Digital BW, The Print

Ink sets such as UT7 use three.  FSN has 4 (if I recall correctly).  Epson K3 has three.  Not so 
long ago there was chatter from UT7 users and, I believe, from Paul that three Ks were not 
necessary on the small picolitre printers.  I used an ink setup similar to Carl Schofield which 
ran just 2 shades of K for a particular paper (plus sepia toner for sepia prints).  Now I hear 
chatter of Piezotones (?) coming out with 8 shades of grey... The dedicated B&W ink 
manufacturers had a great niche when Epson only had 1 or 2 Ks.  The way was left open for 
people to remix/dilute ink to provide B&W printers with better tonal gradation (less dots) with 
quad/hex/sep setups.   I am interested in hearing from specialist B&W printers who still think 
that we need more than three shades of K and why.  

(I say specialist because ideally I would like to hear from people who make a living printing 
B&W for established photographers and those people who work with ink companies and help 
them design/market/produce their B&W ink sets.  So bureaus/labs, Paul Roark, Jon Cone 
types...)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale"
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
>... ...   I am interested in hearing from specialist B&W printers who
still think 
> that we need more than three shades of K and why.  

There is no universal need. Clayton just needs one, and likes it
better than more (that may have evolved, if so sorry Clayton). Those
with IP, QTR, etc. with the current UC inks that are thrilled with
their prints only need 2. 
Right now, I need at least 4. After seeing 6 I want 6. If I saw more
and liked it even better, I'd want that...
Also, without the means to put them down properly, more may not be
better, more may create more problems. This is not a simple issue.

> (I say specialist because ideally I would like to hear from people
who make a living printing 
> B&W for established photographers...


I do that, depending on what you consider a living.
Tyler

Thanks Tyler.  I wish I could see some of your prints.  The reason I was
asking is that I just finished printing the last 3 images on this webpage:

http://homepage.mac.com/stevekale/Photography/PhotoAlbum39.html

on Ilford Smooth Pearl paper with the 4800 at 2880dpi.  I have been over
them with my 6x6 loupe and honestly can't see any dots anywhere.  I scoured
the highlights and still nothing.  I see the texture of the paper very
clearly but no dots.  And that's on a photo paper where I would expect dots
to be more obvious.  Given the nature of the images and their smooth
transitions I thought they would show the limitations of the printer.  I'm
wondering how much more there is to play for with additional inks to make up
the greyscale.  I guess I simply need to see some true "pro prints" to see
what I am missing out on.  Seattle is a bit far away for now though...

Thanks

Steve

> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
 
> 
> There is no universal need. Clayton just needs one, and likes it
> better than more (that may have evolved, if so sorry Clayton). Those
> with IP, QTR, etc. with the current UC inks that are thrilled with
> their prints only need 2.
> Right now, I need at least 4. After seeing 6 I want 6. If I saw more
> and liked it even better, I'd want that...
> Also, without the means to put them down properly, more may not be
> better, more may create more problems. This is not a simple issue.
> 
>> (I say specialist because ideally I would like to hear from people
> who make a living printing
>> B&W for established photographers...
> 
> 
> I do that, depending on what you consider a living.

Your question is Do we need?
We asked Do we want?
Tried it and we know why we want it.
Is it necessary?
Depends upon how high a standard you set really.
My new inks are an entirely new formulation called Piezography Neutral K7.
The prints we are making with them are of a significantly higher visual standard than what 
we have been making with three grays.

Jon Cone




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale" <stevekale@b...> 
wrote:
> Ink sets such as UT7 use three.  FSN has 4 (if I recall correctly).  Epson K3 has three.  
Not so 
> long ago there was chatter from UT7 users and, I believe, from Paul that three Ks were 
not 
> necessary on the small picolitre printers.  I used an ink setup similar to Carl Schofield 
which 
> ran just 2 shades of K for a particular paper (plus sepia toner for sepia prints).  Now I 
hear 
> chatter of Piezotones (?) coming out with 8 shades of grey... The dedicated B&W ink 
> manufacturers had a great niche when Epson only had 1 or 2 Ks.  The way was left open 
for 
> people to remix/dilute ink to provide B&W printers with better tonal gradation (less 
dots) with 
> quad/hex/sep setups.   I am interested in hearing from specialist B&W printers who still 
think 
> that we need more than three shades of K and why.  
> 
> (I say specialist because ideally I would like to hear from people who make a living 
printing 
> B&W for established photographers and those people who work with ink companies and 
help 
> them design/market/produce their B&W ink sets.  So bureaus/labs, Paul Roark, Jon Cone 
> types...)

Hi Jon


> From: piezobw <piezobw@...>

> 
> Your question is Do we need?
> We asked Do we want?

Fair.  I would rephrase the question then to ask how many do we want before
we feel we've hit the law of diminishing returns.

> Tried it and we know why we want it.
> Is it necessary?
> Depends upon how high a standard you set really.
> My new inks are an entirely new formulation called Piezography Neutral K7.
> The prints we are making with them are of a significantly higher visual
> standard than what
> we have been making with three grays.
> 
> Jon Cone


Are they available yet?  I know this is a very difficult question to answer
but how would you characterise the improvement you get from K7 ?
(Presumably you have compared them to Epson's K3 output.)  For those of us
sitting abroad it is difficult to get a look at these before having to step
to the plate with a purchase.  I'm trying to get a sense of the incremental
gain.  Are we talking a big jump or an additional 5%?  You say significant
so I guess it's more the former.  Does it come down to less dots and
smoother transitions or something beyond that?

Steve

when will K7 be available?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "piezobw"
<piezobw@c...> wrote:
> Your question is Do we need?
> We asked Do we want?
> Tried it and we know why we want it.
> Is it necessary?
> Depends upon how high a standard you set really.
> My new inks are an entirely new formulation called Piezography
Neutral K7.
> The prints we are making with them are of a significantly higher
visual standard than what 
> we have been making with three grays.
> 
> Jon Cone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale"
<stevekale@b...> 
> wrote:
> > Ink sets such as UT7 use three.  FSN has 4 (if I recall
correctly).  Epson K3 has three.  
> Not so 
> > long ago there was chatter from UT7 users and, I believe, from
Paul that three Ks were 
> not 
> > necessary on the small picolitre printers.  I used an ink setup
similar to Carl Schofield 
> which 
> > ran just 2 shades of K for a particular paper (plus sepia toner
for sepia prints).  Now I 
> hear 
> > chatter of Piezotones (?) coming out with 8 shades of grey... The
dedicated B&W ink 
> > manufacturers had a great niche when Epson only had 1 or 2 Ks. 
The way was left open 
> for 
> > people to remix/dilute ink to provide B&W printers with better
tonal gradation (less 
> dots) with 
> > quad/hex/sep setups.   I am interested in hearing from specialist
B&W printers who still 
> think 
> > that we need more than three shades of K and why.  
> > 
> > (I say specialist because ideally I would like to hear from people
who make a living 
> printing 
> > B&W for established photographers and those people who work with
ink companies and 
> help 
> > them design/market/produce their B&W ink sets.  So bureaus/labs,
Paul Roark, Jon Cone 
> > types...)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Thanks Tyler.  I wish I could see some of your prints.  The reason I was
> asking is that I just finished printing the last 3 images on this
webpage:
> 
> http://homepage.mac.com/stevekale/Photography/PhotoAlbum39.html
> 
> on Ilford Smooth Pearl paper with the 4800 at 2880dpi.  I have been over
> them with my 6x6 loupe and honestly can't see any dots anywhere.  I
scoured
> the highlights and still nothing.  I see the texture of the paper very
> clearly but no dots.  And that's on a photo paper where I would
expect dots
> to be more obvious.  Given the nature of the images and their smooth
> transitions I thought they would show the limitations of the printer.

And if they were in front of me here I might say they are really
great, can't imagine any better. Who knows, for that exact look, maybe
there is no better right now.

>  I'm
> wondering how much more there is to play for with additional inks to
make up
> the greyscale.

I think Jon's reply is revealing. It's more about trying things and
seeing what happens, than necessarily addressing a percieved technical
shortcoming (well, that too if course). I've seen lots of prints I
thought were amazing, can't get any better, until I saw a better one.
I can't imagine anyone at Epson thinking... "hey, let's see what 7
blacks look like, just cause we can, and we got back from lunch early.
Let's push the h**l out of it and see what happens".

>  I guess I simply need to see some true "pro prints" to see
> what I am missing out on.

Well don't give "pro" more status than it deserves, could be some bad
pros out there.

Arriving at the place you describe, not being able to percieve any
quality limit with the process you are using for your particular work,
is a great thing. When you are there and can really turn your
attention to the other aspects of making great images and prints, it's
a bit scarey, but what we were after all along.

Tyler

Looks like Piezo's new inks will work with QTR according to the hint 
below.

"Piezography Neutral K7 is as near perfect an ink as is possible 
today. The shape of the pigment particles is now perfected. The 
vehicle retards fading even better, although with our pure pigment 
PiezoTone inks we were already at less than human perceptible fade. 
Still there was room to improve and we have" said Cone. "Best of all, 
these inks are designed to work with a $50 piece of software."

Shame it won't work in my 1280 (only 5 colors) plus black. MIS is 
still my supplier by choice for my printer.

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pekozip93" 
<photographer93@h...> wrote:
> 
> when will K7 be available?
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "piezobw"
> <piezobw@c...> wrote:
> > Your question is Do we need?
> > We asked Do we want?
> > Tried it and we know why we want it.
> > Is it necessary?
> > Depends upon how high a standard you set really.
> > My new inks are an entirely new formulation called Piezography
> Neutral K7.
> > The prints we are making with them are of a significantly higher
> visual standard than what 
> > we have been making with three grays.
> > 
> > Jon Cone
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale"
> <stevekale@b...> 
> > wrote:
> > > Ink sets such as UT7 use three.  FSN has 4 (if I recall
> correctly).  Epson K3 has three.  
> > Not so 
> > > long ago there was chatter from UT7 users and, I believe, from
> Paul that three Ks were 
> > not 
> > > necessary on the small picolitre printers.  I used an ink setup
> similar to Carl Schofield 
> > which 
> > > ran just 2 shades of K for a particular paper (plus sepia toner
> for sepia prints).  Now I 
> > hear 
> > > chatter of Piezotones (?) coming out with 8 shades of grey... 
The
> dedicated B&W ink 
> > > manufacturers had a great niche when Epson only had 1 or 2 Ks. 
> The way was left open 
> > for 
> > > people to remix/dilute ink to provide B&W printers with better
> tonal gradation (less 
> > dots) with 
> > > quad/hex/sep setups.   I am interested in hearing from 
specialist
> B&W printers who still 
> > think 
> > > that we need more than three shades of K and why.  
> > > 
> > > (I say specialist because ideally I would like to hear from 
people

> who make a living 
> > printing 
> > > B&W for established photographers and those people who work with
> ink companies and 
> > help 
> > > them design/market/produce their B&W ink sets.  So bureaus/labs,
> Paul Roark, Jon Cone 
> > > types...)

In a message dated 6/15/05 1:39:31 PM, tyler@... writes:


> Arriving at the place you describe, not being able to percieve any
> quality limit with the process you are using for your particular work,
> is a great thing. When you are there and can really turn your
> attention to the other aspects of making great images and prints, it's
> a bit scarey, but what we were after all along.
> 
> Tyler
> 

Ahem, Brother Tyler!



Bill Kennedy
Associate Professor of Photography
St. Edward's University
Austin, Texas


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

On 15-Jun-05, at 12:39 PM, Johnny Eades wrote:

> Looks like Piezo's new inks will work with QTR according to the hint
> below.

More than a hint.. Jon Cone mentioned QTR outright in a couple of  
posts that I read a bit ago, along with Roy's name... they are  
creating curves for their ink for QTR, for the 2200 right now I  
believe.. it's all cool. :)

Carolyn

On 15-Jun-05, at 11:55 AM, Steve Kale wrote:

> Thanks Tyler.  I wish I could see some of your prints.

While not Tyler's "prints", these give a great example of the 'shades  
of gray' he works so well.. His prints are totally stunning. Sorry  
T. :) The jpeg's don't do them justice of course, but worth a look.
my site.. http://www.carolynfrayn.com
click on "guests"..  They take a bit to load, but worth the wait.

you'll find some of Tyler's Italy work at Tim Spragen's site,
http://www.borderless-photos.de/tboley/tboley-01.html

C

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyler
> Boley
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:41 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?


> Right now, I need at least 4. After seeing 6 I want 6. If I saw more
> and liked it even better, I'd want that...

In which case go look at the latest cone offering.

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve
> Kale
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:09 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> 
> Fair.  I would rephrase the question then to ask how many do we want
> before
> we feel we've hit the law of diminishing returns.

256 I'd say

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

Carolyn  - thanks the images are great but my question was really one to do
with understanding what the very best is today in actual inkjet output.  I'd
like to see the quality of the prints themselves, and some of Jon Cone's K7
output, to understand what can be achieved by leading digital B&W printers.

Tyler - great images!

> From: Carolyn Frayn <cafrayn@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:47:39 -0600
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> 
> 
> On 15-Jun-05, at 11:55 AM, Steve Kale wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Tyler.  I wish I could see some of your prints.
> 
> While not Tyler's "prints", these give a great example of the 'shades
> of gray' he works so well.. His prints are totally stunning. Sorry
> T. :) The jpeg's don't do them justice of course, but worth a look.
> my site.. http://www.carolynfrayn.com
> click on "guests"..  They take a bit to load, but worth the wait.
> 
> you'll find some of Tyler's Italy work at Tim Spragen's site,
> http://www.borderless-photos.de/tboley/tboley-01.html
> 
> C

Richard

Given, I assume from your email, you are in the UK, where might you suggest
I see some prints?

Steve

> From: Richard <richard@...-bulldog.com>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:22:28 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyler
>> Boley
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:41 PM
>> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> 
> 
>> Right now, I need at least 4. After seeing 6 I want 6. If I saw more
>> and liked it even better, I'd want that...
> 
> In which case go look at the latest cone offering.
> 
> Richard

On 15-Jun-05, at 3:46 PM, Steve Kale wrote:

> Carolyn  - thanks the images are great but my question was really  
> one to do
> with understanding what the very best is today in actual inkjet  
> output.  I'd
> like to see the quality of the prints themselves, and some of Jon  
> Cone's K7
> output, to understand what can be achieved by leading digital B&W  
> printers.


I understood that of course Steve.. but having a few of Tyler's  
prints here, I see the images in the form I sent you reflecting  
themselves in the prints, and thought perhaps it would give a small  
sense of the subtleties he has been obtaining, even 'way' back on his  
3000.. though of course know it's not the same as the prints themselves.

and yes, it would be helpful for you to see prints up close and  
personal from those who print BW inkjet well, with any system they  
are using now.

Carolyn

I do not have a clue - where ever the Cone users in the UK actually exist, I
have yet to see an exhibition of their work.

Mind you it's hardly surprising as Piezo inks no longer have a
distributor/reseller, MWords having given up the agency.

I have long considered that JC has limited horizons - International sales
wise, because as far as I am aware he has never been seen in the UK, or any
other EU country for that matter. Certainly the Piezo system has never been
publically demonstrated or promoted, apart from the MWords small display ads
in various photographic magazines.

If he had any marketing nous he would do a Europe wide promotional tour and
get a stand up at a few exhibitions over here, run some semina's, promote a
few exhibitions of Piezo work.

Mind you he probably gets a nice little earner from the American market and
feels disinclined to travel overseas perhaps. It's all that moonlight in
Vermont you know.

Richard


> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve
> Kale
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:51 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> 
> Richard
> 
> Given, I assume from your email, you are in the UK, where might you
> suggest
> I see some prints?
> 
> Steve


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

Carolyn, always good to be pointed to some great images. I feel like I get
very good print output now but you never know it for sure until you see what
the experts can do.  I obviously understand the proposition of the "quad
ink" guys when Epson etc are only producing 1-2 greys.  Having used 3 I am
astonished Tyler and Jon want 6 or 7 (I'll forget about those that want 256
for the moment).  I'd love to see some of these prints (or better a side by
side of what I can produce vs them) so that I can see what I can strive for
- alongside my own efforts in capturing good images of course!

