Digital BW, The Print

I'm a posting newbie, though I have read the expert comments on this
forum for quite a time. I have a question, that has probably been
answered before, but the sheer volume of posts is proving to be a
daunting challenge.

Simply put, I'm looking to produce THE definitive BW print. To date,
I've been using Photoshop successfully, but I'm constantly looking for
ways to improve my BW prints. 

I currently scan film mostly with a Minolta Dimage 5400 and then use
Photoshop for custom workflow. I use a trusty Epson 1160 for my 5x7,
8x10 prints with MIS Quadtone inks and, sometimes, Paul Roark's
curves. If you need to see the type of images that I'm printing, check
out my website: http://www.mikegerra.com/index.php

I'm trying to determine if I can get the next level of BW print by
using a RIP such as IJC/OPM or QTR. Or, if my pennies would be better
invested in a printer with finer droplets (such as Espon 4000) and
sticking with PS and my curves. 

Many thanks,

Mike Gerra
www.mikegerra.com

Mike,

A RIP designed for B&W and toned monochrome will give you the best 
control and output since you can adjust ink limits, ink curves, 
linearization, the inks you wish to use, etc.  For the money, QTR or 
IJC/OPM are your best bets for a B&W RIP.  I use IJC/OPM and like the 
interface for profile building and editing, but they both give great 
output. Both will allow you to create profiles for any inkset you can 
fit into your printer.  ImagePrint does not allow custom 
linearization or profile building for B&W.  Other RIPs are much more 
expensive, but usually offer both color and B&W, and usually 
postscript.  

I'm not familiar with the 1160 so cannot offer constructive 
comments.  I'm getting great results from my 2200 using the standard 
Epson UC inkset.  I like this approach since I can use the same 
printer for monochrome and color work.  The 2200 is also designed for 
pigmented inks and I don't have clogging problems.  Another advantage 
is that the 2200 has loads of profiles for different papers and 
inksets.  

Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Gerra" 
<mike@m...> wrote:
> 
> I'm a posting newbie, though I have read the expert comments on this
> forum for quite a time. I have a question, that has probably been
> answered before, but the sheer volume of posts is proving to be a
> daunting challenge.
> 
> Simply put, I'm looking to produce THE definitive BW print. To date,
> I've been using Photoshop successfully, but I'm constantly looking 
for
> ways to improve my BW prints. 
> 
> I currently scan film mostly with a Minolta Dimage 5400 and then use
> Photoshop for custom workflow. I use a trusty Epson 1160 for my 5x7,
> 8x10 prints with MIS Quadtone inks and, sometimes, Paul Roark's
> curves. If you need to see the type of images that I'm printing, 
check
> out my website: http://www.mikegerra.com/index.php
> 
> I'm trying to determine if I can get the next level of BW print by
> using a RIP such as IJC/OPM or QTR. Or, if my pennies would be 
better

> invested in a printer with finer droplets (such as Espon 4000) and
> sticking with PS and my curves. 
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Mike Gerra
> www.mikegerra.com

> From: Mike Gerra [mailto:mike@...]
>
> I'm trying to determine if I can get the next level of BW print by
> using a RIP such as IJC/OPM or QTR. Or, if my pennies would be better
> invested in a printer with finer droplets (such as Espon 4000) and
> sticking with PS and my curves.

What's the difference between the results you want and the results you're
already getting? Darker blacks? Better sharpness? Less grain? Less
metamerism? Fewer color casts in the midtones? Your priorities will
determine the answer.

--

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

Paul,
Essentially I'm looking to improve tonal gradations, deepen shadow,
and better define my midtones. Enhanced control over the warmness and
coolness of the image and good soft-proofing are important too. 

I am reasonably happy with sharpness, so I would only invest in a
better injket -- with smaller droplets -- if it  could also help me
improve the qualities above. I hope this makes a potential answer more
feasible. Also, I suppose I am now in the market for a decent
densitometer, etc?! 

