Digital BW, The Print

I have uploaded dMax_finder01.pdf to share some of my current 
research into how black inks perform across a variety of papers
and printers. It can be found in the Files section of the group within
the folder Ink_Sets.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/Ink%20Sets/

This is work-in-progress; the numbers given for dMax may be affected 
by many other variables besides ink, paper and printer. 
Their usefulness is in how they compare to each other rather than 
in absolute terms. Once profiled, these combinations of 
printer/ink/paper is likely to show a slightly lower dMax, 
but I expect that the relationship between numbers will still hold.

Also, please remember that maximum black density by itself isn't the
only criterion for choosing a paper. All the other important factors
are NOT in this pdf: paper white, texture, cost etc. Also, the list is
currently incomplete. I have tested the most popular papers with
the most popular inks and printers - but who knows.... there may
be great combinations I have missed. The purpose of the upload
is to share current results and perhaps get some feedback.

About the method used: I made a profile in IJC that prints only
the black ink. I deliberately did not linearize it, letting the scale
plug up as more ink is laid down. The test scale that IJC prints
has 26 steps. After printing the scale, and letting it dry overnight,
I read the steps looking for the darkest step beyond which there
in no more increase. 
This is an important point: I didn't base my results just on step 26. 
Instead I read the scale from lighter to darker. At some point the
numbers start looking the same or even decrease. The step that
gave the highest number before there was no further increase,
determined the dmax. This is the same method used to determine
ink limits in IJC. For obvious reasons, no limits were set for printing
scales for  this test. 
 If a scale reached its maximum density at step 26 it was a sign that
perhaps the printer was not capable of putting down all the ink
that the paper could take.

Anyone with OPM (OS 9 or X) can use the profile I used and compare 
results against mine -assuming they use a calibrated X-Rite 810. 
I will upload it in the IJC/OPM area later. If you have IJC, you  can easily
make a profile by turning on only the Black ink, leaving the limits
to 26 and the ink curve as a straight diagonal line.




And now for some of the surprises:

1. The king of dMax turns out to be the Pictorico Watercolor, a thin,
highly textured paper that doesn't come in anything over 13x19.
I don't remember it being particularly popular, but it brought in
a whopping 2.12 (when Hahnemuhle tops out at 1.66 under the 
same conditions ! ).

2. A 1280 printer loaded with MIS Ebony is way outperformed by a 7500
with the same ink. Which goes to show that little desktop printers
made for dyes may not give pigment black inks their best shot.
Not really a surprise, but now confirmed in real tests.

3. The 2200 with the Matte Black (marked as MK in the pdf) matched
or outperformed wide format printers loaded with either the same ink
or Piezo Museum Black. Often it was outperformed by Ebony in a
7500, however.

4. UC Photo Black (in the 2200) outperformed the MIS UT Photo Black
(in the 1160). The 1160 produced its darkest at step 23, well before
the end of the 26-step scale. I am inclined to think that it wouldn't get
any better with this ink on a big printer.

5. In the large format category, Ebony in a 7500 often beats Museum Black
in a 9500 - sometimes by a wide margin. Photo Rag gets to 1.74 with
Ebony when it only hits 1.66 with Museum Black. That same 7500/Ebony
seems to produce the overall better black with the matte papers - though
not always.

6. Epson papers in this test - not surprisingly perhaps - did better on the
2200 with Matte Black than on the 9500 with Museum Black.

That's it for now. No Gospel here, just some initial results that I found
eye-opening in many cases.

Antonis

What a great job! Its nice to see some real data.

In your view, what is the minimal perceptible difference in dMax? Can 
one see the difference between 1.50 and 1.53, or 1.50 and 1.55, for 
example.

Thanks,

Evan

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

From: Antonis <antonisphoto@...>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:47:00 -0000
Subject: [Digital BW] dMax data uploaded: some surprises
To: digitalblackandwhitetheprint@yahoogroups.com

<snip>

1. The king of dMax turns out to be the Pictorico Watercolor, a thin,
highly textured paper that doesn't come in anything over 13x19.
I don't remember it being particularly popular, but it brought in
a whopping 2.12 (when Hahnemuhle tops out at 1.66 under the 
same conditions ! ).

<snip>

This is interesting and had my curiosity piqued.  However I was
crestfallen to read this on the Pictorico site regarding this paper: 
"Premium WaterColor Card Stock is not compatible with Epson
pigment-based inks."  Wonder what that means?

2. A 1280 printer loaded with MIS Ebony is way outperformed by a 7500
with the same ink. Which goes to show that little desktop printers
made for dyes may not give pigment black inks their best shot.
Not really a surprise, but now confirmed in real tests.

3. The 2200 with the Matte Black (marked as MK in the pdf) matched
or outperformed wide format printers loaded with either the same ink
or Piezo Museum Black. Often it was outperformed by Ebony in a
7500, however.

4. UC Photo Black (in the 2200) outperformed the MIS UT Photo Black
(in the 1160). The 1160 produced its darkest at step 23, well before
the end of the 26-step scale. I am inclined to think that it wouldn't get
any better with this ink on a big printer.

5. In the large format category, Ebony in a 7500 often beats Museum Black
in a 9500 - sometimes by a wide margin. Photo Rag gets to 1.74 with
Ebony when it only hits 1.66 with Museum Black. That same 7500/Ebony
seems to produce the overall better black with the matte papers - though
not always.

6. Epson papers in this test - not surprisingly perhaps - did better on the
2200 with Matte Black than on the 9500 with Museum Black.

That's it for now. No Gospel here, just some initial results that I found
eye-opening in many cases.

Antonis



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 Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT


________________________________
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
  
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Evan,

the lower the number the bigger the visible difference. So, from 1.5 to 1.6
it's huge, but from 2.1 to 2.2 it barely matters. That's just logarithms.
I'd say that in the range you describe, a meanigful difference in dMax
would have to be upwards of .5.
Keep in mind that differences in the order of +-0.01 are meaningless anyway
as they fall within the specs of the instrument "noise". Also readings on
canvas and similar fabrics are only an average - you can barely get the
exact same reading twice.

It's a good excercise to look at the different black scales or patches of
black and see what looks darkest. When you do, you realize that the 
numbers don't tell the whole story: the surface of the inked paper makes
a huge difference in how we perceive "black". The nice "charcoaly" rich
surface of the hahnemuhle papers or the Condor BW always seems
better than something with a funny sheen or a mottle even if the actual
number is higher. 

I would say that if someone picks a paper from my pdf based on
numbers alone, they really should get samples first and see for themselves
what the "look" of the dmax is for that paper.

