Digital BW, The Print

I am planning to set up an Epson 7500 printer for quadtone printing. 
The printer is hopelessly clogged in the first two nozzles so I need 
software that will allow me to reassign ink colors and switch off the 
first two nozzles. I prefer to work on a Mac but also have a PC if 
needed.

I have lots of experience with the original piezography software and 
inks (now Sundance / R9) used with Epson 1160's and 3000 printers and 
have had fantastic results.

I am considering StudioPrint or OpenPrintMaker (IJC/OPM) because both 
will allow me to reassign ink nozzles (I dont know if any other RIPs 
will do this also).

Does OPM yield as good results as the others?

The problem is that I have heard that neither of these would give me 
the "grainless" dotless prints I have been getting with the R9 
(Sundance) software. Is it true that the dotlessness in OPM only 
applies to the highlights? 

I wonder if anyone has had the opportunity to compare R9 to 
OpenPrintmaker and StudioPrint in terms of overall quality, tonal 
range and dotlessness. (and what about Cone software?)

Any light that you can shed on the subject would be greatly 
appreciated.

Thanks,

Bob

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sinarpro"
<sinarpro@y...> wrote:
snip...
> The problem is that I have heard that neither of these would give me 
> the "grainless" dotless prints I have been getting with the R9 
> (Sundance) software.

Wrong, with StudioPrint's quad mode the same lack of apparent
dotiiness results. With IJC/OPM the same result can easily be
accomplished (I say that based on the results and product descriptions
of others, I haven't had the pleasure yet).
That's just standard quadtone partitioning, the R9 was simply the
first commercially available driver that did it auto. Many of the rest
of us were doing it manual at the same time, with equally dotless result.
I would add QTR to the list of quad drivers up to the task of good
partitioning.
Tyler

> Does OPM yield as good results as the others?
> 
> The problem is that I have heard that neither of these would give me 
> the "grainless" dotless prints I have been getting with the R9 
> (Sundance) software. Is it true that the dotlessness in OPM only 
> applies to the highlights? 


Bob,

if by "dots" you mean printer dots (as opposed to dither), these
are not so much a function of the software as they are a function
of (a) the size of dot the printer puts down, (b) how many shades
of gray you use and (c) how your inks are partitioned across the
grayscale.

StudioPrint and IJC/OPM will both allow you to partition inks to your
liking. But if you are using a 7500 which - relative to today's models -
puts down rather big dots, you'll need all the help you can get. By
cutting out 2 nozzles and working with 4, you won't get as dotless
a print as using 6. Software won't matter in this regard.

The smoothest print out of those machines comes from doubling up
the Cyan and Magenta positions by using the same ink in the
Light C and Light M. If you make a  good profile with either software,
you'll get as dotless a print as that generation of Epsons are capable of. 
Perhaps in larger sizes, you won't be able to tell the difference
between using 4 and 6 nozzles. But making the right profile
is crucial either way to make sure you hide the dots as best
you can. Either software that you are considering will give you that
control. 

> 
> I wonder if anyone has had the opportunity to compare R9 to 
> OpenPrintmaker and StudioPrint in terms of overall quality, tonal 
> range and dotlessness. (and what about Cone software?)

I only used the plug in (pre-R9) with an 1160 and remember getting
very good results. However, when I moved to the 1280, I got pretty
bad banding, due to the poor profiles supplied at the time. The 
experience convinced me to never again use canned profiles.
To answer your question, while I haven't compared R9 to either
SP or OPM, I consider both of these superior because they
allow custom profiling.

I have used the IJC/OPM solution on the mac for the last few years
and have never had problems with banding or dots across a wide
range of printers including a 7000 and a 9500. In those large formats
I use the Piezotone inks loaded as would have been specified for
the R9 or StudioPrint, i.e. M=LM and C=LC. 

As for the choice between StudioPrint and IJC....    as you know,
SP costs a whole bunch and forces you to use a Windows box.
 IJC otoh, because it doesn't have the features of a full
RIP and doesn't support color, costs a lot less. It also runs under Mac OS X
as well as Windows. Currently, the Windows version of IJC has a lot
more features than the Mac version, but they are mostly there for
convenience - the print quality is the same.

