Digital BW, The Print

I'm mainly hoping Roy and Paul can shed some light on this, but if 
anyone else wants to jump in, please feel free.  I've been looking at 
Roy's very interesting scans of prints, posted in the thread "Dots 
and More Dots". I must admit, I'm slightly surprised by the 
differences. On my monitor, the images measure 4"x4", so that's a 16x 
enlargement factor relative to the physical print. That means that 
viewing the screen from 8ft away is like looking at the print itself 
from 6", which is about as close as I can focus with my naked eye.

What I'm surprised by is the fact that there is such a difference in 
visible dot between the 2200/UT7 print and the 1270/UT2+1160/VM 
prints, especially against the UT2 prints as I thought the inkset 
used a very similar set of grey tones to UT7. If anything, I would've 
expected the 2200 print to be finer due to the smaller drop size, but 
instead the reverse is true. The difference is clear at an effective 
6in viewing distance and still noticeable at 8-12in, so this would 
definitely be a concern to me in a real print. Any idea what gives?

TIA

-= mike =-

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mike_nunan" 
<mike.nunan@c...> wrote:
> I'm mainly hoping Roy and Paul can shed some light on this, but if 
> anyone else wants to jump in, please feel free.  I've been looking at 
> Roy's very interesting scans of prints, posted in the thread "Dots 
> and More Dots". I must admit, I'm slightly surprised by the 
> differences. On my monitor, the images measure 4"x4", so that's a 16x 
> enlargement factor relative to the physical print. That means that 
> viewing the screen from 8ft away is like looking at the print itself 
> from 6", which is about as close as I can focus with my naked eye.
> 
> What I'm surprised by is the fact that there is such a difference in 
> visible dot between the 2200/UT7 print and the 1270/UT2+1160/VM 
> prints, especially against the UT2 prints as I thought the inkset 
> used a very similar set of grey tones to UT7. If anything, I would've 
> expected the 2200 print to be finer due to the smaller drop size, but 
> instead the reverse is true. The difference is clear at an effective 
> 6in viewing distance and still noticeable at 8-12in, so this would 
> definitely be a concern to me in a real print. Any idea what gives?
> 
> TIA
> 
> -= mike =-

Hi Mike,

I was also a little surprised at that difference as well.  I think the
dotsizes of both printers is advertized as 4 picoliter so that 
shouldn't be a factor.   I don't know if there's any difference in the
densities of the inks in the two sets.  Maybe Paul can address that.
That pretty much leaves the driver as the only signiicant
difference.  The 1270 print was done with QTR with curves I made.
The 2200 print was done using the Epson driver so its a little
hard to say what ink is used where.  My guess is that it uses one of
the darker inks (maybe the LK) at a lighter gray.

Roy

Hi Roy,

Maybe it is a driver issue between those two. Are you set up to do a 
QTR UT print on the 2200? That would settle it I guess.

Also, what do you think it is about the 1160/VM combination that 
makes it so smooth? VM only has black and three grey shades, same as 
UT, right?

-= mike =-

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" 
<roy@h...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mike_nunan" 
> <mike.nunan@c...> wrote:
> > I'm mainly hoping Roy and Paul can shed some light on this, but 
if 
> > anyone else wants to jump in, please feel free.  I've been 
looking at 
> > Roy's very interesting scans of prints, posted in the 
thread "Dots 
> > and More Dots". I must admit, I'm slightly surprised by the 
> > differences. On my monitor, the images measure 4"x4", so that's a 
16x 
> > enlargement factor relative to the physical print. That means 
that 
> > viewing the screen from 8ft away is like looking at the print 
itself 
> > from 6", which is about as close as I can focus with my naked eye.
> > 
> > What I'm surprised by is the fact that there is such a difference 
in 
> > visible dot between the 2200/UT7 print and the 1270/UT2+1160/VM 
> > prints, especially against the UT2 prints as I thought the inkset 
> > used a very similar set of grey tones to UT7. If anything, I 
would've 
> > expected the 2200 print to be finer due to the smaller drop size, 
but 
> > instead the reverse is true. The difference is clear at an 
effective 
> > 6in viewing distance and still noticeable at 8-12in, so this 
would 
> > definitely be a concern to me in a real print. Any idea what 
gives?
> > 
> > TIA
> > 
> > -= mike =-
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> I was also a little surprised at that difference as well.  I think 
the
> dotsizes of both printers is advertized as 4 picoliter so that 
> shouldn't be a factor.   I don't know if there's any difference in 
the

> densities of the inks in the two sets.  Maybe Paul can address that.
> That pretty much leaves the driver as the only signiicant
> difference.  The 1270 print was done with QTR with curves I made.
> The 2200 print was done using the Epson driver so its a little
> hard to say what ink is used where.  My guess is that it uses one of
> the darker inks (maybe the LK) at a lighter gray.
> 
> Roy

Mike,

At the moment I just have UC inks in my 2200 so I can't tell you
what I'd get with different inks and QTR on the 2200.

I think the primary reason for the smooth 1160 is just simply that
it has a lighter gray than the UT7 or UT2 inkset.  The effect of a
lighter gray is beneficial in two ways.  First the dots are simply
lighter and even in a field of white they are less obvious. Second,
for a given shade on the paper, you will be using more dots and
therefore they fill in the spaces more.