(Love your website BTW)

> From: Carolyn Frayn <cafrayn@...>

> 
> 
> I understood that of course Steve.. but having a few of Tyler's
> prints here, I see the images in the form I sent you reflecting
> themselves in the prints, and thought perhaps it would give a small
> sense of the subtleties he has been obtaining, even 'way' back on his
> 3000.. though of course know it's not the same as the prints themselves.
> 
> and yes, it would be helpful for you to see prints up close and
> personal from those who print BW inkjet well, with any system they
> are using now.
> 
> Carolyn

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> 
wrote:

> Are they available yet?  

in just a few weeks
IJM website keep an update newslink for it at:  
http://www.inkjetmall.com/news/piezography-news.html


> I know this is a very difficult question to answer
> but how would you characterise the improvement you get from K7 ?
> Does it come down to less dots and
> smoother transitions or something beyond that?

no dots and smoother transitions
we are playing with the final curves for QuadTone Rip to get some more out of the 
highlights and shadows - and produce a Gamma 1.8 for previewing. Make it closer to our 
other products since BW ICC - where we first made uniform the output.

Its just a really smooth effect. - and its kinda cool to see no hue in a print. That's not 
really possible to pull off with color inks. The brain sees color. When the ink is truly 
achromatic - the brain does not see color.

Jon Cone

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades" <jeades1@s...> 
wrote:
>Shame it won't work in my 1280 (only 5 colors) plus black. MIS is 
> still my supplier by choice for my printer.
> 
> Your friend in Photography,
> 
> Johnny


Johnny,

We can put 5 appropriate K7 dilutions in a 1280 cartridge (a foamless one at that) - but 
don't tell anyone!   ;)   

We are planning to get around to the 1280 as soon as we can.  Really we want to get the 
2200/2100 off the ground first - 1280 may not release before the R1800....

we'll see.

But its possible to at 2200 release time. Because, you could buy the bulk ink and get a cis 
and start on your own if you can make curves with QTR.

Jon Cone

yes definitely!
This is an ink product we are releasing.
You can use it in a number of ways.
We're recommending the QTR because it works, is inexpensive, and we can create our 
curves for it, and the user can create their own. StudioPrint users will also be able to get 
started right away with the 220ml carts.

Jon


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carolyn Frayn <cafrayn@y...> 
wrote:

> 
> On 15-Jun-05, at 12:39 PM, Johnny Eades wrote:
> 
> > Looks like Piezo's new inks will work with QTR according to the hint
> > below.
> 
> More than a hint.. Jon Cone mentioned QTR outright in a couple of  
> posts that I read a bit ago, along with Roy's name... they are  
> creating curves for their ink for QTR, for the 2200 right now I  
> believe.. it's all cool. :)
> 
> Carolyn

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "piezobw" 
<piezobw@c...> wrote:
> no dots and smoother transitions


I can understand the dot issue in the lightest shades, but I'm 
surprised you couldn't get dotless in the middle to almost black 
areas. I would have thought that you could mix in some of the light 
black to fill in the spotty areas of medium black, and mix light 
and/or medium black into the spotty areas of the full black. It's 
still just a theory, as soon as I finish the RIP wars and decide what 
to buy, I'll give a go at mixing something that works best for my 
machine.

Not trying to compete or "re-invent the wheel", just want to cut down 
on the different types of products I use. And so I can buy ink from 
only one place, and know it won't cause problems when I switch back 
and forth (that and I feel I've found the best matte black ink for 
me).

This could really be something. I am very curious. Fact is even with fiber 
darkroom prints they were never really neutral. They always had casts of 
some kind, green, blue, brown, selenium, but always a little of something and 
the print developer had a big impact on that. These new Piezzo inks may very 
well be the first truely neutral mono imaging we've had, apart from offset 
printing or possibly silkscreen and photo litho.

I really like the idea of letting the media add the only hint of color.





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "piezobw" <
piezobw@c...> wrote:
> yes definitely!
> This is an ink product we are releasing.
> You can use it in a number of ways.
> We're recommending the QTR because it works, is inexpensive, and we can 
create our 
> curves for it, and the user can create their own. StudioPrint users will also 
be able to get 
> started right away with the 220ml carts.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carolyn Frayn <
cafrayn@y...> 

> wrote:
> > 
> > On 15-Jun-05, at 12:39 PM, Johnny Eades wrote:
> > 
> > > Looks like Piezo's new inks will work with QTR according to the hint
> > > below.
> > 
> > More than a hint.. Jon Cone mentioned QTR outright in a couple of  
> > posts that I read a bit ago, along with Roy's name... they are  
> > creating curves for their ink for QTR, for the 2200 right now I  
> > believe.. it's all cool. :)
> > 
> > Carolyn

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting" <dfaprinting@y...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "piezobw" 
> <piezobw@c...> wrote:
> > no dots and smoother transitions
> 
> 
> I can understand the dot issue in the lightest shades, but I'm 
> surprised you couldn't get dotless in the middle to almost black 
> areas.

That area should never be a problem with nearly any system.  Highlights can be though.
This is one in which we think the medium's worst critics can take our highlights under 
a microscope now!!!!   :)



>  I would have thought that you could mix in some of the light 
> black to fill in the spotty areas of medium black, and mix light 
> and/or medium black into the spotty areas of the full black. It's 
> still just a theory, as soon as I finish the RIP wars and decide what 
> to buy, I'll give a go at mixing something that works best for my 
> machine.

No need to fill in spaces in deep areas if the system is utilizing what 
is now a very old theory of partioning inks. They will be printing at
a high enough frequency so that the dots are already too close to
separate with the eye.


> Not trying to compete or "re-invent the wheel", just want to cut down 
> on the different types of products I use. And so I can buy ink from 
> only one place, and know it won't cause problems when I switch back 
> and forth (that and I feel I've found the best matte black ink for 
> me).

So far these new inks have been plug and play with all the inks which
have been in the tester's printers. Several were able to switch back and
forth with ease as well.

Even people who want to continue with color inks in their printer
will like how easily these K7 inks start up. You can give em a try without
causing any ruckus in your studio....

Jon Cone

Jon,

I'm not disputing your inks ability to make dotless highlights, but I 
am using MIS UT2 inks on an epson 1280 and I don't see any dots in my 
highlights now. Is your dotless different? I'm not trying to be 
sarcastic, just trying to understand how much the inkset is 
contributing to what QTR produces on its end of the combination.

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "piezobw" 
<piezobw@c...> wrote:
>
-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting" 
<dfaprinting@y...> 
> wrote:
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "piezobw" 
> > <piezobw@c...> wrote:
> > > no dots and smoother transitions
> > 
> > 
> > I can understand the dot issue in the lightest shades, but I'm 
> > surprised you couldn't get dotless in the middle to almost black 
> > areas.
> 
> That area should never be a problem with nearly any system.  
Highlights can be though.
> This is one in which we think the medium's worst critics can take 
our highlights under 

> a microscope now!!!!   :)

> 
> Jon Cone

I assume that unless the inks are completely opaque there is some  
paper color influence on the neutrality of the print.  Is there a lab  
neutral paper to use with these neutral inks?

Carl Schofield

On Jun 15, 2005, at 9:53 PM, piezobw wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting"  
> <dfaprinting@y...>
> wrote:
>
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "piezobw"
>> <piezobw@c...> wrote:
>>
>>> no dots and smoother transitions
>>>
>>
>>
>> I can understand the dot issue in the lightest shades, but I'm
>> surprised you couldn't get dotless in the middle to almost black
>> areas.
>>
>
> That area should never be a problem with nearly any system.   
> Highlights can be though.
> This is one in which we think the medium's worst critics can take  
> our highlights under
> a microscope now!!!!   :)
>
>
>
>
>>  I would have thought that you could mix in some of the light
>> black to fill in the spotty areas of medium black, and mix light
>> and/or medium black into the spotty areas of the full black. It's
>> still just a theory, as soon as I finish the RIP wars and decide what
>> to buy, I'll give a go at mixing something that works best for my
>> machine.
>>
>
> No need to fill in spaces in deep areas if the system is utilizing  
> what
> is now a very old theory of partioning inks. They will be printing at
> a high enough frequency so that the dots are already too close to
> separate with the eye.
>
>
>
>> Not trying to compete or "re-invent the wheel", just want to cut down
>> on the different types of products I use. And so I can buy ink from
>> only one place, and know it won't cause problems when I switch back
>> and forth (that and I feel I've found the best matte black ink for
>> me).
>>
>
> So far these new inks have been plug and play with all the inks which
> have been in the tester's printers. Several were able to switch  
> back and
> forth with ease as well.
>
> Even people who want to continue with color inks in their printer
> will like how easily these K7 inks start up. You can give em a try  
> without
> causing any ruckus in your studio....
>
> Jon Cone
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield <scho@m...> 
wrote:
> I assume that unless the inks are completely opaque there is some  
> paper color influence on the neutrality of the print.  Is there a lab  
> neutral paper to use with these neutral inks?
> 
> Carl Schofield


Well that's the thing. We designed the Lab Neutral on Bradford Bright White, Innova Photo 
Cotton Smooth, and Hahnemuhle Photo Rag papers. They share nearly the same color of 
"white" which is far from neutral. But K7 will appear neutral on these papers.  Using K7 on 
Bradford Brilliant White it shifts it Selenium....

Photo Rag is not Lab Neutral of course. There really isn't a Lab Neutral paper that I know. 
But the color of PhotoRag is one of the most popular colors with my users.  So we 
designed the K7 neutral effect on that paper. Innova and Bradford papers clone that color.

Does that make sense?


Jon Cone

I understand what you are saying. We have not seen dots for a long time ourselves going 
pretty far back from my first quad system for IRIS through the various Piezography 
systems including the latest.

Its just a question of fidelity. Maybe its like in stereo equipment - where some need 
audiophile gear. As I am sitting here writing you, I am listening to Tree Blues by Ola Dara 
and really digging it. Thing is I am listening to it on my powerbook.  :)

I do not own an audiophile system. I used to. Used to even buy special vinyl which had 
been mastered direct to disk. I used to dig that a whole lot more - I can tell you...  :)

I think for many people the new inks are going to be more about their achromatic 
properties, and their ease of switching out and starting up. But I also think a lot of people 
are interested in the high fidelity once they see it. 

I don't think there is any doubt though that additional dilutions increases fidelity, as long 
as its handled properly by software or driver.

But as always - to each their own.

Jon Cone


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades" <jeades1@s...> 
wrote:

> Jon,
> 
> I'm not disputing your inks ability to make dotless highlights, but I 
> am using MIS UT2 inks on an epson 1280 and I don't see any dots in my 
> highlights now. Is your dotless different? I'm not trying to be 
> sarcastic, just trying to understand how much the inkset is 
> contributing to what QTR produces on its end of the combination.
> 
> Your friend in Photography,
> 
> Johnny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "piezobw" 
> <piezobw@c...> wrote:
> >
> -- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting" 
> <dfaprinting@y...> 
> > wrote:
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "piezobw" 
> > > <piezobw@c...> wrote:
> > > > no dots and smoother transitions
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I can understand the dot issue in the lightest shades, but I'm 
> > > surprised you couldn't get dotless in the middle to almost black 
> > > areas.
> > 
> > That area should never be a problem with nearly any system.  
> Highlights can be though.
> > This is one in which we think the medium's worst critics can take 
> our highlights under 
> > a microscope now!!!!   :)
> 
> > 
> > Jon Cone

Steve Kale wrote:

>  Having used 3 I am
>astonished Tyler and Jon want 6 or 7 (I'll forget about those that want 256
>for the moment).  I'd love to see some of these prints (or better a side by
>side of what I can produce vs them) so that I can see what I can strive for
>- alongside my own efforts in capturing good images of course!
>
>  
>
If there's a gain in using 6 or 7 grey inks it doesn't have to be the 
result of the range of grey inks. It wouldn't surprise me that 3 or 4 
shades but distributed over 6 or 7 heads give the same quality. The 
amount of nozzles used being the reason for the better quality.

The 9800 etc has 180 nozzles per head, K3 means 540 nozzles for the B&W 
spine. The 9600 has 96 nozzles per head, K2 means 192 nozzles for the 
B&W spine, K7 on a 9600 means 672 nozzles. This doesn't count the 
differences in droplet sizes, the minimum droplet size of the two 
printers and the differences in weaving. It has to be seen whether there 
will be a visible quality difference between a 9600 with K7 and a 9800 
with the standard K3 both driven by QTR.

Ernst

How do you adjust an ink set for paper tone?  No way that I know of...

> From: john dean <deanwork2003@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 01:00:57 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> 
> This could really be something. I am very curious. Fact is even with fiber
> darkroom prints they were never really neutral. They always had casts of
> some kind, green, blue, brown, selenium, but always a little of something and
> the print developer had a big impact on that. These new Piezzo inks may very
> well be the first truely neutral mono imaging we've had, apart from offset
> printing or possibly silkscreen and photo litho.
> 
> I really like the idea of letting the media add the only hint of color.

Unless you have a white ink...

> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:08:41 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> 
> How do you adjust an ink set for paper tone?  No way that I know of...
> 
> 
>> From: john dean <deanwork2003@...>
>> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 01:00:57 -0000
>> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
>> 
>> This could really be something. I am very curious. Fact is even with fiber
>> darkroom prints they were never really neutral. They always had casts of
>> some kind, green, blue, brown, selenium, but always a little of something and
>> the print developer had a big impact on that. These new Piezzo inks may very
>> well be the first truely neutral mono imaging we've had, apart from offset
>> printing or possibly silkscreen and photo litho.
>> 
>> I really like the idea of letting the media add the only hint of color.

Sorry - playing catch up on this thread..

[Unless you have a white ink...


From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:08:41 +0100
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
 
How do you adjust an ink set for paper tone?  No way that I know of...]

> From: piezobw <piezobw@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 03:32:28 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
> <scho@m...> 
> wrote:
>> I assume that unless the inks are completely opaque there is some
>> paper color influence on the neutrality of the print.  Is there a lab
>> neutral paper to use with these neutral inks?
>> 
>> Carl Schofield
> 
> 
> Well that's the thing. We designed the Lab Neutral on Bradford Bright White,
> Innova Photo 
> Cotton Smooth, and Hahnemuhle Photo Rag papers. They share nearly the same
> color of 
> "white" which is far from neutral. But K7 will appear neutral on these papers.
> Using K7 on 
> Bradford Brilliant White it shifts it Selenium....
> 
> Photo Rag is not Lab Neutral of course. There really isn't a Lab Neutral paper
> that I know. 
> But the color of PhotoRag is one of the most popular colors with my users.  So
> we 
> designed the K7 neutral effect on that paper. Innova and Bradford papers clone
> that color.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> 
> Jon Cone

Jon

Can I pick up on your comment below and one which you made in an earlier
post "we are playing with the final curves for QuadTone Rip to get some more
out of the highlights and shadows - and produce a Gamma 1.8 for previewing."
This to me sounds like fine tuning the linearization process.  Can you
explain a little bit more?

We have grappled with this issue a lot on this forum, particularly in
relation to matte papers.  Linearizing L* when making curves produces a
distinctly different gamma than 2.2 which many are using as their workspace,
and the print gamma will change depending on the dMax and dMin end-points.
This is the old "why are my prints 'flat' and 'lighter' (even in the mid
tones) than on screen issue" when using a linearized Same as Source
workflow.  The issue persists with the new Epson K3 driver.  The Epson
driver and a 4800 produces a greyscale whose L* ramp is very linear.  Couple
this with dMax of, say, L*=15 on matte and you get every tone from about 85%
white printing "lighter than it should" when no colour management is in
place (a la Adv B&W).  Apparent (and actual) contrast falls and prints look
flat out of the box.  (It's much less of an issue on the photo papers
because dMax L* is down at 3.3ish and the shift is much less pronounced.)

If I am right, you are driving at the heart of this issue and since you
clearly have enormous knowledge some input from you would be very much
appreciated.  

[Roy tackled this issue by profiling the luminance "shape" of the print
space with a greyscale ICC profile and consequently gaining access to CMM
technology to manage the transition. The CMM manages the greyscale luminance
axis (and the hue of the curve is managed by the curve designer as before).]

Steve

> From: piezobw <piezobw@...>

> 
> I don't think there is any doubt though that additional dilutions increases
> fidelity, as long
> as its handled properly by software or driver.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> 
wrote:
> How do you adjust an ink set for paper tone?  No way that I know of...

