Digital BW, The Print

I just switched from UT to UT-7 inks, and I'm going 
through a, er, learning phase... meaning I have a lot 
of dumb questions. :-)

I mainly print on either EEM or H. Photo Rag. Using the
UT inks, I could basically use the same profile on either
paper (relinearized, of course) and get a very similar
result, despite the fact that Photo Rag base is more of a
cream color than EEM's brilliant white.

Now, with the UT-7 inks, I just printed a picture on 
Photo Rag, and instead of being more or less the same 
as on EEM, it has a strong greenish cast--very muddy 
looking grays, too, and darn ugly. I thought it looked 
a little off until I set it next to both a UT-7/EEM and 
a UT/Photo Rag, both of which look very nice in comparison.

I'm using a 2200 with clean nozzle checks + IJC/OPM.

Now, my questions, for anyone who knows both the
UT and UT-7's. 

(1) Have you been able to get more or less the same 
hues from either set? Or should my expectation be that
I've switched to a different "palette", and trying to 
match my old UT prints (or close) is misguided? Obviously,
the profiles will be different, since the component inks
are different, but I don't want to get into IJC profile 
tweaking if this ain't possible. (Actually, I have been 
messing with profiles, with zero success.)

(2) Has anyone seen this dramatic difference between EEM
and Photo Rag with UT-7? 

-david

I don't think there is much difference in EEM and PhotoRag relative
performance with UT and UT7 inks, at least if both ink sets are the current
batches.

If the old UT was pre-November 2004, you may have a batch that had a lot of
magenta in it -- too much for most people.  Also, since the old UT used
magenta pigments and the new does not, there could be more of a difference
between EEM and PR with respect to how they react to the new inks (which are
based in part of R800 blue clone pigment instead of magenta).

There are differences in UT and UT7 inksets that could show up in curves,
depending on how they are written.  The UT toner uses the same mix of color
pigments (ignoring the carbon content) as does the UT7 light cool ink (LM).
The UT7 dark cool ink (M) and light black use a different and less magenta,
more green mix of color pigments.  This is one of the basic changes that was
made, mostly to avoid the excessive magenta shades that ended up in glossy
papers.

So, if the curves put much UT7 LK or M into the mix above 50%, the tone will
be thrown off.  The LM should be the dominant toner used in a neutral print
at 50%.  If you want more magenta below that, you can also extend the LM
curve down into the shadows more.  So, by writing the curves differently,
you can control, within limits, the amount of magenta bias.

By the way, if you use only IJC (or QTR), you might consider putting UT-FS-Y
in the LK spot.  For IJC, I have a 7600 neutral curve that utilizes this for
dotless highlights.  It should easily linearize on the 2200.  I'll try
PhotoRag with this curve and see how it looks soon.

Hope this helps.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David
> Wroblewski
> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 1:32 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] The UT-7 greenies
> 
> I just switched from UT to UT-7 inks, and I'm going
> through a, er, learning phase... meaning I have a lot
> of dumb questions. :-)
> 
> I mainly print on either EEM or H. Photo Rag. Using the
> UT inks, I could basically use the same profile on either
> paper (relinearized, of course) and get a very similar
> result, despite the fact that Photo Rag base is more of a
> cream color than EEM's brilliant white.
> 
> Now, with the UT-7 inks, I just printed a picture on
> Photo Rag, and instead of being more or less the same
> as on EEM, it has a strong greenish cast--very muddy
> looking grays, too, and darn ugly. I thought it looked
> a little off until I set it next to both a UT-7/EEM and
> a UT/Photo Rag, both of which look very nice in comparison.
> 
> I'm using a 2200 with clean nozzle checks + IJC/OPM.
> 
> Now, my questions, for anyone who knows both the
> UT and UT-7's.
> 
> (1) Have you been able to get more or less the same
> hues from either set? Or should my expectation be that
> I've switched to a different "palette", and trying to
> match my old UT prints (or close) is misguided? Obviously,
> the profiles will be different, since the component inks
> are different, but I don't want to get into IJC profile
> tweaking if this ain't possible. (Actually, I have been
> messing with profiles, with zero success.)
> 
> (2) Has anyone seen this dramatic difference between EEM
> and Photo Rag with UT-7?
> 
> -david
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:

> If the old UT was pre-November 2004, you may have a batch that 
> had a lot of magenta in it -- too much for most people.  
> Also, since the old UT used magenta pigments and the new does 
> not, there could be more of a difference between EEM and PR 
> with respect to how they react to the new inks (which are
> based in part of R800 blue clone pigment instead of magenta).

Yes! My UT's *were* pre-November 2004. I didn't mention the 
magenta in the UT prints because I thought it would confuse the
issue. This explains a lot--but it's too bad, because the resulting
UT tones were extremely clean and bright on matte papers, 
and I liked them very much. Perfect would be the same results
minus the almost subliminal magenta bias.

