Digital BW, The Print

Yes it is totally nuts, I have seen that when you want to order ICC profil, they ask you what the light will be ! So you don't order anything :-)
Honestly, I am not sure they can tell the difference, keep your head cool in any case. 

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Peter Nelson 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:59 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Tungsten Balance of Epson Archivals


  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, claudej1@a... 
  wrote:
  > I remember, at the PPA digital cafe in 2000, the Epson prints on 
  display, 
  > made with the 9500 or 2000P with archival inks 
  > all had tungsten lights on them on the easel. 
  > Methinks Paul is correct. When I made canvas prints 
  > from the 9500 OEM Archival inks, they looked best 
  > in Tungsten light with the canned profiles from Epson.

  Peope are balancing their PRINTS for different light sources??!!

  That sounds totally nuts.  .........

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

> "Honestly, I am not sure they can tell the difference, keep your head cool in any case."
 
You certainly can see the difference.
 
Tom Baker




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

Peter,

ImagePrint supply different profiles for the light that the prints will be 
viewed under!

bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Nelson" <pnweb@...>

Peope are balancing their PRINTS for different light sources??!!

That sounds totally nuts.  What happens if you move the print to a
different room, or if you have the print in a room where the light
changes over the course of a day, such as one where there are
outside windows so there is a mix of day and artificial light, or if
someone changes a lightbulb?   If you sell uch a print to someone do
you have to include lighting instructions?

There are many approaches to metamerism - RIPs, quadtones, black
only, photo paper, etc, but this one sounds extreme.

FWIW: I print with Epson UC inks (2200) and IP5.6 profiles set for "UCWF2",
which I believe is cool white fluourescent optimized for UC inks.  In my den
or studio, with tungsten and quartz picture lamps, they look fine.  My
office at my day job is in a corner of a high-rise and has two large windows
facing east and two large windows facing south.  It has "cool white
flourescent" more or less lighting, depending on who is the low bidder for
the landlord at the time, and plenty of ambient daylight at times.  The
prints look fine there.  If I take one to a window so that daylight falls
directly on it, or take it outside, yes I can see some metamerism.  This is
on Epson EEM, Arches Infinity or HM PR (all neutral or toned b&w).  So, I'm
not too worried about reasonable display conditions.  However, friends'
prints with the Epson profiles really go green with some daylight.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Frost [mailto:bob@...] 
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 4:05 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Tungsten Balance of Epson Archivals
> 
> Peter,
> 
> ImagePrint supply different profiles for the light that the 
> prints will be viewed under!
> 
> bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Nelson" <pnweb@...>
> 
> Peope are balancing their PRINTS for different light sources??!!
> 
> That sounds totally nuts.  What happens if you move the print 
> to a different room, or if you have the print in a room where 
> the light changes over the course of a day, such as one where 
> there are outside windows so there is a mix of day and 
> artificial light, or if
> someone changes a lightbulb?   If you sell uch a print to someone do
> you have to include lighting instructions?
> 
> There are many approaches to metamerism - RIPs, quadtones, 
> black only, photo paper, etc, but this one sounds extreme.

Peter--

Thanks for posting.  I think it would have helped if the image were a tad 
smaller.  It would have helped to see an enlarged section of the object, 
then the super-sized images of the dots.  Just my two cents.

