Digital BW, The Print

Clayton

I found your web site fascinating and helpful.  Thanks.

I went to try BO and had a little problem because my workflow is
different to yours.  I could probably solve this on my own, but as you
said on your website, sometimes this requires lots of ink, paper and
time.  I hope you don't mind me asking.

I print from master images that are RGB.  Each tiff file has a colour
background layer, and a set of adjustment layers that result in a
monochome RGB image, tagged as AdobeRGB.  

I print using Qimage, because it enables me to print from a master
image, while cropping, sharpening and making other adjusments on the
fly.  To get neutral prints when using all UC inks, I use QTR.

My first question is, what ICC settings should I use in Qimage for BO
when printing my RGB tiffs while using your recommended settings for
the Epson 2100?

For my first print I turned ICC off. I was fairly sure that this was
the equivalent setting in Qimage to match "Same As Source" in PSCS, to
match your recommended settings. However I got a print that was way
too light across the entire tonal range.  

If I've got the printer ICC setting right, what else is wrong with my
workflow?  Do I need to flatten the image before printing?  Or is it a
problem with Qimage sending RGB output to the printer for BO, rather
than a grayscale image?

Regards

F_P

I previously wrote:
>Clayton
>
> I went to try BO and had a little problem because my workflow is
> different to yours.
> I got a print that was way too light across the entire tonal range.
> Is it a problem with Qimage sending RGB output to the printer for
> BO, rather than a grayscale image?

I think I realised what happened.  Only the black plate after
conversion to CYMK got printed.  Can I fix this with a different ICC
setting, or do I have to send real grayscale files to the printer for
BO, rather than just monochrome RGB ones?

F_P

Hello Ferdinand,

>I went to try BO and had a little problem because my workflow is
>different to yours... 

Ok, understood.

 
>My first question is, what ICC settings should I use in Qimage for BO
>when printing my RGB tiffs while using your recommended settings for
>the Epson 2100?

Sorry to not be much help here, but I don't know.  I have only fiddled
with Qimage a little bit and don't understand it enough to answer your
question.  


 
>For my first print I turned ICC off. I was fairly sure that this was
>the equivalent setting in Qimage to match "Same As Source" in PSCS,
to
> match your recommended settings. However I got a print that was way
> too light across the entire tonal range...
>...I think I realised what happened. Only the black plate after
>conversion to CYMK got printed. 


>Can I fix this with a different ICC setting, or do I have to send 
>real grayscale files to the printer for BO, rather than just
>monochrome RGB ones?

For Qimage, again, I have to say I don't know.  I have successfully
printed BO from mono RGB images with the Epson driver using the same
settings as for grayscale.  It doesn't seem to make any difference, 
probably because it's not blending inks.

 
>If I've got the printer ICC setting right, what else is wrong with my
>workflow?  Do I need to flatten the image before printing?  Or is it
a
>problem with Qimage sending RGB output to the printer for BO, rather
>than a grayscale image?

I can only answer for the Epson driver, not Qimage.  I have found it
not necessary to flatten the image.  It's basically WYSIWYG.

What comes to mind from your questions is that if you want to
experiment with BO I recommend to not use Qimage at first.  Just use
the Epson driver to get a feel for it and how it responds, and don't
use any profiles, just use the simple approach described in the
article.  I think it's important to get a feel for the technique in
its most simple form before trying other things.   If you find you
like it and want to explore further then you can apply your Qimage and
other experience to it.  Just try different things and see how it
varies from the basic BO technique.  If you don't have a baseline for
comparison then you don't really know what's happening, it's just
shooting in the dark.

I don't think how you work up the image itself makes any difference.  

I hope this helps.


