Digital BW, The Print

I have been trying an Epson 1280 and QTR (latest=f), using Epson and 
MIS UT2/Eboni inks on matte paper.  So far, like a few others, i am 
bothered by the dither pattern in high values.  In the QTR 
instructions i have seen, there is said to be 'not much difference' 
in the dither patterns - i suspect this means they are part of Gimp, 
and not necessarily a native part of QTR.  Nevertheless, I'd like to 
know which if any patterns are least visible in high key images or 
high print values.  I don't care about printing speed.

last night i did some comparisons of Epson single black and QTR 
single black with Ordered and Even Tone dither patterns, and the QTR 
dither patterns were far more obtrusive, using Epson HWM, 'no' 
profile, 1480, 'better' (=unidirectional).  For me, so far, QTR is 
unusable (coarse, unpredictable contrast) for Epson ink single black, 
on high key images or images with important subtle high values. 

The Epson driver single black output looks pretty grotty on gray 
scale patch curves, but achieves usable, and more important, 
reasonably WYSWYG, normal image results with my profiled monitor.

I am hoping the new UT2 carts will be more successful in 'real' 
quadtone (actually tritone, is it not?) printing.

Next question -- i downloaded Roy's gray-lab file, and have used it 
as a visual working space in PS, and have used the gray-mat space as 
soft proof.  I can see the difference on visual display.  The 
comments Roy made here seemed to indicate that you can print from PS 
to QTR, which I am unable to do on my system (WXP).  Did i 
misinterpret?  I saw the earlier comments that I don't need 
the 'printer space' profile for QTR printing, which makes sense.

I am awaiting a replacement set of MIS UT2 inks which they are 
sending me due to previous problems I commented on last week.  They 
are sending at least one other listmember replacement inks as well, 
and they recognize some problems in QC with the carts, which they are 
attempting to deal with. 

For at least some of us without reflection densitometers, rigorous 
calibration of QTR seems to be difficult and tedious. I think it is 
ironic that i might have to spend another $250 for IJC/OPM plus/or 
however much for a densitometer, after managing to achieve very good 
color calibration with PhotoCal for a lot less money.  I have a 
transmission densitometer from my Zone/Film days, and was hoping to 
avoid more hardware purchases ;-)

IJC/OPM users:  the website claims 'invisible' dither.  Is this 
really true?  I know piezography claimed it at one point as well, and 
so does ImagePrint.  I don't think ImagePrint delivers, although it 
is better than Epson single black, of course, and a bit better than 
Epson RGB color. I can print low key images with excellent results 
using Epson single black, and i assume/hope eventually with UT2 in 
PS.  What i can't achieve in digital printing on a 1280 so far is 
really smooth high values without visible dither.

I hope others have been more successful and might offer advice.

thanks

ted

Ted,

Look here:

http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/colorswabs.html

You will see that the lightest inks in the UT2 set are in the light 
magenta and light cyan positions.  Now compare the density of the 
lightest ink in the FS ink set.  The FS is significantly lighter.  In 
other words, the highlights in UT2 prints will always be more dotty 
than of FS prints (using the same printer).  So again, this is not a 
QTR, or RIP, or Paul's curve issue.  It is the ink design.  The one 
way around it is using smaller droplets or try 2880 printing (slow on 
1280).  My 1280 using Epson driver and FS inks is definitely less 
dotty (almost non-existant) than my 2200 using Epson inks and QTR.  
Life is full of compromises.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tgos3" 
<egosfield@c...> wrote:
> 
> I have been trying an Epson 1280 and QTR (latest=f), using Epson 
and 
> MIS UT2/Eboni inks on matte paper.  So far, like a few others, i am 
> bothered by the dither pattern in high values.  In the QTR 
> instructions i have seen, there is said to be 'not much difference' 
> in the dither patterns - i suspect this means they are part of 
Gimp, 
> and not necessarily a native part of QTR.  Nevertheless, I'd like 
to 
> know which if any patterns are least visible in high key images or 
> high print values.  I don't care about printing speed.
> 
> last night i did some comparisons of Epson single black and QTR 
> single black with Ordered and Even Tone dither patterns, and the 
QTR 
> dither patterns were far more obtrusive, using Epson HWM, 'no' 
> profile, 1480, 'better' (=unidirectional).  For me, so far, QTR is 
> unusable (coarse, unpredictable contrast) for Epson ink single 
black, 
> on high key images or images with important subtle high values. 
> 
> The Epson driver single black output looks pretty grotty on gray 
> scale patch curves, but achieves usable, and more important, 
> reasonably WYSWYG, normal image results with my profiled monitor.
> 
> I am hoping the new UT2 carts will be more successful in 'real' 
> quadtone (actually tritone, is it not?) printing.
> 
> Next question -- i downloaded Roy's gray-lab file, and have used it 
> as a visual working space in PS, and have used the gray-mat space 
as 
> soft proof.  I can see the difference on visual display.  The 
> comments Roy made here seemed to indicate that you can print from 
PS 
> to QTR, which I am unable to do on my system (WXP).  Did i 
> misinterpret?  I saw the earlier comments that I don't need 
> the 'printer space' profile for QTR printing, which makes sense.
> 
> I am awaiting a replacement set of MIS UT2 inks which they are 
> sending me due to previous problems I commented on last week.  They 
> are sending at least one other listmember replacement inks as well, 
> and they recognize some problems in QC with the carts, which they 
are 
> attempting to deal with. 
> 
> For at least some of us without reflection densitometers, rigorous 
> calibration of QTR seems to be difficult and tedious. I think it is 
> ironic that i might have to spend another $250 for IJC/OPM plus/or 
> however much for a densitometer, after managing to achieve very 
good 
> color calibration with PhotoCal for a lot less money.  I have a 
> transmission densitometer from my Zone/Film days, and was hoping to 
> avoid more hardware purchases ;-)
> 
> IJC/OPM users:  the website claims 'invisible' dither.  Is this 
> really true?  I know piezography claimed it at one point as well, 
and 