Not to mention that different images have different requirements anyway;
lots of masterpieces in the history of photography that wouldn't win any
dmax wars.


Thanks for the kind words.



Antonis






--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wolarsky" <wolarsky@i...> 
wrote:

> What a great job! Its nice to see some real data.
> 
> In your view, what is the minimal perceptible difference in dMax? Can 
> one see the difference between 1.50 and 1.53, or 1.50 and 1.55, for 
> example.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Evan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard Sintchak 
<rich815@g...> wrote:
.......

 >However I was
> crestfallen to read this on the Pictorico site regarding this paper: 
> "Premium WaterColor Card Stock is not compatible with Epson
> pigment-based inks."  Wonder what that means?


Don't know....  printed just fine. I sugggest you get a sampler pack
and see for yourself. You may not like the sheen at the blackest point
or how thin and flimpsy it feels. But otherwise, the black is really really
black!





Antonis

Antonis,

I addition you may want to consider:

when I tried using enhanced matte on 2200 with Epson ink:

1. Printing the QTR greyscale for example and reprinting on top of 
it to get one two and three pass results. (The object of the 
multipass greyscale is to see increasing density in the lighter 
samples while to highest density reduces).

2. Or using the ink config/density settings in the Epson driver with 
a single pass shows the same result. (Initially I thought the Epson 
driver was doing something odd in regard to the +density settings. 
It was only recently that I thought to compare with multipass 
results).

The ink density increases the blackness to a maximum past which ink 
sheen lowers the observed density. That is to say with the Epson 
Matt Black at least; something about the pigment pellets causes the 
blackness to go though a minimum past which more ink will reduce the 
apparent density.

Not exactly sure what I am seeing but it seems to be "pellet sheen".

If this is so at least for pigment inks maximum density may have to 
be tuned or calibrated before the densities are measured.

It is less of an issue with gloss or lustre than for matt.

...John

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis" 
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> I have uploaded dMax_finder01.pdf to share some of my current 
> research into how black inks perform across a variety of papers
> and printers. It can be found in the Files section of the group 
within
> the folder Ink_Sets.
> 
> 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/Ink%
20Sets/
> 
> This is work-in-progress; the numbers given for dMax may be 
affected 
> by many other variables besides ink, paper and printer. 
> Their usefulness is in how they compare to each other rather than 
> in absolute terms. Once profiled, these combinations of 
> printer/ink/paper is likely to show a slightly lower dMax, 
> but I expect that the relationship between numbers will still hold.
> 
> Also, please remember that maximum black density by itself isn't 
the
> only criterion for choosing a paper. All the other important 
factors
> are NOT in this pdf: paper white, texture, cost etc. Also, the 
list is
> currently incomplete. I have tested the most popular papers with
> the most popular inks and printers - but who knows.... there may
> be great combinations I have missed. The purpose of the upload
> is to share current results and perhaps get some feedback.
> 
> About the method used: I made a profile in IJC that prints only
> the black ink. I deliberately did not linearize it, letting the 
scale
> plug up as more ink is laid down. The test scale that IJC prints
> has 26 steps. After printing the scale, and letting it dry 
overnight,
> I read the steps looking for the darkest step beyond which there
> in no more increase. 
> This is an important point: I didn't base my results just on step 
26. 
> Instead I read the scale from lighter to darker. At some point the
> numbers start looking the same or even decrease. The step that
> gave the highest number before there was no further increase,
> determined the dmax. This is the same method used to determine
> ink limits in IJC. For obvious reasons, no limits were set for 
printing
> scales for  this test. 
>  If a scale reached its maximum density at step 26 it was a sign 
that
> perhaps the printer was not capable of putting down all the ink
> that the paper could take.
> 
> Anyone with OPM (OS 9 or X) can use the profile I used and compare 
> results against mine -assuming they use a calibrated X-Rite 810. 
> I will upload it in the IJC/OPM area later. If you have IJC, you  
can easily
> make a profile by turning on only the Black ink, leaving the limits
> to 26 and the ink curve as a straight diagonal line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now for some of the surprises:
> 
> 1. The king of dMax turns out to be the Pictorico Watercolor, a 
thin,
> highly textured paper that doesn't come in anything over 13x19.
> I don't remember it being particularly popular, but it brought in
> a whopping 2.12 (when Hahnemuhle tops out at 1.66 under the 
> same conditions ! ).
> 
> 2. A 1280 printer loaded with MIS Ebony is way outperformed by a 
7500
> with the same ink. Which goes to show that little desktop printers
> made for dyes may not give pigment black inks their best shot.
> Not really a surprise, but now confirmed in real tests.
> 
> 3. The 2200 with the Matte Black (marked as MK in the pdf) matched
> or outperformed wide format printers loaded with either the same 
ink
> or Piezo Museum Black. Often it was outperformed by Ebony in a
> 7500, however.
> 
> 4. UC Photo Black (in the 2200) outperformed the MIS UT Photo Black
> (in the 1160). The 1160 produced its darkest at step 23, well 
before
> the end of the 26-step scale. I am inclined to think that it 
wouldn't get
> any better with this ink on a big printer.
> 
> 5. In the large format category, Ebony in a 7500 often beats 
Museum Black
> in a 9500 - sometimes by a wide margin. Photo Rag gets to 1.74 with
> Ebony when it only hits 1.66 with Museum Black. That same 
7500/Ebony
> seems to produce the overall better black with the matte papers - 
though
> not always.
> 
> 6. Epson papers in this test - not surprisingly perhaps - did 
better on the
> 2200 with Matte Black than on the 9500 with Museum Black.
> 
> That's it for now. No Gospel here, just some initial results that 
I found

> eye-opening in many cases.
> 
> Antonis

John,

I've done these tests and agree with you. I have seen 2nd pass on EEM 
where the density decreases for the reasons you state.
I have also seen the Epson driver at 720dpi  and Matte Heavyweight (I think)
squeeze out an extra few 0.01's compared to OPM (which runs at 1440). 

If you were to plot the typicall matte paper that's been given
a 26 scale print without ink limits, it would seem to peak somewhere
in the middle (around step 15 or so) and then start to drop as it
hits 26. That's why when profiling in IJC, the first thing you do
is run a test print (automatically generated) that shows you the
limits for each ink, pretty much at a glance. Makes it very fast
and without even the need for a densitometer.