I've looked at the scan a little more and it appears that there are
also a fair amount of the sepia ink dots -- yellow slot.  I think the
print was made with the "default" method where the Epson driver
mixes all the inks to produce what it thinks is neutral.  There's a
good possibility that using the PS curves it would be smoother.

Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mike_nunan" 
<mike.nunan@c...> wrote:

> Hi Roy,
> 
> Maybe it is a driver issue between those two. Are you set up to do a 
> QTR UT print on the 2200? That would settle it I guess.
> 
> Also, what do you think it is about the 1160/VM combination that 
> makes it so smooth? VM only has black and three grey shades, same as 
> UT, right?
> 
> -= mike =-
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" 
> <roy@h...> wrote:
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mike_nunan" 
> > <mike.nunan@c...> wrote:
> > > I'm mainly hoping Roy and Paul can shed some light on this, but 
> if 
> > > anyone else wants to jump in, please feel free.  I've been 
> looking at 
> > > Roy's very interesting scans of prints, posted in the 
> thread "Dots 
> > > and More Dots". I must admit, I'm slightly surprised by the 
> > > differences. On my monitor, the images measure 4"x4", so that's a 
> 16x 
> > > enlargement factor relative to the physical print. That means 
> that 
> > > viewing the screen from 8ft away is like looking at the print 
> itself 
> > > from 6", which is about as close as I can focus with my naked eye.
> > > 
> > > What I'm surprised by is the fact that there is such a difference 
> in 
> > > visible dot between the 2200/UT7 print and the 1270/UT2+1160/VM 
> > > prints, especially against the UT2 prints as I thought the inkset 
> > > used a very similar set of grey tones to UT7. If anything, I 
> would've 
> > > expected the 2200 print to be finer due to the smaller drop size, 
> but 
> > > instead the reverse is true. The difference is clear at an 
> effective 
> > > 6in viewing distance and still noticeable at 8-12in, so this 
> would 
> > > definitely be a concern to me in a real print. Any idea what 
> gives?
> > > 
> > > TIA
> > > 
> > > -= mike =-
> > 
> > Hi Mike,
> > 
> > I was also a little surprised at that difference as well.  I think 
> the
> > dotsizes of both printers is advertized as 4 picoliter so that 
> > shouldn't be a factor.   I don't know if there's any difference in 
> the
> > densities of the inks in the two sets.  Maybe Paul can address that.
> > That pretty much leaves the driver as the only signiicant
> > difference.  The 1270 print was done with QTR with curves I made.
> > The 2200 print was done using the Epson driver so its a little
> > hard to say what ink is used where.  My guess is that it uses one of
> > the darker inks (maybe the LK) at a lighter gray.
> > 
> > Roy

Hello again Roy,

Ok, that makes sense. Just to clarify one point, in your last para 
where you say the print could be smoother, are you referring to the 
1160 print? If so, then "wow" would be my main comment to that!

TIA

-= mike =-

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" 
<roy@h...> wrote:
> 
> Mike,
> 
> At the moment I just have UC inks in my 2200 so I can't tell you
> what I'd get with different inks and QTR on the 2200.
> 
> I think the primary reason for the smooth 1160 is just simply that
> it has a lighter gray than the UT7 or UT2 inkset.  The effect of a
> lighter gray is beneficial in two ways.  First the dots are simply
> lighter and even in a field of white they are less obvious. Second,
> for a given shade on the paper, you will be using more dots and
> therefore they fill in the spaces more.
> 
> I've looked at the scan a little more and it appears that there are
> also a fair amount of the sepia ink dots -- yellow slot.  I think 
the
> print was made with the "default" method where the Epson driver
> mixes all the inks to produce what it thinks is neutral.  There's a
> good possibility that using the PS curves it would be smoother.
> 
> Roy
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mike_nunan" 
> <mike.nunan@c...> wrote:
> > Hi Roy,
> > 
> > Maybe it is a driver issue between those two. Are you set up to 
do a 
> > QTR UT print on the 2200? That would settle it I guess.
> > 
> > Also, what do you think it is about the 1160/VM combination that 
> > makes it so smooth? VM only has black and three grey shades, same 
as 
> > UT, right?
> > 
> > -= mike =-
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy 
Harrington" 
> > <roy@h...> wrote:
> > > --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mike_nunan" 
> > > <mike.nunan@c...> wrote:
<snip>
> > > 
> > > Hi Mike,
> > > 
> > > I was also a little surprised at that difference as well.  I 
think 
> > the
> > > dotsizes of both printers is advertized as 4 picoliter so that 
> > > shouldn't be a factor.   I don't know if there's any difference 
in 
> > the
> > > densities of the inks in the two sets.  Maybe Paul can address 
that.
> > > That pretty much leaves the driver as the only signiicant
> > > difference.  The 1270 print was done with QTR with curves I 
made.
> > > The 2200 print was done using the Epson driver so its a little
> > > hard to say what ink is used where.  My guess is that it uses 
one of

> > > the darker inks (maybe the LK) at a lighter gray.
> > > 
> > > Roy