Regards,
Clayton


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

ferdinand_paris wrote:

> Clayton
> 
> I found your web site fascinating and helpful.  Thanks.
> 
> I went to try BO and had a little problem because my workflow is
> different to yours.  I could probably solve this on my own, but as you
> said on your website, sometimes this requires lots of ink, paper and
> time.  I hope you don't mind me asking.
> 
> I print from master images that are RGB.  Each tiff file has a colour
> background layer, and a set of adjustment layers that result in a
> monochome RGB image, tagged as AdobeRGB.  
> 
> I print using Qimage, because it enables me to print from a master
> image, while cropping, sharpening and making other adjusments on the
> fly.  To get neutral prints when using all UC inks, I use QTR.
> 
> My first question is, what ICC settings should I use in Qimage for BO
> when printing my RGB tiffs while using your recommended settings for
> the Epson 2100?
> 
> For my first print I turned ICC off. I was fairly sure that this was
> the equivalent setting in Qimage to match "Same As Source" in PSCS, to
> match your recommended settings. However I got a print that was way
> too light across the entire tonal range.  
> 
> If I've got the printer ICC setting right, what else is wrong with my
> workflow?  Do I need to flatten the image before printing?  Or is it a
> problem with Qimage sending RGB output to the printer for BO, rather
> than a grayscale image?
> 
> Regards
> 
> F_P

I think you need a true BO curve implanted in QTR that will use 
the black channel only to get BO printing from the Qimage-QTR 
workflow. One way or another (greyscale-RGB input, (K separation 
is unlikely in QTR)) as long as QTR uses the curves for all the 
UC channels it will translate any greyscale or RGB image to all 
the channels.

Giving Qimage simple greyscale files to start with may make it 
easier to find what is wrong in the workflow, that Qimage still 
makes RGB files in "print to file" is already a problem.

On lighter prints with Qimage-QTR: Could it be that the RGB print 
to file output of Qimage still gets an extra Lab perceptual 
greyscale curve treatment despite ICM being shut off ?  Or does 
QTR something similar with any RGB grey file dropped at it ? 
That can be checked with files from other sources.  On my Wasatch 
SoftRip the lightness setting of 25% corresponds approx. with the 
Lab value so that change in one file with PS may reveal whether 
it is that percentage lighter.
Related to this: AdobeRGB tagging.  If converted to sRGB with 1.8 
gamma, a tagged file and one untagged, what are the results then 
through the Qimage-QTR route ?

Ernst

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:
> Just use the Epson driver to get a feel for it and how it
> responds, and don't use any profiles, just use the simple
> approach described in the article.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.  I did as you suggested, although
printing from PSCS is as foreign to me as Qimage is to you.

The story gets stranger.  I created a flatten grayscale image - not
just monochrome.  I followed your instructions to the letter.

The resulting image was darker, but still considerably too light -
somewhere between a print using QTR and my first attempt at BO.

To try and work out what it had printed, I went into PSCS, converted
the grayscale image to CYMK, and sure 'nuff, again it had printed just
the black plate.  In the grayscale version, the black plate is a
greater proportion of the separation.

So I had sent a grayscale image with a 20% dot gain profile to the
Epson driver, using print with preview, with print space profile "same
as source" to the Epson driver, with the black option selected rather
than colo[u]r.  

The Epson driver appears to have done a CMKY conversion and printed
just the black plate.

I am using an Epson 2100, not 2200.  These physically the same
printers, but I do seem to recall that they use different drivers. 
Can it really be that the 2100 driver won't let you print a grayscale
image using just the black cart?  Is this because we have the
GrayBalancer (huh!), and therefore don't need this functionality?

There is a clue that this might be the case.  In your instructions,
you specify "Black Ink Only is Checked".  Well, in the 2100 driver,
the wording is just "Black" or Colo[u]r.  

Is the Epson driver at fault, or am I doing something silly?
If it's the driver, is there a workaround, or would I have to get hold
of the 2200 drivers and install them?

I am using XP, not a Mac.  My driver version is 5.30.  I note that the
UK web site has driver version 5.30a, and the US site has v5.4aA.

Puzzled.

F_P

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> I think you need a true BO curve implanted in QTR that will use 
> the black channel only to get BO printing from the Qimage-QTR 
> workflow. One way or another (greyscale-RGB input, (K separation 
> is unlikely in QTR)) as long as QTR uses the curves for all the 
> UC channels it will translate any greyscale or RGB image to all 
> the channels.
> 
> Giving Qimage simple greyscale files to start with may make it 
> easier to find what is wrong in the workflow, that Qimage still 
> makes RGB files in "print to file" is already a problem.
> 
> On lighter prints with Qimage-QTR: Could it be that the RGB print 
> to file output of Qimage still gets an extra Lab perceptual 
> greyscale curve treatment despite ICM being shut off ?  Or does 
> QTR something similar with any RGB grey file dropped at it ? 
> That can be checked with files from other sources.  On my Wasatch 
> SoftRip the lightness setting of 25% corresponds approx. with the 
> Lab value so that change in one file with PS may reveal whether 
> it is that percentage lighter.
> Related to this: AdobeRGB tagging.  If converted to sRGB with 1.8 
> gamma, a tagged file and one untagged, what are the results then 
> through the Qimage-QTR route ?