Jay


>From: "Peter Nelson" <pnweb@...>
>Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Tungsten Balance of Epson Archivals
>Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 02:11:33 -0000
>
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
> > It may be, but it seems to be an assumption without verification. The
> > reason a great deal, if not all, yellow is removed from the various UC
> > monochrome solutions out there (like IP) is that the light K ink now
> > running all the way up the scale is very warm, and no yellow ink is
> > required. Actually, to help metamerism as much color ink as possible
> > is removed with these solutions, but some CM (or light CM) is required
> > to neutralize the warm light K.
> > Someone toying with QTR and UCs could test and confirm if the presence
> > of yellow ink increases metamerism.
>
>I have some hi-rez scans on my website of 2200 prints made with
>different drivers showing individual droplets:
>
>This is the default Epson driver doing its best gray:
>http://studio-nelson.com/inkjet/ijimages/ed1a.jpg
>
>Black-Only at the highest dot resolution:
>http://studio-nelson.com/inkjet/ijimages/edbo1a.jpg
>
>The IP RIP
>http://studio-nelson.com/inkjet/ijimages/ip1a.jpg
>(N.B. no yellow)
>
>The Epson RIP (since discontinued)
>http://studio-nelson.com/inkjet/ijimages/er1a.jpg
>
>...sorry the scans aren't better but they were at the limit of the
>resolution of my 1640su.
>
>I thought the IP RIP had the nicest-looking BW output, followed by the
>Epson RIP.  Both were relatively free of metamerism.   But none of
>them (and nothing else I've seen on an inkjet) is as good, to me, as
>the same digital file printed photographically.
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don\ufffdt just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

Peter--

Being one who is still trying to determine which route to follow, you bring 
to bear my biggest concern.  Based on the reality of what you're saying 
about mixed-color inksets, isn't the logical choice using inksets that use 
only blacks and grays?

Jay


>From: "Peter Nelson" <pnweb@...>
>Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Tungsten Balance of Epson Archivals
>Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 02:23:10 -0000
>
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
> > Users are so pesky, looking at their prints under various light sources.
> > Regarding profiling for different illumination color temperatures,
> > it's pretty common these days. Particularly for work for specific
> > installations or exhibits.
>
>Assuming we regard printing for specific installations or exhibits as
>"pretty common".
>
>I agree that the occasional fine-art photographer may have the need or
>ability to predict the lighting where his work will be displayed.  But
>most of us (artists who display their work in galleries) are
>displaying it FOR SALE.   Which means we cannot predict the lighting
>where the customer will display it after purchase.
>
>My experience in balancing BW prints specifically for one kind of
>light, say tungsten or "daylight" fluorescent or whatever is that it
>IS possible to optimize it for a particular light but that the result
>looks dramatically WORSE under other light.     For example with the
>default Epson driver, 2200 BW output looks pinkish under "daylight"
>fluorescent and greenish under true daylight.   I can make it look
>neutral under the fluorescents but then it looks REALLY green under
>daylight!
>
>So forget that!   There are other technologies (quadtone, photographic
>printing, etc) that don't have those problems.  So why tie yourself
>into a knot optimizing a mixed-color inkset for particular light sources?
>
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Gladwell" 
<jaygladwell@h...> wrote:
> Peter--
> 
> Being one who is still trying to determine which route to follow, 
you bring 
> to bear my biggest concern.  Based on the reality of what you're 
saying 
> about mixed-color inksets, isn't the logical choice using inksets 
that use 
> only blacks and grays?

The "logical" choice is the one that best meets each individual's 
priorities. 

The benefit of a RIP is that you can use the same printer to make 
both color and black and white prints, and you can also make prints 
that are predominantly black and white with one small detail or 
splash that's in color.   A RIP is also simpler because you don't 
need to buy third-party inks, refillers, special hardware drivers, 
or a separate dedicated printer.    On the hand, I personally find 
quad/hex -tone prints to be more neutral, smoother, 
and "photographic" -looking than RIP prints.   

You given us mixed signals about your priorities, saying both that 
you're a perfectionist AND that you want it simple.   There is 
nothing that will neet both needs so you have to bite the bullet and 
PRIORITIZE.  Your priorities will determine your "logical choice".

Peter--

So you're saying there's no such thing as simple perfection. Humm... if 
that's true, then I guess I'll have to rethink some things.

Thanks!