Antonis








--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "johnglodge" 
<john.lodge@s...> wrote:

> Antonis,
> 
> I addition you may want to consider:
> 
> when I tried using enhanced matte on 2200 with Epson ink:
> 
> 1. Printing the QTR greyscale for example and reprinting on top of 
> it to get one two and three pass results. (The object of the 
> multipass greyscale is to see increasing density in the lighter 
> samples while to highest density reduces).
> 
> 2. Or using the ink config/density settings in the Epson driver with 
> a single pass shows the same result. (Initially I thought the Epson 
> driver was doing something odd in regard to the +density settings. 
> It was only recently that I thought to compare with multipass 
> results).
> 
> The ink density increases the blackness to a maximum past which ink 
> sheen lowers the observed density. That is to say with the Epson 
> Matt Black at least; something about the pigment pellets causes the 
> blackness to go though a minimum past which more ink will reduce the 
> apparent density.
> 
> Not exactly sure what I am seeing but it seems to be "pellet sheen".
> 
> If this is so at least for pigment inks maximum density may have to 
> be tuned or calibrated before the densities are measured.
> 
> It is less of an issue with gloss or lustre than for matt.
> 
> ...John

Antonis

Very interesting indeed! as was the dMax chart.

Any idea what makes the Pictorico watercolor exceptional? Even 
though Pictorico do not recommend it for pigment.

Occasionally something comes along that enhances our knowledge this 
chart has been one of those times!

...John


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis" 
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> John,
> 
> I've done these tests and agree with you. I have seen 2nd pass on 
EEM 
> where the density decreases for the reasons you state.
> I have also seen the Epson driver at 720dpi  and Matte Heavyweight 
(I think)
> squeeze out an extra few 0.01's compared to OPM (which runs at 
1440). 
> 
> If you were to plot the typicall matte paper that's been given
> a 26 scale print without ink limits, it would seem to peak 
somewhere
> in the middle (around step 15 or so) and then start to drop as it
> hits 26. That's why when profiling in IJC, the first thing you do
> is run a test print (automatically generated) that shows you the
> limits for each ink, pretty much at a glance. Makes it very fast
> and without even the need for a densitometer.
> 
> 
> 
> Antonis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "johnglodge" 
> <john.lodge@s...> wrote:
> > Antonis,
> > 
> > I addition you may want to consider:
> > 
> > when I tried using enhanced matte on 2200 with Epson ink:
> > 
> > 1. Printing the QTR greyscale for example and reprinting on top 
of 
> > it to get one two and three pass results. (The object of the 
> > multipass greyscale is to see increasing density in the lighter 
> > samples while to highest density reduces).
> > 
> > 2. Or using the ink config/density settings in the Epson driver 
with 
> > a single pass shows the same result. (Initially I thought the 
Epson 
> > driver was doing something odd in regard to the +density 
settings. 
> > It was only recently that I thought to compare with multipass 
> > results).
> > 
> > The ink density increases the blackness to a maximum past which 
ink 
> > sheen lowers the observed density. That is to say with the Epson 
> > Matt Black at least; something about the pigment pellets causes 
the 
> > blackness to go though a minimum past which more ink will reduce 
the 
> > apparent density.
> > 
> > Not exactly sure what I am seeing but it seems to be "pellet 
sheen".
> > 
> > If this is so at least for pigment inks maximum density may have 
to 

> > be tuned or calibrated before the densities are measured.
> > 
> > It is less of an issue with gloss or lustre than for matt.
> > 
> > ...John

> Any idea what makes the Pictorico watercolor exceptional?

Not at all. But the surface sheen suggests the coating may be different
than other papers.



> Occasionally something comes along that enhances our knowledge this 
> chart has been one of those times!


Thanks for the kind words, John. 



Antonis

Hello Antonis,

>dMax_finder01.pdf 

Great piece of work, thanks!

Couple of questions:

1) I see that the 1280/Eboni on Merlin/Condor gets only up to
1.56/1.58 at step 26, while the 7500/Eboni gets 1.60/1.63 on those
papers at steps 18/19.  Your remarks about reaching step 26 would make
it seem a printer limitation of the 1280.  There is no test with
2200/Eboni, yet this is one of the most popular combinations.  I
suspect that those results would be equal or close to the 7500.  Is
there any possibility you can add a 2200/Eboni column to this chart? 
You've a nice empty column right there next to it <g>.  (I know this
is not a trivial request.  This chart represents a huge amount of
work).

2) I would like to put a link to the chart in my "Great Paper Chase"
article, but am not sure if it is accessable by non-members.  Do you
know if it will work ok?

Thanks for all the good work.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

>Your remarks about reaching step 26 would make
> it seem a printer limitation of the 1280. 

Clayton,

yes, that would be my guess. Small desktop printers designed for
dyes don't measure up.


> Is
> there any possibility you can add a 2200/Eboni column to this chart? 
> You've a nice empty column right there next to it <g>. 

Eventually, I'll fill out some of these positions. For now, this represents
all the printers that I either own or have access to. I have resisted
switching my 2200 over to Ebony because that's my only OEM color
machine and don't want to mess it up. But maybe I can find someone
else around here who can let me plug in to theirs for a few hours.
You suggestion is very valid though; it makes sense to use Ebony in the
2200.




> 
> 2) I would like to put a link to the chart in my "Great Paper Chase"
> article, but am not sure if it is accessable by non-members.  Do you
> know if it will work ok?


Don't know for sure....  it's currently set so that only members can
download the files. Maybe you can try it from an account that doesn't have
a membership and see what happens ? Or readers can sign on to the group?
Regardless, I'd say it's better to link to the folder with instructions to get
the file within because eventually there will be an 02, 03 etc.


> 
> Thanks for all the good work.


And thanks for your suggestions and kind words.


Antonis

Antonis wrote:

> 2. A 1280 printer loaded with MIS Ebony is way outperformed by a 7500
> with the same ink. Which goes to show that little desktop printers
> made for dyes may not give pigment black inks their best shot.
> Not really a surprise, but now confirmed in real tests.
> 
> 3. The 2200 with the Matte Black (marked as MK in the pdf) matched
> or outperformed wide format printers loaded with either the same ink
> or Piezo Museum Black. Often it was outperformed by Ebony in a
> 7500, however.
> 
> 4. UC Photo Black (in the 2200) outperformed the MIS UT Photo Black
> (in the 1160). The 1160 produced its darkest at step 23, well before
> the end of the 26-step scale. I am inclined to think that it wouldn't get
> any better with this ink on a big printer.
> 
> 5. In the large format category, Ebony in a 7500 often beats Museum Black
> in a 9500 - sometimes by a wide margin. Photo Rag gets to 1.74 with
> Ebony when it only hits 1.66 with Museum Black. That same 7500/Ebony
> seems to produce the overall better black with the matte papers - though
> not always.

