Digital BW, The Print

Cheap vs Expensive. 

Anyone tried both and can give me some feedback as to how they 
compare. 

I thought my full set MIS UT ink prints were good until I tried BO 
printing. BO has much better dmax, luminance, and pow factor BUT I 
still do not like the dots. However I like BO better than full set 
inks. Thats the problem with printing by yourself, you have nothing 
to compare with. So I am now back on the holy grail. I want a print 
that has all the luminance of BO but without the dots. Would Piezo be 
the answer? 

I'll ask the Piezo group too.

Peter

Try participating in some of the print exchanges. You'll accumulate a
variety of prints, printed by different methods. Then form your own
conclusions. 

Otherwise you'll just find that people have a direct link between what
method they use and what they like. You know what opinions you will
get about Piezo from that user group. Just the same as asking people
at the Mustang club if they like Fords better than Chevy's.

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwbonkers"
<PeterDLevis@a...> wrote:

> Cheap vs Expensive. 
> 
> Anyone tried both and can give me some feedback as to how they 
> compare. 
> 
> I thought my full set MIS UT ink prints were good until I tried BO 
> printing. BO has much better dmax, luminance, and pow factor BUT I 
> still do not like the dots. However I like BO better than full set 
> inks. Thats the problem with printing by yourself, you have nothing 
> to compare with. So I am now back on the holy grail. I want a print 
> that has all the luminance of BO but without the dots. Would Piezo be 
> the answer? 
> 
> I'll ask the Piezo group too.
> 
> Peter

Peter,

it seems that you are missing dmax because of how you use the
inks rather than the inks themselves. If the same inkset gives you
better results in BO, the problem is the profiles / driver and not
the ink itself.  A well profiled ink/paper/printer combo will give
almost the same dmax whether in BO or quad mode. There is
a slight loss in dmax when other inks have to print along with
the black, but hardly noticeable to the eye. Certainly not as
dramatic as you describe.

I would suggest that rather than chasing after inksets or pre-packaged
kits you look into drivers that allow you to control your own profiles.
It's not that complicated, and if you have come this far, wanting
the same dmax as BO but with quad inksets, you will find it
perfectly doable.

To get more specific advice from people here, please let us know
 your OS,  printer and papers you use (and was that the original UT?).

Antonis




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwbonkers" 
<PeterDLevis@a...> wrote:

> Cheap vs Expensive. 
> 
> Anyone tried both and can give me some feedback as to how they 
> compare. 
> 
> I thought my full set MIS UT ink prints were good until I tried BO 
> printing. BO has much better dmax, luminance, and pow factor BUT I 
> still do not like the dots. However I like BO better than full set 
> inks. Thats the problem with printing by yourself, you have nothing 
> to compare with. So I am now back on the holy grail. I want a print 
> that has all the luminance of BO but without the dots. Would Piezo be 
> the answer? 
> 
> I'll ask the Piezo group too.
> 
> Peter

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis" 
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> it seems that you are missing dmax because of how you use the
> inks rather than the inks themselves. If the same inkset gives you
> better results in BO, the problem is the profiles / driver and not
> the ink itself.  A well profiled ink/paper/printer combo will give
> almost the same dmax whether in BO or quad mode. There is
> a slight loss in dmax when other inks have to print along with
> the black, but hardly noticeable to the eye. Certainly not as
> dramatic as you describe.
> 
> I would suggest that rather than chasing after inksets or pre-
packaged
> kits you look into drivers that allow you to control your own 
profiles.
> It's not that complicated, and if you have come this far, wanting
> the same dmax as BO but with quad inksets, you will find it
> perfectly doable.
> 
> To get more specific advice from people here, please let us know
>  your OS,  printer and papers you use (and was that the original 
UT?).
> 
> Antonis
>
Hi Antonis
The inks I'm using are MIS UT ink with Eboni black, in a Epson 1160, 
using Paul Roark UT11 curves. The papers are EAM and PhotoRag. The 
operating system is Mac OS X version 10.3. The Epson print driver is 
the latest from the Epson site. 

