Digital BW, The Print

Now here is a funny thing. Mike and Paul both told me that FS printed
lighter than Piezo. Reworking some protfolio prints I found the opposite to
be true, with FS needing a 'lift' adjustment. But going back to some REALLY
old prints, all I need to do to replicate the piezo prints is to pull down
the gamma a touch in curves and lift the toe of the blacks. It looks like I
did have some variation (big) in density with piezo. Printing for the last
exhibition I had to do some curves adjustments to get the prints to match
the older portfolio prints but I put it down to an aging effect. Not so I
think. This Piezo is tricky stuff!

Julian

What we don't know is if the MIS inks will show density variations over time
too. I guess none of us, regardless of inkset, run calibration strips each
morning to check consistency. What we don't know is if all inks
settle/evaporate/change over time, how good batch to batch consistency is,
or the random effects the printers themselves (as evidenced in sporadic
microbanding etc,) seem to impose over time, not to mention paper batch
differences, environmental conditions, and that the "control prints" shift
over time.

IOW, it might just be that Piezo inks have been in use longer, giving us
time to study them longer, but much of what is being attributable to brand
differences may be far more broad based than that.

All I know is I use MIS VM now, but I feel in no way free from fear. I think
all this stuff is tricky!

Todd

> Now here is a funny thing. Mike and Paul both told me that FS printed
> lighter than Piezo. Reworking some protfolio prints I found the opposite to
> be true, with FS needing a 'lift' adjustment. But going back to some REALLY
> old prints, all I need to do to replicate the piezo prints is to pull down
> the gamma a touch in curves and lift the toe of the blacks. It looks like I
> did have some variation (big) in density with piezo. Printing for the last
> exhibition I had to do some curves adjustments to get the prints to match
> the older portfolio prints but I put it down to an aging effect. Not so I
> think. This Piezo is tricky stuff!
> 
> Julian

I agree with you. I've been pulling my hair out with this. I just couldn't
get a handle on it at all. I'm not talking about little differences either.
I think when things happen over time you just adjust slightly each time. I
also know piezo very well so I was a little disconcerted that I couldn't get
a consistant action together to process old files. I've been through 3 1160s
and 3 cis units, but even prints made on the same system were showing
discrepencies. Nothing to do with Piezo IMO, just a whole host of different
factors - it caught me unawares though.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Flashner" <tflash@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] FS density mk2


> What we don't know is if the MIS inks will show density variations over
time
> too. I guess none of us, regardless of inkset, run calibration strips each
> morning to check consistency. What we don't know is if all inks
> settle/evaporate/change over time, how good batch to batch consistency is,
> or the random effects the printers themselves (as evidenced in sporadic
> microbanding etc,) seem to impose over time, not to mention paper batch
> differences, environmental conditions, and that the "control prints" shift
> over time.
>
> IOW, it might just be that Piezo inks have been in use longer, giving us
> time to study them longer, but much of what is being attributable to brand
> differences may be far more broad based than that.
>
> All I know is I use MIS VM now, but I feel in no way free from fear. I
think
> all this stuff is tricky!
>
> Todd
>
> > Now here is a funny thing. Mike and Paul both told me that FS printed
> > lighter than Piezo. Reworking some protfolio prints I found the opposite
to
> > be true, with FS needing a 'lift' adjustment. But going back to some
REALLY
> > old prints, all I need to do to replicate the piezo prints is to pull
down
> > the gamma a touch in curves and lift the toe of the blacks. It looks
like I
> > did have some variation (big) in density with piezo. Printing for the
last
> > exhibition I had to do some curves adjustments to get the prints to
match
> > the older portfolio prints but I put it down to an aging effect. Not so
I
> > think. This Piezo is tricky stuff!
> >
> > Julian
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

And I agree with you. I wish there was a sensible way to monitor this stuff,
but I really don't want to get caught up in scanning test strips and the
like. Plus the way inks mix in cartridges when we add new to old, really
makes honing in on the roots of problems tricky.

It's why I tweak-for-print on an adjustment layer, so it's readily variable.