Antonis

Bob,

> I am planning to set up an Epson 7500 printer for quadtone printing.
> The printer is hopelessly clogged in the first two nozzles so I need
> software that will allow me to reassign ink colors and switch off the
> first two nozzles. I prefer to work on a Mac but also have a PC if
> needed.
> 
>...
 
> Does OPM yield as good results as the others?

> The problem is that I have heard that neither of these would give me
> the "grainless" dotless prints I have been getting with the R9
> (Sundance) software. Is it true that the dotlessness in OPM only
> applies to the highlights?

I just printed some test strips on my 7500 comparing the Epson driver and
OPM.  The inkset I have in there has a light ink that is the same density as
the Piezo lightest ink.  With an 8x loupe, I can detect some dots.  However,
the quality in any normal viewing would be extremely good.

The ink arrangement I'm using is what I call the UT-FSN+.  In the C, LC, and
Y spots I have MIS UT-FSN tone inks.  The test strips I was viewing were
glossy prints that just used these tree inks.  For matte paper I add a matte
black (Eboni).  I only use the M & LM, which have pure carbon inks in them,
when I want more warmth.  So, bottom line, your 7500 will be able to print a
monotone, glossy and matte, with excellent results using OPM.

One thing I did to modify the usual MIS-FS/Cone-Piezo ink density
distribution is move the M density closer to the C density.  The original
Piezo densities had the 2 lightest inks very close, and then a major gap
between the M and C.  I moved the middle density to more of a midpoint.  I
did this empirically, trying higher and lower densities and examining the
smoothness of the final print.

Bowhaus has made some curves already for the 7500 and this ink arrangement
and is using the inks.  As such, you'll have ready-made curves (even if you
have to alter their location) with OPM, the UT-FSN+ inkset and the 7500.
(My Photoshop curves probably won't do you any good.)

If you want to see more about the 7500 inkset I'm using and MIS is selling,
see http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/7500-FS-Readme.htm .

While the inkset I'm using is neutral-cool, any tone between carbon warm and
the neutral cool is easy to buy or mix.  Only the LC is a new ink, and it is
close enough to UT7 LC (carbon) density that the old Piezo or MIS FS warm
tones can be made just by mixing the 7500 FSN LC with UT7 LC.  The FS warmth
is 50% carbon, 50% FSN.

At any rate, I can't give a comparison on the 7500, but I started with Piezo
software (R9) and, while it does give dotless highlights, overall I would
rate OPM as far superior.

Good luck.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Bob,

All the RIPS can do basically the same quality -- its really a matter of
the printer hardware (drop size) and the ink densities used.

For another choice try QuadToneRIP.  It runs on Mac OS X, supports the
7500 and allows you to choose any set of jets.   You really only need
4 jets because there's only 4 shades of gray with piezo inks or any quad ink set.

See:  http://www.harrington.com  -- follow link to QuadToneRIP.

Roy Harrington
(Obviously I'm a little biased but it's cheap and easy to find out).


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sinarpro" <sinarpro@y...> wrote:

> 
> 
> I am planning to set up an Epson 7500 printer for quadtone printing. 
> The printer is hopelessly clogged in the first two nozzles so I need 
> software that will allow me to reassign ink colors and switch off the 
> first two nozzles. I prefer to work on a Mac but also have a PC if 
> needed.
> 
> I have lots of experience with the original piezography software and 
> inks (now Sundance / R9) used with Epson 1160's and 3000 printers and 
> have had fantastic results.
> 
> I am considering StudioPrint or OpenPrintMaker (IJC/OPM) because both 
> will allow me to reassign ink nozzles (I dont know if any other RIPs 
> will do this also).
> 
> Does OPM yield as good results as the others?
> 
> The problem is that I have heard that neither of these would give me 
> the "grainless" dotless prints I have been getting with the R9 
> (Sundance) software. Is it true that the dotlessness in OPM only 
> applies to the highlights? 
> 
> I wonder if anyone has had the opportunity to compare R9 to 
> OpenPrintmaker and StudioPrint in terms of overall quality, tonal 
> range and dotlessness. (and what about Cone software?)
> 
> Any light that you can shed on the subject would be greatly 
> appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bob

Thanks, Antonius,

I will probably opt for the IJC/OPM solution for my first tests on 
the 7500. I would be happy with similar results as was obtained on 
the 1160 / 3000 in the past.