The same way you adjust the formula of an inkset when using carbon as the main 
pigment. Remember that carbon is BROWN. So to make it appear grayish rather than 
brownish, you need to adjust the color of the entire formula with a complimentary colorant 
to arrive at your desired spec.  For example PiezoTone Carbon Sepia is simply pure carbon 
pigment. PiezoTone Warm Neutral uses another pigment to temper the color of the carbon 
and bring it more to the warm side of neutral.

So now in regards to paper - if a paper is orange and one prints gray on the orange - the 
gray (unless it is fully opaque) will appear as an orange-gray.  If one prints with a bluish 
tint of gray onto the orange paper in just the right precise ratio of gray and blue - the gray 
can appear to be neutral - rather than take on the cast of the paper.

All ink formulation in terms of monochromatic must take paper into consideration. When a 
formula is made it is tested on various whites for chroma results of the formula. K7 is 
formulated so that it will appear neutral on a specific white. Each of its 7 dilutions is 
separately formulated for that spec.

Hope that illustrates the concept for you.

regards,

Jon Cone

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "piezobw" 
<piezobw@c...> wrote:
> All ink formulation in terms of monochromatic must take paper into 
consideration. When a 
> formula is made it is tested on various whites for chroma results 
of the formula. K7 is 
> formulated so that it will appear neutral on a specific white. Each 
of its 7 dilutions is 
> separately formulated for that spec.
> 
> Hope that illustrates the concept for you.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Jon Cone

OK, now I get it. If you only use, say three inks, you may not get 
that completely neutral (or other) tone that you now have. Varying 
amounts of ink on the paper will change the "color" of the tone too 
much. It's not completely about dotless prints (or filling in the 
dotted regions), but also about keeping those dotless prints at the 
same tone thoughout the entire scale from paper white to blackest 
black.

Steve,

I hope we are talking same apples and apples. If we were to linearize the process to 1.0 
Gamma, it would be scientifically linear - but humans would see it as "flat". The reason we 
choose to linearize PiezographyBW ICC and iQuads to a Gamma of 1.8, was that we wanted 
a system which would behave the same from printer group to printer group. In other 
words, the output of an 1160 would closely replicate the output of a 7000. Now the end 
points may be different. dMax in one may be greater than the other (and no one would 
want to cut back on dMax!) But when printed - would the same image have about the 
same relative contrast from printer to printer? And could that contrast be very very similar 
between printer families. So that is Gamma in an inkjet useful way, and we bring Gamma 
into our linearization process. Perhaps that is where our process differs.

On the initial Beta of K7 we did not linearize with our intended Gamma - and as we 
suspected we had a range of comments about the output in relation to either highlights 
(mostly) and to some shadows.

So part of our final process is to linearize the process so that there are nice even steps 
between the grays. But as I mentioned, if we make that linearization 1.0 - no one is going 
to "see" it as a visually logical progression from light to dark. Humans prefer contrast. So 
which contrast? If we darken and lighten the near-to-the-ends to create a contrast - we 
need to specify one. We choose Gamma 1.8 for several reasons.

So a Gamma is applied in our linearization process that makes sense to the average 
human eye. Another way to think of Gamma of course, is as a compensation for the 
human visual system.  Linearization on its own may not always make the best visual sense 
- unless you linearize to a system of tone that a human responds. I can't apparently 
emphasize Gamma enough when talking about linearization. Sometimes scientists when 
they begin producing drivers and the like for humans - forget all about the human 
condition, or worse yet they are unaware completely of the human condition. They then 
tend to make tools which are not consistent from printer to printer, but satisfy their own 
scientific process. EPSON too, obviously has computer scientists making their printer 
drivers and not artists or psychologists. There are other creators of software too that have 
complete disregard for the human condition - and yet humans are the intended target 
audience. The problem here is that inkjet printing is now so very much about photography 
and image interpretation - whereas earlier in its infancy it was about scientific 
visualization and graphics. 

We built a software to enable this process in-house (relating output to how humans see). 
So we're supplying our own curves to Roy for his QuadTone RIP. But a user can make their 
own with his process as you know. We think our supplied final curves will be best. 
However, not everyone will agree. So they can be tweaked and or replaced. I suppose we 
could make custom curves for users - do not know if we will go down that road though.

Why not Gamma 2.2 you say? or you might say next!! :)  I believe that humans respond 
better to a Gamma of 1.8.  And any Mac or PC can be calibrated to 1.8. Just preference.

best,

Jon Cone



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> 
wrote:

> Jon
> 
> Can I pick up on your comment below and one which you made in an earlier
> post "we are playing with the final curves for QuadTone Rip to get some more
> out of the highlights and shadows - and produce a Gamma 1.8 for previewing."
> This to me sounds like fine tuning the linearization process.  Can you
> explain a little bit more?
> 
> We have grappled with this issue a lot on this forum, particularly in
> relation to matte papers.  Linearizing L* when making curves produces a
> distinctly different gamma than 2.2 which many are using as their workspace,
> and the print gamma will change depending on the dMax and dMin end-points.
> This is the old "why are my prints 'flat' and 'lighter' (even in the mid
> tones) than on screen issue" when using a linearized Same as Source
> workflow.  The issue persists with the new Epson K3 driver.  The Epson
> driver and a 4800 produces a greyscale whose L* ramp is very linear.  Couple
> this with dMax of, say, L*=15 on matte and you get every tone from about 85%
> white printing "lighter than it should" when no colour management is in
> place (a la Adv B&W).  Apparent (and actual) contrast falls and prints look
> flat out of the box.  (It's much less of an issue on the photo papers
> because dMax L* is down at 3.3ish and the shift is much less pronounced.)
> 
> If I am right, you are driving at the heart of this issue and since you
> clearly have enormous knowledge some input from you would be very much
> appreciated.  
> 
> [Roy tackled this issue by profiling the luminance "shape" of the print
> space with a greyscale ICC profile and consequently gaining access to CMM
> technology to manage the transition. The CMM manages the greyscale luminance
> axis (and the hue of the curve is managed by the curve designer as before).]
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> > From: piezobw <piezobw@c...>
> 
> > 
> > I don't think there is any doubt though that additional dilutions increases
> > fidelity, as long
> > as its handled properly by software or driver.
> >

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" 
<richard@r...> wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf 
Of Steve
> > Kale
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:09 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> > 
> > Fair.  I would rephrase the question then to ask how many do we 
want
> > before
> > we feel we've hit the law of diminishing returns.
> 
> 256 I'd say
> 
> Richard
> 

The good news:  This will only require 255 ink tones if the paper is 
white.

Bailey

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

sorry I must be confusing you. The inks are neutral whether you use 7 dilutions or 3 of 
them.

One could choose 3 correct dilutions and linearize with a process of their choice and be 
happy as they are using other inks with that choice. 

Filling in the dotted regions is best done by calling on the driver to print the dots closer 
(higher frequencies) - that is our preferred way. Rather than using a light dilution over a 
darker one.  Best to use minimum amounts of ink correctly.

regards,

Jon Cone

> OK, now I get it. If you only use, say three inks, you may not get 
> that completely neutral (or other) tone that you now have. Varying 
> amounts of ink on the paper will change the "color" of the tone too 
> much. It's not completely about dotless prints (or filling in the 
> dotted regions), but also about keeping those dotless prints at the 
> same tone thoughout the entire scale from paper white to blackest 
> black.

Jon 

This is very helpful and I think we are talking apples to apples!  I don't
know what gamma is implicit in a linearized L* greyscale from, say, L*=15ish
to L*=96ish but I suspect it is a lot less than 1.8 (and especially 2.2).
Someone smarter than me can figure that one out.  So tackling the issue of
greyscale gamma, as you are doing, is, I think, something that needs to be
addressed.  

BTW if (1) CIELab depicts the nature of human vision well and, specifically,
L* the eye's reaction to luminance change, (2) the human eye is good at
adjusting for black and white points and (3) as Bruce Lindbloom demonstrates
the best fit gamma for Lab to be 2.2ish, then I would have thought that an
"ideal" gamma for a greyscale would have been 2.2 and not 1.8 but what do I
know on this...  ;-)

This issue of "what to linearize" or "what to linearize to" comes up
periodically.  I am glad you are taking an active approach to the subject
because I do think "linearizing L*" fails on its own when there is no colour
management involvement.  I really like though Roy's approach of profiling
the greyscale with an ICC profile and using that plus a CMM to manage the
density/luminance transformation that's necessary from document space to
print space.  I'm not sure that we have really got that approach fully
figured out though, yet the methodology is full of potential because it
could ultimately be device specific ie an individual could measure and
profile the actual greyscale of their own printer.  Short of this, the other
alternative is, as you appear to be doing, managing the gamma of the
greyscale during the curve construction process into a visually appealing
gamma.  

As a matter of interest, where are you setting 50% mid grey, or rather where
does it fall out, with your 1.8 gamma and standard ink black and paper white
points?


Steve

> From: piezobw <piezobw@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:35:59 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> 
> Steve,
> 
> I hope we are talking same apples and apples. If we were to linearize the
> process to 1.0 
> Gamma, it would be scientifically linear - but humans would see it as "flat".
> The reason we 
> choose to linearize PiezographyBW ICC and iQuads to a Gamma of 1.8, was that
> we wanted 
> a system which would behave the same from printer group to printer group. In
> other 
> words, the output of an 1160 would closely replicate the output of a 7000. Now
> the end 
> points may be different. dMax in one may be greater than the other (and no one
> would 
> want to cut back on dMax!) But when printed - would the same image have about
> the 
> same relative contrast from printer to printer? And could that contrast be
> very very similar
> between printer families. So that is Gamma in an inkjet useful way, and we
> bring Gamma 
> into our linearization process. Perhaps that is where our process differs.
> 
> On the initial Beta of K7 we did not linearize with our intended Gamma - and
> as we 
> suspected we had a range of comments about the output in relation to either
> highlights 
> (mostly) and to some shadows.
> 
> So part of our final process is to linearize the process so that there are
> nice even steps 
> between the grays. But as I mentioned, if we make that linearization 1.0 - no
> one is going 
> to "see" it as a visually logical progression from light to dark. Humans
> prefer contrast. So
> which contrast? If we darken and lighten the near-to-the-ends to create a
> contrast - we 
> need to specify one. We choose Gamma 1.8 for several reasons.
> 
> So a Gamma is applied in our linearization process that makes sense to the
> average 
> human eye. Another way to think of Gamma of course, is as a compensation for
> the 
> human visual system.  Linearization on its own may not always make the best
> visual sense 
> - unless you linearize to a system of tone that a human responds. I can't
> apparently 
> emphasize Gamma enough when talking about linearization. Sometimes scientists
> when 
> they begin producing drivers and the like for humans - forget all about the
> human 
> condition, or worse yet they are unaware completely of the human condition.
> They then 
> tend to make tools which are not consistent from printer to printer, but
> satisfy their own
> scientific process. EPSON too, obviously has computer scientists making their
> printer 
> drivers and not artists or psychologists. There are other creators of software
> too that have 
> complete disregard for the human condition - and yet humans are the intended
> target 
> audience. The problem here is that inkjet printing is now so very much about
> photography 
> and image interpretation - whereas earlier in its infancy it was about
> scientific 
> visualization and graphics.
> 
> We built a software to enable this process in-house (relating output to how
> humans see). 
> So we're supplying our own curves to Roy for his QuadTone RIP. But a user can
> make their 
> own with his process as you know. We think our supplied final curves will be
> best. 
> However, not everyone will agree. So they can be tweaked and or replaced. I
> suppose we 
> could make custom curves for users - do not know if we will go down that road
> though.
> 
> Why not Gamma 2.2 you say? or you might say next!! :)  I believe that humans
> respond 
> better to a Gamma of 1.8.  And any Mac or PC can be calibrated to 1.8. Just
> preference.
> 
> best,
> 
> Jon Cone

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> 
wrote:
> Jon 
> 
> As a matter of interest, where are you setting 50% mid grey, or rather where
> does it fall out, with your 1.8 gamma and standard ink black and paper white
> points?
> 
> 
> Steve


Gamma 1.8 is just right to put what we would see as "middle gray" on the scale in position 
127 or 128. 


Jon

And mid grey has 18% reflectance/L*=50 or some other level?

> From: piezobw <piezobw@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:10:17 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> 
> wrote:
>> Jon 
>> 
>> As a matter of interest, where are you setting 50% mid grey, or rather where
>> does it fall out, with your 1.8 gamma and standard ink black and paper white
>> points?
>> 
>> 
>> Steve
> 
> 
> Gamma 1.8 is just right to put what we would see as "middle gray" on the scale
> in position 
> 127 or 128.
 
> 
> 
> Jon

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale"
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Ink sets such as UT7 use three.  FSN has 4 (if I recall correctly).
 Epson K3 has three.  Not so 
> long ago there was chatter from UT7 users and, I believe, from Paul
that three Ks were not 
> necessary on the small picolitre printers.  I used an ink setup
similar to Carl Schofield which 
> ran just 2 shades of K for a particular paper (plus sepia toner for
sepia prints).  Now I hear 
> chatter of Piezotones (?) coming out with 8 shades of grey... The
dedicated B&W ink 
> manufacturers had a great niche when Epson only had 1 or 2 Ks.  The
way was left open for 
> people to remix/dilute ink to provide B&W printers with better tonal
gradation (less dots) with 
> quad/hex/sep setups.   I am interested in hearing from specialist
B&W printers who still think 
> that we need more than three shades of K and why.  

Five or six seems to be good for making digital negatives to print on
photographic papers. You get a much smoother dither that way. With two
colors (like Ultrachrome and QTR), you're frequently taking a pattern
that might have LK at 80% (almost full laydown)and just adding PK (or
MK) dots. These have much more "stopping ppwer" and show in the print
as white speckles. Ideally, you want minimal crossovers and maximum
coverage. This uses a lot of ink, but produces an excellent negative.

Well, you asked...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bailey
> Donnally
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 4:14 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Richard"
> <richard@r...> wrote:

> 
> The good news:  This will only require 255 ink tones if the paper is
> white.

Standards Mr Bailey, standards. 

As papers vary in their degree of neutrality I am proposing an additional
white ink in order to eliminate this variable.

Obviously you do not wash your shirts in Persil then.

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> 
wrote:
> And mid grey has 18% reflectance/L*=50 or some other level?

Middle gray is half-way between the dMin and the dMax of a gray ramp of course.
But one can decide where to put that in terms of visual density by using a Gamma 
correction to the linearization, or making a linearization based on a specific Gamma.

In a linearization based on Gamma 1.0 its too light for most humans to see it as "middle 
gray", and on 2.2 its too dark, and on 1.8 I think its just right.

So for our supportive curves to QuadTone RIP we will put "middle gray" at a point where 
we think the human eye interprets it as the "visually logical" mid-point between dMin and 
dMax. This is also our intention with iQuads and PiezographyBW ICC.

So middle value gray at 127/128 can be represented differently and we try to represent it 
based on the Gamma of 1.8 as applied against dMin and dMax.

best,

Jon

Actually if you go work this out, a dynamic range from L*=16 (a change from
below but a figure nearer to dMax on matte paper) to L*=96 with linear steps
in L* in between has a gamma of approximately 2.0. The curve:

Luminance/print reflectance (ie XYZ_Y) = 0.882 x NPV^2.0 + 0.021

is a very good fit.

(NPV = normalized pixel value, ie it can range from 0 to 1 regardless of bit
depth; 0.021 is dMax or black level measured in XYZ_Y, ie a density of 1.68;
the 0.882 is brightness...at NPV=1 we get print reflectance=0.9 or L*=96, ie
paper white) 

So working towards a target gamma of 1.8 would result in a greyscale with
even LESS contrast than a conventional unadjusted QTR/Epson print on matte
paper....

> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>

> 
> This is very helpful and I think we are talking apples to apples!  I don't
> know what gamma is implicit in a linearized L* greyscale from, say, L*=15ish
> to L*=96ish but I suspect it is a lot less than 1.8 (and especially 2.2).
> Someone smarter than me can figure that one out.  So tackling the issue of
> greyscale gamma, as you are doing, is, I think, something that needs to be
> addressed.

Actually a white ink is not so funny.  There are people beta testing white
ink as we speak...