Antonis,

For what it is worth. On my Epson 9000 I have replaced Ultratone 
VM set so the four greys are now in the Cc Mm channels. With the 
Eboni in the Magenta head I get a max density of 1.69 while it 
achieved1.61 in the Black head.  Both of Photo Rag and linearised 
with the Wasatch SoftRip.  So within the same head assembly of 
one printer a difference of 0.08 D can be possible. The densities 
were measured by a SpectroCam, T status.  That instrument isn't 
very accurate at the highest densities and the actual differences 
are probably higher.

I'm not sure about the following but it may be of interest: you 
mentioned the maximum inkload that will deliver the highest 
density and no gain with more ink above that point. (Analogue to 
the issue that is discussed quite frequently in the colorsync 
list when maximum gamut possible with profiling is discussed, 
there's no gain above a certain inklimit especially with pigment 
inks. )  With the other ink distribution on the 9000 I also think 
that a boost of the next grey ink on the black also depends on 
which channel is used for the black and the grey. My guess is 
that the Black channel lays down the last ink layer and when that 
ink isn't black ink like in my case the next grey will be on top 
of the black and the density drops. The pigment in that grey is 
not the Eboni kind and gives more reflection than the Eboni 
pigment. If I measure the unlinearised BO greyramp of the Eboni 
then I see no Dmax drop at the highest inkload.

Ernst

Hello,

My Epson 9000 is at home after 550 km car ride on a 100 mm thick
sponge bed. We moved it into the house vertically through a couple
of small doors with the cartridges in the printer and the inks in the
lines! No problems here, must be some friendly spirits helped too! I
am planning to use it with the Ultratone pigment inks but I am not sure
if I need converting this printer to 9500?

I would like to use these inks with the QTR Rip too when it is ready,
it would be nice to have more printing choices. I see some of you are
very advanced in printing, but I shall wait and ask the questions later.

Best regards,
Kemal

Congratulations, Kemal; that's an impressive move.
--
Sam

>Hello,
>
>My Epson 9000 is at home after 550 km car ride on a 100 mm thick
>sponge bed. We moved it into the house vertically through a couple
>of small doors with the cartridges in the printer and the inks in the
>lines! No problems here, must be some friendly spirits helped too! I
>am planning to use it with the Ultratone pigment inks but I am not sure
>if I need converting this printer to 9500?
>
>I would like to use these inks with the QTR Rip too when it is ready,
>it would be nice to have more printing choices. I see some of you are
>very advanced in printing, but I shall wait and ask the questions later.
>
>Best regards,
>Kemal

Kemal,

it sounds great. In theory you should convert to 9500 if you are
going to use pigments. But in my experience you can get away
with leaving it as it is. My 7000 and my 9500 work equally well
with Piezotones.  You can always set the 9000 up and then 
if you have problems consider the switch.

Some tips that you may find useful:
- Since its been moved so much, consider the full set of alignment
tests using a roll of EAM or cheaper if you can find. Do this
before you switch to bw inks.
- You'll find it useful to get the 3" high tension spindle. I don't know
if you are located in the US, but if so do a google search, and
checkout  thenerds.com  They had the best price when I got mine.
- See if you can get the maintenance manual. It will help you
with cleaning cycles etc.
- Once you get familiar with the machine, consider adding an
outside bottle to drain waste ink. You don't want to be paying
for service calls to change the waste pads.
- Lots of info on this printer is at the WideFormat list:

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

Because it's been a while (!), you will have to look at messages
near the start of the list. Do it as a way to pass time - it does take\
a while to search these archives.

-You may find new ways of stabilizing the beast as it swings left-
-to-right when printing, but don't do anything too harsh. It needs
a bit of a sway. I use a heavy chair next to it with a towel to absorb
the shock.

Enjoy the printer!

Antonis



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Kemal Delic 
<k.delic@t...> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> My Epson 9000 is at home after 550 km car ride on a 100 mm thick
> sponge bed. We moved it into the house vertically through a couple
> of small doors with the cartridges in the printer and the inks in the
> lines! No problems here, must be some friendly spirits helped too! I
> am planning to use it with the Ultratone pigment inks but I am not sure
> if I need converting this printer to 9500?

>With the 
> Eboni in the Magenta head I get a max density of 1.69 while it 
> achieved1.61 in the Black head. 

Ernst,

good point. In fact the 7500 I used to test the Ebony had the 
black loaded in the Cyan head. I would have thought the Black
head gives the best black as it has higher current - but I guess
not. Variations like that, however, seem big enough to invalidate
any attempt at canned profiles. I thought these machines
were far more consistent  (at least from one printer to another).




>With the other ink distribution on the 9000 I also think 
> that a boost of the next grey ink on the black also depends on 
> which channel is used for the black and the grey. My guess is 
> that the Black channel lays down the last ink layer and when that 
> ink isn't black ink like in my case the next grey will be on top 
> of the black and the density drops.


Funny you should mention that. I tested a beta driver that
deliberately switched the printing order at the head, just to test
this theory (dark gray first, black last).
I  measured no change in the dmax.
That was on a 1280, however, where - maybe - Ebony 
doesn't do too well for dmax in the first place.
Also did a double pass with just black on the same paper.
The second pass resulted in less dmax than either of the
passes alone. That was on EEM. I suspect this may vary by
paper type.




> The pigment in that grey is 
> not the Eboni kind and gives more reflection than the Eboni 
> pigment. If I measure the unlinearised BO greyramp of the Eboni 
> then I see no Dmax drop at the highest inkload.

I believe BO will always give higher dmax with pigments, possibly
because of paper load issues. On any printer, the unlinearized
black ramp ends up with higher dmax than the profiled ramp where
grays come in. I tend to think it's about how wet the paper gets and
whether it can hold equally the black and the gray. By bringing
in a gray, it accepts less of the black, hence its tricky to profile
quad shadows.


Antonis

> 
>>The pigment in that grey is 
>>not the Eboni kind and gives more reflection than the Eboni 
>>pigment. If I measure the unlinearised BO greyramp of the Eboni 
>>then I see no Dmax drop at the highest inkload.
> 
> 
> I believe BO will always give higher dmax with pigments, possibly
> because of paper load issues. On any printer, the unlinearized
> black ramp ends up with higher dmax than the profiled ramp where
> grays come in. I tend to think it's about how wet the paper gets and
> whether it can hold equally the black and the gray. By bringing
> in a gray, it accepts less of the black, hence its tricky to profile
> quad shadows.