Thanks,

Mike Gerra


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul D. DeRocco"
<pderocco@i...> wrote:
> > From: Mike Gerra [mailto:mike@m...]
> >
> > I'm trying to determine if I can get the next level of BW print by
> > using a RIP such as IJC/OPM or QTR. Or, if my pennies would be better
> > invested in a printer with finer droplets (such as Espon 4000) and
> > sticking with PS and my curves.
> 
> What's the difference between the results you want and the results
you're

> already getting? Darker blacks? Better sharpness? Less grain? Less
> metamerism? Fewer color casts in the midtones? Your priorities will
> determine the answer.
> 
> --
>
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@i...

Mike,
I have just spent a bunch of time working with QTR, comparing curves 
and such on a 1280 using UT2.  
I have found I can't match the d max of Roark curves (about .9 less 
on matt paper) I would think  the demax would not be an issue on RC 
papers.  I have also found the gradations with QTR to be much more 
even and closer to the "ideal" densities. Also no flat spots.  With 
QTR you also have more control over image tone (warm to cool)  You 
could adjust both of these with the Roark curves, but I don't find it 
as easy.
Overall, I prefer QTR.  I have found the prepackaged curves to be 
very good.  The improvements I have been able to make with the curve 
creator are minimal.   I wish I could match the higher d max of 
Roark...but...
Anyone have any suggestions?  
I'm not sure if QTR supports the 1160 very well.  
Given that you can try QTR for free, I would highly recommend giving 
it a try.

Got a good deal on an xrite 820 on Ebay a couple of weels ago.

Hope this helps,
Peter

There is no reason you should not be able to match or exceed the Dmax 
of the Roark curves with either QTR or IJC/OPM assuming you are using 
the same inkset and papers.  Both QTR and IJC/OPM allow total control 
over the inks used to achieve the best Dmax possible with any given 
inkset and paper combo.  If you cannot achieve the same Dmax then it 
is probably due to the combination of inks used, the chosen ink 
limits, or both. 

More ink doesn't always translate to a higher Dmax, nor does adding 
other inks to the mix.  It is trial and error.  Once a paper becomes 
overloaded with ink, the Dmax can often go the opposite direction, 
especially on some papers.  Then again, if a paper has not yet 
reached its ink limit with 100% of a single ink, you may have to add 
a second ink to achieve Dmax.  Again, trial and error.  

Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "zonepeter" 
<zonepeter@a...> wrote:
> 
> Mike,
> I have just spent a bunch of time working with QTR, comparing 
curves 
> and such on a 1280 using UT2.  
> I have found I can't match the d max of Roark curves (about .9 less 
> on matt paper) I would think  the demax would not be an issue on RC 
> papers.  I have also found the gradations with QTR to be much more 
> even and closer to the "ideal" densities. Also no flat spots.  With 
> QTR you also have more control over image tone (warm to cool)  You 
> could adjust both of these with the Roark curves, but I don't find 
it 
> as easy.
> Overall, I prefer QTR.  I have found the prepackaged curves to be 
> very good.  The improvements I have been able to make with the 
curve 
> creator are minimal.   I wish I could match the higher d max of 
> Roark...but...
> Anyone have any suggestions?  
> I'm not sure if QTR supports the 1160 very well.  
> Given that you can try QTR for free, I would highly recommend 
giving 

> it a try.
> 
> Got a good deal on an xrite 820 on Ebay a couple of weels ago.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> Peter

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "zonepeter"
<zonepeter@a...> wrote:
> ...I wish I could match the higher d max of 
> Roark...but...
> Anyone have any suggestions?  