Ernst

Thanks for this reply, but I may have misled you a little.  I am not
trying BO through QTR.  And QTR is working just fine using the full UC
ink set.

My problem with light prints is when trying to print BO using the
Epson driver, with the driver set to "Black" rather than "Colour". 

As mentioned in my other posts, I seem to have tracked the problem to
the Epson driver printing only the black plate.

F_P

Hello Ferdinand,

>I created a flatten grayscale image...
>I followed your instructions to the letter.
>The resulting image was darker, but still considerably too light -

Would seem to me that if it's a flattened grayscale image then there
is no "black plate" or layer to be separated or printed differently
(that's about as un-complex an image you can have).  My first thought
is if the back end is "Same As Source" and the print is too light,
then the front end profile is incorrect.  What is the front end
profile now?

Try different front end profiles until the screen image matches the
print (I find that not all images need the same front end, although
DG18 or DG20 work for most of them, but it depends a lot of course on
the monitor).  Once you have done that, you now have a good WYSIWYG
condition.  If the print is too light then the screen image should be
too light.  If you then apply an adjustment curve to correct the
screen image, the print should follow along.


>I am using an Epson 2100, not 2200.  These physically the same
>printers, but I do seem to recall that they use different drivers. 
>Can it really be that the 2100 driver won't let you print a grayscale
>image using just the black cart?  

With a loupe can you see only black dots in the print?


>There is a clue that this might be the case.  In your instructions,
>you specify "Black Ink Only is Checked".  Well, in the 2100 driver,
>the wording is just "Black" or Colo[u]r.  

Mine says "Black Ink Only".  Here's a screen shot (version 5.40)

     http://www.cjcom.net/files/2200props.gif


 
>Is the Epson driver at fault, or am I doing something silly?

The Shadow knows <g>.   Daniel Staver may also know...


>Puzzled.

Me too.  Please try the above idea and let us know what happens.


Regards,
Clayton


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

ferdinand_paris wrote:

> Thanks for this reply, but I may have misled you a little.  I am not
> trying BO through QTR.  And QTR is working just fine using the full UC
> ink set.

I get it. But your term "black plate only" suggested a non Epson 
driver.

> 
> My problem with light prints is when trying to print BO using the
> Epson driver, with the driver set to "Black" rather than "Colour". 
> 
> As mentioned in my other posts, I seem to have tracked the problem to
> the Epson driver printing only the black plate.

Many on this list will envy you when you get that "black plate 
only" = "black generation" printing through the Epson driver, 
that driver is transparent nor controllable on that level.  Epson 
drivers will make RGB input of anything they get as input when 
driving the CcMmYK channels and there's no way you can get the 
CMYK separated. The other choice is BO printing only which is 
using the K channel only from 0-100%. Some Epsons don't have that 
last choice in practice. Wasn't there a difference between 
European and US drivers on that option ?  The C84 etc have a 
similar issue if I'm not mistaken. I'm not that familiar with 
desktop models. Getting a loupe to check which channels are 
actually used may clear things up, even the shadows.

Ernst

To Clayton & Ernst

If my (perhaps sloppy) terminology about printing the "black plate"
confused you, apologies again.  What I meant was, if I print a
monochrome image, either grayscale or RGB, with the Epson 2100 print
driver set to Black rather than Colour, then the print is too light
either way.  In trying to understand what was printed, if I take
either version of the monochrome image and convert it to CYMK in PSCS,
and compare the black channel to the corresponding print, it is an
exact match.

The print from a RGB monochrome image was the lightest, and exactly
matched the black channel in a CYMK version of the RGB image.  A print
from a grayscale version was darker but still not dark enough, and
again matched the black channel in a CYMK version of the grayscale
image.