Antonis,

I had doubts about my own observation but with the default ink 
arrangement of the UT VM I could add more grey ink without a drop 
in Dmax. Now I only use a 1% addition to get rid of any white 
lines that may occur but this Magenta head produces a very 
homogene black anyway. No drop in Dmax with that amount of grey 
addition.

It isn't very scientific when several parts of the setups are 
exchanged and the outputs changed per head so forget my theory.

The only thing that I learned from this experiment is that it may 
be wise to check which channel delivers the highest output and 
select that one for the black.  If the driver allows it of 
course. Your data give a nice reference.

Ernst

Antonis wrote:

>Kemal,
>
>it sounds great. In theory you should convert to 9500 if you are
>going to use pigments. But in my experience you can get away
>with leaving it as it is. My 7000 and my 9500 work equally well
>with Piezotones.  You can always set the 9000 up and then 
>if you have problems consider the switch.
>
Thank you, I shall do it later, if needed.

>Some tips that you may find useful:
>- Since its been moved so much, consider the full set of alignment
>tests using a roll of EAM or cheaper if you can find. Do this
>before you switch to bw inks.
>
I did some prints on proofing paper and they look sharp, I shall do an 
aligment tests
anyway, but first I must study the manual.

>- You'll find it useful to get the 3" high tension spindle. I don't know
>if you are located in the US, but if so do a google search, and
>checkout  thenerds.com  They had the best price when I got mine.
>
I am in Sweden. I did some search here but no succes. I shall soon visit 
my daughter
in USA, LA area, may be I can find it there. Or make one, if I find how 
it works.

>- See if you can get the maintenance manual. It will help you
>with cleaning cycles etc.
>
I have got it before I bought the printer.

>- Once you get familiar with the machine, consider adding an
>outside bottle to drain waste ink. You don't want to be paying
>for service calls to change the waste pads.
>
I had the lower paper guide off during the transport because I stuffed 
the printer
with rags and checked the waste ink pads. But I am not sure where to put 
the
waste hose through. Should I drill the hole, that printer side is under 
the vacuum presure?
I shall search the web for an instructions.

>- Lots of info on this printer is at the WideFormat list:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EpsonWideFormat/
>
>Because it's been a while (!), you will have to look at messages
>near the start of the list. Do it as a way to pass time - it does take\
>a while to search these archives.
>
I have been lurking at that list almost from beginning.

>
>-You may find new ways of stabilizing the beast as it swings left-
>-to-right when printing, but don't do anything too harsh. It needs
>a bit of a sway. I use a heavy chair next to it with a towel to absorb
>the shock.
>
Yes, but it looks like the stand is compensating for the swings, I 
didn't lock it and it does
not move from its place.

>
>Enjoy the printer!
>
>Antonis
>
Thank you Antonis and all you other people for the kind encouragement!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Kemal Delic 
><k.delic@t...> wrote:
>  
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>My Epson 9000 is at home after 550 km car ride on a 100 mm thick
>>sponge bed. We moved it into the house vertically through a couple
>>of small doors with the cartridges in the printer and the inks in the
>>lines! No problems here, must be some friendly spirits helped too! I
>>am planning to use it with the Ultratone pigment inks but I am not sure
>>if I need converting this printer to 9500?
>>

Kemal Delic wrote:

>>- You'll find it useful to get the 3" high tension spindle. I don't know
>>if you are located in the US, but if so do a google search, and
>>checkout  thenerds.com  They had the best price when I got mine.
>>
> 
> I am in Sweden. I did some search here but no succes. I shall soon visit 
> my daughter
> in USA, LA area, may be I can find it there. Or make one, if I find how 
> it works.

I have made 2>3" adapters for the normal spindle and an 
adjustable friction control with a freight strap. Not that 
complicated.

>>- Once you get familiar with the machine, consider adding an
>>outside bottle to drain waste ink. You don't want to be paying
>>for service calls to change the waste pads.

>But I am not sure where to put 
> the
> waste hose through. Should I drill the hole, that printer side is under 
> the vacuum presure?
> I shall search the web for an instructions.

Check the Epson wide format list archives. There's no need to 
drill holes.

>>-You may find new ways of stabilizing the beast as it swings left-
>>-to-right when printing, but don't do anything too harsh. It needs
>>a bit of a sway. I use a heavy chair next to it with a towel to absorb
>>the shock.
>>
> 
> Yes, but it looks like the stand is compensating for the swings, I 
> didn't lock it and it does
> not move from its place.

Haven't done that either and it keeps the pigment in the inks 
suspended.

Ernst

Ernst and Antonis-
I think dot size is an issue. I just did a quick experiment on some
uncoated Somerset scaps. In StudioPrint a user option is dot size.
I've always used the smallest out of habit. I selected one of the
variable options instead and did a quick test. I believe the variable
options open up to the larger dot sizes at the highest densities. By
making that change I got an increase in dmax in all channels with no
apparent increase in dotiness in lower densities.
I need to test it further, but this may explain the differences
between printer models and other mysterys.
Also may be worthwhile with various drivers or RIPs, how they address
the hardware with regard to this.
Tyler

Hi Tyler,

I like that discovery. It may explain differences between
drivers. If you have a densitometer (I guess the EyeOne\
could double as one) and can read some numbers 
to compare to my chart, we can get to some scientifically
valid data (!). 

As a reminder :  my numbers were the result of reading
the darkest patch anywhere along an UNlinearized BO scale.

Glad you and Ernst are testing and contesting  <G>.


Antonis


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

> Ernst and Antonis-
> I think dot size is an issue. I just did a quick experiment on some
> uncoated Somerset scaps. In StudioPrint a user option is dot size.
> I've always used the smallest out of habit. I selected one of the
> variable options instead and did a quick test. I believe the variable
> options open up to the larger dot sizes at the highest densities. By
> making that change I got an increase in dmax in all channels with no
> apparent increase in dotiness in lower densities.
> I need to test it further, but this may explain the differences
> between printer models and other mysterys.
> Also may be worthwhile with various drivers or RIPs, how they address
> the hardware with regard to this.
> Tyler

> I have made 2>3" adapters for the normal spindle and an 
> adjustable friction control with a freight strap. 

