Digital BW, The Print

There were a bunch of "digital B&W at PMA shootout" threads 
recently.  In one of them, I believe Paul mentioned that, although he 
had not done a direct comparison of the Piezo system to the UT 
system, he thought it likely that the Piezo prints might appear 
smoother in the highlights b/c it uses more light ink than the UT 
system.

(Stay with me here, I'm getting to the issue in the subject line)

As I understand it, one complaint users of ImagePrint have (other 
than cost) is "doti-ness" in the highlights.  I guess my question is 
this: should we expect similar perceived dotiness in the highlights 
using the UT7 inkset (when it becomes available) as people complain 
about with ImagePrint?  And if so, what would be the advantage of 
this dedicated B&W inkset over IP?  (Yes, IP costs a lot, but that 
cost differential disappears when you take into account that you have 
to buy a separate printer for B&W to use any grayscale inkset).  Both 
can print on glossy or matte; both can tone B&W; both can produce 
neutral B&W prints.

So: if (and I said "if", so correct this assumption if it's wrong, 
please) a print using UT7 would have a silimar appearance in the 
highlights to one using IP, are there other advantages that would 
make UT7 better as compared to IP?  E.g., depth of blacks?  
Smoothness of midtones?  Longevity?  Ease of use? Anything else?

>...one complaint users of ImagePrint have (other 
>than cost) is "doti-ness" in the highlights.  

>... should we expect similar perceived dotiness in the highlights 
>using the UT7 inkset (when it becomes available) as people complain 
>about with ImagePrint?

The UT7 inkset will have the same density light inks as the UT2.  These are
lighter than the UC light black ink.  I don't find highlight roughness to be
a problem with the inksets.

>And if so, what would be the advantage of this dedicated B&W inkset 
>over IP?  (Yes, IP costs a lot, but that 
>cost differential disappears when you take into account that you have 
>to buy a separate printer for B&W to use any grayscale inkset).

I think cost is still an issue.  The MIS inks are cheaper than Epson inks.

>Both can print on glossy or matte;

IP can't print on both glossy and matte without changing the black ink; UT2
& UT7 can.  This allows the UT2 & UT7 printers to have continuous flow
systems, extremely cheap bulk ink, and still have both paper types
available.

> both can tone B&W; both can produce neutral B&W prints.

Does the current IP allow cold to sepia range in B&W mode?

I suppose I'd like a printer that could to it all -- great B&W and color on
all media without changing the black ink.  I expect it will be here
eventually, but I'll stick with the dedicated B&W for now. 

Frankly, I was surprised how many people seemed to be clamoring for a UT2
version for the 2200, 7600, & 9600.  I rather assumed the savings of the
1280 would make it the printer of choice for the desktop, but the feedback
at the PMA was not that direction at all.  For the large format printers the
ability to avoid ink changing seems, understandably, to be the primary
source of demand for the UT7.

Then again there may be some B&W purists like me who want to avoid the
distraction of even having color ink available.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

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

Paul: thanks, as always, for the response.  I'm one of the hungry 
masses clamouring for the UT inkset for the 9600 -- glad to hear that 
at least your impression is that highlight roughness isn't 
troublesome. Just wanted to make sure I'm not missing anything in my 
analysis of available options....

I'm not sure if this was a real question, or just rhetorical in 
response to my question, but you asked: "Does the current IP allow 
cold to sepia range in B&W mode?"  The answer is "kinda."  I mean, 
with the Tint Picker in IP, I can indeed get a tone anywhere from 
cold to deep sepia.  The reason I say "kinda" is b/c it's definitely 
not a precise science and a lot of playing around w. the Tint Picker 
is need to get the traditional sepia and cold tones.  (On the other 
hand, once you get them you just write down the corresponding nubmers 
and re-enter them the next time you want that tone.)  Allegedly, IP 6 
(due out soon) will allow some sort of "colorized" B&W option, 
whereby you can print a grayscale image containing some color, and IP 
will apply the gray profiles only to the grayscale portions of the 
image, thereby keeping that portion neutral and non-colorshifting.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> >...one complaint users of ImagePrint have (other 
> >than cost) is "doti-ness" in the highlights.  
> 
> >... should we expect similar perceived dotiness in the highlights 
> >using the UT7 inkset (when it becomes available) as people 
complain 
> >about with ImagePrint?
> 
> The UT7 inkset will have the same density light inks as the UT2.  
These are
> lighter than the UC light black ink.  I don't find highlight 
roughness to be
> a problem with the inksets.
> 
> >And if so, what would be the advantage of this dedicated B&W 
inkset 
> >over IP?  (Yes, IP costs a lot, but that 
> >cost differential disappears when you take into account that you 
have 
> >to buy a separate printer for B&W to use any grayscale inkset).
> 
> I think cost is still an issue.  The MIS inks are cheaper than 
Epson inks.
> 
> >Both can print on glossy or matte;
> 
> IP can't print on both glossy and matte without changing the black 
ink; UT2
> & UT7 can.  This allows the UT2 & UT7 printers to have continuous 
flow
> systems, extremely cheap bulk ink, and still have both paper types
> available.
> 
> > both can tone B&W; both can produce neutral B&W prints.
> 
> Does the current IP allow cold to sepia range in B&W mode?
> 
> I suppose I'd like a printer that could to it all -- great B&W and 
color on
> all media without changing the black ink.  I expect it will be here
> eventually, but I'll stick with the dedicated B&W for now. 
> 
> Frankly, I was surprised how many people seemed to be clamoring for 
a UT2
> version for the 2200, 7600, & 9600.  I rather assumed the savings 
of the
> 1280 would make it the printer of choice for the desktop, but the 
feedback
> at the PMA was not that direction at all.  For the large format 
printers the
> ability to avoid ink changing seems, understandably, to be the 
primary
> source of demand for the UT7.
> 
> Then again there may be some B&W purists like me who want to avoid 
the

> distraction of even having color ink available.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> For UT2 information, curves, and settings see:
> http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/

With regard to the "dotiness" in the highlights, how would UT7 compare when used with 
QTR?  Would using QTR make any difference at all in this respect?