> so does ImagePrint.  I don't think ImagePrint delivers, although it 
> is better than Epson single black, of course, and a bit better than 
> Epson RGB color. I can print low key images with excellent results 
> using Epson single black, and i assume/hope eventually with UT2 in 
> PS.  What i can't achieve in digital printing on a 1280 so far is 
> really smooth high values without visible dither.
> 
> I hope others have been more successful and might offer advice.
> 
> thanks
> 
> ted

<shilesh.jani@s...> wrote:
> Ted,
> Look here: 
> http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/colorswabs.html

already had done, and agree with what you say, thanks.

> other words, the highlights in UT2 prints will always be more dotty 
> than of FS prints (using the same printer). [...] It is the ink 
design.  The one 
> way around it is using smaller droplets or try 2880 printing (slow 
on 
> 1280). 

I may try 2880 printing -- when i have done it using Epson single 
black, highlight densities increased, so the dither looked more 
annoying.  On some images I could readjust the curves, but it didn't 
seem to be a real improvement on HWM which is what i have been using 
on my 1280 (until UT2).

> My 1280 using Epson driver and FS inks is definitely less 
> dotty (almost non-existant) than my 2200 using Epson inks and QTR.  
> Life is full of compromises.

I may end up trying FS inks.  I don't require multiple print tone 
choices, just a good neutral comparable to Ilfobrome (slightly warm) 
or Oriental Seagull (slightly cool.  Before Epson changed their inks 
on the 1280, i was happy with some of their Quadtone curves too, but 
since they changed ink vendors I have never been able to get the 
Epson quadtones dialed in so they match the profiled monitor 
appearance.

I am trying to see why I should use QTR at all -- if Paul's PS curves 
work, why use QTR?  For people without PS, or who need to print from 
other imaging apps, QTR is a great bargain and a nice app, but if you 
can print from PS, why not do it?

i suppose using a RIP instead of a driver is faster, but i am not 
doing high volume work.  Basically, all i care about is the 
appearance of the print.

ted

For the 2200, does anyone know which curves (or combinations of curves) use
only k and Lk inks and which add in some Lm (or I suppose Lc - but I'm
really only looking at warmer pritns/curves) Or do they all add some of the
latter in?

thanks

tim a

Cool profiles use K, LK, and LC and LM to cool the LK. (LK, LC and LM have
identical curves.)  Warm use just K and LK.  Sepia has K, LK, LM, LC and Y.

> From: Tim Atherton <timatherton@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:47:03 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] QTR curves using only K and LK?
> 
> 
> For the 2200, does anyone know which curves (or combinations of curves) use
> only k and Lk inks and which add in some Lm (or I suppose Lc - but I'm
> really only looking at warmer pritns/curves) Or do they all add some of the
> latter in?
> 
> thanks
> 
> tim a
>

I think that they all use LC and LM since the LK ink is quite warm and needs
to be neutralized.
 
