Digital BW, The Print

Could someone describe to me what is going on tonally when one chooses either 2.2 or 
1.8 gama setting in a given print driver? I know I should know technically what is going on 
here but  sheepishly I admit that I don't.

I know that when I print BO greyscale out of my 10K I have quite smooth transitions with 
2.2 and unacceptable results with 1.8.

I know that when using the greyscale Cone PIezzotones out of a 1200 or 1280 the 
recommended gamma setting is 1.8 with their ICC profiles.

I also know that when printing out of QTR on my 1200 with Piezzotones if I choose 2.2 
gamma I get excellent results by just using that as my profile, even without linearizaton or 
a custom made ICC profile for that media ink combinaton. I assume the difference is the 
way the driver maps the tonal scale and thus where the ink is laid down from a particuar 
area of the scale. Right?

John

This is not a technical response. I have always understood that 1.8 was for Mac's and 2.2 for PCs. 
 
Don

john dean <deanwork2003@...> wrote:

Could someone describe to me what is going on tonally when one chooses either 2.2 or 
1.8 gama setting in a given print driver? I know I should know technically what is going on 
here but  sheepishly I admit that I don't.




---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


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

hmmmm.....did john dean make a typo here regarding the 1200 and QTR? I 
cant find any way to use the QTR with the1200. It would be great if i 
could use the 1200 with QTR. ......anyone?.....DM
On Oct 21, 2004, at 7:43 AM, john dean wrote:

>
>  I also know that when printing out of QTR on my 1200 with Piezzotones 
> if I choose 2.2
>  gamma I get excellent results by just using that as my profile, even 
> without linearizaton or
>  a custom made ICC profile for that media ink combinaton. I assume the 
> difference is the
>  way the driver maps the tonal scale and thus where the ink is laid 
> down from a particuar
>  area of the scale. Right?
>


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

No typo here. The Epson 1200 is one of the many printers supported by QTR. As a matter 
of fact as I  am writing this I am printing a job that is turning out beautufully with it. 

Here is the story for me. I have it set up in OSX Panther ( yes!) with the standard QTR 
driver. Since there are no QTR curves available for the 1200 and the other curves would 
not load for me, I am converting the file to greyscale and using grey gamma 2.2 in place of 
a profile. My only compaint so far, and Roy may be able help with this, is that I can't use 
the nozzle check or head cleaning menu in the QTR with the 1200. So, I have to go over to 
OS9 and my old Epson driver to do that.

You know my results look just like the screen using this unsophisticated procedure with 
Hahnemuhle Photo Rag and Cone Piezzotone Carbon Sepia. I can't tell you what would 
happen with UT inks, but my assumption is that if you have someone make a profile for 
you it would work great. But even before you do that you could try my procedure and see 
what the results are. I plan to have a more sophisticated profile made for my inkset and 
media, but I'm telling you these prints look great with excellent d-max already. To me 
they look as good as the 1280 prints I'm doing with the Selenium Tone inkset with the 
Piezzo ICC profiles.

 One of the things with the 1200 is that the nozzle droplet size is a little larger than the 
1280 and more contemporary printers. I have been told that this cuts down on clogged 
nozzles with the heavier carbon inks, and helps that kind of issue. We shall see. I got this 
old priner years ago on ebay and it paid for itself the first job I did with it. It is something 
that I've had a lot of fun with and now I'm going to set up a cfs with it. Why not?