That you have to make the tweak on an image by image basis does seem
unusually cruel though. Good luck.

Todd

> I agree with you. I've been pulling my hair out with this. I just couldn't
> get a handle on it at all. I'm not talking about little differences either.
> I think when things happen over time you just adjust slightly each time. I
> also know piezo very well so I was a little disconcerted that I couldn't get
> a consistant action together to process old files. I've been through 3 1160s
> and 3 cis units, but even prints made on the same system were showing
> discrepencies. Nothing to do with Piezo IMO, just a whole host of different
> factors - it caught me unawares though.
> 
> Julian

>> What we don't know is if the MIS inks will show density variations over
> time
>> too. I guess none of us, regardless of inkset, run calibration strips each
>> morning to check consistency. What we don't know is if all inks
>> settle/evaporate/change over time, how good batch to batch consistency is,
>> or the random effects the printers themselves (as evidenced in sporadic
>> microbanding etc,) seem to impose over time, not to mention paper batch
>> differences, environmental conditions, and that the "control prints" shift
>> over time.
>> 
>> IOW, it might just be that Piezo inks have been in use longer, giving us
>> time to study them longer, but much of what is being attributable to brand
>> differences may be far more broad based than that.
>> 
>> All I know is I use MIS VM now, but I feel in no way free from fear. I
> think
>> all this stuff is tricky!
>> 
>> Todd
>> 
>>> Now here is a funny thing. Mike and Paul both told me that FS printed
>>> lighter than Piezo. Reworking some protfolio prints I found the opposite
> to
>>> be true, with FS needing a 'lift' adjustment. But going back to some
> REALLY
>>> old prints, all I need to do to replicate the piezo prints is to pull
> down
>>> the gamma a touch in curves and lift the toe of the blacks. It looks
> like I
>>> did have some variation (big) in density with piezo. Printing for the
> last
>>> exhibition I had to do some curves adjustments to get the prints to
> match
>>> the older portfolio prints but I put it down to an aging effect. Not so
> I
>>> think. This Piezo is tricky stuff!
>>> 
>>> Julian

.
>
> That you have to make the tweak on an image by image basis does seem
> unusually cruel though. Good luck.
>

Thanks! Although I think I've cracked it now. PS6 softproof really helps.
One of the problems with trying ot adjust old files is that the histogram
gets messed up after a while - I'm too lazy to scan again though. Maybe I
should keep 'raw' scans.

Julian

Hi Julian-

Well, yes, you might want to do that ;-)
Also, keep all tonal adjustments on adjustment layers; it adds to the file
size, but reduces the number of files you need to keep.  You can even keep
currently unused adjustment layers in a separate file, and just copy them in
when you need them.

Bill Morse
PhotoProspect
Cambridge, MA 

on 12/3/01 11:54 AM, Julian Thomas wrote:
One of the problems with trying ot adjust old files is that the histogram
gets messed up after a while - I'm too lazy to scan again though. Maybe I
should keep 'raw' scans.

Julian




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

I'm really lazy - I do a fine print and then just save it as a .stn file. I
know, I really should save as PSD and keep raw scans.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Morse" <willym@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] FS density mk2


> Hi Julian-
>
> Well, yes, you might want to do that ;-)
> Also, keep all tonal adjustments on adjustment layers; it adds to the file
> size, but reduces the number of files you need to keep.  You can even keep
> currently unused adjustment layers in a separate file, and just copy them
in
> when you need them.
>
> Bill Morse
> PhotoProspect
> Cambridge, MA
>
> on 12/3/01 11:54 AM, Julian Thomas wrote:
> One of the problems with trying ot adjust old files is that the histogram
> gets messed up after a while - I'm too lazy to scan again though. Maybe I
> should keep 'raw' scans.
>
> Julian
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Todd,

You wrote:

>What we don't know is if the MIS inks will show
>density variations over time too. I guess none of us,
>regardless of inkset, run calibration strips each
>morning to check consistency.