 
-Stephen
 www.sbillard.org/Stephen

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Atherton [mailto:timatherton@...] 
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 1:47 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] QTR curves using only K and LK?


For the 2200, does anyone know which curves (or combinations of curves) use
only k and Lk inks and which add in some Lm (or I suppose Lc - but I'm
really only looking at warmer pritns/curves) Or do they all add some of the
latter in?

thanks

tim a





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

Some of the warm curves for QTR use only Black and Light black inks.  
Perhaps some use LC and LM, but clearly not all do.  Open the 
profiles with a text editor and you can see this.

Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen 
Billard" <stephenb@S...> wrote:
> I think that they all use LC and LM since the LK ink is quite warm 
and needs
> to be neutralized.
>  
>  
> -Stephen
>  www.sbillard.org/Stephen
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Atherton [mailto:timatherton@t...] 
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 1:47 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] QTR curves using only K and LK?
> 
> 
> For the 2200, does anyone know which curves (or combinations of 
curves) use
> only k and Lk inks and which add in some Lm (or I suppose Lc - but 
I'm
> really only looking at warmer pritns/curves) Or do they all add 
some of the

> latter in?
> 
> thanks
> 
> tim a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You are correct. It appears that all the curves ending in "warm" use black
and light black.
 
The next release of QTRgui, which supports curve generation will also allow
you to right click on the curve name and show the ink graph. Then you can
see for yourself what inks are used.
 
-Stephen
 www.sbillard.org/Stephen

-----Original Message-----
From: ldina [mailto:lbdina@...] 
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 3:12 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] QTR curves using only K and LK?



Some of the warm curves for QTR use only Black and Light black inks.  
Perhaps some use LC and LM, but clearly not all do.  Open the 
profiles with a text editor and you can see this.

Lou





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

Ted,

I will try to answer each of your questions - if I can:  First, it is 
very important to know that your viewing environment (i.e., grayscale 
workspace) is critical.  I am no expert on this, and I find that 20% 
dot gain works for me.

(1).  FS inks.  Currently MIS has 2 versions of FS inks (i) the 
original FS inks in both regular (warm) and neutral hues, and (ii) UT-
FS inks also in the regular (warm) and neutral hues.  I have the most 
experiece with the original FS inks.  About 2 years ago, Paul Roark 
and I realized about the same time (see archives) that these inks 
(which mimic the density of Pieezo inks) can be used in the 1280 
printer WITHOUT using the Piezo driver, provided the inks are 
installed in a particular order.  The order is cyan=dark, 
magenta=dark, light cyan=medium, light magenta=medium, and 
yellow=light.  To make a long story short, this tonal arrangment 
yields excellent results on EEM paper, printing straight from PS, 
using the Epson driver.  You don't need the Piezo driver.  Anyway, 
this idea did not catch-on (no idea why).  But then Piezo changed 
from the plug-in version to the Epson driver based ICC version, and 
changed their ink arrangment to approximately (but not excatly) the 
same.  The Piezo ICC system last I checked has both yellow, and light 
magenta with light inks.  This has a minor difference in print 
quality.  With UT-FS inks, now MIS has started filling their carts in 
the position Paul and I came up with those many months ago.

So, if toning is not necessary for you, it would be worth going with 
the FS inks for the slightly warm opition.  I tried UT-FS neutral 
inks some time back, but it was not to my taste because I beileve my 
perception is extremely sensitive to magenta.  Yours may be 
different.  This option, either in carts or a CIS on your 1280 will 
give you about the smoothest prints available today - definitely less 
dots than 2200 Epson inks + QTR.  But, you would need to create 
grayscale curves for different papers.  I have done that, and it is 
easy.

(2) Indeed, you do not need QTR with this approach.  But, QTR is 
capable of allowing this ink tone arrangment, and make for easier 
curves creation.  Maybe this weekend I will compare the gradients on 
my 1280 and see how smoothness compares between the Epson driver and 
QTR on the 1280.  And using a RIP is NOT necessarily faster.  For 
instance the old Piezo plug-in on my 1280 was slower than the Epson 
driver, and QTR on my 2200 is slower than the Epson driver.  I have 
no idea why.  One observation:  if you already have a 2200, and QTR, 
I don't see why you need to try using the slow 1280, other than it is 
fun (frustrating) or you want the absolute lack of dots in the 
highlights.  I get gorgeous warm prints on 2200+QTR, and cool prints 
too.

Hope this helps.