> From: Richard <richard@...-bulldog.com>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:22:26 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bailey
>> Donnally
>> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 4:14 PM
>> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
>> 
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Richard"
>> <richard@r...> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> The good news:  This will only require 255 ink tones if the paper is
>> white.
> 
> Standards Mr Bailey, standards.
> 
> As papers vary in their degree of neutrality I am proposing an additional
> white ink in order to eliminate this variable.
> 
> Obviously you do not wash your shirts in Persil then.
> 
> Richard
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve
> Kale
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:32 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> 
> Actually a white ink is not so funny.  There are people beta testing white
> ink as we speak...

...and perhaps they might be persuaded to test a varnish, both gloss and
matt, while they are at it.

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Actually a white ink is not so funny.  There are people beta testing 
white
> ink as we speak...
> 

Dupont makes a white solvent ink for inkjets. Not sure about aqueous 
injet ink though. You can find the press release on the dupont site 
(somewhere).

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" 
<richard@r...> wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf 
Of Steve
> > Kale
> > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:32 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> > 
> > Actually a white ink is not so funny.  There are people beta 
testing white
> > ink as we speak...
> 
> ...and perhaps they might be persuaded to test a varnish, both 
gloss and
> matt, while they are at it.
> 
> Richard
> 
Varnish for what? If you want a protective spray like GLOP then look 
no further:
http://www.image-specialists.com/specialty.htm#krystaltopkote
I'm pretty sure the new version is #WJ824, note that the HP cartridge 
number is the same thing that many of the old Encad printers used and 
those printers often go really cheap on ebay. I think it sells for 
around $10 per 16 ounces, gallon minimum size. You can buy it at 
WeInk in smaller amounts.

Can you actually see a 1.5pl dot? I can't, without a microscope.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "dfaprinting" <dfaprinting@...>

> no dots and smoother transitions


I can understand the dot issue in the lightest shades, but I'm 
surprised you couldn't get dotless in the middle to almost black 
areas.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> dfaprinting
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:50 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?

> Varnish for what? If you want a protective spray like GLOP then look
> no further:

Who wants to hand spray when an Ink jet might be able to do a technically
and commercially better job, you know, just like real printers do.

Richard





---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

...just a high capacity "glop" cart to coat the entire rectangle...and
a drying system, in view of the amount of glop that would be applied. 

Shouldn't be a big challenge except for the glop's solvent. The safe 
solvent would be water ...there'd have to be a heater/fan drier. Of
course there would be the air conditioning..  :-)

 
> Who wants to hand spray when an Ink jet might be able to do a
technically

> and commercially better job, you know, just like real printers do.
> 
> Richard
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" 
<richard@r...> wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > dfaprinting
> > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:50 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> 
> > Varnish for what? If you want a protective spray like GLOP then 
look
> > no further:
> 
> Who wants to hand spray when an Ink jet might be able to do a 
technically
> and commercially better job, you know, just like real printers do.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 

I'm confused, did you look at the product and the rest I wrote? The 
link is for a coating that is used in an inkjet printer, including 
certain HP type cartridges.

I did a little more playing around with this and the following might provide
some food for thought for RIP designers as they think about their
"linearize" functions.

I was interested in what value for gamma would produce the least total error
in print reflectance (XYZ_Y) vs that proposed by the CIELab model of
vision's L*.  Someone with better stats skills could find a better measure
of "fit" I am sure but this is a useful first observation.  I simply
calculated the XYZ_Y value for each 8 bit value (and measured the difference
between that and the XYZ_Y value that Lab would generate).

I assumed an average matte paper had a dynamic range of L*=16 to L*=96 and
an average photo paper had a dynamic range of L*=3.3 to L*=96.  (The
reference, Lab, of course goes from 0 to 100.)

For matte paper, if the RIP linearizes printed L* values from ink black to
paper white (as they do today) the shape of the print reflection function
(as measured by XYZ_Y) is best approximated (by this measure of fit) by a
gamma of 2.05.  For photo paper this number is 2.38.  So these are the sorts
of gamma implicit in the way we do things today.

I then asked what gamma would be the BEST fit to the benchmark, Lab, given
the particular black and white points of the two papers.  This produced
gammas of 2.38 for matte paper and 2.27 for photo paper, ie quite different
from those produced by linearising L*.

All this of course assumes that getting as close to CIELab is the goal, ie
that that model best represents the way we see.

Food for thought....

Steve

I should add that using the "best fit" gammas puts all the mid-tones much
closer to where they should be (ie value 128 comes a lot closer to L*=50=18%
reflectance middle gray etc).  I imagine this would be of value to the Zone
guys targeting a Zone V middle gray from exposure meter through to print...

> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:40:47 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Optimal RIP gamma - was how many shades of grey?
> 
> I did a little more playing around with this and the following might provide
> some food for thought for RIP designers as they think about their
> "linearize" functions.
> 
> I was interested in what value for gamma would produce the least total error
> in print reflectance (XYZ_Y) vs that proposed by the CIELab model of
> vision's L*.  Someone with better stats skills could find a better measure
> of "fit" I am sure but this is a useful first observation.  I simply
> calculated the XYZ_Y value for each 8 bit value (and measured the difference
> between that and the XYZ_Y value that Lab would generate).
> 
> I assumed an average matte paper had a dynamic range of L*=16 to L*=96 and
> an average photo paper had a dynamic range of L*=3.3 to L*=96.  (The
> reference, Lab, of course goes from 0 to 100.)
> 
> For matte paper, if the RIP linearizes printed L* values from ink black to
> paper white (as they do today) the shape of the print reflection function
> (as measured by XYZ_Y) is best approximated (by this measure of fit) by a
> gamma of 2.05.  For photo paper this number is 2.38.  So these are the sorts
> of gamma implicit in the way we do things today.
> 
> I then asked what gamma would be the BEST fit to the benchmark, Lab, given
> the particular black and white points of the two papers.  This produced
> gammas of 2.38 for matte paper and 2.27 for photo paper, ie quite different
> from those produced by linearising L*.
> 
> All this of course assumes that getting as close to CIELab is the goal, ie
> that that model best represents the way we see.
> 
> Food for thought....
> 
> Steve

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?


> Actually a white ink is not so funny.  There are people beta testing white
> ink as we speak...

    When I had tattoo work done, they used white ink to line the spaces 
between where the black ink was... to keep the edges sharp.  I'm 
fair-skinned, so the white ink doesn't really show, but I was told that it 
does make a significant difference.  Is the white ink being tested along the 
lines of that same concept?

        ~twi~

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Djon
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:07 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> 
> ...just a high capacity "glop" cart to coat the entire rectangle...and
> a drying system, in view of the amount of glop that would be applied.
> 
> Shouldn't be a big challenge except for the glop's solvent. The safe
> solvent would be water ...there'd have to be a heater/fan drier. Of
> course there would be the air conditioning..  :-)

It is not necessary to have a drying system in order to deal with a varnish.
Printers do not so why should an ink jet.

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

I don't think glop is the right coating - something much more abrasion
resistant is required.  And I wish the printers did have a drier!  This is
clearly an issue Epson was focused on (or a fortuitous result of) when
designing the new K3 inks.  They dry so much faster and hence prints
(particularly photo prints) are much less susceptible to picking up dust
before the ink is dry.  But if they could dry even faster it would be
better.  I slow my printer all the way down when printing final images on
photo paper so that they are as dry as possible when they come out of the
shelter of the printer.

> From: Richard <richard@...-bulldog.com>

> 
> It is not necessary to have a drying system in order to deal with a varnish.
> Printers do not so why should an ink jet.
> 
> Richard

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> 
wrote:
> I did a little more playing around with this and the following might provide
> some food for thought for RIP designers as they think about their
> "linearize" functions.
> 
> I was interested in what value for gamma would produce the least total error
> in print reflectance (XYZ_Y) vs that proposed by the CIELab model of
> vision's L*.  Someone with better stats skills could find a better measure
> of "fit" I am sure but this is a useful first observation.  I simply
> calculated the XYZ_Y value for each 8 bit value (and measured the difference
> between that and the XYZ_Y value that Lab would generate).
> 
> I assumed an average matte paper had a dynamic range of L*=16 to L*=96 and
> an average photo paper had a dynamic range of L*=3.3 to L*=96.  (The
> reference, Lab, of course goes from 0 to 100.)
> 
> For matte paper, if the RIP linearizes printed L* values from ink black to
> paper white (as they do today) the shape of the print reflection function
> (as measured by XYZ_Y) is best approximated (by this measure of fit) by a
> gamma of 2.05.  For photo paper this number is 2.38.  So these are the sorts
> of gamma implicit in the way we do things today.
> 
> I then asked what gamma would be the BEST fit to the benchmark, Lab, given
> the particular black and white points of the two papers.  This produced
> gammas of 2.38 for matte paper and 2.27 for photo paper, ie quite different
> from those produced by linearising L*.
> 
> All this of course assumes that getting as close to CIELab is the goal, ie
> that that model best represents the way we see.
> 
> Food for thought....
> 
> Steve

Hi Steve,

I think "what's optimal"   "what gamma?" or even "why a gamma curve at all"
ends up being somewhat of a circular argument.   I don't think anybody can
really argue that any one way is absolutely the best.   But most of the reason
for all this, is because for B&W the approach has been mostly a trial and
error to match the screen and print.   So if you happened to be using gamma 1.8
for your file you have one notion of what "middle gray" is but if you use
gamma 2.2 you have a different notion (middle gray is darker).  You then
tweaked the output method to match your notion.  However the ideal
thing is to allow anyone to use whatever they like in the file, profile what
your output device does and use color management to handle the conversion.

The only necessity is to make your output device reasonably well-behaved
so that the output profile was also reasonable.  Most OS print systems do
truncate to 8-bit somewhere in the flow so you don't want to loose too much.
Linearizing to L* is one way but linearizing to gamma 1.8 would also work.

Roy

A drying system (involving heat and fans) is necessary unless the
gloss has some sort of very fast-evaporating solvent...or unless
you're doing very slow production, removing one print at a time and
carefully laying it on a rack to dry. That's not the way most people
seem to use these printers.  

Fast evaporating solvents are *all* dangerous...that's why printing
plants have to abide by elaborate ventillation/filtration rules in the
US. 






> > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:07 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How many shades of grey?
> > 
> > ...just a high capacity "glop" cart to coat the entire rectangle...and
> > a drying system, in view of the amount of glop that would be applied.
> > 
> > Shouldn't be a big challenge except for the glop's solvent. The safe
> > solvent would be water ...there'd have to be a heater/fan drier. Of
> > course there would be the air conditioning..  :-)
> 
> It is not necessary to have a drying system in order to deal with a
varnish.

> Printers do not so why should an ink jet.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> ---
> [This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
> to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
> currently using to read this email. ]

The obvious answer is a device that applies a rectangular patch of
water soluble gloss urethane.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I don't think glop is the right coating - something much more abrasion
> resistant is required.  And I wish the printers did have a drier!

>Hi Steve,
>
>I think "what's optimal"   "what gamma?" or even "why a gamma curve at all"
>ends up being somewhat of a circular argument.   I don't think anybody can
>really argue that any one way is absolutely the best.   But most of the reason
>for all this, is because for B&W the approach has been mostly a trial and
>error to match the screen and print.   So if you happened to be using gamma 1.8
>for your file you have one notion of what "middle gray" is but if you use
>gamma 2.2 you have a different notion (middle gray is darker).  You then
>tweaked the output method to match your notion.  However the ideal
>thing is to allow anyone to use whatever they like in the file, profile what
>your output device does and use color management to handle the conversion.
>
>The only necessity is to make your output device reasonably well-behaved
>so that the output profile was also reasonable.  Most OS print systems do
>truncate to 8-bit somewhere in the flow so you don't want to loose too much.
>Linearizing to L* is one way but linearizing to gamma 1.8 would also work.
>
>Roy
>  
>
The rigidity of the 1.8 gamma and the obscure definition of middle grey 
expressed in this thread made me wonder too what we are talking about.

There has been a thread on the Colorsync list on the subject where the 
18% Kodak grey card should fall, Jon Meyer uses a method that is shaped 
in practice. It will not cover all but he selected three types of 
photography and three gammas to work with, which shows that some 
flexibility and some logic is possible in this scheme.

Quotes:

Can anyone tell me if there is a standard consensus about what Lab 
Luminosity value a Kodak 18% grey card should yield? I know there is a 
formula for calculating L* from density. I saw it once but couldn\ufffdt 
understand it. But seeing it showed me that L* could be directly 
translated into density. While testing my camera, which I suspect is 
slipping off the mark, I discovered that the best exposure of a Kodak 
Q14 greyscale target is not the same exposure that produces L*54 in a 
2.2 workspace or L*61 in a 1.8 workspace after conversion through Camera 
Raw. Now I am wondering if the Kodak 18% grey card is applicable to 
digital capture. Is there another reflective grey value that is used to 
calibrate digital cameras and if so, is it standard? Or is something 
else going on?
----------------

Bruce Lindbloom calculated that gamma 2.46 pegs 18% at L50

While this was a great index for scanner calibration, digital camera 
tone compression into 8 bit often means that the midtones get 
compromised from accurate reproduction to perceptual repro for high key, 
low key and mid key "looks". Hope this helps.

- Jon
-----------------

Thank you for your answer. By placing 18% grey at L*50 in a 2.4 space is 
it your understanding that 2.4 gamma has special importance? Since the 
same logic would place 18% grey at L*54 in a 2.2 space and 18% grey at 
L*61 in a 1.8 space.
Do you think ths means that I should continue to target L*54 if I am 
selecting Adobe RGB 1998 as an output profile space in Camera Raw 
because it has a gamma of 2.2?
-----------------

Life is full of compromises, isn't it? I personally don't endorse 
AdobeRGB because of its lack of red, yellow and green saturated detail. 
On the other hand, it is a Photoshop color settings preset which many 
people use. For sake of providing a recognizable standard, you can 
certainly do the 54s with AdobeRGB.

 From a photographer's perspective, 2.46 = 
Kodachrome/Ektachrome/Fujichrome contrast. I have a working space which 
captures the range of color and detail, while preserving the film 
contrast. Once the input profile has been converted to this space, 
preparing the image for output is the next concern.

As a drum scanner operator and a photo darkroom guy, I recognized that 
there are perhaps 3 kinds of shooters in the world:
1) Commercial/Table top
2) Fashion/MakeUp
3) Portrait

As a general rule, Photog 1) likes gamma 2.2; Photo 2) likes 2.0 and 
Photog 3) prefers a gamma of 1.8

To solve the problem I have a matched set of spaces which reduces 
contrast from 2.46 (much the same way that masking for Ciba/Ilfochrome 
or interneg used to work. This is the well known problem of how to get 
big dynamic range info into short dynamic range prints.

Please contact me off list if you think that this might be of interest.

- Jon

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

> A 2.4 gamma does not play well with the usual monitor or synthetic space
> suspects of 2.2 and 1.8.

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

The workflow that performs better than any other for me is to convert 
from scanner/camera profile to 2.46 using relative colorimetric, and 
then Assign the contrast specific to the photographer's intentions, 
portrait/fashion/bold saturated. This seems both scientifically and 
artistically to achieve the most accurate and most pleasing reproduction 
at the same time.

As you know, pixels get converted with the input profile conversion to 
2.46, but assigning the print contrast of 1.8/2.0/2.2, specific to the 
subject intent only affects the on-screen preview, while maintaining the 
gamut integrity and lastly "contrast masking" the image in preparation 
for the output profile/printed image.

I have been using this method since Photoshop 6 beta and have taught 
some of the most recognized photographers this paradigm. Seems to work 
well for all.

- Jon

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

> You don't mean to say that 2.46 correspond to some absolute scanner 
> gamma?
> Universally found in all scanner profiles?

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

I can't speak for all profiling apps, however, if the scanner gradation 
is first set up for 128's in the .72 density range, (which is nearly 
equal to step 9 on most IT8 7.1 targets), and if basICColor scan+ is 
used to build the input profile with "keep gray balance" selected, then 
the native contrast and saturation of the original chrome is maintained 
into the rgb scan using this method.

- Jon

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

I always set step 9 on my reflective IT8 targets to RGB 127/128 as per Bruce

Lindbloom original instructions in ColorSynergy v4.x User Guide, because I
understand that step 9 corresponds to an aim value of L* = 50. But I must
confess I never studied the mapping between RGB 127/128 to its corresponding
gamma, in the scanner profile. Why? Because it never struck me intuitively
as being important.