I don't know what the Epson printer driver is actually doing, but it
looks like it is taking each image, converting it to grayscale, and
print *only* the black channel.  I thought BO was supposed to print
*all* the channels using the black cartridge.

Reponses to your questions below.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
> My first thought is if the back end is "Same As Source" and 
> the print is too light, then the front end profile is incorrect.  
> What is the front end profile now?

The grayscale image is tagged as Dot Gain 20%.  The monochrome RGB
image is AdobeRGB.
 
> Try different front end profiles until the screen image matches the
> print

If my description at the front of this reply makes is comprehensible,
then you'll understand why I don't think that this makes any sense.  I
can change to any dot gain I like, convert to any profile I like, but
the black channel when I convert a copy of the image into CYMK mode is
virtually the same, and this is what the print using the Epson driver
set to Black will look like.

> With a loupe can you see only black dots in the print?

In the BO attempts, yes.  Only black dots.  Whereas in a full-toned
QTR print there are slight traces of magenta and cyan.

> Mine says "Black Ink Only".  Here's a screen shot (version 5.40)
>      http://www.cjcom.net/files/2200props.gif

The 2100 driver looks different.  Look at 

  http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/page_13.htm, 

particularly the two advanced setting photos in the third row of
images.  Note the choice between either "Color" or "Black".  The
context help for this option says that if you choose black, colors are
converted to grayscale, which is not exactly what I experienced.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
> The other choice is BO printing only which is 
> using the K channel only from 0-100%. Some Epsons don't have that 
> last choice in practice. 

I'd hardly call it a choice.  No selection of channels or percentages

> Wasn't there a difference between 
> European and US drivers on that option ?  

There seems to have been.  

> Getting a loupe to check which channels are 
> actually used may clear things up, even the shadows.

It's only printing from the black cartridge, and it's only laying down
the amount of ink specified in the black channel of a CYMK version of
the image.

More puzzled than ever, but it's got to be the 2100 driver.

F_P

ferdinand_paris wrote:

> The print from a RGB monochrome image was the lightest, and exactly
> matched the black channel in a CYMK version of the RGB image.  A print
> from a grayscale version was darker but still not dark enough, and
> again matched the black channel in a CYMK version of the grayscale
> image.
> 
> I don't know what the Epson printer driver is actually doing, but it
> looks like it is taking each image, converting it to grayscale, and
> print *only* the black channel.  I thought BO was supposed to print
> *all* the channels using the black cartridge.

Black Only printing will only use the black channel, head, ink. A 
greyscale file will most likely be kept as a greyscale file in 
the Epson driver's BO mode when the last computes the data that 
has to go to the black head.  The original information should be 
rasterised to greyscale for the black channel only whether it is 
a greyscale, greyscale RGB or greyscale CMYK file.  Some drivers 
do not have a real BO output, all the color channels are used 
instead and a composite grey is printed. That's like printing 
greyscale images in colour mode, the neutrality depends on the 
consistency of the printer and/or its profiling.

There's no way you will get a separate "black plate" "black 
generation" printing from an Epson driver other than by printing 
in color mode and either the color carts are empty or the color 
heads kaputt (or both:-).  The Epson driver is an RGB type that 
will always do a hidden RGB>CMYK conversion (in color mode) on 
any file that will be printed in color mode, even on a CMYK file. 
The last will first be converted to RGB and then again to CMYK 
internally. No chance to interfere there. So what may look like a 
black channel print must be something else or your color carts 
are empty.

I think you are actually printing BO but there's a gamma shift in 
the workflow somewhere. That's why I suggested to check the 
embedded profile influence and switching to sRGB to see what 
changes.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla

 >> The other choice is BO printing only which is
 >> using the K channel only from 0-100%. Some Epsons don't have 
that
 >> last choice in practice.


 >I'd hardly call it a choice.  No selection of channels or 
percentages

That's why it is called an "RGB" driver, unlike a good RIP you 
can't influence the conversion to CMYK, profiling is done at RGB 
level and linearisation, ink limitation, black generation is in a 
black box internally. The paper settings you can select in the 
printer menu will have different values for the ink limits etc 
(at least in color mode) but they are not transparant either and 
the differences not that high. But it helps sometimes to get a 
bit more black with the right paper setting.