Jay


>From: "Peter Nelson" <pnweb@...>
>Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Tungsten Balance of Epson Archivals
>Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:47:21 -0000
>
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Gladwell"
><jaygladwell@h...> wrote:
> > Peter--
> >
> > Being one who is still trying to determine which route to follow,
>you bring
> > to bear my biggest concern.  Based on the reality of what you're
>saying
> > about mixed-color inksets, isn't the logical choice using inksets
>that use
> > only blacks and grays?
>
>The "logical" choice is the one that best meets each individual's
>priorities.
>
>The benefit of a RIP is that you can use the same printer to make
>both color and black and white prints, and you can also make prints
>that are predominantly black and white with one small detail or
>splash that's in color.   A RIP is also simpler because you don't
>need to buy third-party inks, refillers, special hardware drivers,
>or a separate dedicated printer.    On the hand, I personally find
>quad/hex -tone prints to be more neutral, smoother,
>and "photographic" -looking than RIP prints.
>
>You given us mixed signals about your priorities, saying both that
>you're a perfectionist AND that you want it simple.   There is
>nothing that will neet both needs so you have to bite the bullet and
>PRIORITIZE.  Your priorities will determine your "logical choice".
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don\ufffdt just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Gladwell"
<jaygladwell@h...> wrote:
> So you're saying there's no such thing as simple perfection. Humm... if 
> that's true, then I guess I'll have to rethink some things.


There are 5 predominant methods of doing BW prints from digital files:

1. Custom profiles using stock inks and drivers
2. Black Only
3. Commercial RIPs
4. Dedicated grayscale inksets (quadtone/hextone) - usually with a
dedicated printer
5. Photographic printing

Each one has advocates here and some people use either more than one
or combinations.   And then within each category there are subcategories.

So if there were one method that was both simple and perfect why would
we need five methods?

Peter wrote:  "So if there were one method that was both simple and perfect why would
we need five methods?"
 
Peter  -
 
This is art.  Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.  And, considering that there are a few thousand 'beholders' on this list, I don't understand why we don't have more (perfect) ways of doing this.
 
Tom Baker


 

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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
> This is art.  Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.  And,
considering that there are a few thousand 'beholders' on this list, I
don't understand why we don't have more (perfect) ways of doing this.
>  
> Tom Baker

1.  Most people aren't looking for perfection.   They are looking for
some tradeoff between the "perfect" print and other stuff like effort,
cost, repeatability, stability, abilty to view it under various
conditions, etc, etc.

2.  There ARE other ways!  Those five are just the MAJOR ways.   I'll
bet 95% of the people in this group do one of the five I listed.    
But there are even more esoteric methods:
1.  We have a few dye sublimation fans here.
2.  Every so often we hear from laser-printing fans here.
3.  Some people make their own inks.
4.  Some people print onto transparencies and use those for negatives
to make contact prints with in a darkroom.
5.  I have a whole series of images (and a web page) devoted to
printing on InkAid (an inkjet-receptive surface in a bottle) and then
PAINTING on it!

So you're right - there are many paths to artistic "perfection".  I
was just trying to simplify the choices down to the five biggies for
our friend who wants it simple.

Peter--

My experience has shown that there are those who enjoy things that are 
complicated.  That's neither good nor bad, just an observation.  Me?  I like 
simple.  I've reached that age where simple is good.

Jay

>From: "Peter Nelson" <pnweb@...>
>Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Tungsten Balance of Epson Archivals
>Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:04:46 -0000
>
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Gladwell"
><jaygladwell@h...> wrote:
> > So you're saying there's no such thing as simple perfection. Humm... if
> > that's true, then I guess I'll have to rethink some things.
>
>
>There are 5 predominant methods of doing BW prints from digital files:
>
>1. Custom profiles using stock inks and drivers
>2. Black Only
>3. Commercial RIPs
>4. Dedicated grayscale inksets (quadtone/hextone) - usually with a
>dedicated printer
>5. Photographic printing
>
>Each one has advocates here and some people use either more than one
>or combinations.   And then within each category there are subcategories.
>
>So if there were one method that was both simple and perfect why would
>we need five methods?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>