Ernst,

I have tried making them too, but the problem is that the accuracy
of the spindle tension and how even it is side-to-side determines
if the print will drift as it goes down long media.
With the Epson spindles, I print to 60" down a roll and maintain
borders within 1mm. Never could do that with my own. 
I suspect yours are much better though - never thought of the 
freight strap. Good idea.


Antonis

I knew it couldn't be that easy, also knew there was some reason we
were all using the micro setting in StudioPrint.
When I tried to change to any of the variable dot settings in a quad
environment, I got an alert that those settings were not available
with a mode that uses "light" inks.
The previous test I did and posted about was just a quick straight
CMYK environment, so it let me do it.
So, this option is not something I can utilize so won't pursue. I will
try to do a quick test more like your own on a coated paper,
unlinearized, and pass them on to you at some point here anyway.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis"
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:

> Hi Tyler,
> 
> I like that discovery. It may explain differences between
> drivers. If you have a densitometer (I guess the EyeOne\
> could double as one) and can read some numbers 
> to compare to my chart, we can get to some scientifically
> valid data (!). 
> 
> As a reminder :  my numbers were the result of reading
> the darkest patch anywhere along an UNlinearized BO scale.
> 
> Glad you and Ernst are testing and contesting  <G>.
> 
> 
> Antonis
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
> <tyler@t...> wrote:
> > Ernst and Antonis-
> > I think dot size is an issue. I just did a quick experiment on some
> > uncoated Somerset scaps. In StudioPrint a user option is dot size.
> > I've always used the smallest out of habit. I selected one of the
> > variable options instead and did a quick test. I believe the variable
> > options open up to the larger dot sizes at the highest densities. By
> > making that change I got an increase in dmax in all channels with no
> > apparent increase in dotiness in lower densities.
> > I need to test it further, but this may explain the differences
> > between printer models and other mysterys.
> > Also may be worthwhile with various drivers or RIPs, how they address
> > the hardware with regard to this.
> > Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis"
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
snip...
> Glad you and Ernst are testing and contesting  <G>.

By the way- I would never contest Ernst (and I know you weren't
serious), he's helped me way too many times over the years <G>, really.
Tyler

I don't know StudioPrint but the 7600/9600 has several different
dot configurations.  
At 2880x1440 the recommended dot is a single size called 
Ultra Micro Dot or UMD and it's about 4pl.
At 1440x720 there are variable dots.  It should be VSD2 or
variable size dot 2.  There are 3 sizes about 4, 9, 20pl.
Since 2880 has 4 times as many dots positions, there is a max
of about 16pl for the same area that the VSD2 gives you 20pl.
In practice, I think most of the time you'd be limiting the ink so 
this would not be an issue.

The "not available with light inks" seems like a strange restriction
since it ought to be based on resolution.  Also the dot sizes always
apply to all inks at the same time.

Antonis' 7500 is a pretty different beast.  It has only one dot size
and I'd estimate it about 20pl and of course you don't get 2880.

Roy

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

> I knew it couldn't be that easy, also knew there was some reason we
> were all using the micro setting in StudioPrint.
> When I tried to change to any of the variable dot settings in a quad
> environment, I got an alert that those settings were not available
> with a mode that uses "light" inks.
> The previous test I did and posted about was just a quick straight
> CMYK environment, so it let me do it.
> So, this option is not something I can utilize so won't pursue. I will
> try to do a quick test more like your own on a coated paper,
> unlinearized, and pass them on to you at some point here anyway.
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis"
> <antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> > Hi Tyler,
> > 
> > I like that discovery. It may explain differences between
> > drivers. If you have a densitometer (I guess the EyeOne\
> > could double as one) and can read some numbers 
> > to compare to my chart, we can get to some scientifically
> > valid data (!). 
> > 
> > As a reminder :  my numbers were the result of reading
> > the darkest patch anywhere along an UNlinearized BO scale.
> > 
> > Glad you and Ernst are testing and contesting  <G>.
> > 
> > 
> > Antonis
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
> > <tyler@t...> wrote:
> > > Ernst and Antonis-
> > > I think dot size is an issue. I just did a quick experiment on some
> > > uncoated Somerset scaps. In StudioPrint a user option is dot size.
> > > I've always used the smallest out of habit. I selected one of the
> > > variable options instead and did a quick test. I believe the variable
> > > options open up to the larger dot sizes at the highest densities. By
> > > making that change I got an increase in dmax in all channels with no
> > > apparent increase in dotiness in lower densities.
> > > I need to test it further, but this may explain the differences
> > > between printer models and other mysterys.
> > > Also may be worthwhile with various drivers or RIPs, how they address
> > > the hardware with regard to this.
> > > Tyler

Roy, I was hoping you'd chime in, knowing more about the hardware than
I. It turns out I spoke too soon, I hope to be able to elaborate later.
Too many tests, too little life.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
<roy@h...> wrote:
> 
> I don't know StudioPrint but the 7600/9600 has several different
> dot configurations.  
> At 2880x1440 the recommended dot is a single size called 
> Ultra Micro Dot or UMD and it's about 4pl.
> At 1440x720 there are variable dots.  It should be VSD2 or
> variable size dot 2.  There are 3 sizes about 4, 9, 20pl.
> Since 2880 has 4 times as many dots positions, there is a max
> of about 16pl for the same area that the VSD2 gives you 20pl.
> In practice, I think most of the time you'd be limiting the ink so 
> this would not be an issue.
> 
> The "not available with light inks" seems like a strange restriction
> since it ought to be based on resolution.  Also the dot sizes always
> apply to all inks at the same time.
> 
> Antonis' 7500 is a pretty different beast.  It has only one dot size
> and I'd estimate it about 20pl and of course you don't get 2880.
> 
> Roy
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> > I knew it couldn't be that easy, also knew there was some reason we
> > were all using the micro setting in StudioPrint.
> > When I tried to change to any of the variable dot settings in a quad
> > environment, I got an alert that those settings were not available
> > with a mode that uses "light" inks.
> > The previous test I did and posted about was just a quick straight
> > CMYK environment, so it let me do it.
> > So, this option is not something I can utilize so won't pursue. I will
> > try to do a quick test more like your own on a coated paper,
> > unlinearized, and pass them on to you at some point here anyway.
> > Tyler
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis"
> > <antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> > > Hi Tyler,
> > > 
> > > I like that discovery. It may explain differences between
> > > drivers. If you have a densitometer (I guess the EyeOne\
> > > could double as one) and can read some numbers 
> > > to compare to my chart, we can get to some scientifically
> > > valid data (!). 
> > > 
> > > As a reminder :  my numbers were the result of reading
> > > the darkest patch anywhere along an UNlinearized BO scale.
> > > 
> > > Glad you and Ernst are testing and contesting  <G>.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Antonis
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
> > > <tyler@t...> wrote:
> > > > Ernst and Antonis-
> > > > I think dot size is an issue. I just did a quick experiment on
some
> > > > uncoated Somerset scaps. In StudioPrint a user option is dot size.
> > > > I've always used the smallest out of habit. I selected one of the
> > > > variable options instead and did a quick test. I believe the
variable
> > > > options open up to the larger dot sizes at the highest
densities. By
> > > > making that change I got an increase in dmax in all channels
with no
> > > > apparent increase in dotiness in lower densities.
> > > > I need to test it further, but this may explain the differences
> > > > between printer models and other mysterys.
> > > > Also may be worthwhile with various drivers or RIPs, how they
address
> > > > the hardware with regard to this.
> > > > Tyler