Archive that driver if I'm wrong, it could become a collecter's 
item one day :-)

Ernst

It's an odd thing but I've found my output to be much smoother for BO printing on a 10K 
when I send the file through the driver as a greyscale file. The Epson rep told me to send it 
as an RGB but my results have been contrary. When compared to sending it as an rgb file 
with black ink only setting the results contain much more dithering. 

Lately I've been able to do some remarkably nice BO prints on Somerset Velvet and 
Hahnemuhle William turner. Printing on papers like Enhanced or Legion Matt can sometime 
work but quite often the dithering lines become apparent, or a pepply grain shows itself. It 
is a quick and easy way to do monochrome if you choose a slightly absorbant media. Don't 
try rc papers... When I get a 9600 with QTR I'll abandon this I'm sure. But I've made quite a 
bit of money this way in the last few years.

john

Hello Ferdinand,

>>With a loupe can you see only black dots in the print?
>In the BO attempts, yes.  Only black dots.  

Ok, good.  We know that the 2100 can do BO.


>I don't know what the Epson printer driver is actually doing, but it
>looks like it is taking each image, converting it to grayscale, and
>print *only* the black channel.  I thought BO was supposed to print
>*all* the channels using the black cartridge.

After converting to grayscale there are no longer multiple channels to
choose from, only a single gray channel (you can no longer open
Channel Mixer or Hue/Sat and the Channels palette only says "Gray"),
so the concept of printing all the channels doesn't apply.  But I
think all of this business about channels and CMYK, etc. is irrelevent
for BO.  The one hard fact is the print doesn't match the screen
image.  

If the back end profile is "same as source" and the print is lighter
than the screen image, then the front end profile is incorrect.

What you see on screen is just an interpretation of the actual image.
 Whether it is dark or light depends on the front end profile that
does the interpreting.  When the back end is SAS, the front end
interpreting is cancelled out and the resulting print is an accurate
representation of the actual image, which in this case is too light. 
It doesn't look too light on screen because the front end profile is
making it look darker than it really is.

The trick is to find a front end profile that makes the screen image
match the print.  So if the screen image is darker than the print at
DG20, then try DG15, DG10, or some custom  profile (I use a custom
DG18 for many of my pics).

Once you do that, then use an adjustment curve to darken the screen
image back where it was before and the print will probably match.
All of this (at least enough to prove or disprove the theory) can be
done in a couple of minutes without making permanent changes to the
image.  I could be wrong and maybe something else is at work here, but
I think it's worth a try to find out.

Another thing I just thought of is the Gamma setting.  That also
influences the output.  I keep mine at 1.8 (it can be seen in that
screen shot), only because it's the middle one.  If that is different
on yours it might be skewing the result.  So you might try changing
that and see what happens.

Regards,
Clayton


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

First of all thank you to all those who have read my posts and taken
the trouble to think about the issue and reply.  There are two
problems we have in trying to resolve the issue.  

1.) - I can't show you the physical prints.  When I say the BO print
is lighter, I'm not talking about a little bit lighter and I'm trying
to finesse the image, I mean a ***LOT*** lighter.  I really don't
think it is the sort of difference that can be deal with by curves.  

To illustrate the difference, I've resized and converted the master
file to sRGB for web viewing, and put it up at 
  http://asia.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/ferdinand_paris/my_photos

I then converted it to CYMK, extracted the black channel, and have put
that there as well for comparison.  This is reasonably close to what
the BO print from the master RGB image looks like.  I haven't tried to
finesse these images for screen viewing - both might be a touch dark -
they are only intended to illustrate the order of magnitude of the
difference.

2.) - we are using different driver versions, so you can't replicate
my exact circumstances. 

Isn't there anyone on this list who has tried BO with a 2100 (rather
than a 2200)?  I'd be satisfied that the problem is something other
than the driver if this were the case.  I might start a separate
thread and ask.

Clayton made the point that once the image is in grayscale format,
there isn't any other channel to print.  That is true while still
inside PSCS.  However as Ernst pointed out, "The Epson driver is an
RGB type that will always do a hidden RGB>CMYK conversion (in color
mode) on any file that will be printed in color mode, even on a CMYK
file. The last will first be converted to RGB and then again to CMYK
internally."