Shilesh


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tgos3" 
<egosfield@c...> wrote:
> 
> <shilesh.jani@s...> wrote:
> > Ted,
> > Look here: 
> > http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/colorswabs.html
> 
> already had done, and agree with what you say, thanks.
> 
> > other words, the highlights in UT2 prints will always be more 
dotty 
> > than of FS prints (using the same printer). [...] It is the ink 
> design.  The one 
> > way around it is using smaller droplets or try 2880 printing 
(slow 
> on 
> > 1280). 
> 
> I may try 2880 printing -- when i have done it using Epson single 
> black, highlight densities increased, so the dither looked more 
> annoying.  On some images I could readjust the curves, but it 
didn't 
> seem to be a real improvement on HWM which is what i have been 
using 
> on my 1280 (until UT2).
> 
> > My 1280 using Epson driver and FS inks is definitely less 
> > dotty (almost non-existant) than my 2200 using Epson inks and 
QTR.  
> > Life is full of compromises.
> 
> I may end up trying FS inks.  I don't require multiple print tone 
> choices, just a good neutral comparable to Ilfobrome (slightly 
warm) 
> or Oriental Seagull (slightly cool.  Before Epson changed their 
inks 
> on the 1280, i was happy with some of their Quadtone curves too, 
but 
> since they changed ink vendors I have never been able to get the 
> Epson quadtones dialed in so they match the profiled monitor 
> appearance.
> 
> I am trying to see why I should use QTR at all -- if Paul's PS 
curves 
> work, why use QTR?  For people without PS, or who need to print 
from 
> other imaging apps, QTR is a great bargain and a nice app, but if 
you 

> can print from PS, why not do it?
> 
> i suppose using a RIP instead of a driver is faster, but i am not 
> doing high volume work.  Basically, all i care about is the 
> appearance of the print.
> 
> ted

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tgos3" <egosfield@c...> 
wrote:
> 
> <shilesh.jani@s...> wrote:
> > Ted,
> > Look here: 
> > http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/colorswabs.html
> 
> already had done, and agree with what you say, thanks.
> 
> > other words, the highlights in UT2 prints will always be more dotty 
> > than of FS prints (using the same printer). [...] It is the ink 
> design.  The one 
> > way around it is using smaller droplets or try 2880 printing (slow 
> on 
> > 1280). 
> 
> I may try 2880 printing -- when i have done it using Epson single 
> black, highlight densities increased, so the dither looked more 
> annoying.  On some images I could readjust the curves, but it didn't 
> seem to be a real improvement on HWM which is what i have been using 
> on my 1280 (until UT2).

As Shilesh has said it all boils down to the density of the inks and the size
of the drops.  All the current printers we're talking about 1160,1270,1280,
2200, 7600 have approximately the same smallest dot size about 4 picoliters.
4000 is slighly smaller at 3.5 pl.  In all these cases this smallest dot size is
used at 1440dpi so there is no benefit to 2880 as far as seeing dots in the
highlights.

The FS and FSN inks and the Piezotone inks are the only ones with a significantly
lighter ink.   So if you want the most dot-less highlights you have to use
something like this.  I did a dot comparison a while ago, see :

http://harrington.com/dotscans/dotsdots.html

Roy

> 
> > My 1280 using Epson driver and FS inks is definitely less 
> > dotty (almost non-existant) than my 2200 using Epson inks and QTR.  
> > Life is full of compromises.
> 
> I may end up trying FS inks.  I don't require multiple print tone 
> choices, just a good neutral comparable to Ilfobrome (slightly warm) 
> or Oriental Seagull (slightly cool.  Before Epson changed their inks 
> on the 1280, i was happy with some of their Quadtone curves too, but 
> since they changed ink vendors I have never been able to get the 
> Epson quadtones dialed in so they match the profiled monitor 
> appearance.
> 
> I am trying to see why I should use QTR at all -- if Paul's PS curves 
> work, why use QTR?  For people without PS, or who need to print from 
> other imaging apps, QTR is a great bargain and a nice app, but if you 
> can print from PS, why not do it?
> 
> i suppose using a RIP instead of a driver is faster, but i am not 
> doing high volume work.  Basically, all i care about is the 
> appearance of the print.
> 
> ted

I say this in jest, well partially in jest:

If you could make infintesimly small dots and can place the at 
infinitesimly small distances, you could make perfectly dotless 
prints with only the back ink.  And the prints would be perfectly 
smooth if you have a good profile.

Till then.............