In doing all this mixing, etc., I run a lot of test strips.  So far, I have
not seen any density fluctuations with MIS.  (Aside from the + & - 1-2% that
seems to be normal with these printers and inks.)

I think it would be a good idea to run a 21-step and "color test" curve test
strip and put them in dark storage to use as standards.  If there was some
suspected variation, we'd be better able to nail it down then.

>What we don't know is if all inks settle/evaporate/change over time,

I'm suspicious of both.  The good pigments are supposed to be held in
suspension by "Brownian motion,"  but I give a few inversion agitations
before I mix new batches, just in case.  I swirl my CIS ink bottles
occasionally also.

I'm suspicious of the strong smell of the co-solvent base used by Piezo and
the MIS VM/FS black.  I think it is relatively volatile and might be
evaporating faster.  That could increase the incidence of clogging and other
problems.  However, that black is so much better than the others, I'm
willing to take the risk.  Just be sure to turn off those printers when not
in use for a long time.

The truth is that all the big companies serving the mainstream consumers use
dyes, not pigments.  The problems with glossy paper are certainly part of
the reason, but I'll bet these other issues are also relevant.  But, its
worth it.  So far, the MIS inks appear to be doing fine.  We are also
talking about some things that might be done to make sure they continue to
do fine, such as 1 micron filters in the CFS lines and cartridges.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

on 12/3/01 11:54 AM, Julian Thomas wrote:

> .
>> 
>> That you have to make the tweak on an image by image basis does seem
>> unusually cruel though. Good luck.
>> 
> 
> Thanks! Although I think I've cracked it now. PS6 softproof really helps.
> One of the problems with trying ot adjust old files is that the histogram
> gets messed up after a while - I'm too lazy to scan again though. Maybe I
> should keep 'raw' scans.
> 

Exactly what I do. I scan raw , dupe, save save a raw copy and globally
adjust the dupe in 16bit, then dupe. Save the 16 bit file and convert the
dupe to 8bit for local corrections and "finalizing", all edits done on
adjustment layers, which stores your edits. At this point I have three
files.

All the raw scans I ultimately will backup and store off the hard drive for
space considerations. The 16bit globally adjusted file, and the 8bit "final"
file I keep handy.

Now, if I ever decide my 8bit file got too tonally deteriorated I can load
all those adjustment layer edits back onto my 16bit file. (time consuming
but not hard). Thus one ends up using the convenience of the 8bit
painting/masking tools and applies them to a 16bit file. Your final file,
when/if converted down to 8bits will have a "perfect" histogram.

It's really the best of both worlds, and you never need scan again, until
you upgrade scanners of course, because you can never do better than a raw
scan. The rest (scanner drivers) is just software enhancement of a raw scan
anyway. And no scanner driver has the precision and flexibility as Photoshop
for "developing" your scan (unless they provide a pixel by pixel preview of
their effect like PS does).

That being said, it certainly is a more cumbersome approach, and on
virtually all occasions that I was getting tonal oddities that I thought
were attributable to insufficient bit depth (IOW, over working an 8bit
file), those same oddities remained in the 16bit version. But it is a very
safe and flexible approach!

Some of these tonal oddities I intend to address separately when I find the
energy...

Todd

on 12/3/01 12:05 PM, Paul Roark wrote:

> I think it would be a good idea to run a 21-step and "color test" curve test
> strip and put them in dark storage to use as standards.  If there was some
> suspected variation, we'd be better able to nail it down then.

The only thing I'd add is that it would probably make good sense to scan
them shortly after printing too, as a way to freeze the values from the
shift/fade that can occur even in dark storage.

Comparing to a control strip that is a moving target itself is one of the
confusing factors.

Todd

Guys,

I found out recently that despite Bill Burgh's insistance that the 
profiles suipplied with the newest edition of the Piezo Driver did 
not change, the software developer told me that they did re-profile 
the papers on much better equipment. This is why Piezo nay be showing 
some change if you switch to the newest driver and compare the prints 
to the old driver.

They are now also beginning to profile by printer. Before they would 
profile each printer and then avaerage the curves.

