Digital BW, The Print

The initial prints on my 2200 look great or I should say "looked"
great until I laid some out on the bed in front of the window. I had
been looking at them straight on but lying on the bed and seeing them
at an angle I noticed the blacks looked posterized or solarized or
something. It was like you could see the layers as if they were raised
a little higher than the colors or were wet. Very disturbing.

I placed some of my 1280 prints next to them and the 1280 prints
looked fine. Very photographic in appearance.

Prior to this, in order to better match my prints to my monitor I made
a serious adjustment to the brightness on the monitor raising the
brightness from 50% to to 87.4% because my prints have always come out
brighter than they look on the monitor. I would often make a
brightness adjustment to the print before printing and I could get it
closer but still not perfect. This adjustment to the monitor seemed a
better match when the print came out but that is when I noticed this
wetness/solarization. I honestly think the two issues are unrelated as
an earlier 2200 print done prior to the monitor adjustment exhibited a
similar solarization as the print done afterwards.

Any explanation or suggestions about this? Anyone else had this problem?

Tim

Tim Timmermans wrote:

>The initial prints on my 2200 look great or I should say "looked"
>great until I laid some out on the bed in front of the window. I had
>been looking at them straight on but lying on the bed and seeing them
>at an angle I noticed the blacks looked posterized or solarized or
>something. It was like you could see the layers as if they were raised
>a little higher than the colors or were wet. Very disturbing.
>
>I placed some of my 1280 prints next to them and the 1280 prints
>looked fine. Very photographic in appearance.
>
>Prior to this, in order to better match my prints to my monitor I made
>a serious adjustment to the brightness on the monitor raising the
>brightness from 50% to to 87.4% because my prints have always come out
>brighter than they look on the monitor. I would often make a
>brightness adjustment to the print before printing and I could get it
>closer but still not perfect. This adjustment to the monitor seemed a
>better match when the print came out but that is when I noticed this
>wetness/solarization. I honestly think the two issues are unrelated as
>an earlier 2200 print done prior to the monitor adjustment exhibited a
>similar solarization as the print done afterwards.
>
>Any explanation or suggestions about this? Anyone else had this problem?
>
>Tim
>
>  
>
This is called bronzing and it's the price to pay for longlivety. Some 
papers show less bronzing than the others. Ilford shows less, but it's 
still there. The Epson 2000 had far more bronzing than the 2200. Matte 
paper has no bronzing.
-- 

Hans Van Rafelghem
http://www.vanrafelghem.com

> This is called bronzing and it's the price to pay for longlivety. Some 
> papers show less bronzing than the others. Ilford shows less, but it's 
> still there. The Epson 2000 had far more bronzing than the 2200. Matte 
> paper has no bronzing.
> -- 
> 
> Hans Van Rafelghem
> http://www.vanrafelghem.com

Thanks Hans. This was really bad though. I was using Epson Premium
Glossy Photo Paper (a point I forgot to make in my original post)

So there is nothing that can be done? It really does look bad unless
it's straight on. What about switching inksets. Are there any other
glossy papers that show less of this bronzing?

Tim

You might try a different paper setting, which lays down less ink - perhaps
semi-gloss, or even transparency.

Maris

Tim Timmermans wrote:
>> This is called bronzing and it's the price to pay for longlivety.
>> Some papers show less bronzing than the others. Ilford shows less,
>> but it's still there. The Epson 2000 had far more bronzing than the
>> 2200. Matte paper has no bronzing.
>> --
>>
>> Hans Van Rafelghem
>> http://www.vanrafelghem.com
>
> Thanks Hans. This was really bad though. I was using Epson Premium
> Glossy Photo Paper (a point I forgot to make in my original post)
>
> So there is nothing that can be done? It really does look bad unless
> it's straight on. What about switching inksets. Are there any other
> glossy papers that show less of this bronzing?
/

The best you can do is spray them with Premier Print Shield

> From: Tim Timmermans <zenphoto7@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 03:21:10 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] What is this??!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> This is called bronzing and it's the price to pay for longlivety. Some
>> papers show less bronzing than the others. Ilford shows less, but it's
>> still there. The Epson 2000 had far more bronzing than the 2200. Matte
>> paper has no bronzing.
>> -- 
>> 
>> Hans Van Rafelghem
>> http://www.vanrafelghem.com
> 
> Thanks Hans. This was really bad though. I was using Epson Premium
> Glossy Photo Paper (a point I forgot to make in my original post)
> 
> So there is nothing that can be done? It really does look bad unless
> it's straight on. What about switching inksets. Are there any other
> glossy papers that show less of this bronzing?
> 
> Tim
> 
>