If I try and print a grayscale image using the full colour inkset,
then it has to do a conversion to CYMK.  The question is, what does it
do in black mode?  Ernst said that a grayscale file should be kept as
a grayscale file by the Epson driver, but it sure don't look like it
to me.

I'll think about Clayton's suggestions to try different profiles. If
it were a mere case of finessing the print, I'd be trying some of
these things myself.  But the difference really is **huge**.  I don't
know where to start to bridge such a gap.

Thanks again.

F_P

Hi Ferdinand,

We have done BO printing on a 2100. It works OK, density is good, but it 
has metamerism, as the 2100 driver (for Windows, v5.30 at least) doesn't 
actually do black only at photographic quality levels. It does a full 
colour greyscale on anything but plain paper, so no advantage there. The 
answer is to install the 2200 driver (v5.40), which does allow proper 
photo BO on the 2100. It will warn you about poor quality when you try 
to print BO at photo settings, but will carry on when you cancel the 
warning. We haven't been able to get the Status Monitor to work with the 
2100 on 2200 driver, but the prints are fine, following Clayton's 
settings. They are warmer than the screen view, but densities are pretty 
right.

Your problems are not inherent in doing BO on a 2100, so some detail 
somewhere must be going wrong. Good luck with fixing it!

Colin

ferdinand_paris wrote:

> First of all thank you to all those who have read my posts and taken
> the trouble to think about the issue and reply.  There are two
> problems we have in trying to resolve the issue.  
> 
> 1.) - I can't show you the physical prints.  When I say the BO print
> is lighter, I'm not talking about a little bit lighter and I'm trying
> to finesse the image, I mean a ***LOT*** lighter.  I really don't
> think it is the sort of difference that can be deal with by curves.  
> 
> To illustrate the difference, I've resized and converted the master
> file to sRGB for web viewing, and put it up at 
>   http://asia.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/ferdinand_paris/my_photos
> 
> I then converted it to CYMK, extracted the black channel, and have put
> that there as well for comparison.  This is reasonably close to what
> the BO print from the master RGB image looks like.  I haven't tried to
> finesse these images for screen viewing - both might be a touch dark -
> they are only intended to illustrate the order of magnitude of the
> difference.
> 
> 2.) - we are using different driver versions, so you can't replicate
> my exact circumstances. 
> 
> Isn't there anyone on this list who has tried BO with a 2100 (rather
> than a 2200)?  I'd be satisfied that the problem is something other
> than the driver if this were the case.  I might start a separate
> thread and ask.
> 
> Clayton made the point that once the image is in grayscale format,
> there isn't any other channel to print.  That is true while still
> inside PSCS.  However as Ernst pointed out, "The Epson driver is an
> RGB type that will always do a hidden RGB>CMYK conversion (in color
> mode) on any file that will be printed in color mode, even on a CMYK
> file. The last will first be converted to RGB and then again to CMYK
> internally."
> 
> If I try and print a grayscale image using the full colour inkset,
> then it has to do a conversion to CYMK.  The question is, what does it
> do in black mode?  Ernst said that a grayscale file should be kept as
> a grayscale file by the Epson driver, but it sure don't look like it
> to me.
> 
> I'll think about Clayton's suggestions to try different profiles. If
> it were a mere case of finessing the print, I'd be trying some of
> these things myself.  But the difference really is **huge**.  I don't
> know where to start to bridge such a gap.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> F_P
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Colin & Linda
McKie <colinmckie@x> wrote:
> Hi Ferdinand,
> 
> We have done BO printing on a 2100. It works OK, density is good, 
> but it has metamerism, as the 2100 driver (for Windows, v5.30 at 
> least) doesn't actually do black only at photographic quality 
> levels. It does a full colour greyscale on anything but plain 
> paper, so no advantage there. The answer is to install the 2200 
> driver (v5.40), which does allow proper
> photo BO on the 2100. It will warn you about poor quality when you
> try to print BO at photo settings, but will carry on when you cancel
> the warning. We haven't been able to get the Status Monitor to work
> with the 2100 on 2200 driver, but the prints are fine, following
> Clayton's settings. They are warmer than the screen view, but
> densities are pretty right.
> 
> Your problems are not inherent in doing BO on a 2100, so some
> detail somewhere must be going wrong. Good luck with fixing it!
 