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" 
<roy@h...> wrote:
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tgos3" 
<egosfield@c...> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > <shilesh.jani@s...> wrote:
> > > Ted,
> > > Look here: 
> > > http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/colorswabs.html
> > 
> > already had done, and agree with what you say, thanks.
> > 
> > > other words, the highlights in UT2 prints will always be more 
dotty 
> > > than of FS prints (using the same printer). [...] It is the ink 
> > design.  The one 
> > > way around it is using smaller droplets or try 2880 printing 
(slow 
> > on 
> > > 1280). 
> > 
> > I may try 2880 printing -- when i have done it using Epson single 
> > black, highlight densities increased, so the dither looked more 
> > annoying.  On some images I could readjust the curves, but it 
didn't 
> > seem to be a real improvement on HWM which is what i have been 
using 
> > on my 1280 (until UT2).
> 
> As Shilesh has said it all boils down to the density of the inks 
and the size
> of the drops.  All the current printers we're talking about 
1160,1270,1280,
> 2200, 7600 have approximately the same smallest dot size about 4 
picoliters.
> 4000 is slighly smaller at 3.5 pl.  In all these cases this 
smallest dot size is
> used at 1440dpi so there is no benefit to 2880 as far as seeing 
dots in the
> highlights.
> 
> The FS and FSN inks and the Piezotone inks are the only ones with a 
significantly
> lighter ink.   So if you want the most dot-less highlights you have 
to use
> something like this.  I did a dot comparison a while ago, see :
> 
> http://harrington.com/dotscans/dotsdots.html
> 
> Roy
> 
> > 
> > > My 1280 using Epson driver and FS inks is definitely less 
> > > dotty (almost non-existant) than my 2200 using Epson inks and 
QTR.  
> > > Life is full of compromises.
> > 
> > I may end up trying FS inks.  I don't require multiple print tone 
> > choices, just a good neutral comparable to Ilfobrome (slightly 
warm) 
> > or Oriental Seagull (slightly cool.  Before Epson changed their 
inks 
> > on the 1280, i was happy with some of their Quadtone curves too, 
but 
> > since they changed ink vendors I have never been able to get the 
> > Epson quadtones dialed in so they match the profiled monitor 
> > appearance.
> > 
> > I am trying to see why I should use QTR at all -- if Paul's PS 
curves 
> > work, why use QTR?  For people without PS, or who need to print 
from 
> > other imaging apps, QTR is a great bargain and a nice app, but if 
you 

> > can print from PS, why not do it?
> > 
> > i suppose using a RIP instead of a driver is faster, but i am not 
> > doing high volume work.  Basically, all i care about is the 
> > appearance of the print.
> > 
> > ted

Two inks with the 3.5 to 4 pl printers produce acceptable (at least to 
me) grayscale prints.  So how close does one black in the R800 at 1.5 
pl bring us to the ideal?  I'd like to see a print made with the R800 
and one black ink added to Roy's dots gallery.

Carl

On Jan 28, 2005, at 8:30 PM, Shilesh Jani wrote:

>
>
> I say this in jest, well partially in jest:
>
> If you could make infintesimly small dots and can place the at
> infinitesimly small distances, you could make perfectly dotless
> prints with only the back ink.  And the prints would be perfectly
> smooth if you have a good profile.
>
> Till then.............
>
> Shilesh
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
> <roy@h...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tgos3"
> <egosfield@c...>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <shilesh.jani@s...> wrote:
>>>> Ted,
>>>> Look here:
>>>> http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/colorswabs.html
>>>
>>> already had done, and agree with what you say, thanks.
>>>
>>>> other words, the highlights in UT2 prints will always be more
> dotty
>>>> than of FS prints (using the same printer). [...] It is the ink
>>> design.  The one
>>>> way around it is using smaller droplets or try 2880 printing
> (slow
>>> on
>>>> 1280).
>>>
>>> I may try 2880 printing -- when i have done it using Epson single
>>> black, highlight densities increased, so the dither looked more
>>> annoying.  On some images I could readjust the curves, but it
> didn't
>>> seem to be a real improvement on HWM which is what i have been
> using
>>> on my 1280 (until UT2).
>>
>> As Shilesh has said it all boils down to the density of the inks
> and the size
>> of the drops.  All the current printers we're talking about
> 1160,1270,1280,
>> 2200, 7600 have approximately the same smallest dot size about 4
> picoliters.
>> 4000 is slighly smaller at 3.5 pl.  In all these cases this
> smallest dot size is
>> used at 1440dpi so there is no benefit to 2880 as far as seeing
> dots in the
>> highlights.
>>
>> The FS and FSN inks and the Piezotone inks are the only ones with a
> significantly
>> lighter ink.   So if you want the most dot-less highlights you have
> to use
>> something like this.  I did a dot comparison a while ago, see :
>>
>> http://harrington.com/dotscans/dotsdots.html
>>
>> Roy
>>
>>>
>>>> My 1280 using Epson driver and FS inks is definitely less
>>>> dotty (almost non-existant) than my 2200 using Epson inks and
> QTR.
>>>> Life is full of compromises.
>>>
>>> I may end up trying FS inks.  I don't require multiple print tone
>>> choices, just a good neutral comparable to Ilfobrome (slightly
> warm)
>>> or Oriental Seagull (slightly cool.  Before Epson changed their
> inks
>>> on the 1280, i was happy with some of their Quadtone curves too,
> but
>>> since they changed ink vendors I have never been able to get the
>>> Epson quadtones dialed in so they match the profiled monitor
>>> appearance.
>>>
>>> I am trying to see why I should use QTR at all -- if Paul's PS
> curves
>>> work, why use QTR?  For people without PS, or who need to print
> from
>>> other imaging apps, QTR is a great bargain and a nice app, but if
> you
>>> can print from PS, why not do it?
>>>
>>> i suppose using a RIP instead of a driver is faster, but i am not
>>> doing high volume work.  Basically, all i care about is the
>>> appearance of the print.
>>>
>>> ted

Carl,

Someone sent in a print in Tom O'Connels's last exchange made BO 
using an Epson 4000 on some RC paper.  I must say it blew me away, it 
was warm, no doubt, but boy was it smooth/dotless.  I have seen it 
written someplace (Clayton?) that the 4000 makes better BO prints 
than 2200.

Well, since I received my 4000 earlier today, and is now set up, I 
had better go test it our rather than putzing around on this forum.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
<scho@m...> wrote:
> Two inks with the 3.5 to 4 pl printers produce acceptable (at least 
to 
> me) grayscale prints.  So how close does one black in the R800 at 
1.5 
> pl bring us to the ideal?  I'd like to see a print made with the 
R800 
> and one black ink added to Roy's dots gallery.
> 
> Carl
> 
> On Jan 28, 2005, at 8:30 PM, Shilesh Jani wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > I say this in jest, well partially in jest:
> >
> > If you could make infintesimly small dots and can place the at
> > infinitesimly small distances, you could make perfectly dotless
> > prints with only the back ink.  And the prints would be perfectly
> > smooth if you have a good profile.
> >
> > Till then.............
> >
> > Shilesh
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy 
Harrington"
> > <roy@h...> wrote:
> >>
> >> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tgos3"
> > <egosfield@c...>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <shilesh.jani@s...> wrote:
> >>>> Ted,
> >>>> Look here:
> >>>> http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/colorswabs.html
> >>>
> >>> already had done, and agree with what you say, thanks.
> >>>
> >>>> other words, the highlights in UT2 prints will always be more
> > dotty
> >>>> than of FS prints (using the same printer). [...] It is the ink
> >>> design.  The one
> >>>> way around it is using smaller droplets or try 2880 printing
> > (slow
> >>> on
> >>>> 1280).
> >>>
> >>> I may try 2880 printing -- when i have done it using Epson 
single
> >>> black, highlight densities increased, so the dither looked more
> >>> annoying.  On some images I could readjust the curves, but it
> > didn't
> >>> seem to be a real improvement on HWM which is what i have been
> > using
> >>> on my 1280 (until UT2).
> >>
> >> As Shilesh has said it all boils down to the density of the inks
> > and the size
> >> of the drops.  All the current printers we're talking about
> > 1160,1270,1280,
> >> 2200, 7600 have approximately the same smallest dot size about 4
> > picoliters.
> >> 4000 is slighly smaller at 3.5 pl.  In all these cases this
> > smallest dot size is
> >> used at 1440dpi so there is no benefit to 2880 as far as seeing
> > dots in the
> >> highlights.
> >>
> >> The FS and FSN inks and the Piezotone inks are the only ones 
with a
> > significantly
> >> lighter ink.   So if you want the most dot-less highlights you 
have
> > to use
> >> something like this.  I did a dot comparison a while ago, see :
> >>
> >> http://harrington.com/dotscans/dotsdots.html
> >>
> >> Roy
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> My 1280 using Epson driver and FS inks is definitely less
> >>>> dotty (almost non-existant) than my 2200 using Epson inks and
> > QTR.
> >>>> Life is full of compromises.
> >>>
> >>> I may end up trying FS inks.  I don't require multiple print 
tone
> >>> choices, just a good neutral comparable to Ilfobrome (slightly
> > warm)
> >>> or Oriental Seagull (slightly cool.  Before Epson changed their
> > inks
> >>> on the 1280, i was happy with some of their Quadtone curves too,
> > but
> >>> since they changed ink vendors I have never been able to get the
> >>> Epson quadtones dialed in so they match the profiled monitor
> >>> appearance.
> >>>
> >>> I am trying to see why I should use QTR at all -- if Paul's PS
> > curves
> >>> work, why use QTR?  For people without PS, or who need to print
> > from
> >>> other imaging apps, QTR is a great bargain and a nice app, but 
if
> > you
> >>> can print from PS, why not do it?
> >>>
> >>> i suppose using a RIP instead of a driver is faster, but i am 
not