What you say is interesting but not quite sure how you would go about 
it. The full ink set prints are printed as per Paul's instructions, 
with his curves put on a layer in PS. I keep the files 16 bit, RGB 
mode. All driver/PS settings are as his instructions. They print just 
fine until you compare them to BO. The full set prints just seem a 
little flat compared to BO. Maybe its the blue ink used in the full 
set ink to control tone thats causing the problem. Now if you know 
what you are doing I guess you could alter PRs curves so blue does'nt 
get used and see what results. However I do not understand how these 
curves work. If you have any ideas I would be more than happy to have 
a go. Certainly experimenting is part of the fun for me. I would love 
to get these inks to print better. I really do not want to buy into 
another system particularly as MIS are such a brillant company.

One last thing as you would expect PhotoRag prints better than EAM 
but then it does BO too!!!

I really cannot see how an amateur such as myself could better PRs 
curves. After all he knows what he's doing I don't.

Peter
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwbonkers" 
> <PeterDLevis@a...> wrote:
> > Cheap vs Expensive. 
> > 
> > Anyone tried both and can give me some feedback as to how they 
> > compare. 
> > 
> > I thought my full set MIS UT ink prints were good until I tried 
BO 
> > printing. BO has much better dmax, luminance, and pow factor BUT 
I 
> > still do not like the dots. However I like BO better than full 
set 
> > inks. Thats the problem with printing by yourself, you have 
nothing 
> > to compare with. So I am now back on the holy grail. I want a 
print 
> > that has all the luminance of BO but without the dots. Would 
Piezo be 

> > the answer? 
> > 
> > I'll ask the Piezo group too.
> > 
> > Peter

Peter,

On the 1160 BO printing does result in a higher dmax than when the driver is
set to "Color" ink printing.  It's just the way the printer and driver were
made.  On the newer printers color/RGB and BO have equal blacks.

The rest of the difference is probably a matter of curves and dots.  

Just like grain gives an impression of sharpness to a traditional print, the
dots of the BO printing can give that same impression.  I prefer a fine
grain film and very sharp image.  However, the perennial popularity of Tri-X
indicates that many like that look.

If you are printing with the UT variable-tone inkset (as opposed to the
UT-FS or FSN), then there is a carbon curve that cuts the blue ink out.
It's quite warm -- warmer than BO because Eboni is a relatively neutral
black ink.  The UT-FS (warm FS) inkset is closer to the BO tone.

The curve or ramp that the BO printing puts on the image may also be
different than the ramp numbers I work to.  I matched the results of my old
Piezo system because I wanted to be able to print the same files with both
systems.  There is no universally accepted definition of what a "linear"
response should be.  You can print a couple 21-step test files and see how
the resulting ramps compare.

A not un-common problem with the 1160 is that the printers varied enough
that the curves made on my old machine may not be quite right for your 1160.
"Canned" profiles have their limits.  Tweaking the control curves (start
with the red curve/cyan ink) is the best way to optimize the inkset.  For
the 1160 and UT-FS/FSN inkset I made what I call a "mild" partitioning curve
that should be less affected by printer differences; yet it is still
essentially dotless.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

___________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: bwbonkers [mailto:PeterDLevis@...] 
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 1:24 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: BO vs PiezoBW ICC

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis" 
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> it seems that you are missing dmax because of how you use the
> inks rather than the inks themselves. If the same inkset gives you
> better results in BO, the problem is the profiles / driver and not
> the ink itself.  A well profiled ink/paper/printer combo will give
> almost the same dmax whether in BO or quad mode. There is
> a slight loss in dmax when other inks have to print along with
> the black, but hardly noticeable to the eye. Certainly not as
> dramatic as you describe.
> 
> I would suggest that rather than chasing after inksets or pre-
packaged
> kits you look into drivers that allow you to control your own 
profiles.
> It's not that complicated, and if you have come this far, wanting
> the same dmax as BO but with quad inksets, you will find it
> perfectly doable.
> 
> To get more specific advice from people here, please let us know
>  your OS,  printer and papers you use (and was that the original 
UT?).
> 
> Antonis
>
Hi Antonis
The inks I'm using are MIS UT ink with Eboni black, in a Epson 1160, 
using Paul Roark UT11 curves. The papers are EAM and PhotoRag. The 
operating system is Mac OS X version 10.3. The Epson print driver is 
the latest from the Epson site. 