But now, in the context of this thread, I'll have to revisit these ideas.
Not that I particularely care about scanner gammas -- I think it's lost,
conceptually in the construction of a LUT-based scanner profile, unless one
creates matrix-shaper scanner profile -- but I'm curious as to its effect on
mapping tones onto a given RGB working space and the goal of preserving or
enhancing contrast.

Thank's for your help.  Roger Breton

-----------------
end of quotes.

> From: Ernst Dinkla
>
> Quotes:
>
> Can anyone tell me if there is a standard consensus about what Lab
> Luminosity value a Kodak 18% grey card should yield? I know there is a
> formula for calculating L* from density. I saw it once but couldn\ufffdt
> understand it. But seeing it showed me that L* could be directly
> translated into density. While testing my camera, which I suspect is
> slipping off the mark, I discovered that the best exposure of a Kodak
> Q14 greyscale target is not the same exposure that produces L*54 in a
> 2.2 workspace or L*61 in a 1.8 workspace after conversion through Camera
> Raw. Now I am wondering if the Kodak 18% grey card is applicable to
> digital capture. Is there another reflective grey value that is used to
> calibrate digital cameras and if so, is it standard? Or is something
> else going on?

The gamma has no effect on this relation. 18% gray is L=50 (more precisely
49.5).

> Bruce Lindbloom calculated that gamma 2.46 pegs 18% at L50

A gamma of 2.475 means that a midscale value translates into 18% gray. A
gamma of 2.44 means that a midscale value equals L=50. So if you accept that
18% or L=50 represents the eye's idea of medium gray, a gamma of somewhere
around 2.45 would be about optimum.

However, 2.2 is close enough for rock'n'roll. In addition, sRGB has a linear
segment at the low end, very much like the linear segment in the Lab curve.

--

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

Personally, I was always under the impression that "18%" was a convenient
rounding of 18.419%, ie L*=50.  My definition of middle grey would not
deviate much from the way Ansel described it: "a middle gray on a geometric
scale from 'black' to 'white'."  If CIELab bests represents the way we see
then L*=50 is this midpoint.

The reflectance of this middle grey doesn't change with workspace - it is a
defined (reference) grey.  Only the file value that yields this colour
changes.  The more Zonie you are, the more this matters.  The person asking
the questions in the commentary that Ernst quoted has got things a little
muddled or back to front.  When Jon says "Bruce Lindbloom calculated that
gamma 2.46 pegs 18% at L50" I think he has stating things a little back to
front also.  L*=50 is 18.4% reflectance regardless.  What Bruce was doing
was calculating the gamma assumption which would cause an 8-bit file value
of 127/128 to produce a grey of L*=50 which is equivalent to XYZ_Y=18.4, ie
it is one measure of the gamma that best fits CIELab.  Bruce did other
calculations here showing that the best fit gamma was 2.1723 or 2.3243
depending on how you define best fit.

http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?UPLab.html

In practice, I agree with Roy's comments "the ideal thing is to allow anyone
to use whatever they like in the file, profile what your output device does
and use color management to handle the conversion."  This is why I think his
greyscale ICC profiles were such a big step in the right direction and
likely deserve a bit more exploration.  But Zone enthusiasts should note
that this can deviate from the regimen whereby Zone V is a consistent known
quantity from exposure to print. If you perfectly exposed an 18% grey card
and brought it into a Lab workspace it would show L* or K=50 (or 49.5!).
When you printed it, though, the colour of this block of grey can shift
according to the intent used by the colour management system.  If, for
example, one used relcol without black point compensation then the grey
should print as expected.  If one used perceptual or relcol with black point
compensation then the printed shade of grey would be shifted to reflect the
fact that the print can't produce perfect black or white.

Without the use of colour management techniques, the choice of what gamma to
design a print curve to becomes very important.  A printer just gets raw
pixel values (as Roy notes, typically truncated to 8 bit).  The colour
printed for each possible value from 0-255 depends on how the RIP is
calibrated, ie how the curve is constructed. The produced greyscale will
have an implicit gamma or contrast.  If this differs markedly from the space
with which the file is tagged you won't get anything near what you see on
screen.  So, for example, if the greyscale was tuned for a gamma of 1.8 from
ink black to paper white, the overall apparent contrast is still not the
same as you see on screen looking at even a gray gamma 1.8 tagged file
because of the effect of the differing black and white points with a good
display typically have a much better black than matte paper. And the Zone
guys will have to remember that middle grey, 18% reflectance or L*=50, is
not K=50 in their info palette - it's K=61 (but still L*=50 !).  Obviously
things are even worse if you are looking at a file tagged with gray gamma
2.2.  (The gamma at which the display is calibrated at, rather than the
profile embedded with the image, doesn't make a great difference as the
image you see on screen is colour managed by PS.)

> From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:28:08 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Optimal RIP gamma - was how many shades of grey?
> 
>> From: Ernst Dinkla
>> 
>> Quotes:
>> 
>> Can anyone tell me if there is a standard consensus about what Lab
>> Luminosity value a Kodak 18% grey card should yield? I know there is a
>> formula for calculating L* from density. I saw it once but couldn¹t
>> understand it. But seeing it showed me that L* could be directly
>> translated into density. While testing my camera, which I suspect is
>> slipping off the mark, I discovered that the best exposure of a Kodak
>> Q14 greyscale target is not the same exposure that produces L*54 in a
>> 2.2 workspace or L*61 in a 1.8 workspace after conversion through Camera
>> Raw. Now I am wondering if the Kodak 18% grey card is applicable to
>> digital capture. Is there another reflective grey value that is used to
>> calibrate digital cameras and if so, is it standard? Or is something
>> else going on?
> 
> The gamma has no effect on this relation. 18% gray is L=50 (more precisely
> 49.5).
> 
>> Bruce Lindbloom calculated that gamma 2.46 pegs 18% at L50
> 
> A gamma of 2.475 means that a midscale value translates into 18% gray. A
> gamma of 2.44 means that a midscale value equals L=50. So if you accept that
> 18% or L=50 represents the eye's idea of medium gray, a gamma of somewhere
> around 2.45 would be about optimum.
> 
> However, 2.2 is close enough for rock'n'roll. In addition, sRGB has a linear
> segment at the low end, very much like the linear segment in the Lab curve.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...
>

Paul D. DeRocco wrote:

>>From: Ernst Dinkla
>>
>>Quotes:
>>
>>Can anyone tell me if there is a standard consensus about what Lab
>>Luminosity value a Kodak 18% grey card should yield? I know there is a
>>formula for calculating L* from density. I saw it once but couldn\ufffdt
>>understand it. But seeing it showed me that L* could be directly
>>translated into density. While testing my camera, which I suspect is
>>slipping off the mark, I discovered that the best exposure of a Kodak
>>Q14 greyscale target is not the same exposure that produces L*54 in a
>>2.2 workspace or L*61 in a 1.8 workspace after conversion through Camera
>>Raw. Now I am wondering if the Kodak 18% grey card is applicable to
>>digital capture. Is there another reflective grey value that is used to
>>calibrate digital cameras and if so, is it standard? Or is something
>>else going on?
>>    
>>
>
>The gamma has no effect on this relation. 18% gray is L=50 (more precisely
>49.5).
>
>  
>
>>Bruce Lindbloom calculated that gamma 2.46 pegs 18% at L50
>>    
>>
>
>A gamma of 2.475 means that a midscale value translates into 18% gray. A
>gamma of 2.44 means that a midscale value equals L=50. So if you accept that
>18% or L=50 represents the eye's idea of medium gray, a gamma of somewhere
>around 2.45 would be about optimum.
>
>However, 2.2 is close enough for rock'n'roll. In addition, sRGB has a linear
>segment at the low end, very much like the linear segment in the Lab curve.
>
>--
>
>Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
>Paul                mailto:pderocco@...
>  
>
Paul,

I should have skipped the question that led to that thread. It wasn't 
the 2.46 Gamma or the digital camera behaviour (often overexposure 
though) I was interested in but the selection of gammas made in view of 
the photographer's expectation of the output.  That is quite an 
arbitrary choice and will vary much among users. This subject has been 
covered in other discussions like Mike Chaney's replies on our request 
for the support of the Lab profiles in Qimage. He couldn't accept the 
fact that a QTR Lab space could be assigned to a scan of whatever 
origin. Mainly because his view is that all image data now has an 
embedded space and needs to be converted to another space if that space 
is preferred. That the actual editing in PS for a B&W scan also includes 
gamma and contrast steps + more subjective manipulation than in color 
and by that bending the original data anyway is something he accepted in 
the end. In color this would be a much more dangerous approach. The 
messages in the scanner lists about the import of RAW B&W scans in PS 
are plenty though. That Roy gave us the Lab space to work in is the real 
step forward, the gamma issue is nice for long threads.

Ernst

I don't think the QTR-Gray Lab was the advance.  In fact, I don't use it any
more.  This is because I can convert from any workspace to one of Roy's two
printer profiles before sending the file values to the printer.  At any
rate, if you are not using colour management a workspace of L* is still not
close to the profile of a greyscale matte paper with linearised L* values.
Gray gamma 2.2 is a better match and gray gamma 2.05 even better.

Roy, have you had a chance to look further at the media white point settings
(wtpt tags) of the ICC profiles and whether this helps the highlight
clipping issue you mentioned?  Also the new Epson's are getting dMax of
L*3.3 whereas I think you chose 7 (12 for matte)...?

> From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...>


> That Roy gave us the Lab space to work in is the real
> step forward, the gamma issue is nice for long threads.
> 
> Ernst

Steve Kale wrote:

> At any
>rate, if you are not using colour management a workspace of L* is still not
>close to the profile 
>  
>
Sorry but did I suggest a workflow like that ?

Ernst

No not at all but I was suggesting that if you have a colour managed
workflow there is no advantage to using QTR-Gray Lab (if you want to see Lab
values you can of course have them in the info palette) and hence it is the
greyscale ICC profiles that are the gain not the additional potential
workspace.  

Many many people, I suspect though, still have a "no colour management"
workflow for B&W and hence the issue of aligning the workspace to the
printer output is a relevant issue.  I've made no secret of my belief that
Roy's program for generating a greyscale profile could be expanded greatly
in its application, eg to those using a black only workflow.

(I even potted around with C++ and Cocoa programming for a bit to see how
difficult it would be to expand on the idea/program.  While I got the basics
and could write a few basic programs, I can tell you I now have a new found
respect for those who write even the simplest of programs these days!!!
Things have changed since I learnt Cobol at university.  :-)  Trying to
understand the nuances of the ICC profile spec is one thing.  Programming it
is a whole different kettle of fish!!  Again, I thank Roy for his generosity
in making available his skill.)

> From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:29:08 +0200
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Optimal RIP gamma - was how many shades of grey?
> 
> Steve Kale wrote:
> 
>> At any
>> rate, if you are not using colour management a workspace of L* is still not
>> close to the profile
>>  
>> 
> Sorry but did I suggest a workflow like that ?
> 
> Ernst

I think you are right Steve.  Adding color management to the B&W workflow
is the key.  I like the Gray Lab for scans with no other implied profile but
any of them in 16bit mode are fine.

That Cocoa stuff is a lot to learn.  It's very nice looking but the fact that it 
isn't Mac and PC makes it less attractive.  I'm putting my efforts into a cross 
platform solutions.

Roy



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> 
wrote:

> No not at all but I was suggesting that if you have a colour managed
> workflow there is no advantage to using QTR-Gray Lab (if you want to see Lab
> values you can of course have them in the info palette) and hence it is the
> greyscale ICC profiles that are the gain not the additional potential
> workspace.  
> 
> Many many people, I suspect though, still have a "no colour management"
> workflow for B&W and hence the issue of aligning the workspace to the
> printer output is a relevant issue.  I've made no secret of my belief that
> Roy's program for generating a greyscale profile could be expanded greatly
> in its application, eg to those using a black only workflow.
> 
> (I even potted around with C++ and Cocoa programming for a bit to see how
> difficult it would be to expand on the idea/program.  While I got the basics
> and could write a few basic programs, I can tell you I now have a new found
> respect for those who write even the simplest of programs these days!!!
> Things have changed since I learnt Cobol at university.  :-)  Trying to
> understand the nuances of the ICC profile spec is one thing.  Programming it
> is a whole different kettle of fish!!  Again, I thank Roy for his generosity
> in making available his skill.)
>

Well I can tell you that my C++ and Cocoa books are buried in the closet and
likely to stay there!  Conceptually, writing the ICC profile file is
relatively easy.  Learning how to do the programming is way beyond me
though.  It was a distraction that lasted about a fortnight before I said
eff this...  I'll wait for you to do your thing - let me know if I can help
in any way.  I had some lengthy discussions with Phil Green at the
Colour Imaging Group, London College of Communication.  He was very helpful.
But is was also clear how leading-edge this stuff is.  The colour community
just aren't there on this.  Neither is Epson from what I can see - even with
their Advanced B&W mode.

> From: Roy Harrington <roy@...>

> 
> I think you are right Steve.  Adding color management to the B&W workflow
> is the key.  I like the Gray Lab for scans with no other implied profile but
> any of them in 16bit mode are fine.
> 
> That Cocoa stuff is a lot to learn.  It's very nice looking but the fact that
> it 
> isn't Mac and PC makes it less attractive.  I'm putting my efforts into a
> cross 
> platform solutions.
> 
> Roy

Steve Kale wrote:

>Many many people, I suspect though, still have a "no colour management"
>workflow for B&W and hence the issue of aligning the workspace to the
>printer output is a relevant issue.  I've made no secret of my belief that
>Roy's program for generating a greyscale profile could be expanded greatly
>in its application, eg to those using a black only workflow.
>
>  
>
Possibly though I have some doubts about the consistency of black only 
printing. Dotgain due to humidity and other changes in time has more 
impact on black only than on partitioned greys.  This doesn't get better 
with smaller droplets favored by black only users. More linearisations 
needed in time.

A greyscale CM workflow is possible right now, there still will be some 
flaws in it like you have mentioned but in essence it is there.

I tried to get Grey Lab added to Vuescan as a greyscale choice but 
didn't succeed. It doesn't matter much as selecting AdobeRGB will attach 
2.2 G  to the 16 bit greyscale file that I save. Converting that to Grey 
Lab in PS doesn't shift much. With the Colorsync discussion in mind it 
may be better to have 2.46 G in Vuescan, especially when the dynamic 
range in the film is wide and the scanner (+ long exposure) is able to 
reach that. Considering that Vuescan does a good job in B&W scanning I 
do not see a reason to have a RAW-RGB output. The histogram is there for 
the decisions. Keeping 2.2 or 2.4 Gamma in PS + saving the file with one 
of them is good. I save the files now from PS as 16 bit greyscale + Grey 
Lab attached. Though I use Qimage>QTR for printing I do not use CM for 
greyscale in Qimage but do a P2P in PS before using Qimage>QTR. I do not 
trust Qimage on that aspect. For color it is alright though. The only 
point where the greyscale file becomes an RGB file is as output from 
Qimage but QTR takes care of that. This limits the size of my files and 
the speed of processing. Of course it will be the same with 2.2 Gamma 
attached. Selecting AdobeRGB for color and 2.2 G for greyscale gives a 
more uniform approach and conversions between RGB and greyscale make it 
an obvious choice. I did that before Grey Lab appeared.

I do wonder whether the two = Matte and Gloss printer profiles are 
enough considering the Dmax possible in gloss with the 4800 and some 
paper choices in between (lustre, satin). A bit more fine tuning on the 
printer profiles like you proposed and adding another choice as a next 
step ?

Ernst

> From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...>

>>  
>> 
> Possibly though I have some doubts about the consistency of black only
> printing. Dotgain due to humidity and other changes in time has more
> impact on black only than on partitioned greys.  This doesn't get better
> with smaller droplets favored by black only users. More linearisations
> needed in time.

My "wish list" would be a little program which could read printed results
for a particular printer.  See below...