> >>> doing high volume work.  Basically, all i care about is the
> >>> appearance of the print.
> >>>
> >>> ted

Shilesh, I really appreciate your taking the time to provide such 
useful information

--"Shilesh Jani" <shilesh.jani@s...> wrote:
> workspace) is critical.  I am no expert on this, and I find that 
20% 
> dot gain works for me.

I have used Gray 2.2, and 20% dot gain, but most of my work has been 
done using Gray 2.2, since that working space seems to give the best 
monitor correspondence with my 1280 output when using Epson single 
black and either the Epson driver or PS controls.
 
 (ii) UT-
> FS inks also in the regular (warm) and neutral hues. 

these are the ones I was contemplating, based on the info give at the 
MIS site. 
The URL
http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/qn.html
has a statement that the Cone R9 driver is needed with UT FS and UT 
FSN inks on 6 color printers, 
and the list of prefilled carts for UT-FS with the 1280 at 
http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/quadcart.html
also says they need the Cone driver,
so I hope your statement below supercedes that

>this tonal arrangment 
> yields excellent results on EEM paper, printing straight from PS, 
> using the Epson driver.  You don't need the Piezo driver. 

great

> With UT-FS inks, now MIS has started filling their carts in 
> the position Paul and I came up with those many months ago. 
> So, if toning is not necessary for you, it would be worth going 
> with the FS inks for the slightly warm opition.  I tried UT-FS  
> neutral inks some time back, but it was not to my taste because I 
beileve my 
> perception is extremely sensitive to magenta. 

I am also very sensitive to magenta.  With a profiled monitor and 
printer, i very quickly gave up using RGB Epson for grayscale, due to 
magenta tinting, and to me the demo version of ImagePrint that i 
downloaded had a slight magenta cast on grayscale images, at least in 
the watermark areas.

> This option, either in carts or a CIS on your 1280 will 
> give you about the smoothest prints available today 
> But, you would need to create 
> grayscale curves for different papers.  I have done that, and it is 
> easy.

I am pretty happy with EEM as a paper -- i don't care if my prints 
live longer than i do, and so far neither do the people who put them 
on their walls.  The main issue is whether i need to use a reflection 
densitometer to make really accurate curves.  Are Paul's curves in 
the zip file 1280utfs.zip still accurate for EEM?
 
> Maybe this weekend I will compare the gradients on 
> my 1280 and see how smoothness compares between the Epson driver  
> and QTR on the 1280.  And using a RIP is NOT necessarily faster.  

agreed, QTR is far slower than the EPson or PS drivers on my system.

 >One observation:  if you already have a 2200, 

nope, just a 1280.

>you want the absolute lack of dots in the 
> highlights. 
yes, i do.  I have a bunch of high key images i have been unabel to 
print digitally due to my disatisfaction with dither'

> Hope this helps.
> 
> Shilesh
Again, i really appreciate the effort you have gone to in explaining 
things to me and others.

ted

"Roy Harrington" <roy@h...> wrote:
>  I did a dot comparison a while ago, see :
> 
> http://harrington.com/dotscans/dotsdots.html

Roy, I checked the page, and to my eyes,

"Epson 1270/1160 -- UltraTone2 Ink/VM Sepia -- QuadToneRIP"

looked the least dithered of all of them
does this mean the 1280 would look more similar to the 1270 than to 
the 2200 output?  