Antonis wrote:

>>I have made 2>3" adapters for the normal spindle and an 
>>adjustable friction control with a freight strap. 
> 
> 
> Ernst,
> 
> I have tried making them too, but the problem is that the accuracy
> of the spindle tension and how even it is side-to-side determines
> if the print will drift as it goes down long media.
> With the Epson spindles, I print to 60" down a roll and maintain
> borders within 1mm. Never could do that with my own. 
> I suspect yours are much better though - never thought of the 
> freight strap. Good idea.
> 
> 
> Antonis

Antonis,

The drift of the paper can be controlled in an easier way. Load 
the paper on the upper spindle and have a spindle with a waste 
core + two plastic discs on the lower position. 1.3 mm 
polycarbonate discs of about 15 cm diameter. The discs will bend 
but redirect the paper gently on its course downwards.  Used that 
a month after I got the 9000 in 1999.

Later on I removed one spindle and placed the other one in the 
middle of the two positions and added a "paper steering bar" on 
the SS top of the printer.

Ernst

Tyler Boley wrote:

> Ernst and Antonis-
> I think dot size is an issue. I just did a quick experiment on some
> uncoated Somerset scaps. In StudioPrint a user option is dot size.
> I've always used the smallest out of habit. I selected one of the
> variable options instead and did a quick test. I believe the variable
> options open up to the larger dot sizes at the highest densities. By
> making that change I got an increase in dmax in all channels with no
> apparent increase in dotiness in lower densities.
> I need to test it further, but this may explain the differences
> between printer models and other mysterys.
> Also may be worthwhile with various drivers or RIPs, how they address
> the hardware with regard to this.
> Tyler

I used the same setting of the Wasatch SoftRip for the different 
ink/head arrangements.
It is correct that there are different droplet size choices in 
the 720 dpi but not in the 1440 dpi setting that I use for B&W.
But I'm also sure that heads are not that uniform as most think. 
Linearisation doesn't change the maximum inkload either as it 
just brings the rest in line between no ink and all.

Ink limitation per head can only be done with correction curves 
in this RIP. That are also the curves that I use for the B&W 
distribution. The calibration curves are separate. And there's an 
overall limitation and the switch points of LC>C and LM>M can be 
set between 50 and 0 %.

Ernst

>
>
> By the way- I would never contest Ernst (and I know you weren't
> serious), he's helped me way too many times over the years <G>, really.
> Tyler
>
>
The cat be heavy.

James


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tyler Boley wrote:

> By the way- I would never contest Ernst (and I know you weren't
> serious), he's helped me way too many times over the years <G>, 

In B&W it is more like I'm reinventing the wheel. Dan 
Culbertson,Tyler Boley, Roy Harrington, Paul Roark and all the 
other contributors to B&W printing technology have done so much 
that I have forgotten most of it along the way. That's not smart 
when you try to tame a CMYK RIP that nobody else uses for B&W 
printing. I'm no contest yet in B&W printing.

Ernst

Roy Harrington wrote:

> 
> I don't know StudioPrint but the 7600/9600 has several different
> dot configurations.  
> At 2880x1440 the recommended dot is a single size called 
> Ultra Micro Dot or UMD and it's about 4pl.
> At 1440x720 there are variable dots.  It should be VSD2 or
> variable size dot 2.  There are 3 sizes about 4, 9, 20pl.
> Since 2880 has 4 times as many dots positions, there is a max
> of about 16pl for the same area that the VSD2 gives you 20pl.
> In practice, I think most of the time you'd be limiting the ink so 
> this would not be an issue.
> 
> The "not available with light inks" seems like a strange restriction
> since it ought to be based on resolution.  Also the dot sizes always
> apply to all inks at the same time.
> 
> Antonis' 7500 is a pretty different beast.  It has only one dot size
> and I'd estimate it about 20pl and of course you don't get 2880.
> 
> Roy

Roy,

We had this discussion in the past about the droplet sizes of the 
9000/7000/9500/7500. There's only one for that range of printers 
was the conclusion based on the internals of Gimp-print (I guess) 
and the "printer language" of the 9000. I mentioned then that Jon 
Cone once asked whether there was a special extra droplet size 
for the 9000. I never have seen an answer and don't know how the 
special dithering of the first piezography workes either. What 
puzzles me is that the Wasatch SoftRip has 4 "Dot Volume" choices 
in 720 dpi printing:  Default, Micro, Normal, Double.  This is 
independant of the passes choices (3) and the choices of the 
dithering (6). Could be that they build the extra dot volumes by 
extra droplet squirts, could be that there's more going on.

I've seen 8 or 11 picoliter mentioned for the 9000 and 20 
picoliter for the 3000.

Ernst

> Later on I removed one spindle and placed the other one in the 
> middle of the two positions and added a "paper steering bar" on 
> the SS top of the printer.


Ernst,

I lost you there....    can you elaborate please? 

Antonis

Antonis wrote:
>>Later on I removed one spindle and placed the other one in the 
>>middle of the two positions and added a "paper steering bar" on 
>>the SS top of the printer.
> 
> 
> 
> Ernst,
> 
> I lost you there....    can you elaborate please? 
> 
> Antonis

Sorry,

It isn't very relevant to go any deeper into that construction. 
More my thing than a good advice.

The plastic discs on the lower spindle are however very handy and 
I made several for other 9000 users here.


http://members.chello.nl/e.dinkla/Custom_Epson_9000.htm

shows the construction I'm still using but not the discs :-) 
..........  but the 2>3" adapters, the light near the heads and 
the CIS system I developed. Confusing isn't it ?