> 
> I do wonder whether the two = Matte and Gloss printer profiles are
> enough considering the Dmax possible in gloss with the 4800 and some
> paper choices in between (lustre, satin). A bit more fine tuning on the
> printer profiles like you proposed and adding another choice as a next
> step ?
> 
> Ernst
> 


Roy did the existing profiles as generics - they are not constructed from
actual data and assume a linear greyscale.  My wish would be for a little
program that, say, read a text file of actual data.  First variable would be
for the number of observations making up the greyscale readings...21, 51,
...256.  Then a list of observations printed by the a particular printer
with a particular workflow (Epson Adv B&W, QTR, BO....) as measured say with
Quickread (or similar) in order to construct the kTRC tag.  The list would
also pick up the media white point wptp tag.  Then you have an ICC profile
for your printer, your workflow and your ink etc.  Conceptually it is not
difficult.  Roy or the like can tell us how difficult it would be to
program....and to find the time to do it..  :-)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> 
wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@c...>
> 
> >>  
> >> 
> > Possibly though I have some doubts about the consistency of black only
> > printing. Dotgain due to humidity and other changes in time has more
> > impact on black only than on partitioned greys.  This doesn't get better
> > with smaller droplets favored by black only users. More linearisations
> > needed in time.
> 
> My "wish list" would be a little program which could read printed results
> for a particular printer.  See below...
> 
> 
> > 
> > I do wonder whether the two = Matte and Gloss printer profiles are
> > enough considering the Dmax possible in gloss with the 4800 and some
> > paper choices in between (lustre, satin). A bit more fine tuning on the
> > printer profiles like you proposed and adding another choice as a next
> > step ?
> > 
> > Ernst
> > 
> 
> 
> Roy did the existing profiles as generics - they are not constructed from
> actual data and assume a linear greyscale.  My wish would be for a little
> program that, say, read a text file of actual data.  First variable would be
> for the number of observations making up the greyscale readings...21, 51,
> ...256.  Then a list of observations printed by the a particular printer
> with a particular workflow (Epson Adv B&W, QTR, BO....) as measured say with
> Quickread (or similar) in order to construct the kTRC tag.  The list would
> also pick up the media white point wptp tag.  Then you have an ICC profile
> for your printer, your workflow and your ink etc.  Conceptually it is not
> difficult.  Roy or the like can tell us how difficult it would be to
> program....and to find the time to do it..  :-)

Hi Steve,

I've been trying a few things out in this direction.  Unfortunately just changing
the wtpt doesn't seem to do the trick.  What seems to be necessary is to do a
"White Point Compensation" in the profile itself -- analogous to the BPC that the
color engine does.  I have a few more ideas to try.

Roy

Roy Harrington wrote:

>
>>Roy did the existing profiles as generics - they are not constructed from
>>actual data and assume a linear greyscale.  My wish would be for a little
>>program that, say, read a text file of actual data.  First variable would be
>>for the number of observations making up the greyscale readings...21, 51,
>>...256.  Then a list of observations printed by the a particular printer
>>with a particular workflow (Epson Adv B&W, QTR, BO....) as measured say with
>>Quickread (or similar) in order to construct the kTRC tag.  The list would
>>also pick up the media white point wptp tag.  Then you have an ICC profile
>>for your printer, your workflow and your ink etc.  Conceptually it is not
>>difficult.  Roy or the like can tell us how difficult it would be to
>>program....and to find the time to do it..  :-)
>>    
>>
>
>Hi Steve,
>
>I've been trying a few things out in this direction.  Unfortunately just changing
>the wtpt doesn't seem to do the trick.  What seems to be necessary is to do a
>"White Point Compensation" in the profile itself -- analogous to the BPC that the
>color engine does.  I have a few more ideas to try.
>
>Roy
>  
>
I know that the profiles are generic and that the underlying (custom) 
linearisation per printer/inkset should take care of a basic layer to 
use the generic profiles on top off. That it is still a compromise is 
also correct and custom profiling on top of a custom 
ink-limited/linearised-ink/paper/resolution set printer should be 
better, especially as the Dmax + the white point per printer/paper could 
vary and the generic profile will not adapt to that. On the other hand 
we shouldn't forget that many do not have the extra hardware to get the 
best custom calibrated and profiled output. So a bit more choice in 
generic profiles may be good for them while QTR should develop to even 
better control where possible.

Finding an affordable hardware solution for linearising and profiling to 
get beyond that stage of generic profiles and hand luck linearisation is 
a next step. Scanners have shown to be usable already and digital 
cameras may be another possibility. It would be good to have some 
information collected on what works with scanners and how it is done. 
The dynamic range in reflective scanning of today's flatbed scanners is 
sufficient most of the time. The geometry of the lamp and the sensor may 
not be correct though to compare the readings with densito- or 
spectrometers. It must be possible to make tables for the scanners that 
are used by the list members. Using the right methods in target 
printing/scanning it should be possible to get near the results of more 
dedicated instruments.

Another thing that could be added to the B&W profiling software is the 
possibility to use data from 3 readings, either from 3 targets printed 
or from 3 readings from the same target. Increasing the number of 
greyscale steps in the target may give less gain in precision than 
multiple readings from more targets. Depends on the accuracy of the 
instrument, the handling and the software interpretation. To be honest 
producing a 256 step target goes beyond the capacity of many printers I 
think and what has to be done afterwards in getting a profile from so 
many shades may be worse as a result. What would be interesting is an 
iteration feature, where a new target printed with the custom 
linearisation + custom profile delivers data that can be added to the 
profile for fine tuning. Then the printer setup has to have more 
consistency than the iteration feature delivers. I wonder whether that 
is possible with the desktop printers. Increasing the target steps in 
both linearising and profiling to 70 steps at most + an iteration of a 
200-256 step tablet to one of them may be a solution. For the densito- 
spectrometer and the software it should be better/easier if that was 
done in the linearisation. The profile could then probably be based on 
far less than 70 readings.

Ernst

> From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...>

>> 
> I know that the profiles are generic and that the underlying (custom)
> linearisation per printer/inkset should take care of a basic layer to
> use the generic profiles on top off. That it is still a compromise is
> also correct and custom profiling on top of a custom
> ink-limited/linearised-ink/paper/resolution set printer should be
> better, especially as the Dmax + the white point per printer/paper could
> vary and the generic profile will not adapt to that. On the other hand
> we shouldn't forget that many do not have the extra hardware to get the
> best custom calibrated and profiled output. So a bit more choice in
> generic profiles may be good for them while QTR should develop to even
> better control where possible.


I guess people could share profiles for a particular printer/paper/ink
setup.  I guess I would think it easier in the long run if we didn't have to
kep coming back to source if, say, MIS released a new and improved Eboni ink
or a new printer was released.  Roy does enough as it is....


> 
> Another thing that could be added to the B&W profiling software is the
> possibility to use data from 3 readings, either from 3 targets printed
> or from 3 readings from the same target. Increasing the number of
> greyscale steps in the target may give less gain in precision than
> multiple readings from more targets. Depends on the accuracy of the
> instrument, the handling and the software interpretation. To be honest
> producing a 256 step target goes beyond the capacity of many printers I
> think and what has to be done afterwards in getting a profile from so
> many shades may be worse as a result.

It is actually very easy to read even 256 patches with Quickread.  It takes
very little marginal time.  If the patches are shuffled (as my test target
is) an Eye One can get good readings but I agree there is a potential issue
there.  I expect measurement devices to continue to improve.  As to the
printer capability (ie separation), perhaps that is actual.  I guess the
more observations going into the kTRC tag the more likely you are to iron
out issues in the original linearization (eg black only is woefully
non-linear).  As for multiple readings or multiple prints and measurement of
a test chart, this is likely best left up to the user - the data can be
easily averaged prior to being read into the ICC profile generator.


>What would be interesting is an
> iteration feature, where a new target printed with the custom
> linearisation + custom profile delivers data that can be added to the
> profile for fine tuning. Then the printer setup has to have more
> consistency than the iteration feature delivers. I wonder whether that
> is possible with the desktop printers. Increasing the target steps in
> both linearising and profiling to 70 steps at most + an iteration of a
> 200-256 step tablet to one of them may be a solution. For the densito-
> spectrometer and the software it should be better/easier if that was
> done in the linearisation. The profile could then probably be based on
> far less than 70 readings.

Unfortunately this assumes that people are able to linearize.  This is not
possible if one wanted to use the Epson driver eg Adv B&W or black only.  My
suggestion would be to leave QTR as is and build the next stage - a program
to profile its results (or the results of any other workflow).

One question for Roy:  in the LINEARIZE function in QTR, is there a
prescribed number of/limit to the number of data points?

I agree with Roy that he/we (if we can help) need to iron out the
methodology first before it gets cut loose.  The white point thing is an
issue and I am surprised that correcting the wptp tag to the actual media
white point has not worked.  That, plus an accurate kTRC which shows the
input/output profile of the greyscale (all of the scale including the white
point) should have worked.  (There are no other required fields, other than
header info, in a greyscale profile.)  It's my understanding that this is
the information used for the white point adjustment that Roy mentioned.
[Furthermore, I think perceptual rendering and relcol with black point
compensation are the same thing for greyscale.  We could add a bkpt tag set
at the media/ink black point to check.]

Roy, when you corrected the wptp tag did you also change the kTRC to reflect
the white end of the scale (rather than running it to 100,100)?

The problem with this ICC profile stuff is that the parameters (ie profile
tags) are very well outlined in the ICC specification but just how they
interoperate is not.  When I began my conversations with Phil Green he was
wondering why we didn't just use a curve in PS and I had to go through the
whole argument that a curve could be used to preview the printer greyscale
and a curve used to correct it (the s curve) but that the preview curve
would then have to be deleted prior to printing and the "generic iteration"
s curve would be different for every printer/ink/paper/workflow.  Hence the
desire to be able to profile the printer and use CM.  But what you quickly
realise is that there is no right way or wrong way to do a lot of stuff -
perceptual rendering for example has no defined methodology; it is entirely
up to the profile creator.

Steve

Steve Kale wrote:

>
>  
>
>>From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>I know that the profiles are generic and that the underlying (custom)
>>linearisation per printer/inkset should take care of a basic layer to
>>use the generic profiles on top off. That it is still a compromise is
>>also correct and custom profiling on top of a custom
>>ink-limited/linearised-ink/paper/resolution set printer should be
>>better, especially as the Dmax + the white point per printer/paper could
>>vary and the generic profile will not adapt to that. On the other hand
>>we shouldn't forget that many do not have the extra hardware to get the
>>best custom calibrated and profiled output. So a bit more choice in
>>generic profiles may be good for them while QTR should develop to even
>>better control where possible.
>>    
>>
>
>
>I guess people could share profiles for a particular printer/paper/ink
>setup.  I guess I would think it easier in the long run if we didn't have to
>kep coming back to source if, say, MIS released a new and improved Eboni ink
>or a new printer was released.  Roy does enough as it is....
>
>  
>
With custom linearised printers (and I think that that can be achieved 
with cheaper hardware) we probably get much closer to the desired 
quality if there were just 3 to 6 choices of generic perceptual profiles 
or a very simple profile creator that started from a linearised print of 
a short, dedicated target with greys/points fitting the perceptual curve 
creation better.  21 selected greys is probably more than enough for the 
last. But in many cases the generic profiles will be good as well. 
Custom linearising by the user taking away Roy's work .......

>  
>
>>Another thing that could be added to the B&W profiling software is the
>>possibility to use data from 3 readings, either from 3 targets printed
>>or from 3 readings from the same target. Increasing the number of
>>greyscale steps in the target may give less gain in precision than
>>multiple readings from more targets. Depends on the accuracy of the
>>instrument, the handling and the software interpretation. To be honest
>>producing a 256 step target goes beyond the capacity of many printers I
>>think and what has to be done afterwards in getting a profile from so
>>many shades may be worse as a result.
>>    
>>
>
>It is actually very easy to read even 256 patches with Quickread.  It takes
>very little marginal time.  If the patches are shuffled (as my test target
>is) an Eye One can get good readings but I agree there is a potential issue
>there.  I expect measurement devices to continue to improve.  As to the
>printer capability (ie separation), perhaps that is actual.  I guess the
>more observations going into the kTRC tag the more likely you are to iron
>out issues in the original linearization (eg black only is woefully
>non-linear).  As for multiple readings or multiple prints and measurement of
>a test chart, this is likely best left up to the user - the data can be
>easily averaged prior to being read into the ICC profile generator.
>  
>

There are easy ways for multiple readings, multiple sampling in the 
scanner, merging in PS etc.  Averaging the readings in a repeatable way 
with error control is important though and it could well be a source of 
endless threads where it went wrong if that isn't addressed. I'm looking 
for the cheap linearisation and good results, that has to be done as 
foolproof as possible. 3 scans of 35 grey steps targets scanned at 
different angles in a scanner, scanner, averaged (merged 33/33/34) with 
a PS action will probably work though. It is possible to have a better 
scanner greyscale profiling in Vuescan based on an IT8 target profiling 
first or something B&W dedicated (tables or greyscale calibration of the 
scannner) should be developed. If that part of the linearisation is done 
then an extra interation step of 128 grey steps linearising could be 
added if it brings more.

>
>  
>
>>What would be interesting is an
>>iteration feature, where a new target printed with the custom
>>linearisation + custom profile delivers data that can be added to the
>>profile for fine tuning. Then the printer setup has to have more
>>consistency than the iteration feature delivers. I wonder whether that
>>is possible with the desktop printers. Increasing the target steps in
>>both linearising and profiling to 70 steps at most + an iteration of a
>>200-256 step tablet to one of them may be a solution. For the densito-
>>spectrometer and the software it should be better/easier if that was
>>done in the linearisation. The profile could then probably be based on
>>far less than 70 readings.
>>    
>>
>
>Unfortunately this assumes that people are able to linearize.  This is not
>possible if one wanted to use the Epson driver eg Adv B&W or black only.  My
>suggestion would be to leave QTR as is and build the next stage - a program
>to profile its results (or the results of any other workflow).
>  
>
I already thought your aim is drifting away a bit of just QTR 
workflows.  I understand that but wonder why Jon Cone went for QTR after 
his ICC profile method. There must be an advantage in QTR and I think it 
is the linearisation and the flexibility of the inksets/printers it can 
drive. My preference is to bring linearisation at a better and 
affordable level in the first place. Building on that makes it easier 
for everyone.


Ernst

I don't disagree with the goal of opening up linearization to all.  But many
people don't want to go down that route.  But even if they don't there is a
lot to be gained from profiling whatever greyscale they've got.  For
example, black only printing has been very popular for many.  I would argue
that the principal reason for this is its simplicity.  But the greyscale
output of black only is anything but linear.  If one could profile it,
though, then those users could get the benefits of a CM workflow (or
luminance managed workflow) even if the baseline isn't able to be
linearised.  The CMM has to do more work but at least it can do some work.

The greyscale on my 4800 with Epson Adv B&W is really very linear.  I don't
see the need for QTR with it for photo paper (assuming I stay with the
standard inks).  For matte paper I would like to try increasing the ink
limits to see if I can get a better dMax.  So with the 4800 and Epson inks I
am not going to be using QTR for its linearization.  Nonetheless, I would
like to be able to profile the luminance axis of its output and use CM to do
the dynamic range compression.

Regarding the number of observations, it is interesting to note that Bruce
Fraser mentioned to me he was going to be doing "a whole lot more" than 51
for the Adv B&W soft proofs.

As for why Jon went for QTR I am not sure but I would suggest that he needs
a RIP to drive his ink set and QTR works well and is cheap for his potential
users.  They can then provide "ink curves" for their ink set with just a
small additional cost to the user (Roy's $50).  They can customise the
"linearization" to what they think is appropriate by adjusting the variables
that Roy has provided (or tweaking the .quad files).  That is, the cost of
adoption is low.  But as I noted earlier in this post, the final greyscale
will still have a particular profile (black point, white point and gamma)
and I would argue that even Jon would do well to go this extra step and
provide a greyscale ICC profile that depicts this compressed dynamic range.
Typically, in Curves or Levels in PS, we adjust the black point and white
point of our image file to be (near) perfect black or (near) perfect white.
These two points will never correspond to the print on paper points.  For
these reasons alone it would be nice to use CM to do the necessary
compression.  I do not see Jon's choice of gamma as reducing the desire for
this.  