Bob

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis" 
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> 
> > Does OPM yield as good results as the others?
> > 
> > The problem is that I have heard that neither of these would give 
me 
> > the "grainless" dotless prints I have been getting with the R9 
> > (Sundance) software. Is it true that the dotlessness in OPM only 
> > applies to the highlights? 
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> if by "dots" you mean printer dots (as opposed to dither), these
> are not so much a function of the software as they are a function
> of (a) the size of dot the printer puts down, (b) how many shades
> of gray you use and (c) how your inks are partitioned across the
> grayscale.
> 
> StudioPrint and IJC/OPM will both allow you to partition inks to 
your
> liking. But if you are using a 7500 which - relative to today's 
models -
> puts down rather big dots, you'll need all the help you can get. By
> cutting out 2 nozzles and working with 4, you won't get as dotless
> a print as using 6. Software won't matter in this regard.
> 
> The smoothest print out of those machines comes from doubling up
> the Cyan and Magenta positions by using the same ink in the
> Light C and Light M. If you make a  good profile with either 
software,
> you'll get as dotless a print as that generation of Epsons are 
capable of. 
> Perhaps in larger sizes, you won't be able to tell the difference
> between using 4 and 6 nozzles. But making the right profile
> is crucial either way to make sure you hide the dots as best
> you can. Either software that you are considering will give you that
> control. 
> 
> > 
> > I wonder if anyone has had the opportunity to compare R9 to 
> > OpenPrintmaker and StudioPrint in terms of overall quality, tonal 
> > range and dotlessness. (and what about Cone software?)
> 
> I only used the plug in (pre-R9) with an 1160 and remember getting
> very good results. However, when I moved to the 1280, I got pretty
> bad banding, due to the poor profiles supplied at the time. The 
> experience convinced me to never again use canned profiles.
> To answer your question, while I haven't compared R9 to either
> SP or OPM, I consider both of these superior because they
> allow custom profiling.
> 
> I have used the IJC/OPM solution on the mac for the last few years
> and have never had problems with banding or dots across a wide
> range of printers including a 7000 and a 9500. In those large 
formats
> I use the Piezotone inks loaded as would have been specified for
> the R9 or StudioPrint, i.e. M=LM and C=LC. 
> 
> As for the choice between StudioPrint and IJC....    as you know,
> SP costs a whole bunch and forces you to use a Windows box.
>  IJC otoh, because it doesn't have the features of a full
> RIP and doesn't support color, costs a lot less. It also runs under 
Mac OS X

> as well as Windows. Currently, the Windows version of IJC has a lot
> more features than the Mac version, but they are mostly there for
> convenience - the print quality is the same.
> 
> Antonis

Thanks Paul,

As I have been inactive in the printmaking department for a little 
overa year and a half it appears that I have a little catching up to 
do. I will be receiving an Eye-One outfit in a day or two and should 
be able to generate the necessary profiles. Mixing inks is an 
intriguing thought.

Thanks for your input.