Mike

In my last post I made a couple of statments that were told to me by 
Gary Rogers the developer of the Piezo Software. I just received an 
email telling me that what I described is not in fact accurate. 

With this in mind I have decided to post the response that I received 
and my response....

-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael,

The second paragraph of your comment is false.
It is also poorly constructed.

ICQ profiles used by the PiezographyBW and
PiezographyBW Pro24 system have always been
generated specific to the target printer. 

We never averaged curves.
I have no idea what you meant by:
"Before they would profile each printer and then 
avaerage the curves."

For example, the ICQ profile for the Epson Stylus 
COLOR 3000 using the PiezographyBW ink set and
Somerset Velvet was generated from targets printed
on the Epson Stylus COLOR 3000 with the 
PiezograhyBW ink set and Somerset Velvet paper.
This applies to all supported printers/ink sets/papers.

I expect you to immediately correct your erroneous statement.
In the future, I suggest that you verify your comments concerning
how we implement our technology before you spread misinformation
on the web.

The tone of the entire comment, specifically the first
paragraph, is petty, and unfair to Bill. At the time he
made those comments, we were unaware that the
readings from our new spectrophotometer would be
(ever so slightly) different from our older unit.
Also, not all of the new profiles differ from the previous generation.

Gary

---------------------------------------------------------------

Gary,

Enough!

You were the one that told me you were now profiling for specific 
printers in lieu of just taking the average profile for the earlier 
releases of the software. You said that it would be impossible to 
have profiles for all the different printers that the software is 
supporting.

Either you guys are out of touch or you are feeding us bad info.

And yes, Bill told me that my density problems had nothing to do with 
the software. Then you tell me that is was the software due to the 
new profiles made on new and "more sophisticated equipment".

I am really getting tired of getting  beat up by you.  We are trying 
to work with the industry and it's changing so fast. If you change 
the profiles and don't tell people, how are we to react when our 
images do not print right.

I was printing 20 images that I sold to a local corporation. I could 
not get the densities to work. Then you tell me that the software is 
the problem. I wasted paper, ink and time. Don't start  lecturing me 
about retracting statements that you made.

Since you want a retraction, I will post this exchange and let 
everyone else sort it out.

I have been talking Piezo up! I have been a dedicated customer. But I 
will not be put in any position due to your misinformation. An 
apology is in order.

Mike
-----------------------------------------------------------------
History,

Two weeks ago I received a very disturbing letter accusing me posting 
rather thoughless accusations agains the Piezo system referring to 
the Greenies and DSS. I responded with copies of every post I had 
made proving that I never said what I had been accused of. At that 
time I decided to back off and not publicly post any more info 
regarding what my experiences were with the Piezo inks. In fact, I 
even posted a message buying the IJM line that the problem was with 
the new profiles. Well guess what folks, my dampers and heads were 
full of sludge. Was this sludge caused by the Piezo inks? Who knows, 
but my feeling is that it was.

I will no longer discuss anything that has to do with the Piezo 
system. 

Mike

Mike, I'm sorry that you are having these troubles. I have always found your
posts to be balanced to the point of over cautious. You have been free with
the results of your testing and have praised elements of the piezo system at
the same time as raising what you have felt to be legitimate concerns. i
wouldn't have made what felt like an extreme leap into FS if it hadn't been
for you being so free with your expertise.

Take care

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael J. Kravit" <mkravit@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 2:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] FS density mk2