So I do see the ICC profiling as being independent of greyscale
linearization.  What we really need is some input from a colour engineer
with blinkers on.  By "blinkers on" I mean we need to convince him/her, and
this is very difficult to do, that we don't care about hue - just luminance
and that we want CM to just manage luminance.  Now tell us how to set the
tags and tell us how the different intents can be/should be employed.
Unfortunately this is a very foreign world for them.  It is quite hard to
get clear answers to questions like "if I create a kTRC tag which has this
shape and select the primary intent to Perceptual, what actually goes on?"
or "why are my highlights getting clipped when I have the media white point
set correctly and the kTRC correctly portrays the stimulus/response
behaviour of the printer?  Shouldn't they be compressed but not clipped
because the intent calls for it as part of its definition?" - especially
when they are not actively involved in what you are trying to achieve.

QTR has a lot of advantages for a software in its price range. It can be used to 
linearize all the printers, even the older ones that vary so much. One can 
either do this yourself with the necessary hardware, or pay to have it done. It 
can be used to partition the channels allowing for a mixing of inksets, which is 
something a lot of people will consider in order to produce both neutral and 
warm output. It can be used on either a Mac or Windows environment. And 
finally althought Studio Print may be the ultimate solution, it is just too 
expensive for a lot of users who did not want to invest in it as well as a pc to 
run it on. Especially with the new Epson K3 option, overall investment is a 
factor in ones ultimate choice. So you can get much better control than the 
canned ICC approach with QTR  if that is what you are after but without the 
significant investment in Studio Print which really will require a spectrometer 
for practical use.

John





 There must be an advantage in QTR and I think it
is the linearisation and the flexibility of the inksets/printers it can
drive. My preference is to bring linearisation at a better and
affordable level in the first place. Building on that makes it easier
for everyone.


Ernst

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I don't disagree with the goal of opening up linearization to all.  
But many
> people don't want to go down that route.  But even if they don't 
there is a
> lot to be gained from profiling whatever greyscale they've got.  For
> example, black only printing has been very popular for many.  I 
would argue
> that the principal reason for this is its simplicity.  But the 
greyscale
> output of black only is anything but linear.  If one could profile 
it,
> though, then those users could get the benefits of a CM workflow (or
> luminance managed workflow) even if the baseline isn't able to be
> linearised.  The CMM has to do more work but at least it can do 
some work.
> 

I've said this a couple of times, but will repeat one more. If you 
are running a RIP that uses CMYK output profiles, you can build a BO 
profile in Xrite's ColorshopX. Might also be possible to build it 
from measured values, never tried that. You now have a "color" 
managed workflow for BO printing. I've used it, it works, and makes 
the print much better since everything now fits with in the BO 
dynamic range, as well as its linearity characterists. No it isn't 
for the average user, but it can be done. 14 day demo is available 
from the Xrite web site, it's hidden pretty well, but can be found if 
anyone is really interested. 

> The greyscale on my 4800 with Epson Adv B&W is really very linear.  
I don't
> see the need for QTR with it for photo paper (assuming I stay with 
the
> standard inks).  For matte paper I would like to try increasing the 
ink
> limits to see if I can get a better dMax.  So with the 4800 and 
Epson inks I
> am not going to be using QTR for its linearization.  Nonetheless, I 
would
> like to be able to profile the luminance axis of its output and use 
CM to do
> the dynamic range compression.

Remember that your 4800 has been linearized at the factory, so you 
should have it's nice linear output. That also measn there must be a 
way for the "normal" to re-linearize the new pro printers (sorry the 
2400 may not be included).

> From: dfaprinting <dfaprinting@...>


> I've said this a couple of times, but will repeat one more.

Yes

>If you 
> are running a RIP that uses CMYK output profiles, you can build a BO
> profile in Xrite's ColorshopX. Might also be possible to build it
> from measured values, never tried that.

The whole point is to get one that uses measured data.  Can you delete the
other channels?  Are you sure it doesn't simply edit a profile? (profile
editors such as PM 5 can not do what we want to do here)

>You now have a "color"
> managed workflow for BO printing. I've used it, it works, and makes
> the print much better since everything now fits with in the BO
> dynamic range, as well as its linearity characterists. No it isn't
> for the average user, but it can be done. 14 day demo is available
> from the Xrite web site, it's hidden pretty well, but can be found if
> anyone is really interested.

I could not find it - if you know where it is, please let me know.

> Remember that your 4800 has been linearized at the factory, so you
> should have it's nice linear output. That also measn there must be a
> way for the "normal" to re-linearize the new pro printers (sorry the
> 2400 may not be included).

Who knows but if it is linear already then I need not bother.  It is my
understanding that printers are actually very stable devices (as opposed to
displays) and so they don't really need relinearizing/recalibrating.  A
profile is good enough.

So I only need to linearize if I use a driver/RIP other than the one Epson
intended and this RIP will likely have a linearization feature - eg, QTR.

Found it and taking a look

> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:26:23 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Optimal RIP gamma - was how many shades of grey?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> From: dfaprinting <dfaprinting@...>
> 
> 
>> I've said this a couple of times, but will repeat one more.
> 
> Yes
> 
>> If you 
>> are running a RIP that uses CMYK output profiles, you can build a BO
>> profile in Xrite's ColorshopX. Might also be possible to build it
>> from measured values, never tried that.
> 
> The whole point is to get one that uses measured data.  Can you delete the
> other channels?  Are you sure it doesn't simply edit a profile? (profile
> editors such as PM 5 can not do what we want to do here)
> 
>> You now have a "color"
>> managed workflow for BO printing. I've used it, it works, and makes
>> the print much better since everything now fits with in the BO
>> dynamic range, as well as its linearity characterists. No it isn't
>> for the average user, but it can be done. 14 day demo is available
>> from the Xrite web site, it's hidden pretty well, but can be found if
>> anyone is really interested.
> 
> I could not find it - if you know where it is, please let me know.
> 
>> Remember that your 4800 has been linearized at the factory, so you
>> should have it's nice linear output. That also measn there must be a
>> way for the "normal" to re-linearize the new pro printers (sorry the
>> 2400 may not be included).
> 
> Who knows but if it is linear already then I need not bother.  It is my
> understanding that printers are actually very stable devices (as opposed to
> displays) and so they don't really need relinearizing/recalibrating.  A
> profile is good enough.
> 
> So I only need to linearize if I use a driver/RIP other than the one Epson
> intended and this RIP will likely have a linearization feature - eg, QTR.

Steve Kale wrote:

>
>
>  
>
>>Remember that your 4800 has been linearized at the factory, so you
>>should have it's nice linear output. That also measn there must be a
>>way for the "normal" to re-linearize the new pro printers (sorry the
>>2400 may not be included).
>>    
>>
>
>Who knows but if it is linear already then I need not bother.  It is my
>understanding that printers are actually very stable devices (as opposed to
>displays) and so they don't really need relinearizing/recalibrating.  A
>profile is good enough.
>
>So I only need to linearize if I use a driver/RIP other than the one Epson
>intended and this RIP will likely have a linearization feature - eg, QTR.
>
>
>  
>
The latest range of pro models 4800 and up may qualify for the term 
stable devices. Not only is the head code set in the firmware but a 
linearisation code is added too. That wasn't so on the 9600 etc but they 
were already better than the 9000 pro which has never been stable in 
time and from printer to printer. Time will tell how stable the new 
range actually is.

One of the advertised advantages of RIPs with linearisation has always 
been that you didn't have to make new profiles every month but you could 
linearise a printer every week and keep the old profiles running :-)  
Linearising usually takes less time and will support many profiles, the 
other way around doesn't exist.

Ernst

This is interesting.  It has a little utility called Grayscale Builder which
certainly builds the right type of profile.  Unfortunately it doesn't appear
to be working properly.  Altering the white point setting alters the black
point, ie it adds the white and black point adj together and applies them to
the black point of the kTRC.  I can't find any way to change the white
point. V 1.4.1 

> From: dfaprinting <dfaprinting@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:00:29 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Optimal RIP gamma - was how many shades of grey?
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>> I don't disagree with the goal of opening up linearization to all.
> But many
>> people don't want to go down that route.  But even if they don't
> there is a
>> lot to be gained from profiling whatever greyscale they've got.  For
>> example, black only printing has been very popular for many.  I
> would argue
>> that the principal reason for this is its simplicity.  But the
> greyscale
>> output of black only is anything but linear.  If one could profile
> it,
>> though, then those users could get the benefits of a CM workflow (or
>> luminance managed workflow) even if the baseline isn't able to be
>> linearised.  The CMM has to do more work but at least it can do
> some work.
>> 
> 
> I've said this a couple of times, but will repeat one more. If you
> are running a RIP that uses CMYK output profiles, you can build a BO
> profile in Xrite's ColorshopX. Might also be possible to build it
> from measured values, never tried that. You now have a "color"
> managed workflow for BO printing. I've used it, it works, and makes
> the print much better since everything now fits with in the BO
> dynamic range, as well as its linearity characterists. No it isn't
> for the average user, but it can be done. 14 day demo is available
> from the Xrite web site, it's hidden pretty well, but can be found if
> anyone is really interested.
> 
>> The greyscale on my 4800 with Epson Adv B&W is really very linear.
> I don't
>> see the need for QTR with it for photo paper (assuming I stay with
> the
>> standard inks).  For matte paper I would like to try increasing the
> ink
>> limits to see if I can get a better dMax.  So with the 4800 and
> Epson inks I
>> am not going to be using QTR for its linearization.  Nonetheless, I
> would
>> like to be able to profile the luminance axis of its output and use
> CM to do
>> the dynamic range compression.
> 
> Remember that your 4800 has been linearized at the factory, so you
> should have it's nice linear output. That also measn there must be a
> way for the "normal" to re-linearize the new pro printers (sorry the
> 2400 may not be included).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² 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 ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² 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  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² 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, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > From: dfaprinting <dfaprinting@y...>
> 
> 
> > I've said this a couple of times, but will repeat one more.
> 
> Yes
> 
> >If you 
> > are running a RIP that uses CMYK output profiles, you can build a 
BO
> > profile in Xrite's ColorshopX. Might also be possible to build it
> > from measured values, never tried that.
> 
> The whole point is to get one that uses measured data.  Can you 
delete the
> other channels?  Are you sure it doesn't simply edit a profile? 
(profile
> editors such as PM 5 can not do what we want to do here)
> 

The other channels are gone!

There is some way to take the measurements from a file, but I've 
never tried it, wish it had more detail in the "book". I can't 
remember the exact tool you need to do this, there are two that deal 
with black profiles, one is Rich Black, I think the rich black may be 
the one you need. I think the other is called Grayscale, and that 
just mixes the channel to provide for a gray, but it will let you 
convert the image from color to grayscale in almost any application 
including a RIP (is a normal CMYK profile). To see the effect of the 
two profiles, use the 2D profile viewer, after adding the profile to 
the list, you will see it displayed on the XY graph. The BO profile 
can be seen as a small circle in the center. If you look at the 
bottom of the viewer window, there is a drop down list of choices, 
choose the bottom choice, then up at the top of the window is a box 
to display the 2D and 3D views, click that, select the profile you 
want and you will see that no other inks except black get used.

Sorry it's a little vague, I'm trying to do this from memory, and if 
you're on a Mac, things might be a little different.


And as far as the linearity of your printer goes, it can change a lot 
depending on humidity, and temperature, and when you install new 
inks, difference between cart completely full and cart almost empty, 
and maybe a half dozen other things. Being able to relinearize the 
printer might be very nice, depending on how desciminating you are, 
but it can get a little picky to worry about all these things.

For BO printing why not simply make RGB profiles? I realize it's not
as whiz bang but it will have all the tags you are after, preview very
nicely, etc..
You'd probably be limited to printing out of adobe or other apps that
allow conversion before handing off but I'll bet that's most people
here anyway.
You'll have an on-the-fly conversion from grayscale to the RGB
profile, that then printed with BO, but so what?
Tyler

Steve Kale wrote:

>I don't disagree with the goal of opening up linearization to all.  But many
>people don't want to go down that route.  But even if they don't there is a
>lot to be gained from profiling whatever greyscale they've got.  For
>example, black only printing has been very popular for many.  I would argue
>that the principal reason for this is its simplicity.  But the greyscale
>output of black only is anything but linear.  If one could profile it,
>though, then those users could get the benefits of a CM workflow (or
>luminance managed workflow) even if the baseline isn't able to be
>linearised.  The CMM has to do more work but at least it can do some work.
>  
>
>The greyscale on my 4800 with Epson Adv B&W is really very linear.  I don't
>see the need for QTR with it for photo paper (assuming I stay with the
>standard inks).  For matte paper I would like to try increasing the ink
>limits to see if I can get a better dMax.  So with the 4800 and Epson inks I
>am not going to be using QTR for its linearization.  Nonetheless, I would
>like to be able to profile the luminance axis of its output and use CM to do
>the dynamic range compression.
>  
>
We have used custom RGB printer profiles on all kinds of drivers for 
color printing, there are advantages in cheaper profiling software and 
less skill is needed. But we are building those profiles on Epson paper 
setting with unknown GCR, ink limitations and most likely basic 
linearisation.At the same time we have argued that for third party 
papers and inksets there's a limitation in that approach. So far the 
printers have not been stable enough to keep those RGB profiles running 
for ever. So new profiles are needed while in a RIP solution one could 
linearise for a whole set of profiles more frequently and keep them 
unchanged.

>Regarding the number of observations, it is interesting to note that Bruce
>Fraser mentioned to me he was going to be doing "a whole lot more" than 51
>for the Adv B&W soft proofs.
>  
>
For the soft proofs ?   Based on the hidden, hard coded linearisation of 
the Epson I can understand that you need more points to correct that 
linearisation and fit the perceptual curves for printing, if it was just 
for fitting the perceptual curve you would need much less I expect. For 
soft proofing the translation of the Epson irregularities may ask for a 
number like that. But again if the printer is perfectly linearised I 
think a perceptual profile needs very little points to fit.

>As for why Jon went for QTR I am not sure but I would suggest that he needs
>a RIP to drive his ink set and QTR works well and is cheap for his potential
>users.  They can then provide "ink curves" for their ink set with just a
>small additional cost to the user (Roy's $50).  They can customise the
>"linearization" to what they think is appropriate by adjusting the variables
>that Roy has provided (or tweaking the .quad files).  That is, the cost of
>adoption is low.  But as I noted earlier in this post, the final greyscale
>will still have a particular profile (black point, white point and gamma)
>and I would argue that even Jon would do well to go this extra step and
>provide a greyscale ICC profile that depicts this compressed dynamic range.
>Typically, in Curves or Levels in PS, we adjust the black point and white
>point of our image file to be (near) perfect black or (near) perfect white.
>These two points will never correspond to the print on paper points.  For
>these reasons alone it would be nice to use CM to do the necessary
>compression.  I do not see Jon's choice of gamma as reducing the desire for
>this.  
>  
>
When Epson announced the new range of printers with the advanced B&W 
mode + the hard coded linearisation I expected a spin off from the CM in 
the printer for Advanced B&W printing too. With all the work and 
knowledge gone into the paper settings and related color profiles it 
shouldn't be difficult to take relevant data from that part and add it 
to the B&W settings. It has not been done as far as I know (asked here 
and on the colorsync list). Maybe they thought that the hard coded 
linearisation and an additional perceptual curve per paper setting was 
enough.

>So I do see the ICC profiling as being independent of greyscale
>linearization.  What we really need is some input from a colour engineer
>with blinkers on.  By "blinkers on" I mean we need to convince him/her, and
>this is very difficult to do, that we don't care about hue - just luminance
>and that we want CM to just manage luminance.  Now tell us how to set the
>tags and tell us how the different intents can be/should be employed.
>Unfortunately this is a very foreign world for them.  It is quite hard to
>get clear answers to questions like "if I create a kTRC tag which has this
>shape and select the primary intent to Perceptual, what actually goes on?"
>or "why are my highlights getting clipped when I have the media white point
>set correctly and the kTRC correctly portrays the stimulus/response
>behaviour of the printer?  Shouldn't they be compressed but not clipped
>because the intent calls for it as part of its definition?" - especially
>when they are not actively involved in what you are trying to achieve.
>
I have advocated a B&W rendering added to normal ICC profiles. It must 
be possible to use the measuring data in the opposite way they were 
collected for. To take out any cast as good as possible and achieve the 
smallest gamut possible for a given inkset. That real quad B&W printing 
needs as a base at least 3 greys, a long black generation and total ink 
limitation on the CM and less on the cmY ink channels is unavoidable but 
the same B&W rendering approach should work on those choices too.