Tim,

Epson seem to have more or less cured this problem with their A4 R800 
printer and the HighGloss Ultrachrome inks. An A3+ version of this printer 
is now out in Japan apparently. The prints on Premium Glossy on the R800 are 
far far better than on my 2100, but still don't have quite the 'depth' of 
gloss that the 1280/90 produces with its dye inks. But I think most people 
will be happy with gloss prints with the new Highgloss Utlrachromes (also 
used in Epson's baby - the 6x4 Picturemate).

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Timmermans" <zenphoto7@...>

Thanks Hans. This was really bad though. I was using Epson Premium
Glossy Photo Paper (a point I forgot to make in my original post)

So there is nothing that can be done? It really does look bad unless
it's straight on. What about switching inksets. Are there any other
glossy papers that show less of this bronzing?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tim Timmermans" 
<zenphoto7@a...> wrote:
> 
> The initial prints on my 2200 look great or I should say "looked"
> great until I laid some out on the bed in front of the window. I had
> been looking at them straight on but lying on the bed and seeing 
them
> at an angle I noticed the blacks looked posterized or solarized or
> something. It was like you could see the layers as if they were 
raised
> a little higher than the colors or were wet. Very disturbing.
> 
> I placed some of my 1280 prints next to them and the 1280 prints
> looked fine. Very photographic in appearance.
> 
> Prior to this, in order to better match my prints to my monitor I 
made
> a serious adjustment to the brightness on the monitor raising the
> brightness from 50% to to 87.4% because my prints have always come 
out
> brighter than they look on the monitor. I would often make a
> brightness adjustment to the print before printing and I could get 
it
> closer but still not perfect. This adjustment to the monitor seemed 
a
> better match when the print came out but that is when I noticed this
> wetness/solarization. I honestly think the two issues are unrelated 
as
> an earlier 2200 print done prior to the monitor adjustment 
exhibited a
> similar solarization as the print done afterwards.
> 
> Any explanation or suggestions about this? Anyone else had this 
problem?
> 
> Tim

Hi Tim

If you like glossy prints you could try Ilford Galerie Smooth Gloss 
which I think shows very little bronzing. Do not use the Classic 
version of this paper because its for dye ink printers and could make 
a mess of your printer. Alternatively you could try Epson Premium 
Semigloss which I think produces a better colour print with no 
bronzing.

Peter.

Hass is a little off, I think. It's not the price to pay for longlivety 
(sic), it's the price we pay for pigment inks. The pigments, which are 
dull, sit on the surface of the paper. Where the pigments completely 
cover the paper, that area of the print looks dull. Where the paper 
showes though, you can see some of the paper's gloss. Pigment inks work 
best on matte papers, where the dull pigment is a better match to the 
paper surface.

You can do a couple of things to improve. You can keep your inks but 
move to less glossy surfaces. Or, you can switch to dye based inks. Or, 
you can laminate your prints, either with a protective spray (lacquer, 
for example), or hot/cold sheet lamination. There are probably other 
solutions to this particular problem. Clearly, YMMV.
--
Hogarth Hughes


Tim Timmermans wrote:

>
>  
>
>>This is called bronzing and it's the price to pay for longlivety. Some 
>>papers show less bronzing than the others. Ilford shows less, but it's 
>>still there. The Epson 2000 had far more bronzing than the 2200. Matte 
>>paper has no bronzing.
>>-- 
>>
>>Hans Van Rafelghem
>>http://www.vanrafelghem.com
>>    
>>
>
>Thanks Hans. This was really bad though. I was using Epson Premium
>Glossy Photo Paper (a point I forgot to make in my original post)
>
>So there is nothing that can be done? It really does look bad unless
>it's straight on. What about switching inksets. Are there any other
>glossy papers that show less of this bronzing?
>
>Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

Hogarth Hughes wrote:

>Hass is a little off, I think. It's not the price to pay for longlivety 
>(sic), it's the price we pay for pigment inks. The pigments, which are 
>dull, sit on the surface of the paper. Where the pigments completely 
>cover the paper, that area of the print looks dull. Where the paper 
>showes though, you can see some of the paper's gloss. Pigment inks work 
>best on matte papers, where the dull pigment is a better match to the 
>paper surface.
>
>You can do a couple of things to improve. You can keep your inks but 
>move to less glossy surfaces. Or, you can switch to dye based inks. Or, 
>you can laminate your prints, either with a protective spray (lacquer, 
>for example), or hot/cold sheet lamination. There are probably other 
>solutions to this particular problem. Clearly, YMMV.
>--
>Hogarth Hughes
>
>  
>
Yes, but only pigment inks garantee longelivety. Dye based inks do not :)

Anyway, I am most satisfied with the results on Ilford Smooth Pearl paper.
I agree that on glossy paper a 1270 print is much nicer than a 2100 
print, but not on semi-gloss or pearl paper.
I also still have a 1270 (and had a 1290), which uses dye inks, but 
still prefer the results of the 2100. All the 1270/1290 prints hanging 
framed on the wall are starting to fade.
-- 

Hans Van Rafelghem
http://www.vanrafelghem.com

Yes but we now have phones that use predictive text messaging and we can all
get back to using the English language.

> From: Hogarth Hughes <hogarth@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:43:15 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] What is this??!!
> 
> 
> It's IM shorthand. You've seen kids sending Instant Messages back and
> forth on little handheld devices, yes? So small you type with your
> thumbs? Typing that way is difficult, so they tend to abbreviate most
> commonly used phrases.
> 
> YMMV = your mileage may vary
> AFAIK = as far as I know
> OTOH = on the other hand
> IMHO = in my humble opinion
> BTW = by the way
> 
> There's bunches more. Puzzle them out like personalized license plates
> at a stop sign.
> --
> Hogarth Hughes
> 
>

Hans Van Rafelghem wrote:

>Yes, but only pigment inks garantee longelivety. Dye based inks do not :)
>
>  
>
It depends on how you define "longelivety" or longevity or archivalness 
or lightfastness or whatever term you want to use. Some dye based inks 
are better than others. I've got a dye based print from an IRIS machine 
that's seen way more directly sunlight than it should have, that shows 
no sign of fading, but I've only had it for about eight years now.

The Lyson dye inks appear to be respectable in lightfastness performance 
too. And the numbers for the new dye inks from Futures seem to be quite 
encouraging indeed, may they publish and ship soon.

>Anyway, I am most satisfied with the results on Ilford Smooth Pearl paper.
>I agree that on glossy paper a 1270 print is much nicer than a 2100 
>print, but not on semi-gloss or pearl paper.
>I also still have a 1270 (and had a 1290), which uses dye inks, but 
>still prefer the results of the 2100. All the 1270/1290 prints hanging 
>framed on the wall are starting to fade.
>  
>

Absolutely. Epson's dye inks for the 1270 were/are a disaster. IMHO, it 
was these inks, and these inks alone, that caused the industry wide 
stampede to pigment inks. But not all dye inks are Epson 1270 dye inks, 
thank goodness.

The only advantage to pigment inks is longevity. They lose to dye inks 
on just about every other score:

    * Pigment inks clog more, and the clogs tend to be harder to remove
    * Pigment inks settle, in the carts and in the lines, if the printer 
isn't used on a regular basis.
    * Pigments stay on the surface of the paper, resulting in:
          - Fragile surface, easy to scratch or scuff
          - Poor performance in books - pigments tend to rub off and 
transfer to adjacent pages
          - Best performance on matte surfaces
                   * Low Dmax (glossy surfaces give better Dmax)
                   * Somewhat less ability to carry fine detail (matte 
surface not as smooth as glossy)
                   * Restricted choice of surfaces for the photographer
          - Poor performance on glossy surfaces
                   * Bronzing or gloss differential
                   * Needs various kinds of laminates (sprays, hot/cold 
film)
    * Pigment ink chemistry needs anti-clogging agents such as glycols 
and glycerins which are very slow to evaporate
          - Dry down takes a long time, especially on RC papers
                   * outgassing in framed works fogs glazing
                   * Change in gamut and Dmax as ink dries

That said, I use Cone's PiezoTone pigment inks, because pigment inks are 
the best game in town. Today. But as soon as an acceptable grayscale dye 
ink makes it to market, I'll certainly try it, and switch if I can. I'll 
trade a few years of archivalness for all the other advantages of dye 
inks. In a heartbeat.

But that's just me. Clearly, YMMV.

