Digital BW, The Print

Tyler, what dpi to you guys send to your 9600 printers from a drum scan for a high-end 
tonally delicate print. I never send over 240 dpi with my 10K and can get by in some cases 
with less than that if I have to. I was wondering if you see anything with your equipment 
beyond that, say 300-360 dpi file for the printer. I guess that would depend on the media, 
but I am refering to primarily rag media like Photo Rag.

john

John, since you are on that list too, see this post-
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EpsonWideFormat/message/43675
Paper is probably a factoer, but the driver used is a bigger factor.
See Ernst's follow-ups as well, they complicate the issue but inform.
Most say, with the OEM drivers, that since their native resolution is
360 (Except the 2200- 720) there is no reason to send any more.
However, different RIPs or drivers may do things differently, and
there are many things that come into play.
I always send StudioPrint as much as I possibly can, and have seen no
advantage to res to anything other than the native scan, the RIP does
whatever it does best. Obvioulsy, with small film and large prints,
things aren't as we think maybe they should be, but the prints look
fine, good well defined grain.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> 
> Tyler, what dpi to you guys send to your 9600 printers from a drum
scan for a high-end 
> tonally delicate print. I never send over 240 dpi with my 10K and
can get by in some cases 
> with less than that if I have to. I was wondering if you see
anything with your equipment 
> beyond that, say 300-360 dpi file for the printer. I guess that
would depend on the media, 

> but I am refering to primarily rag media like Photo Rag.
> 
> john

OK...so I use the 1280 with UT2/eboni and It all works really good with 
lots of rag and matte papers. Occasionally I need to make a glossy 
print, and for that I determined that paul's curves plus print sheild 
spray is pretty good. BUT....I now need to make some glossy prints that 
need to be really good. As good as the photo rag etc. There cant be any 
bronzing, and should be glossier than the print sheild spray ends up.
My Question: does the the photo black make a significant diference in 
bronzing?? I have not tried it, but suspect that it does not 
significantly improve on the Black-less curves that paul roark has ( 
graciously) offered. I say this because even with no black in the mix, 
there is some degree of bronzing, and we still need to spray. Now, 
before i switched to UT2, i was doing black only, with the original dye 
epson ink, and the output was great on glossy paper, (except for the 
dithering pattern which ruined it for me).......so....is the photo 
black free of bronzing? If so. does it work as black only on glossy 
paper? I can live with a little dithering patern more that I can with 
bronzing.
Just to clarify, here is the list of problems I have dealt with 
regarding papers using pauls curves etc....ignoring any kind of 
permanence issue:

Ilford smooth pearl: awesome image, ALMOST no bronzing, but you need to 
spray it, and then the finish really shows the spray. Almost like 
becomes a pearl finish, but a bad pearl finish.
Ilford smooth pearl: Horrible bronzing that looks like glitter 
sprinkled on the print. Spray almost fixes it....almost.
Lumijet gallerie gloss: not much bronzing, but the ink does not stick 
at all to the paper.
Epson premium smooth gloss: Bronzing which needs a lot of spray
Epson Premium Gloss: Ink does not stick
Epson glossy photo paper (cheap photo paper)...Wow pretty good, almost 
does not need spray, and when you spay, the spray almost does not show. 
Almost almost almost. That is the problem I'm trying to beat right 
now.........Thanks for any help!

I see....... a lot of things can come into play, even film type and how the scanner responds 
to a particular film. But 360 sounds about right for the 9600. Like I said, I've been very 
impressed with the dot capability of the 1440 dpi 10K printer especially considering its 
speed.. All drivers are different animals and rips change it all. I guess on some level this all 
has to be considered in a consistent workflow. Thanks.

john

> 
> John, since you are on that list too, see this post-
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EpsonWideFormat/message/43675
> Paper is probably a factoer, but the driver used is a bigger factor.
> See Ernst's follow-ups as well, they complicate the issue but inform.
> Most say, with the OEM drivers, that since their native resolution is
> 360 (Except the 2200- 720) there is no reason to send any more.
> However, different RIPs or drivers may do things differently, and
> there are many things that come into play.
> I

>... I use the 1280 with UT2/eboni ...
>Occasionally I need to make a glossy print, and for that 
>I determined that paul's curves plus print shield 
>spray is pretty good. BUT....I now need to make some glossy prints that 
>need to be really good. As good as the photo rag etc. 
>There cant be any bronzing, and should be glossier than the 
>print shield spray ends up.

