiler, I was going to upgrade to the 
Prinect toolbox, Printopen 5 has some really nice new features to 
handle OBA, as well as some new graphing features that would come in 
handy. It's also ICC v4 for the printer profiles, and finally 
supports direct scanning measurement from an i1, I've been using 
Colorport to get around that.

The one thing I like the most about Printopen is the quality of the 
profiles from the tiny 210 patch target. I can print a small 
linearization target on one end of a 8.5x11 sheet, and the 210 target 
on the rest. So with three sheets of each sample I can get a good 
test print put onto the other 2 sheets. Comes in REAL handy when 
doing a large batch of testing. The IT8 and ECI2002 do much better of 
course, but it gives you a good enough idea of what to expect when 
you put a bunch of time into optimizing a set up.

If you have a measuring device that works with Colorport, drop me an 
email and I'll send you a text file to make one of the PO targets. 
You measure, and I'll make, then you can compared directly what they 
look like with your setup. Colorport works with i1, most Xrite 
spectros, and a couple of the other Gretag spectros.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
...
> What version of Profile Maker Pro did you start with?

None, I don't like it. I have had experience with it though, with a
friend, so have made a few profiles with it.

> I think back 
> with version 3 they started to correct automatically for the extra 
> blue that shows up on papers with lots of OBA (like EEM). It would be 
> very obvious if the software wasn't helping you out, the yellow cast 
> is very visible under nearly every lighting condition. If you only 
> ever use things like Photo Rag or German Etching, those don't have 
> enough to cause problems. Even Innova Photo Fiba may not cause a huge 
> problem. But EEM and many of the glossy papers will give you grief 
> for your color work.

I'm not doubting you, but I just haven't seen it, obviously I use a
lot of papers that don't have much bluing, but I've profiled a few
including EEM without problem. This is with ProfilerPro, EyeOne Photo,
and ErgoSoft GPS.
So maybe it's a sftware dependant phenominon?


> ...(I now have an 
> i1UV, and a Pulse UV in addition to my regular i1, almost time for a 
> sale).

What do you think of the Pulse? I've been suspecting my old Spectrocam
was better than the i1 before it went wonky. Had great software too.

> 
> If you have a measuring device that works with Colorport, drop me an 
> email and I'll send you a text file to make one of the PO targets. 
> You measure, and I'll make, then you can compared directly what they 
> look like with your setup. Colorport works with i1, most Xrite 
> spectros, and a couple of the other Gretag spectros.

I really apreciate that. Let's wait untill my 9800 gets here, along
with StudioPrint support. Then I'll be knee deep in setup and
profiling for weeks.
Tyler

> 
> I'm not doubting you, but I just haven't seen it, obviously I use a
> lot of papers that don't have much bluing, but I've profiled a few
> including EEM without problem. This is with ProfilerPro, EyeOne 
Photo,
> and ErgoSoft GPS.
> So maybe it's a sftware dependant phenominon?

All i1 software is automatic, not sure about the Ergosoft GPS, And 
the ProfilerPro, definitely not (PP sits in a box unused!)


> 
> 
> > ...(I now have an 
> > i1UV, and a Pulse UV in addition to my regular i1, almost time 
for a 
> > sale).
> 
> What do you think of the Pulse? I've been suspecting my old 
Spectrocam
> was better than the i1 before it went wonky. Had great software too.
>

The Pulse hardware is a little different. I need to work on the patch 
size to try and get charts with a higher patch density per page, if 
that works I'll probably switch over to it. For now I'm still using 
the i1UV. As far as accuracy, it seems to be reasonable with the 
biggest difference between i1UV and DTP20UV being the different UV 
filter. And so far the support from Xrite has been very good for me.
 
> 
> I really apreciate that. Let's wait untill my 9800 gets here, along
> with StudioPrint support. Then I'll be knee deep in setup and
> profiling for weeks.
> Tyler
>

OK, let me know when you want to give things a try.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
>
> > 
> > I'm not doubting you, but I just haven't seen it, obviously I use a
> > lot of papers that don't have much bluing, but I've profiled a few
> > including EEM without problem. This is with ProfilerPro, EyeOne 
> Photo,
> > and ErgoSoft GPS.
> > So maybe it's a sftware dependant phenominon?
> 
> All i1 software is automatic,

but not if I don't have a UVi1 right?

> not sure about the Ergosoft GPS, And 
> the ProfilerPro, definitely not (PP sits in a box unused!)

For RGB perceptual profiles in particular, with measurement from a
good device, PP is great. Consistantly better than gretag, though I
haven't had access to the newest gretag stuff.
Everything is a compromise though, nothing is perfect.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"
> <dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > 
> > > I'm not doubting you, but I just haven't seen it, obviously I 
use a
> > > lot of papers that don't have much bluing, but I've profiled a 
few
> > > including EEM without problem. This is with ProfilerPro, EyeOne 
> > Photo,
> > > and ErgoSoft GPS.
> > > So maybe it's a sftware dependant phenominon?
> > 
> > All i1 software is automatic,
> 
> but not if I don't have a UVi1 right?
> 


Nope just the regular i1, they look at the spectral response of the 
paper, and then filter it with math. Some argue this is the best 
method, others say that filtering at the light source is best. I 
haven't decided which is best yet, so I won't claim either is better.

And I should have really said that the Gretag (Match & PMP) are 
automatic.

And I'm pretty sure that Profiler Pro doesn't compensate at all since 
I think it only uses L*a*b* values, so it doesn't really know what is 
going on well enough to compensate properly for the extra blue. It's 
been a while but I remember getting some pretty yellow prints on 
papers with OBA with PP, but I abandoned it long ago since the CMYK 
profile would not work properly with my (at the time) RIP. Never had 
the need to try the RGB side of that software.