 Colin

I've no doubt that the 2100 hardware could do BO.  After all it's
physically the same printer as the 2200.  The issue is the driver.

I'm not sure I fully understand what happened when you tried to print
BO when using the 2100 5.30 drivers.  Are you saying that it refused
to allow you to set the driver to SuperPhoto 2880 and the Black option
at the same time?  Were you able to print with these settings?  

I certainly can, but get the ridiculously light prints referred to
earlier.  I only get a "full colour grayscale" is I choose the colour
option in the driver, rather than black.

F_P

The UK 2100 driver will do BO on matt paper no problems ie no colour ink is
used (it does not work with the photo black cartridge).

> From: Colin & Linda McKie <colinmckie@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:35:15 +1000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Qu for Clayton Jones about BO
> 
> Hi Ferdinand,
> 
> We have done BO printing on a 2100. It works OK, density is good, but it
> has metamerism, as the 2100 driver (for Windows, v5.30 at least) doesn't
> actually do black only at photographic quality levels. It does a full
> colour greyscale on anything but plain paper, so no advantage there. The
> answer is to install the 2200 driver (v5.40), which does allow proper
> photo BO on the 2100. It will warn you about poor quality when you try
> to print BO at photo settings, but will carry on when you cancel the
> warning. We haven't been able to get the Status Monitor to work with the
> 2100 on 2200 driver, but the prints are fine, following Clayton's
> settings. They are warmer than the screen view, but densities are pretty
> right.
> 
> Your problems are not inherent in doing BO on a 2100, so some detail
> somewhere must be going wrong. Good luck with fixing it!
> 
> Colin
>

Hi Ferdinand,

I just did a quick experiment, printing an A5 greyscale test pattern on 
each end of an A4 sheet. They were both at 1440 dpi on Ilford Smooth 
Pearl, paper set to Premium Semigloss; for the first one I set the 2100 
driver to Black mode, the other to Colour and Automatic with no 
adjustments. The results are identical, including metamerism. Neither 
looks anything like the result from using Black mode on the 2200 driver, 
which is warm but has no significant metamerism.

I don't know where the changeover occurs, it's somewhere between plain 
paper at 360dpi and any photo paper at 720dpi or more, but although the 
driver gives you the Black only controls and tells you nothing, it 
prints with all inks.

How this relates to your results, I have no idea. What version is your 
driver? I am using 5.3cE from Epson Australia on Win 2000.

Colin

ferdinand_paris wrote:

> 
> I've no doubt that the 2100 hardware could do BO.  After all it's
> physically the same printer as the 2200.  The issue is the driver.
> 
> I'm not sure I fully understand what happened when you tried to print
> BO when using the 2100 5.30 drivers.  Are you saying that it refused
> to allow you to set the driver to SuperPhoto 2880 and the Black option
> at the same time?  Were you able to print with these settings?  
> 
> I certainly can, but get the ridiculously light prints referred to
> earlier.  I only get a "full colour grayscale" is I choose the colour
> option in the driver, rather than black.
> 
> F_P

I installed the 2200 drivers, and BO now works as it should.  This is
using EXACTLY the same settings as I was using in the 2100 driver, but
which gave really light results. My sanity is safe for the moment. 

It looks like people using the 2100 driver are getting different
results to 2200 users and perhaps to each other, leading me to wonder
whether there are multiple versions of the 5.30 2100 driver.  

In messages 48661 and 48665 Steve Kale observed some quirks in the
2100 driver relation to the selecting of 2880 dpi with matte paper /
ink.  I can certainly make this selection, but it seems some others
can't.  

In 48927 Steve says that the UK 2100 driver will do BO on matt paper
no problems ie no colour ink is used, but I assume that he is using
the OS-X driver.  

In my 5.30 version of the XP 2100 driver, I remain convinced that in
BO moded my version of the driver is taking the grayscale image, doing
a CYMK separation, and only printing the black channel.  It definitely
is printing only black ink, the print is a very close match to the
black channel if I do my own separation, and anything I do to try to
darken the print along the lines of Clayton's suggestions does nothing
to the light-toned areas, where the black channel does very little of
the work.

People using different driver versions may have trouble believing the
cause of my light prints, but I just can't get around it.  And in any
case, the 2200 driver with the same settings does proper BO!  If there
was a problem with my workflow, profiles or curves, this would not be
the case.