Thanks.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> 
wrote:

> >...one complaint users of ImagePrint have (other 
> >than cost) is "doti-ness" in the highlights.  
> 
> >... should we expect similar perceived dotiness in the highlights 
> >using the UT7 inkset (when it becomes available) as people complain 
> >about with ImagePrint?
> 
> The UT7 inkset will have the same density light inks as the UT2.  These are
> lighter than the UC light black ink.  I don't find highlight roughness to be
> a problem with the inksets.
> 
> >And if so, what would be the advantage of this dedicated B&W inkset 
> >over IP?  (Yes, IP costs a lot, but that 
> >cost differential disappears when you take into account that you have 
> >to buy a separate printer for B&W to use any grayscale inkset).
> 
> I think cost is still an issue.  The MIS inks are cheaper than Epson inks.
> 
> >Both can print on glossy or matte;
> 
> IP can't print on both glossy and matte without changing the black ink; UT2
> & UT7 can.  This allows the UT2 & UT7 printers to have continuous flow
> systems, extremely cheap bulk ink, and still have both paper types
> available.
> 
> > both can tone B&W; both can produce neutral B&W prints.
> 
> Does the current IP allow cold to sepia range in B&W mode?
> 
> I suppose I'd like a printer that could to it all -- great B&W and color on
> all media without changing the black ink.  I expect it will be here
> eventually, but I'll stick with the dedicated B&W for now. 
> 
> Frankly, I was surprised how many people seemed to be clamoring for a UT2
> version for the 2200, 7600, & 9600.  I rather assumed the savings of the
> 1280 would make it the printer of choice for the desktop, but the feedback
> at the PMA was not that direction at all.  For the large format printers the
> ability to avoid ink changing seems, understandably, to be the primary
> source of demand for the UT7.
> 
> Then again there may be some B&W purists like me who want to avoid the
> distraction of even having color ink available.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> For UT2 information, curves, and settings see:
> http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/

The dotiness of the highlights is mainly a function of how light the lightest ink is
and what the smallest drop of ink the printer can output.    So you'll get very
much the same smoothness of the highlights whether you print thru the Epson
driver with Paul's curves or with QTR.  I think the advantage of QTR is that the
workflow is simpler -- you just print grayscales -- and with just three basic
profiles and blending you get 40 different color tones from neutral to warm to
sepia.

Roy


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "luisvcool" <lvictoria@t...> wrote:

> With regard to the "dotiness" in the highlights, how would UT7 compare when used with 
> QTR?  Would using QTR make any difference at all in this respect?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> 
> wrote:
> > >...one complaint users of ImagePrint have (other 
> > >than cost) is "doti-ness" in the highlights.  
> > 
> > >... should we expect similar perceived dotiness in the highlights 
> > >using the UT7 inkset (when it becomes available) as people complain 
> > >about with ImagePrint?
> > 
> > The UT7 inkset will have the same density light inks as the UT2.  These are
> > lighter than the UC light black ink.  I don't find highlight roughness to be
> > a problem with the inksets.
> > 
> > >And if so, what would be the advantage of this dedicated B&W inkset 
> > >over IP?  (Yes, IP costs a lot, but that 
> > >cost differential disappears when you take into account that you have 
> > >to buy a separate printer for B&W to use any grayscale inkset).
> > 
> > I think cost is still an issue.  The MIS inks are cheaper than Epson inks.
> > 
> > >Both can print on glossy or matte;
> > 
> > IP can't print on both glossy and matte without changing the black ink; UT2
> > & UT7 can.  This allows the UT2 & UT7 printers to have continuous flow
> > systems, extremely cheap bulk ink, and still have both paper types
> > available.
> > 
> > > both can tone B&W; both can produce neutral B&W prints.
> > 
> > Does the current IP allow cold to sepia range in B&W mode?
> > 
> > I suppose I'd like a printer that could to it all -- great B&W and color on
> > all media without changing the black ink.  I expect it will be here
> > eventually, but I'll stick with the dedicated B&W for now. 
> > 
> > Frankly, I was surprised how many people seemed to be clamoring for a UT2
> > version for the 2200, 7600, & 9600.  I rather assumed the savings of the
> > 1280 would make it the printer of choice for the desktop, but the feedback
> > at the PMA was not that direction at all.  For the large format printers the
> > ability to avoid ink changing seems, understandably, to be the primary
> > source of demand for the UT7.
> > 
> > Then again there may be some B&W purists like me who want to avoid the
> > distraction of even having color ink available.
> > 
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com 
> > 
> > For UT2 information, curves, and settings see:
> > http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/