Bob

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Bob,
> 
> > I am planning to set up an Epson 7500 printer for quadtone 
printing.
> > The printer is hopelessly clogged in the first two nozzles so I 
need
> > software that will allow me to reassign ink colors and switch off 
the
> > first two nozzles. I prefer to work on a Mac but also have a PC if
> > needed.
> > 
> >...
>  
> > Does OPM yield as good results as the others?
> 
> > The problem is that I have heard that neither of these would give 
me
> > the "grainless" dotless prints I have been getting with the R9
> > (Sundance) software. Is it true that the dotlessness in OPM only
> > applies to the highlights?
> 
> I just printed some test strips on my 7500 comparing the Epson 
driver and
> OPM.  The inkset I have in there has a light ink that is the same 
density as
> the Piezo lightest ink.  With an 8x loupe, I can detect some dots.  
However,
> the quality in any normal viewing would be extremely good.
> 
> The ink arrangement I'm using is what I call the UT-FSN+.  In the 
C, LC, and
> Y spots I have MIS UT-FSN tone inks.  The test strips I was viewing 
were
> glossy prints that just used these tree inks.  For matte paper I 
add a matte
> black (Eboni).  I only use the M & LM, which have pure carbon inks 
in them,
> when I want more warmth.  So, bottom line, your 7500 will be able 
to print a
> monotone, glossy and matte, with excellent results using OPM.
> 
> One thing I did to modify the usual MIS-FS/Cone-Piezo ink density
> distribution is move the M density closer to the C density.  The 
original
> Piezo densities had the 2 lightest inks very close, and then a 
major gap
> between the M and C.  I moved the middle density to more of a 
midpoint.  I
> did this empirically, trying higher and lower densities and 
examining the
> smoothness of the final print.
> 
> Bowhaus has made some curves already for the 7500 and this ink 
arrangement
> and is using the inks.  As such, you'll have ready-made curves 
(even if you
> have to alter their location) with OPM, the UT-FSN+ inkset and the 
7500.
> (My Photoshop curves probably won't do you any good.)
> 
> If you want to see more about the 7500 inkset I'm using and MIS is 
selling,
> see http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/7500-FS-Readme.htm .
> 
> While the inkset I'm using is neutral-cool, any tone between carbon 
warm and
> the neutral cool is easy to buy or mix.  Only the LC is a new ink, 
and it is
> close enough to UT7 LC (carbon) density that the old Piezo or MIS 
FS warm
> tones can be made just by mixing the 7500 FSN LC with UT7 LC.  The 
FS warmth
> is 50% carbon, 50% FSN.
> 
> At any rate, I can't give a comparison on the 7500, but I started 
with Piezo
> software (R9) and, while it does give dotless highlights, overall I 
would

> rate OPM as far superior.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Roy-

Thanks. A little bias is OK. It helps open the horizon a bit more.

Bob

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" 
<roy@h...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> All the RIPS can do basically the same quality -- its really a 
matter of
> the printer hardware (drop size) and the ink densities used.
> 
> For another choice try QuadToneRIP.  It runs on Mac OS X, supports 
the
> 7500 and allows you to choose any set of jets.   You really only 
need
> 4 jets because there's only 4 shades of gray with piezo inks or any 
quad ink set.
> 
> See:  http://www.harrington.com  -- follow link to QuadToneRIP.
> 
> Roy Harrington
> (Obviously I'm a little biased but it's cheap and easy to find out).
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sinarpro" 
<sinarpro@y...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I am planning to set up an Epson 7500 printer for quadtone 
printing. 
> > The printer is hopelessly clogged in the first two nozzles so I 
need 
> > software that will allow me to reassign ink colors and switch off 
the 
> > first two nozzles. I prefer to work on a Mac but also have a PC 
if 
> > needed.
> > 
> > I have lots of experience with the original piezography software 
and 
> > inks (now Sundance / R9) used with Epson 1160's and 3000 printers 
and 
> > have had fantastic results.
> > 
> > I am considering StudioPrint or OpenPrintMaker (IJC/OPM) because 
both 
> > will allow me to reassign ink nozzles (I dont know if any other 
RIPs 
> > will do this also).
> > 
> > Does OPM yield as good results as the others?
> > 
> > The problem is that I have heard that neither of these would give 
me 

> > the "grainless" dotless prints I have been getting with the R9 
> > (Sundance) software. Is it true that the dotlessness in OPM only 
> > applies to the highlights? 
> > 
> > I wonder if anyone has had the opportunity to compare R9 to 
> > OpenPrintmaker and StudioPrint in terms of overall quality, tonal 
> > range and dotlessness. (and what about Cone software?)
> > 
> > Any light that you can shed on the subject would be greatly 
> > appreciated.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Bob

Thanks Tyler.

Bob 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sinarpro"
> <sinarpro@y...> wrote:
> snip...
> > The problem is that I have heard that neither of these would give 
me 
> > the "grainless" dotless prints I have been getting with the R9 
> > (Sundance) software.
> 
> Wrong, with StudioPrint's quad mode the same lack of apparent
> dotiiness results. With IJC/OPM the same result can easily be
> accomplished (I say that based on the results and product 
descriptions
> of others, I haven't had the pleasure yet).
> That's just standard quadtone partitioning, the R9 was simply the
> first commercially available driver that did it auto. Many of the 
rest
> of us were doing it manual at the same time, with equally dotless 
result.

> I would add QTR to the list of quad drivers up to the task of good
> partitioning.
> Tyler