The single black outputs looked similar to what i get.

ted

Ted,

From your information, by all means FS inks on the 1280 may be the 
best way to go.  If the inks are in the position capable of using the 
Epson driver, then Paul's (who works tirelessly for us) curves can be 
used, and if in future you want to get more sophisticated, you could 
try QTR without changing inks.  If you choose to go with the original 
Piezo position inks, than your option is the R9 driver (easy, but 
expensive), or QTR (harder but cheaper), but NOT Roark curves (free).

Good luck, and have fun.  Sometimes it is better to go out and have a 
few beers with friends than sitting at home making crappy prints!  I 
have a ton of crappy prints.

Shilesh 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tgos3" 
<egosfield@c...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Shilesh, I really appreciate your taking the time to provide such 
> useful information
> 
> --"Shilesh Jani" <shilesh.jani@s...> wrote:
> > workspace) is critical.  I am no expert on this, and I find that 
> 20% 
> > dot gain works for me.
> 
> I have used Gray 2.2, and 20% dot gain, but most of my work has 
been 
> done using Gray 2.2, since that working space seems to give the 
best 
> monitor correspondence with my 1280 output when using Epson single 
> black and either the Epson driver or PS controls.
>  
>  (ii) UT-
> > FS inks also in the regular (warm) and neutral hues. 
> 
> these are the ones I was contemplating, based on the info give at 
the 
> MIS site. 
> The URL
> http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/qn.html
> has a statement that the Cone R9 driver is needed with UT FS and UT 
> FSN inks on 6 color printers, 
> and the list of prefilled carts for UT-FS with the 1280 at 
> http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/quadcart.html
> also says they need the Cone driver,
> so I hope your statement below supercedes that
> 
> >this tonal arrangment 
> > yields excellent results on EEM paper, printing straight from PS, 
> > using the Epson driver.  You don't need the Piezo driver. 
> 
> great
> 
> > With UT-FS inks, now MIS has started filling their carts in 
> > the position Paul and I came up with those many months ago. 
> > So, if toning is not necessary for you, it would be worth going 
> > with the FS inks for the slightly warm opition.  I tried UT-FS  
> > neutral inks some time back, but it was not to my taste because I 
> beileve my 
> > perception is extremely sensitive to magenta. 
> 
> I am also very sensitive to magenta.  With a profiled monitor and 
> printer, i very quickly gave up using RGB Epson for grayscale, due 
to 
> magenta tinting, and to me the demo version of ImagePrint that i 
> downloaded had a slight magenta cast on grayscale images, at least 
in 
> the watermark areas.
> 
> > This option, either in carts or a CIS on your 1280 will 
> > give you about the smoothest prints available today 
> > But, you would need to create 
> > grayscale curves for different papers.  I have done that, and it 
is 
> > easy.
> 
> I am pretty happy with EEM as a paper -- i don't care if my prints 
> live longer than i do, and so far neither do the people who put 
them 
> on their walls.  The main issue is whether i need to use a 
reflection 
> densitometer to make really accurate curves.  Are Paul's curves in 
> the zip file 1280utfs.zip still accurate for EEM?
>  
> > Maybe this weekend I will compare the gradients on 
> > my 1280 and see how smoothness compares between the Epson driver  
> > and QTR on the 1280.  And using a RIP is NOT necessarily faster.  
> 
> agreed, QTR is far slower than the EPson or PS drivers on my system.
> 
>  >One observation:  if you already have a 2200, 
> 
> nope, just a 1280.
> 
> >you want the absolute lack of dots in the 
> > highlights. 
> yes, i do.  I have a bunch of high key images i have been unabel to 
> print digitally due to my disatisfaction with dither'
> 
> > Hope this helps.
> > 
> > Shilesh
> Again, i really appreciate the effort you have gone to in 
explaining 

> things to me and others.
> 
> ted

Shilesh Jani wrote:

>I say this in jest, well partially in jest:
>
>If you could make infintesimly small dots and can place the at 
>infinitesimly small distances, you could make perfectly dotless 
>prints with only the back ink.  And the prints would be perfectly 
>smooth if you have a good profile.
>
>Till then.............
>
>Shilesh
>
>  
>

Infintesimly ? small dots have an infinite total length of circumference that will give uncontrollable bleeding in the infinitesimly small distances when one of the printing conditions isn't consistent :-)   That could be inconsistent humidity, paper, inkflow. There are advantages in using bigger dots with lighter inks. A week ago I did read something on the web about printing with CcMmYK inks in silkscreen, they learned something from inkjet printing.

Ernst