Richard Smallfield wrote:

>At 05:06 AM Monday 11/1/04, you wrote:
>  
>
>>But that's just me. Clearly, YMMV.
>>    
>>
>
>Sorry to be slow, but what does YMMV mean? It may be crucial to the whole email, after all!!:)
>
>yours unintelligently,
>Richard
>  
>
Your Mileage May Vary

-- 

Hans Van Rafelghem
http://www.vanrafelghem.com

At 05:06 AM Monday 11/1/04, you wrote:
>But that's just me. Clearly, YMMV.

Sorry to be slow, but what does YMMV mean? It may be crucial to the whole email, after all!!:)

yours unintelligently,
Richard

--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com

   "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; 
   an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. " 
   --Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

It's IM shorthand. You've seen kids sending Instant Messages back and 
forth on little handheld devices, yes? So small you type with your 
thumbs? Typing that way is difficult, so they tend to abbreviate most 
commonly used phrases.

YMMV = your mileage may vary
AFAIK = as far as I know
OTOH = on the other hand
IMHO = in my humble opinion
BTW = by the way

There's bunches more. Puzzle them out like personalized license plates 
at a stop sign.
--
Hogarth Hughes


Richard Smallfield wrote:

>At 05:06 AM Monday 11/1/04, you wrote:
>  
>
>>But that's just me. Clearly, YMMV.
>>    
>>
>
>Sorry to be slow, but what does YMMV mean? It may be crucial to the whole email, after all!!:)
>
>yours unintelligently,
>Richard
>
>--
>http://smallfield.vze.com
>http://photos.smallfield.vze.com
>
>   "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; 
>   an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. " 
>   --Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) 
>
>
>
>
>  
>

> The initial prints on my 2200 look great or I should say "looked"
> great until I laid some out on the bed in front of the window. I had
> been looking at them straight on but lying on the bed and seeing 
> them
> at an angle I noticed the blacks looked posterized or solarized or
> something. It was like you could see the layers as if they were 
> raised a little higher than the colors or were wet. Very disturbing.

This is called bronzing and it's a well-known problem with the 
2200.    Basically the 2200 can't do glossy printing half as well as 
the average printer costing 1/5th as much, to save its expensive 
little life.

It's only marginally better on semigloss.   Basically the 2200 should 
be thought of as a matte-paper printer, only.

There's a lot of things I like about the 2200 - e.g., its flat feed 
system so I can print on all kinds of wacko materials.   But what 
really pisses me off about it is that the things I DON'T like are all 
things we had to find out AFTER we bought it.   Epson actually 
PROMOTED it as a black-and-white printer, out-of-the-box, and by 
offering glossy paper for it and having a "photo-black" (in addition 
to a matte-black) ink they certainly created the impression that it 
could be used for glossy printing.  

Deliberately misleading and deceptive tactics like that really show 
what a dishonest company Epson is.   I really wish some company would 
offer us an alternative.

Bronzing is the current trade-off for the longevity gains of pigment inks.
I am sure it is being worked on and results from the R800 leading to the new
A3+ version suggest that significant progress has been made.  As for the
competition, there is plenty out there but none that is as good as Epson....

> From: Peter Nelson <pnweb@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:04:43 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: What is this??!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> The initial prints on my 2200 look great or I should say "looked"
>> great until I laid some out on the bed in front of the window. I had
>> been looking at them straight on but lying on the bed and seeing
>> them
>> at an angle I noticed the blacks looked posterized or solarized or
>> something. It was like you could see the layers as if they were
>> raised a little higher than the colors or were wet. Very disturbing.
> 
> This is called bronzing and it's a well-known problem with the
> 2200.    Basically the 2200 can't do glossy printing half as well as
> the average printer costing 1/5th as much, to save its expensive
> little life.
> 
> It's only marginally better on semigloss.   Basically the 2200 should
> be thought of as a matte-paper printer, only.
> 
> There's a lot of things I like about the 2200 - e.g., its flat feed
> system so I can print on all kinds of wacko materials.   But what
> really pisses me off about it is that the things I DON'T like are all
> things we had to find out AFTER we bought it.   Epson actually
> PROMOTED it as a black-and-white printer, out-of-the-box, and by
> offering glossy paper for it and having a "photo-black" (in addition
> to a matte-black) ink they certainly created the impression that it
> could be used for glossy printing.
> 
> Deliberately misleading and deceptive tactics like that really show
> what a dishonest company Epson is.   I really wish some company would
> offer us an alternative.
>