What you say is interesting but not quite sure how you would go about 
it. The full ink set prints are printed as per Paul's instructions, 
with his curves put on a layer in PS. I keep the files 16 bit, RGB 
mode. All driver/PS settings are as his instructions. They print just 
fine until you compare them to BO. The full set prints just seem a 
little flat compared to BO. Maybe its the blue ink used in the full 
set ink to control tone thats causing the problem. Now if you know 
what you are doing I guess you could alter PRs curves so blue does'nt 
get used and see what results. However I do not understand how these 
curves work. If you have any ideas I would be more than happy to have 
a go. Certainly experimenting is part of the fun for me. I would love 
to get these inks to print better. I really do not want to buy into 
another system particularly as MIS are such a brillant company.

One last thing as you would expect PhotoRag prints better than EAM 
but then it does BO too!!!

I really cannot see how an amateur such as myself could better PRs 
curves. After all he knows what he's doing I don't.

Peter
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwbonkers" 
> <PeterDLevis@a...> wrote:
> > Cheap vs Expensive. 
> > 
> > Anyone tried both and can give me some feedback as to how they 
> > compare. 
> > 
> > I thought my full set MIS UT ink prints were good until I tried 
BO 
> > printing. BO has much better dmax, luminance, and pow factor BUT 
I 
> > still do not like the dots. However I like BO better than full 
set 
> > inks. Thats the problem with printing by yourself, you have 
nothing 
> > to compare with. So I am now back on the holy grail. I want a 
print 
> > that has all the luminance of BO but without the dots. Would 
Piezo be 
> > the answer? 
> > 
> > I'll ask the Piezo group too.
> > 
> > Peter




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Paul

Many thanks for such a thorough reply. I've just downloaded an 
explantion how curves work and will certainly try a bit of curve 
manipulation. The inkset I'm using is the variable tone UT. 

Is there any difference between the different UT inksets? Maybe UT 
FSN or FS would suit my needs better? Just a thought.

Once again many thanks.

Peter

Peter,

>...The inkset I'm using is the variable tone UT. 

>Is there any difference between the different UT inksets? 
>Maybe UT FSN or FS would suit my needs better? ...

Every UT inkset is a bit different.  The variable tone one you're using has
the obvious advantage that its tones (hues) can somewhat controlled.  This
can be useful not only for those who like to print more than one tone but
also for profiling different papers to look more or less the same.  Also,
some papers print, for example, colder in the shadows.  With a monotone
inkset you're stuck with the look that the ink and paper give.  With a
variable tone inkset you have more control to get a uniform tone throughout
the range.  (The black ink and paper white will always control the end
points, at least on matte papers.)

That said, the monotone inksets are easier and print a bit smoother.  In
this respect, the 1160 with a variable tone inkset is at the ragged edge of
acceptability from my perspective.  Some can see the cold toner dots, but I
think most don't in actual prints.  

For those who can see and are bothered by the toner dots in the
variable-tone UT inkset, the FS inksets offer more smoothness.  The UT-FS
inkset is medium warm; the UT-FSN inkset is "neutral" (more or less matching
a lightly selenium tones silver print).

As I mentioned previously I have also made a curve for the UT-FS & FSN
inksets that uses a more mild partitioning of the inks.  The radical
partitioning curves are a primary source of trouble in these inksets because
the steep slopes of the curves magnify printer and inkset batch differences.
The older printers with "quad" inksets required them for smoothness.  The
1160, however, is good enough that I think it gives an excellent combination
of smoothness and reliability with more mild curves. 

My old 1160 finally died, but it was a good old workhorse.  

Happy printing.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

With a PC I know people use the 1280 driver to print the UT2 inkset in a
1270.  However, it's been my impression that with Macs this doesn't work.  

Has any Mac user figured out a way to drive a 1270 with a 1280 driver?  (Or
a 7500 with the 7000 driver?)

Thanks.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul wrote
>....... 
> My old 1160 finally died, but it was a good old workhorse.  
> 
> Happy printing.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Paul

Luckly for us in the UK we can still buy the 1160, so I guess the old 
workhorse will continue for a while longer. Once again thanks for 
your info.

Peter