>My Question: does the the photo black make a significant diference in 
>bronzing?? 

No.  The bronzing is in the midtones where there is no PK (unless you are
doing BO printing).
 
On many papers the Photo K doesn't even increase the dmax much if any.  For
example, I made some curves for the 2000P and the UT-FS inkset.  On Premium
Semigloss, compare the dmax with and without PK after the dry down and the
glycol has been removed from the surface with plain paper:  PK - 1.93,
Non-PK (black generated with 2 dark grays) - 1.95. (Call it equal.)

Don't believe the huge dmax that PK can generate when fresh.  Ilford drops
from 2.40 to about 2.12 in a day or so.

So, for many papers and the UT-2, 7 or 8, I think the advantage of being
able to control the tone/hue of the black is more important than the minimal
dmax advantage PK may (or may not) give.

>...
>Now, before i switched to UT2, i was doing black only, 
>with the original dye epson ink, and the output was great on 
>glossy paper, (except for the dithering pattern which ruined it ...

>..is the photo black free of bronzing? If so
>does it work as black only on glossy paper? 

On the 2000P, which doesn't have as small a dot size as the best current
printers, PK in BO mode is very free of bronzing, but the print is very
rough -- serious dots.  I can't say what a better, state of the art printer
might be able to do.

As you note, almost all papers need a spray to get rid of bronzing.  Whether
the finish is improved or not is subjective.  I suppose the real glossy
papers do lose a bit of that super-gloss look.  On the other hand, the dmax
they can retain with a spray is significant.

>...
>Epson glossy photo paper (cheap photo paper)...Wow pretty good, almost 
>does not need spray, and when you spay, the spray almost does not show. 

Try the Costco private label version -- better total dry dmax than Premium
Semigloss, 15 cents/letter-size sheet, and just a hair more bronzing than
Epson Glossy Photo Paper.  (I haven't tried spraying it.)

There is no perfect pigment glossy B&W print as far as I know.  I think the
sprayed ones are the closest we can get to it at this point.  Frankly, since
I don't like the RC look, the pearl or semi-gloss finish is near perfect for
me, but that's clearly subjective.

Good luck in your search.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

First off, thanks Mr. Roark, so much, for the great info!.......After 
musing on this subject of gloss/pigment, I remembered that I had some 
permajet matte-plus somewhere. This paper I could never get to work 
with lyson quads, but I pulled it out. I like the surface. Very smooth, 
and the feel is photographic as opposed to fine art. Just made a print 
and this paper works great with UT2 inks. Maybe the best image quality 
I have gotten.
So.....now I am wondering if there is a paper that is even smoother 
that this. What I need is a paper that can be handled, and have a lot 
of wow appeal, for musician/artist promo packages. They almost always 
want Glossy, but this paper sure has a nice feel and pop to it. I am 
thinking that maybe this could work for what I need. It does not feel 
like kinkos paper. (i have had a few people tell me that photo rag 
looks like fancy kinkos paper..geez) But possibly there is a paper that 
is even more smooth to the touch. I am going to start using this more 
though. Just wondering if there is something between gloss and matte, 
thanks for any help as usual, Doug M
On Oct 19, 2004, at 5:54 PM, Paul Roark wrote:

>
>  There is no perfect pigment glossy B&W print as far as I know.  I 
> think the
>  sprayed ones are the closest we can get to it at this point.  
> Frankly, since
>  I don't like the RC look, the pearl or semi-gloss finish is near 
> perfect for
>  me, but that's clearly subjective.
>


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

If you want to take the scan/ image content, character etc out of the 
equation, do this simple test:
Prepare an eps file (from Quark, indesign,Illustartor, Freehand etc) with
black type of various sizes, mostly small - to - really-small.
Rasterize in Photoshop at all the dpi you want to test.
Good choices would be 180, 360, 720,1440....  and anything else
that seems relevant. Print each separate file.

Look at the resulting prints- you will easily see the point past which
there is no more benefit to increasing file dpi. You will also see the
scary "low end". The actual minimum dpi will always be dependent
on the actual info/sharpness/grain quality etc  in the image itself.


Antonis  



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:

I never send over 240 dpi with my 10K and can get by in some cases 
> with less than that if I have to.