> There are differences in UT and UT7 inksets that could show 
> up in curves, depending on how they are written.  The UT toner 
> uses the same mix of color pigments (ignoring the carbon 
> content) as does the UT7 light cool ink (LM). The UT7 dark 
> cool ink (M) and light black use a different and less magenta,
> more green mix of color pigments... so, if the curves put much 
> UT7 LK or M into the mix above 50%, the tone will be thrown off. 

Clarification: by "above 50%" you mean the highlights, correct?

In the curves I've been using, equal parts of light cool (LM) 
and light warm (LC) are mixed to render the highlights. Dark
cool, dark warm, and LK begin to fade in at 25%, and 50% 
there is a roughly equal mix of all 5 inks. The worst of the 
greeny muddiness, though, happens above 50% density--at least to
my eye.

> By the way, if you use only IJC (or QTR), you might consider 
> putting UT-FS-Y in the LK spot.  For IJC, I have a 7600 
> neutral curve that utilizes this for dotless highlights.  It 
> should easily linearize on the 2200.  I'll try PhotoRag with 
> this curve and see how it looks soon.

Yes, I run exclusively with IJC, so if you want to share that
curve I could probably learn from it. But I'm confused about this 
LK substitution. I was already considering swapping the 
UT-7-Y (sepia) for UT-FS-Y (light gray), since I don't use the 
sepia. Did you really mean swapping UT-FS-Y for the UT-7 LK, which 
is a middle gray? Don't you need the extra density of the LK for 
the shadows?

Thanks,
David

> > If the old UT was pre-November 2004, you may have a batch that
> > had a lot of magenta in it -- too much for most people...

> 
> Yes! My UT's *were* pre-November 2004. ...
>Perfect would be the same results minus the almost subliminal magenta bias.

That was the intent with the newer inks.  There is a range of hues that the
papers take on.  Photo Rag, for example with the EEM curve, will print a bit
cool in the shadows, but should be close to neutral in the magenta
(red)-green axis (Lab a).


> 
> > There are differences in UT and UT7 inksets that could show
> > up in curves, depending on how they are written.  The UT toner
> > uses the same mix of color pigments (ignoring the carbon
> > content) as does the UT7 light cool ink (LM). The UT7 dark
> > cool ink (M) and light black use a different and less magenta,
> > more green mix of color pigments... so, if the curves put much
> > UT7 LK or M into the mix above 50%, the tone will be thrown off.
> 
> Clarification: by "above 50%" you mean the highlights, correct?

Correct, keep the M out of the highlights.  In fact, LM and LC are the only
inks that should be at 50%.

One can, in fact, run the LM quite far into the shadows to increase the
relative magenta bias there.


> ... 50% there is a roughly equal mix of all 5 inks.

You might want to change this.

> The worst of the greeny muddiness, though, happens above 50% density...

I'm not sure what would cause this.  With the old magenta, if the light
toner was left still for long periods there could be separation.  I have not
heard of this happening with the new mix, however.

> Yes, I run exclusively with IJC,

Do you have the newest version with the heavier ink loads?  If not, I think
my curves will have the ink limits set way too low.

> ... I'm confused about this LK substitution. 
>I was already considering swapping the
> UT-7-Y (sepia) for UT-FS-Y (light gray), since I don't use the
> sepia.

Yes, that works also, and it's the only way to do it for people running the
Epson driver.

> Did you really mean swapping UT-FS-Y for the UT-7 LK, which
> is a middle gray?

With a rip that allows you to keep the sepia in the mix.  With a rip, it
doesn't matter where the FS-Y is.

> Don't you need the extra density of the LK for the shadows?

No, in a dedicated B&w inkset the LK is a wasted spot.  LK is lighter than
the dark grays we use.  The dark shadows only need C & M.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

> No, in a dedicated B&w inkset the LK is a wasted spot.  LK is
> lighter than the dark grays we use.  The dark shadows only need C & M.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
> 
How do the standard curves prevent the LK ink from being used? I ask
because I've been getting a slight bluish cast in the light &
mid-shadows (UT7/2200) when using the carbon curves which I thought may
be caused by the LK ink.

Thanks 
Howard

Thanks for all the information, Paul. I've been experimenting
with the Photoshop curves you developed for UT-7's to see the 
sort of results correct curves can provide. I'm getting
virtually identical results from the original UT's I'm
used to.

Is there a straightforward method of interpretting the
Photoshop .acv files to build IJC profiles from them? 
I've translated QTR curves to IJC in the past, which 
is almost trivial, but this looks like apples and 
oranges. (As an aside, it would be very cool to
have an application-neutral way of expressing ink recipes
like this, to facilitate sharing.... I think IJC and QTR 
come very close already.)

-david