For some RIPs you can predict that the manufacturers will rather add 
special (color) paper settings for B&W and (color) profile that 
combination then add a separate Advanced B&W mode. I'm also curious how 
they will split EPS and PDF documents in B&W and color. Will it be BO 
for greyscale data like it has been or shall we get an extra split for 
quad quality aka Advanced B&W?  I bet that the advice will be to use 
neutral RGB for semi quad (= good neutral profiled color printing), 
greyscale for BO and the rest color. With good profiling the result will 
be better than it used to be, enough for a majority of RIP users

There's a thread on the colorsync list how the different renderings and 
ink limitation interfere (and shouldn't) so it isn't as easy as we think 
it should be.

Ernst

Probably would work but only in it's specific situation.  I'm thinking more
of a general solution that can profile any workflow.  Actually Colorshop X's
Grayscale Builder is quite close - except that I swear it isn't working
properly.  (I just got off the phone with X-Rite and their technical guy
will call me in the morning.)

Roy/Ernst check it out.

You can set white points and black points, preferred intent etc.  You can
also manually edit a tone response curve.  It's a little confusing and the
manual is useless but the ingredients are there at least for generic
situations.  The quirky piece is how the tonal response curve edits combine
with the wtpt and bkpt settings in the final kTRC - that plus it seems to
add the white point and black point adjustments together and apply them to
the black point!! 

> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:46:16 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Optimal RIP gamma - was how many shades of grey?
> 
> For BO printing why not simply make RGB profiles? I realize it's not
> as whiz bang but it will have all the tags you are after, preview very
> nicely, etc..
> You'd probably be limited to printing out of adobe or other apps that
> allow conversion before handing off but I'll bet that's most people
> here anyway.
> You'll have an on-the-fly conversion from grayscale to the RGB
> profile, that then printed with BO, but so what?
> Tyler
> 
> 
>

I don't think you can make a black only in RGB mode. When you print a 
black color from RGB, there is very likely going to be more than just a 
little color ink mixed with it. Only in CMYK do you get real black ink 
all the time. I'm pretty sure that's why you can only use a CMYK or 
measurement file to create them in ColorshopX.

Something of note about ColorshopX, not only is the book useless, but 
it is built from the ICC tools collection. There's a whole lot of good 
tools in this collection. I think Colorthink from Chromix is about the 
same thing, though I haven't used it yet, and it is $50 more than 
ColorshopX.

Also there is a "tutorial" on ColorshopX at Xrite's online tutorial 
site:http://www.measureitrite.com/catalog/graphic_arts.aspx Not sure if 
it is any good, haven't gone through it yet.

When I get home, I can make some BO profiles. Anyone know how to get 
upload permission to the files area?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Probably would work but only in it's specific situation.  I'm
thinking more
> of a general solution that can profile any workflow.

I wasn't. I was addressing the BO issue.

>  Actually Colorshop X's
> Grayscale Builder is quite close -

Been there done that long ago.

Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting"
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
> I don't think you can make a black only in RGB mode.

You most certainly can.
Tyler

Now that these 3 black channel printers are out there and there are so many 
rich tonal pigment solutions, for the life of me I can't imagine why anyone 
would want to print out of one channel anymore. Those days are far in the 
past for me.

John

> > For BO printing why not simply make RGB profiles? I realize it's not
> > as whiz bang but it will have all the tags you are after, preview very
> > nicely, etc..
> > You'd probably be limited to printing out of adobe or other apps that
> > allow conversion before handing off but I'll bet that's most people
> > here anyway.
> > You'll have an on-the-fly conversion from grayscale to the RGB
> > profile, that then printed with BO, but so what?
> > Tyler
> > 
> > 
> >

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> For some RIPs you can predict that the manufacturers will rather 
add 
> special (color) paper settings for B&W and (color) profile that 
> combination then add a separate Advanced B&W mode. I'm also curious 
how 
> they will split EPS and PDF documents in B&W and color. Will it be 
BO 
> for greyscale data like it has been or shall we get an extra split 
for 
> quad quality aka Advanced B&W?  I bet that the advice will be to 
use 
> neutral RGB for semi quad (= good neutral profiled color printing), 
> greyscale for BO and the rest color. With good profiling the result 
will 
> be better than it used to be, enough for a majority of RIP users
> 
> There's a thread on the colorsync list how the different renderings 
and 
> ink limitation interfere (and shouldn't) so it isn't as easy as we 
think 
> it should be.
> 
> Ernst

If you link the many black ink channels into one color (K), then BO 
becomes that entire K color. So it all depends on how the RIP deals 
with linking and mixing the inks. When you send a magenta to the RIP, 
you don't have to tell it which magenta to use, the RIP just fits it 
to the nearest point in the LUT, and spits out the correct amount of 
one or more channels. Same should apply to the 3 black channels, once 
mixed, you should get a continuous tone from the start point to the 
end point, and won't have to worry about whether it is using light, 
medium or full black ink (or any combination of those). And yes the 
mixing can make quite a mess out of your limits, but that's another 
topic of discussion.

John, it's a valid approach, though I tend to agree with you. Clayton
has some very interesting reasons for using it, and after seeing a
print from him, I accept his approach. It's just not for me.
Also, ease of use also makes it worth a try for some people.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> Now that these 3 black channel printers are out there and there are
so many 
> rich tonal pigment solutions, for the life of me I can't imagine why
anyone 
> would want to print out of one channel anymore. Those days are far
in the 
> past for me.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> > > For BO printing why not simply make RGB profiles? I realize it's not
> > > as whiz bang but it will have all the tags you are after,
preview very
> > > nicely, etc..
> > > You'd probably be limited to printing out of adobe or other apps
that

> > > allow conversion before handing off but I'll bet that's most people
> > > here anyway.
> > > You'll have an on-the-fly conversion from grayscale to the RGB
> > > profile, that then printed with BO, but so what?
> > > Tyler
> > > 
> > > 
> > >

Yes. Also, if you take a look at the patent literature pertaining to
various densitometric/spectro instruments and methods, it's quickly
evident that there is a lot of interpolating going on under the hat in
the operation there as well. So, as Ernst mentioned, more measurement
points may or may not gain you much. In fact some of the on the fly
solutions for printers such as the color copier/lasers rely on only 4
or 5 real time measurements for ongoing control. There it's the
requirement for speed whereas your point is (oops I guess I excised
that.Sorry) one of convenience over the curve methods.
There is no reason that good scanners can't work as well so long as
they can be calibrated properly. Readings will be relative to method
just as they are with densi/spectros which don't match either.

Regards
Duane




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 

> The problem with this ICC profile stuff is that the parameters (ie
profile
> tags) are very well outlined in the ICC specification but just how they
> interoperate is not.  --------------------------------  Hence the
> desire to be able to profile the printer and use CM.  But what you
quickly
> realise is that there is no right way or wrong way to do a lot of
stuff -
> perceptual rendering for example has no defined methodology; it is
entirely

> up to the profile creator.
> 
> Steve

dfaprinting wrote:

>-
>
>If you link the many black ink channels into one color (K), then BO 
>becomes that entire K color. So it all depends on how the RIP deals 
>with linking and mixing the inks. When you send a magenta to the RIP, 
>you don't have to tell it which magenta to use, the RIP just fits it 
>to the nearest point in the LUT, and spits out the correct amount of 
>one or more channels. Same should apply to the 3 black channels, once 
>mixed, you should get a continuous tone from the start point to the 
>end point, and won't have to worry about whether it is using light, 
>medium or full black ink (or any combination of those). And yes the 
>mixing can make quite a mess out of your limits, but that's another 
>topic of discussion.
>
>  
>
On the Wasatch SoftRip that's all very nice sorted out for RGB and CMYK 
streams. The 9600 has the Cc, Mm, Kk, partition point choices. And the 
greyscale will use the Kk (I do expect but haven't checked as I do not 
have a 9600) as it is, so a warm black without neutralisation. The 9800 
will get Kkk partition point choices.

The Scanvec Amiable RIP didn't use the k at all so far for the 9600. 
This month there's a version available though that has it. Still a warm 
black you get that way.

So, it isn't just about the use of the Kkk's in greyscale mode but the 
neutralising and/or toning as available in Advanced B&W mode that I do 
not see appear in RIPs.  With good profiled color printing it shouldn't 
be a problem to use neutral RGB c.q. duotone RGB for similar results. 
Though the B&W quality will not exceed QTR or Advanced B&W printing. And 
many designers will be disappointed when their greyscale files in PDFs 
don't print neutral.

On top of that the greyscale images are either having gamma or dotgain 
added and CM in the RIP is reserved for color only. So the perceptual 
quality will suffer if compared to what we are already having despite 
the partitioning + linearisations that's available in the RIP.  There 
may be exceptions where perceptual adjustments are done on the greyscale 
data, I don't know whether they exist.

Little would be needed to make greyscale neutral and more perceptually 
correct. I would love to see the first report here of a Postscript RIP 
that has some sliders to get there. Ergosoft's Posterprint is the most 
likely winner.

The graphic industry heritage of most RIPs is still showing in many 
aspects of their B&W handling. Somewhere on the web there is an article 
on CcMmYK(k) Silkscreen Printing. Unheard off before that inkset was 
used in inkjet printing. The competition didn't have that quality so why 
worry. At best you heard: OK, we can print an extra red separation for 
that reproduction as I can't make it with CMYK. Maybe we will see better 
B&W offset printing due to digital B&W printing. They have to.

Ernst

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> 
> So, it isn't just about the use of the Kkk's in greyscale mode but 
the 
> neutralising and/or toning as available in Advanced B&W mode that I 
do 
> not see appear in RIPs.  With good profiled color printing it 
shouldn't 
> be a problem to use neutral RGB c.q. duotone RGB for similar results. 
> Though the B&W quality will not exceed QTR or Advanced B&W printing. 
And 
> many designers will be disappointed when their greyscale files in 
PDFs 
> don't print neutral.
> 


If you use CMYK profiles and good GCR adaptation or a RIP with variable 
GCR (a couple allow this now), I don't see the gray portions as a 
problem, especially with the multi black ink printers like the newest 
Epson machines.

And yes I had a much more detailed response typed out, then decided to 
wait until it was more than just loosely tested theory. Basically there 
are two ways (or more) to accomplish the goals of B/W fire art 
printing. Make your toning adjustments in the RIP or driver. Or make 
the RIP and profile do all the work so that you can make your 
adjustments in an image editing application with an ICC profile for 
softproof. For some people it will come down to which one is cheaper 
and easier, and the Epson driver wins that one since it comes frre 
within the driver, with QTR running a very close second, IJC/OPM third 
and on up the price ladder. Print for Pay services may need to look for 
something more than the Epson driver get accomodate all the myriad of 
choices and artist may come up with.


And to the printing press portion... Doesn't Heidelberg have an 8 ink 
press that uses FM dither? Shouldn't be too much difference between 
that press and an inkjet.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
....

> So, it isn't just about the use of the Kkk's in greyscale mode but the 
> neutralising and/or toning as available in Advanced B&W mode that I do 
> not see appear in RIPs.  With good profiled color printing it shouldn't 
> be a problem to use neutral RGB c.q. duotone RGB for similar results. 
> Though the B&W quality will not exceed QTR or Advanced B&W printing.
And 
> many designers will be disappointed when their greyscale files in PDFs 
> don't print neutral.

Hello Ernst. This and a few other issues you mention should be
addressed by an option in the RIP to treat grayscale as RGB. This is
in StudioPrint and Colorburst, don't know about the others.
> 
> On top of that the greyscale images are either having gamma or dotgain 
> added and CM in the RIP is reserved for color only. So the perceptual 
> quality will suffer if compared to what we are already having despite 
> the partitioning + linearisations that's available in the RIP. 

See above, then it will be treated like any other CM transform, with
intent options etc. available.

> There 
> may be exceptions where perceptual adjustments are done on the
greyscale 
> data, I don't know whether they exist.

I have not seen any, but have limited experience with any RIPs but
StudioPrint.

> Little would be needed to make greyscale neutral and more perceptually 
> correct. I would love to see the first report here of a Postscript RIP 
> that has some sliders to get there. Ergosoft's Posterprint is the most 
> likely winner.

I don't know if PP has any options in that regard that SP does not.
But in SP, a monochromatic B&W setup is not in the CM data path, all
adjustments are essentially 2 dimensional. Industry wide acceptance
and availability of single channel icc profiles has not caught on. As
has been discussed tools to create them are scarce at best. In fact, a
single channel profile would be two dimensional anyway, at least on
output.
However, I have to say that I have yet to experience a problem with a
good linearized non-cm B&W workflow with regard to conversion for
output. I have followed the discussions here about it but tend to
disagree with any urgent need. On the other hand, being a cm user
everywhere else, I think advanced B&W should get on board with it as well.

I see a split happening in advanced B&W with the introduction of
printers with more ink tanks. With multi part Ks and full color inks
available in the same printer, advanced B&W falls more into the CM
camp than ever before. With good partitioning and linearization, good
profiles, wise choices with GCR, long K gen, etc., you should be able
to do whatever you want. THis includes all the preview and rendering
options CM tools give to us.
Assuming a well behaved new Epson driver with equally wise choices
made in it's RGB - CMYK transforms, good RGB profiles may work well also.
In some ways, cm is theoretically the most suited to finding and
building the neutral axis.
Unfortunately, historically this is one of the things it is least good
at. Considering all the remapping it does, and it's primary concern
for color, it's no wonder the neutral axis has suffered. I have to say
though, that the GPS cmyk profiles are remarkably neutral, so things
may be getting better fast.
So all of the above really puts advanced B&W work firmly in the camp
that color has been in for some time.

I think smoother ramps are made with special drivers and
linearization. It makes sense that colors are getting yanked in and
out down the axis with profiles. But with nice smooth ramps, and
toners brought in, it just seems more well behaved by nature without
profile conversions (for hue). The disadvantage is that you don't have
the color managed option's tools of easily finding that axis to set
toner levels, I'm assuming people are finding it with QTR by trial and
error. Single channel output profiles for ramping preferences are a
different issue here.

I still like B&W prints from inksets made for them specifically and
the drivers necessary to run them properly. But the future may bring
us all more into the same world color workers are already in.
Essentially and RGB workflow and good color management.
Horrors!
Tyler

>
>I still like B&W prints from inksets made for them specifically and
>the drivers necessary to run them properly. But the future may bring
>us all more into the same world color workers are already in.
>Essentially an RGB workflow and good color management.
>Horrors!
>  
>
Tyler,

This will probably be the future. Not bad if we think of what B&W 
printing with a color workflow used to be but not as good as it could be.

Ernst

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> 
> >
> >I still like B&W prints from inksets made for them specifically and
> >the drivers necessary to run them properly. But the future may bring
> >us all more into the same world color workers are already in.
> >Essentially an RGB workflow and good color management.
> >Horrors!
> >  
> >
> Tyler,
> 
> This will probably be the future. Not bad if we think of what B&W 
> printing with a color workflow used to be but not as good as it
could be.
> 
> Ernst

Ah, how I miss those days when I made my first B&W print from my new
EX. The first thing I did was find some groups and start screaming and
demanding that it work.
No, not bad at all.
But for now I'll stick with these beautiful specialty inks.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "piezobw"
<piezobw@c...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades"
<jeades1@s...> 
> wrote:
> >Shame it won't work in my 1280 (only 5 colors) plus black. MIS is 
> > still my supplier by choice for my printer.
> > 
> > Your friend in Photography,
> > 
> > Johnny
> 
> 
> Johnny,
> 
> We can put 5 appropriate K7 dilutions in a 1280 cartridge (a
foamless one at that) - but 
> don't tell anyone!   ;)   
> 
> We are planning to get around to the 1280 as soon as we can.  Really
we want to get the 
> 2200/2100 off the ground first - 1280 may not release before the
R1800....
> 
> we'll see.
> 
> But its possible to at 2200 release time. Because, you could buy the
bulk ink and get a cis 
> and start on your own if you can make curves with QTR.
> 
> Jon Cone

Jon, I too am intersted in this setup on a 1280.
Given this ink is different, should we expect less clog
problems with the 1280? These non-foaming carts you mention
are refillable? or a different cart for use /w CIS?
thanks
Frank