Ernst

Ernst, when you post all kinds of unintentional essential tidbits are
included, you don't know how much this adds up over the years.
I'll bet you have that RIP functioning just fine.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:

> Tyler Boley wrote:
> 
> > By the way- I would never contest Ernst (and I know you weren't
> > serious), he's helped me way too many times over the years <G>, 
> 
> In B&W it is more like I'm reinventing the wheel. Dan 
> Culbertson,Tyler Boley, Roy Harrington, Paul Roark and all the 
> other contributors to B&W printing technology have done so much 
> that I have forgotten most of it along the way. That's not smart 
> when you try to tame a CMYK RIP that nobody else uses for B&W 
> printing. I'm no contest yet in B&W printing.
> 
> Ernst

I got a pack of this paper after reading about the high dmax it was 
supposed to have. In my opinion it's easily the worst paper I've ever 
tried. Here's why:

It's not really a matte paper at all. The coating feels sligtly sticky 
and very plasticky, like you would expect from a glossy paper. It has a 
watercolor texture, but it looks and feels like it was dipped in 
plastic. It would almost be more appropriate to call this a watercolor 
textured semigloss paper.

The color is yellowish, and does not go well with the neutral tone of 
the Eboni.

UT7 inks will not stick to the paper at all, you just get wet puddles of 
ink lying on top of the paper. BO with Eboni works fine, but that means 
you're stuck with the cold tone of the Eboni ink. For this paper I woul 
prefer a warmer tone.

It might in fact have a very high Dmax, but the glossy coating combined 
with the heavy watercolor texture makes sure that you get surface 
reflections from nearly every angle of light, which makes the percieved 
dmax much lower than most other papers.

Just goes to show that numbers are not everything. There are many 
factors that come into play, and everything has to come together for a 
paper to truly stand out.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

Makes sense, I had thought all Pictorico was microceramic and that 
the backings were plastic. As well kind of a relief to find out that 
the gloss like density was indeed because it is more or less gloss.

Not what you were looking for true but it does put the oddity to 
rest.


...John


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Staver 
<daniel@p...> wrote:
> I got a pack of this paper after reading about the high dmax it 
was 
> supposed to have. In my opinion it's easily the worst paper I've 
ever 
> tried. Here's why:
> 
> It's not really a matte paper at all. The coating feels sligtly 
sticky 
> and very plasticky, like you would expect from a glossy paper. It 
has a 
> watercolor texture, but it looks and feels like it was dipped in 
> plastic. It would almost be more appropriate to call this a 
watercolor 
> textured semigloss paper.
> 
> The color is yellowish, and does not go well with the neutral tone 
of 
> the Eboni.
> 
> UT7 inks will not stick to the paper at all, you just get wet 
puddles of 
> ink lying on top of the paper. BO with Eboni works fine, but that 
means 
> you're stuck with the cold tone of the Eboni ink. For this paper I 
woul 
> prefer a warmer tone.
> 
> It might in fact have a very high Dmax, but the glossy coating 
combined 
> with the heavy watercolor texture makes sure that you get surface 
> reflections from nearly every angle of light, which makes the 
percieved 
> dmax much lower than most other papers.
> 
> Just goes to show that numbers are not everything. There are many 
> factors that come into play, and everything has to come together 
for a 

> paper to truly stand out.
> 
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no

Sounds very much like the old Oce watercolor paper, rebranded by a few
others as well. I think Red River and MediaStreet had renamed versions.
I believe it's gelatin, don't exactly recall. If you do some searches
back in the first few months of the list you'll find some info. The
Spectratones were a good match for it and Allen had more info on it.
I found it to be interesting with some unique possibilities, but in
general your comments sound about right. Kind of reminds me of the
Arches Infinity coating as well.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Staver
<daniel@p...> wrote:
> I got a pack of this paper after reading about the high dmax it was 
> supposed to have. In my opinion it's easily the worst paper I've ever 
> tried. Here's why:
> 
> It's not really a matte paper at all. The coating feels sligtly sticky 
> and very plasticky, like you would expect from a glossy paper. It has a 
> watercolor texture, but it looks and feels like it was dipped in 
> plastic. It would almost be more appropriate to call this a watercolor 
> textured semigloss paper.
> 
> The color is yellowish, and does not go well with the neutral tone of 
> the Eboni.
> 
> UT7 inks will not stick to the paper at all, you just get wet
puddles of 

> ink lying on top of the paper. BO with Eboni works fine, but that means 
> you're stuck with the cold tone of the Eboni ink. For this paper I woul 
> prefer a warmer tone.
> 
> It might in fact have a very high Dmax, but the glossy coating combined 
> with the heavy watercolor texture makes sure that you get surface 
> reflections from nearly every angle of light, which makes the percieved 
> dmax much lower than most other papers.
> 
> Just goes to show that numbers are not everything. There are many 
> factors that come into play, and everything has to come together for a 
> paper to truly stand out.
> 
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no

more info-
It was also the old Xtreme Gamut Gelatin Art. See this thread and others.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/229

There aren't that many paper mills and coating plants out there in the
world, based on your description I'll bet this is it. You are right,
it will be very ink dependant. SOmeinks will not take to the gelatin
and bead up on the surface. THere will be a gloss differencial, and I
found pizza wheels to be a problem because the ink is still wet going
under them.
BUT!!! If you are using an ink that will work on it, want a less
photographic look (more texture, warmer base) it can work well and be
quite rich.
I made the old piezo inks work on it with careful ink limiting and
severe partitioning for low total ink, and actually liked it. But
limited application.
Tyler

Tyler,
Pictorico a sub of Asahi Glass Co of Japan
www.agc.co.jp/english/index.html
Their paper is a derivative of the glass work hence the microceramic 
paper type.

While they may have gone, as you say, to another vendor for 
the "watercolor" it is less likely and the original observation by 
Daniel Staver may be more accurate.

...John


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> more info-
> It was also the old Xtreme Gamut Gelatin Art. See this thread and 
others.
> 
> 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/22
9
> 
> There aren't that many paper mills and coating plants out there in 
the
> world, based on your description I'll bet this is it. You are 
right,
> it will be very ink dependant. SOmeinks will not take to the 
gelatin
> and bead up on the surface. THere will be a gloss differencial, 
and I
> found pizza wheels to be a problem because the ink is still wet 
going
> under them.
> BUT!!! If you are using an ink that will work on it, want a less
> photographic look (more texture, warmer base) it can work well and 
be

> quite rich.
> I made the old piezo inks work on it with careful ink limiting and
> severe partitioning for low total ink, and actually liked it. But
> limited application.
> Tyler