There are a number of issues that effect dmax. There are certain
hardware limitations that can not be changed, but different drivers
may address the hardware in slightly different ways that can effect
dmax. But the maximum individual ink density available from the
hardware can be had by them all, I'm told.
First of all, if you are using a supplied "profile" with QTR, make
sure it has not already been ink limited in the K channel. As has been
suggested, dmax can actually turn back on you with too much ink, but
you'll never know without unlimiting it first.
Another biggie is dot size, with  Roarke workflow this will be
determined by the driver settings- media, quality...
In QTR there may be settings effecting dot size, and other settings
that vary how the dots go down, which could also effect dmax. It may
not be immediately apparent from the settings what is actually going
on, I believe you want a variable dot setting, one that gives a larger
dot size at higher ink densities.
Pass or dither settings could effect how quickly dots go down on top
of each other, and how wet they remain when they do so. I don't know
if that will really be relevant, just throwing out ideas.
Are there still gimp media settings in QTR? If so that could certainly
be a factor, as in the Epson driver.

So ink may not be going down the same as with the Epson driver, or
with the most advantages dot size at highest densities. But since only
so much can be done with the hardware, they should be able to be
matched. There is no particular magic in the Epson driver pertaining
to the above.

Some time ago when I was testing QTR I could not get dmax performance,
and I believe I finally got there by carefully playing with all the
settings, and some good input from Roy.
I'm sure he would have something much more productive than the above
to offer on the subject, if any of it is relevant at all.
Tyler

Lou

I would agree with the underlying post to a certain extent.  I have found
that QTR won't achieve the same density as the Epson driver (and IJC/OPM
uses the same dither/weave code).  I don't know why it is but certainly
anecdotal evidence suggests there is a difference.  I think it s because the
dither/weave breaks down prior to receiving a full ink load whereas this is
not the case with the Epson driver...but then only someone with full
knowledge of the real innards of both would know for sure.

Steve

> From: Louis Dina <lbdina@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:55:21 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: A definitive BW print: Photoshop curves, IJC, other
> RIP or bett
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason you should not be able to match or exceed the Dmax
> of the Roark curves with either QTR or IJC/OPM assuming you are using
> the same inkset and papers.  Both QTR and IJC/OPM allow total control
> over the inks used to achieve the best Dmax possible with any given
> inkset and paper combo.  If you cannot achieve the same Dmax then it
> is probably due to the combination of inks used, the chosen ink
> limits, or both. 
> 
> More ink doesn't always translate to a higher Dmax, nor does adding
> other inks to the mix.  It is trial and error.  Once a paper becomes
> overloaded with ink, the Dmax can often go the opposite direction,
> especially on some papers.  Then again, if a paper has not yet
> reached its ink limit with 100% of a single ink, you may have to add
> a second ink to achieve Dmax.  Again, trial and error.
> 
> Lou
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "zonepeter"
> <zonepeter@a...> wrote:
>> 
>> Mike,
>> I have just spent a bunch of time working with QTR, comparing
> curves 
>> and such on a 1280 using UT2.
>> I have found I can't match the d max of Roark curves (about .9 less
>> on matt paper) I would think  the demax would not be an issue on RC
>> papers.  I have also found the gradations with QTR to be much more
>> even and closer to the "ideal" densities. Also no flat spots.  With
>> QTR you also have more control over image tone (warm to cool)  You
>> could adjust both of these with the Roark curves, but I don't find
> it 
>> as easy.
>> Overall, I prefer QTR.  I have found the prepackaged curves to be
>> very good.  The improvements I have been able to make with the
> curve 
>> creator are minimal.   I wish I could match the higher d max of
>> Roark...but...
>> Anyone have any suggestions?
>> I'm not sure if QTR supports the 1160 very well.
>> Given that you can try QTR for free, I would highly recommend
> giving 
>> it a try.
>> 
>> Got a good deal on an xrite 820 on Ebay a couple of weels ago.
>> 
>> Hope this helps,
>> Peter

Tyler and Lou,

Thanks for the replies.  I'll have to get back at it.  (Stuck at work 
for 48 hours).
I was sort of assuming that since I hadn't been able to do better and 
the canned profiles couldn't do better, I was hitting a limitation of 
the system. I also seem to recall Paul Roark saying that rips on the 
1280 had d max limitations. I will try again following the 
suggestions and trial and error.
I'll report back if I can improve things

Like I said, I prefer the results from QTR already, and think I will 
like it even better with my own profiles.

Thanks,
Peter