I was using the driver version that came with the printer (purchased
in Paris) - 5.30.  As part of the testing I downloaded the latest
5.30a version from the UK site, although the "a" doesn't show up when
when you install it and check the driver version. I thought I detected
some cosmetic changes in the driver dialogue boxes after the update,
but nothing changed in relation to BO printing.  Only the 2200 drivers
do this properly for me.

The above is all with the Matte Balck cart installed.  I haven't
bothered to try this on semi-gloss with the PK cart.  There's only so
much ink and paper ...........

Again, thanks to all who took the time and trouble to read my long
posts, think about it, and reply.  Much appreciated.

I'd still be interested in corresponding with other 2100 users to
understand better the differences in the various versions of the 2100
driver.

F_P

> In my 5.30 version of the XP 2100 driver, I remain convinced that in
> BO moded my version of the driver is taking the grayscale image, doing
> a CYMK separation, and only printing the black channel.  It definitely
> is printing only black ink, the print is a very close match to the
> black channel if I do my own separation, and anything I do to try to
> darken the print along the lines of Clayton's suggestions does nothing
> to the light-toned areas, where the black channel does very little of
> the work.

I'm using v5.3 of the XP driver with a 2100. I printed your sample image 
from Photoshop CS using the BO settings specified in Clayton's article. 
The picture looked almost exactly as on screen. There may have been 
differences, but they were very subtle. No major shifts like you seem to 
experience.

My screen is calibrated with a Spyder, so what I'm seeing on screen 
should be reasonably close to the actual image.

I have no problems selecting 2880dpi and printing BO with the matte 
black cartridge on matte papers.

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

Sorry, yes I was referring to the OS-X driver which can do BO with the MK
cartridge but not the PK cartridge.  I alerted Epson UK to the issue but so
far they have done nothing (surprise surprise).

> From: ferdinand_paris <ferdinand_paris@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:00:23 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Epson 2100  BO solved!  (I think)
> 
> 
> I installed the 2200 drivers, and BO now works as it should.  This is
> using EXACTLY the same settings as I was using in the 2100 driver, but
> which gave really light results. My sanity is safe for the moment.
> 
> It looks like people using the 2100 driver are getting different
> results to 2200 users and perhaps to each other, leading me to wonder
> whether there are multiple versions of the 5.30 2100 driver.
> 
> In messages 48661 and 48665 Steve Kale observed some quirks in the
> 2100 driver relation to the selecting of 2880 dpi with matte paper /
> ink.  I can certainly make this selection, but it seems some others
> can't.  
> 
> In 48927 Steve says that the UK 2100 driver will do BO on matt paper
> no problems ie no colour ink is used, but I assume that he is using
> the OS-X driver. 
> 
> In my 5.30 version of the XP 2100 driver, I remain convinced that in
> BO moded my version of the driver is taking the grayscale image, doing
> a CYMK separation, and only printing the black channel.  It definitely
> is printing only black ink, the print is a very close match to the
> black channel if I do my own separation, and anything I do to try to
> darken the print along the lines of Clayton's suggestions does nothing
> to the light-toned areas, where the black channel does very little of
> the work.
> 
> People using different driver versions may have trouble believing the
> cause of my light prints, but I just can't get around it.  And in any
> case, the 2200 driver with the same settings does proper BO!  If there
> was a problem with my workflow, profiles or curves, this would not be
> the case.
> 
> I was using the driver version that came with the printer (purchased
> in Paris) - 5.30.  As part of the testing I downloaded the latest
> 5.30a version from the UK site, although the "a" doesn't show up when
> when you install it and check the driver version. I thought I detected
> some cosmetic changes in the driver dialogue boxes after the update,
> but nothing changed in relation to BO printing.  Only the 2200 drivers
> do this properly for me.
> 
> The above is all with the Matte Balck cart installed.  I haven't
> bothered to try this on semi-gloss with the PK cart.  There's only so
> much ink and paper ...........
> 
> Again, thanks to all who took the time and trouble to read my long
> posts, think about it, and reply.  Much appreciated.
> 
> I'd still be interested in corresponding with other 2100 users to
> understand better the differences in the various versions of the 2100
> driver.
> 
> F_P
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² 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 ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² 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  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>