Digital BW, The Print

Hi all,

A week ago I received from MIS the UT7 full ink set for my Epson 
2100 (with ebony black).
Before receiving this set I usually print with Epson UC standard 
inks and QTR on EEM paper.

As soon I printed a test image with UT7 and Roark Neutral EEM Curve 
(following the workflow) I noticed that the shadows areas are much 
lighter than the QTR ones. Indeed the overall image seems less 
contrasty then the QTR one.

In order to make some side by side comparison I decided to:

1)
Print a 21 step test pattern with QTR (QTR Gray Matte profile, UT7 
curve 50% cool and 50% warm).
2)
Print the same test pattern with PS8 and Roark Curves (EEM Neutral 
one).

According to my firs impression I noticed 2 things:

1) Linearity
QTR closes shadows too much (the last two step, 95% and 100%, are 
almost the same full black). To my eye it seems that from 55%-60% 
level the gray curve begins to go down much faster than the rest 
part.
The gray curve of the print made with PS8, Roark Curve and Epson 
Driver seems perfectly linear. The 95% and 100% steps are well 
different (mybe too much). To my tastes I would prefer a little more 
contrast and deeper shadows than this.

2) Dither pattern (seen with an enlarger lens)
QTR has much better dithering pattern. Dots are wery wel diffused 
without some visible pattern.
The print made with PS8, Roark Curve and Epson Driver shows too much 
aligned points (quite like a micro-banding). This is visible also to 
a naked eye.

In conclusion, I will go with the Epson Driver if there were a way 
to change dither algorithm of the Epson Driver. Is there a way to do 
this?
Or do I have to edit/recreate the QTR UT7 curves to correct their 
shadow closing problem and go with it?

Have you suggestions?
Have you also noticed those thinhs in your own tests?

Thanks in advance

--
Marco

Hi Marco,

I'm the one who created those curves. Others have also reported back to 
me that they seem too dark in the shadows, but here 95% on the stepwedge 
is actually a bit lighter than the same stepwedge printed with Paul's 
curves.

I don't have an explanation for this except that one of my inks may be 
configured incorrectly or that my printer is behaving differently than 
others.

Fortunately, with todays release of QTR with profiling you can now tweak 
your own curves. You can even linearize using your own scanner if you 
don't own a densitometer. See my separate post on this.

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



Marco Ristuccia wrote:

> 
> Hi all,
> 
> A week ago I received from MIS the UT7 full ink set for my Epson 
> 2100 (with ebony black).
> Before receiving this set I usually print with Epson UC standard 
> inks and QTR on EEM paper.
> 
> As soon I printed a test image with UT7 and Roark Neutral EEM Curve 
> (following the workflow) I noticed that the shadows areas are much 
> lighter than the QTR ones. Indeed the overall image seems less 
> contrasty then the QTR one.
> 
> In order to make some side by side comparison I decided to:
> 
> 1)
> Print a 21 step test pattern with QTR (QTR Gray Matte profile, UT7 
> curve 50% cool and 50% warm).
> 2)
> Print the same test pattern with PS8 and Roark Curves (EEM Neutral 
> one).
> 
> According to my firs impression I noticed 2 things:
> 
> 1) Linearity
> QTR closes shadows too much (the last two step, 95% and 100%, are 
> almost the same full black). To my eye it seems that from 55%-60% 
> level the gray curve begins to go down much faster than the rest 
> part.
> The gray curve of the print made with PS8, Roark Curve and Epson 
> Driver seems perfectly linear. The 95% and 100% steps are well 
> different (mybe too much). To my tastes I would prefer a little more 
> contrast and deeper shadows than this.
> 
> 2) Dither pattern (seen with an enlarger lens)
> QTR has much better dithering pattern. Dots are wery wel diffused 
> without some visible pattern.
> The print made with PS8, Roark Curve and Epson Driver shows too much 
> aligned points (quite like a micro-banding). This is visible also to 
> a naked eye.
> 
> In conclusion, I will go with the Epson Driver if there were a way 
> to change dither algorithm of the Epson Driver. Is there a way to do 
> this?
> Or do I have to edit/recreate the QTR UT7 curves to correct their 
> shadow closing problem and go with it?
> 
> Have you suggestions?
> Have you also noticed those thinhs in your own tests?
> 
> Thanks in advance

Hi Daniel,

Thank you for the answer.

Yesterday a made a scan of the two printed 21-step-wide test pattern.
Then I scanned it and made an excel table with the average values of
each step. Printing a line graph together with an ideal linear one I 
verified that while the UT7/Roark/Epson curve is quite perfectly 
linear, my QTR ones have a different slope.

I'll follow your suggestion and linearize the QTR curve using my
flatbed scanner as a desitometer, hoping it has a linear output 
curve :o)

Ciao
Marco

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Staver 
<daniel@p...> wrote:
> Hi Marco,
> 
> I'm the one who created those curves. Others have also reported 
back to 
> me that they seem too dark in the shadows, but here 95% on the 
stepwedge 
> is actually a bit lighter than the same stepwedge printed with 
Paul's 
> curves.
> 
> I don't have an explanation for this except that one of my inks 
may be 
> configured incorrectly or that my printer is behaving differently 
than 
> others.
> 
> Fortunately, with todays release of QTR with profiling you can now 
tweak 
> your own curves. You can even linearize using your own scanner if 
you 

> don't own a densitometer. See my separate post on this.
> 
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no
> 
> 
>

Marco, Daniel,

 >
 >I'll follow your suggestion and linearize the QTR curve using my
 >flatbed scanner as a desitometer, hoping it has a linear output
 >curve :o)

I've been doing this for a while, using my flatbed to help derive standard 
Photoshop curves.  I use Vuescan because the software with my elderly Agfa 
Snapscan isn't up to it but checks with a densitometer verify the system 
works.

Regards
Richard