John





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Meeuwsen 
<lipshurt@m...> wrote:

> hmmmm.....did john dean make a typo here regarding the 1200 and QTR? I 
> cant find any way to use the QTR with the1200. It would be great if i 
> could use the 1200 with QTR. ......anyone?.....DM
> On Oct 21, 2004, at 7:43 AM, john dean wrote:
> 
> >
> >  I also know that when printing out of QTR on my 1200 with Piezzotones 
> > if I choose 2.2
> >  gamma I get excellent results by just using that as my profile, even 
> > without linearizaton or
> >  a custom made ICC profile for that media ink combinaton. I assume the 
> > difference is the
> >  way the driver maps the tonal scale and thus where the ink is laid 
> > down from a particuar
> >  area of the scale. Right?
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

john
for my nozzle checks i use the epson print utility, i
downloaded it off the epson sight sometime back. they
created this thing for system 10 some time back. it is
real handy. i am sure it is still on the epson sight
somewhere, i may have found it under the 2200 update
section.
right on
john e

--- john dean <deanwork2003@...> wrote:

> 
> No typo here. The Epson 1200 is one of the many
> printers supported by QTR. As a matter 
> of fact as I  am writing this I am printing a job
> that is turning out beautufully with it. 
> 
> Here is the story for me. I have it set up in OSX
> Panther ( yes!) with the standard QTR 
> driver. Since there are no QTR curves available for
> the 1200 and the other curves would 
> not load for me, I am converting the file to
> greyscale and using grey gamma 2.2 in place of 
> a profile. My only compaint so far, and Roy may be
> able help with this, is that I can't use 
> the nozzle check or head cleaning menu in the QTR
> with the 1200. So, I have to go over to 
> OS9 and my old Epson driver to do that.
> 
> You know my results look just like the screen using
> this unsophisticated procedure with 
> Hahnemuhle Photo Rag and Cone Piezzotone Carbon
> Sepia. I can't tell you what would 
> happen with UT inks, but my assumption is that if
> you have someone make a profile for 
> you it would work great. But even before you do that
> you could try my procedure and see 
> what the results are. I plan to have a more
> sophisticated profile made for my inkset and 
> media, but I'm telling you these prints look great
> with excellent d-max already. To me 
> they look as good as the 1280 prints I'm doing with
> the Selenium Tone inkset with the 
> Piezzo ICC profiles.
> 
>  One of the things with the 1200 is that the nozzle
> droplet size is a little larger than the 
> 1280 and more contemporary printers. I have been
> told that this cuts down on clogged 
> nozzles with the heavier carbon inks, and helps that
> kind of issue. We shall see. I got this 
> old priner years ago on ebay and it paid for itself
> the first job I did with it. It is something 
> that I've had a lot of fun with and now I'm going to
> set up a cfs with it. Why not?
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> Douglas Meeuwsen 
> <lipshurt@m...> wrote:
> > hmmmm.....did john dean make a typo here regarding
> the 1200 and QTR? I 
> > cant find any way to use the QTR with the1200. It
> would be great if i 
> > could use the 1200 with QTR. ......anyone?.....DM
> > On Oct 21, 2004, at 7:43 AM, john dean wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >  I also know that when printing out of QTR on my
> 1200 with Piezzotones 
> > > if I choose 2.2
> > >  gamma I get excellent results by just using
> that as my profile, even 
> > > without linearizaton or
> > >  a custom made ICC profile for that media ink
> combinaton. I assume the 
> > > difference is the
> > >  way the driver maps the tonal scale and thus
> where the ink is laid 
> > > down from a particuar
> > >  area of the scale. Right?
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> 
> 
> 
>

> john dean <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> Could someone describe to me what is going on tonally when one
> chooses either 2.2 or
> 1.8 gama setting in a given print driver? I know I should know
> technically what is going on
> here but  sheepishly I admit that I don't.

The gamma simply determines what level of gray is represented by a midscale
value of 127 or 128. For gamma 2.2, it's about a 22% gray, and for gamma
1.8, it's about a 29% gray.

In a color-managed system, the difference will be compensated for, but there
are two good reasons for preferring gamma 2.2. First of all, 22% gray is
closer to what most people think of as "medium" gray, so you're making
better use of the range. Second, Windows web browsers aren't color-managed,
and Windows systems usually have a gamma of 2.2, so 1.8 images will look
wrong on Windows. Mac browsers are color-managed (so I'm told), so they
should properly convert, assuming there's an embedded profile telling them
that the image has a gamma of 2.2.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...