> In my last post I made a couple of statments that were told to me by
> Gary Rogers the developer of the Piezo Software. I just received an
> email telling me that what I described is not in fact accurate.
>
> With this in mind I have decided to post the response that I received
> and my response....
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael,
>
> The second paragraph of your comment is false.
> It is also poorly constructed.
>
> ICQ profiles used by the PiezographyBW and
> PiezographyBW Pro24 system have always been
> generated specific to the target printer.
>
> We never averaged curves.
> I have no idea what you meant by:
> "Before they would profile each printer and then
> avaerage the curves."
>
> For example, the ICQ profile for the Epson Stylus
> COLOR 3000 using the PiezographyBW ink set and
> Somerset Velvet was generated from targets printed
> on the Epson Stylus COLOR 3000 with the
> PiezograhyBW ink set and Somerset Velvet paper.
> This applies to all supported printers/ink sets/papers.
>
> I expect you to immediately correct your erroneous statement.
> In the future, I suggest that you verify your comments concerning
> how we implement our technology before you spread misinformation
> on the web.
>
> The tone of the entire comment, specifically the first
> paragraph, is petty, and unfair to Bill. At the time he
> made those comments, we were unaware that the
> readings from our new spectrophotometer would be
> (ever so slightly) different from our older unit.
> Also, not all of the new profiles differ from the previous generation.
>
> Gary
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Gary,
>
> Enough!
>
> You were the one that told me you were now profiling for specific
> printers in lieu of just taking the average profile for the earlier
> releases of the software. You said that it would be impossible to
> have profiles for all the different printers that the software is
> supporting.
>
> Either you guys are out of touch or you are feeding us bad info.
>
> And yes, Bill told me that my density problems had nothing to do with
> the software. Then you tell me that is was the software due to the
> new profiles made on new and "more sophisticated equipment".
>
> I am really getting tired of getting  beat up by you.  We are trying
> to work with the industry and it's changing so fast. If you change
> the profiles and don't tell people, how are we to react when our
> images do not print right.
>
> I was printing 20 images that I sold to a local corporation. I could
> not get the densities to work. Then you tell me that the software is
> the problem. I wasted paper, ink and time. Don't start  lecturing me
> about retracting statements that you made.
>
> Since you want a retraction, I will post this exchange and let
> everyone else sort it out.
>
> I have been talking Piezo up! I have been a dedicated customer. But I
> will not be put in any position due to your misinformation. An
> apology is in order.
>
> Mike
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> History,
>
> Two weeks ago I received a very disturbing letter accusing me posting
> rather thoughless accusations agains the Piezo system referring to
> the Greenies and DSS. I responded with copies of every post I had
> made proving that I never said what I had been accused of. At that
> time I decided to back off and not publicly post any more info
> regarding what my experiences were with the Piezo inks. In fact, I
> even posted a message buying the IJM line that the problem was with
> the new profiles. Well guess what folks, my dampers and heads were
> full of sludge. Was this sludge caused by the Piezo inks? Who knows,
> but my feeling is that it was.
>
> I will no longer discuss anything that has to do with the Piezo
> system.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" 
<julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> Mike, I'm sorry that you are having these troubles. I have always 
found your
> posts to be balanced to the point of over cautious. 

Julian,

Thanks for your support and balanced thoughts. I will always continue 
to be a member of this list and help others were I can.

Good printing....

Mike

Mike,

I know that the folks over at ConeTech follow this list and they were 
in fact the very first people invited to join. I am sorry to see that 
you were so harshly taken to task for your on list posts.

It would be nice if they would join the group discussion on list. We 
would all like to hear their thoughts on these matters.

Martin Wesley

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Michael J. Kravit" 
<mkravit@k...> wrote:
> In my last post I made a couple of statments that were told to me 
by 
> Gary Rogers the developer of the Piezo Software. I just received an 
> email telling me that what I described is not in fact accurate. 
> 
> With this in mind I have decided to post the response that I 
received 
> and my response....
> 
(snip earlier)

Martin,

Thanks for you support.

Please, let me say that it was not Jon or Bill that was harsh, they 
have been very supportive and helpful. It was the deeveloper that IMO 
came on a bit strong. 

However, with tha in mind I have received an apology for the tone 
expressed in that correspondence. It takes a gentlemen to aplogize 
and that was the case.

I think that for now all that needs to be said is that IJM is working 
very hard to fix any and all problems that may exist. They are 
working with those that have experienced problems and will continue 
to due so.

My best to all in this holiday season. May the new year bring peace 
to all, throughout the world.

Mike