Digital BW, The Print

Robert

Just fine.

Ukko Heikkinen

< I'd like to see how it performs with Enhanced Matt or Velvet F/A paper in B&W.  I'm 
< sitting on the fence with a 2200

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

But how much better is it?  My 2200 is already fully profiled for the
papers I use and I get neutral B&W prints.  If I could achieve better
Dmax with matt papers, I might be persuaded to switch, but I'm told
the Epson Matt Black ink is unchanged from before.

Robert Ades

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ukko Heikkinen"
<ukko.heikkinen@p...> wrote:
> Robert
> 
> Just fine.
> 
> Ukko Heikkinen
> 
> < I'd like to see how it performs with Enhanced Matt or Velvet F/A
paper in B&W.  I'm 

> < sitting on the fence with a 2200
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ok, Here are some more interesting results.....

Premium semigloss is excellent in color and BW, and looks exactly like 
Premium Gloss. Same exact amount of slight dulling of the highlights. 
No Bronzing at all.

Kirkland, using the settings from the Ilford site for smooth gloss on 
the 2400, (media= EPSG, vivid) is not that good in color. There is 
gloss diferential pretty bad. It is not anywhere close to the Epson 
papers. The color ink on kirkland is dull.....I would not use it, it's 
just not good.

But....

Kirkland in Advanced BW mode is a bit better than the epson papers, 
because the highlights are not slightly more dull, like they are with 
the epson papers. Keep in mind that this is very slight, but noticable 
if you turn the print just right. With the Kirkland, the BW inks are 
less glossy, so the the whole print is less glossy, and there is less 
"gloss diferential". The BW inks seem to be glossier that the color 
inks with this paper, but the BW inks are not as glossy as there are on 
EPGP. It is just about perfect actually. The kirkland image quality is 
excellent as well just like it always was. I find it interesting that 
the kirkland Blows in color, compared to epson PGPP, but is better in 
Monochrome. Kirkland hits a home run again. (except in color..yuk)

Also, if you start with a mono image, the advanced BW mode "neutral" 
set to "normal" darkness is identical to just sending the mono image 
thru the driver as if it were a color image. The advanced BW mode is 
still good for mono images though because the toning works really well. 
Also, the way the Advanced BW mode converts the image to BW, is good. 
Better than a lot of conversion methods in photoshop that I have tried. 
(I settled on "power retouche studio BW as my conversion method)

now I am going to try epson premium semi-matte. There is no selection 
in driver for that media. I wonder why? There is a "semi-mate proofing" 
profile that was put in photoshop when I dowlnoaded the profiles form 
epson though. I'll try to figure it out.....DM

OK....here is a weird thing.

The profile "proofing semimatte" works well with epson premium 
semi-matte. I dont know if that profile actually goes with that paper 
though. The weird thing is that when you choose the media "proofing 
semimatte" in the driver, the B/W mode is disabled with the Pk cart in, 
just like it is when you choose EEM as media. If you send a mono image 
thru as if it were color, all is fine. Just for grins I chose Premium 
semi as the the media, and everything was fine too. On my 1280, that 
would have been a disaster. So when printing on epson premium 
semimatte, you can choose the media "premium semigloss, and then you 
can access the B/W mode in the driver, and all works well.
It seems like the printer is pretty bullet proof, and very forgiving. 
That was a surprise.
Epson premium semimatte is a real nice paper with the 2400. The gloss 
dif, and general feel and vib, is nicer than EPG or EGSG......not 
plasticy, and the image quality is great too.

so now I would rate my papers so far like this:

1) Epson premium semimatte, for color and B/W. Especially for people 
who "hate" RC papers

2) espon Premium Semi gloss, for color or BW. Feels more like plasic, 
looks very good

3) eson premium glossy.....looks great, with a pronounced gloss. Both 
BW and color

but for BW, Kirkland is as good as the Semimatte, with much less gloss 
than epson Premium Glossy, and heavier in weight that semimatte.

all of these work great every time with no dialing in and wasting paper 
or ink. Thats pretty cool right there......

For what it's worth, this is the best experience I have had with 
getting a new system going. I went crazy with my 1200 with lyson quads, 
the lyson SG's. Spent a lot of time getting my 1280 and UT2's to work, 
and still had to always make several test prints ending with a good 
one. I think that these are as good as my best prints from UT2 inks, 
and with about 1/10 the effort. The printer is massively faster than 
the 1280, moving about 3/16th of an inch on every pass, with high speed 
checked. I have not noticed a diference with high speed off or on 
yet.......DM

Hi Douglas;

Thanks for the report; I like many are sitting on the fence on this 
one one. The ink-swapping business is a bit of a set-back; I guess I 
want it all, RIGHT NOW!

But do me a favor: put a 10x loupe to your prints (esp. the glossy) 
and tell me if you see any microbanding-any at all. Thanks

Steve Karafyllakis

P.S. as for the premium semi-matte; it isn't normally available in 
anything less than 24" rolls, and lately 17x22 sheets, so its no 
surprise that it isn't listed on a 13' printer. I have a brand new 
roll I bought just for this, I hope I can come up with a good way to 
flatten the stuff.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Douglas 
meeuwsen <lipshurt@m...> wrote:
> OK....here is a weird thing.
> 
> The profile "proofing semimatte" works well with epson premium 
> semi-matte. I dont know if that profile actually goes with that 
paper 
> though. The weird thing is that when you choose the 
media "proofing 
> semimatte" in the driver, the B/W mode is disabled with the Pk 
cart in, 
> just like it is when you choose EEM as media. If you send a mono 
image 
> thru as if it were color, all is fine. Just for grins I chose 
Premium 
> semi as the the media, and everything was fine too. On my 1280, 
that 
> would have been a disaster. So when printing on epson premium 
> semimatte, you can choose the media "premium semigloss, and then 
you 
> can access the B/W mode in the driver, and all works well.
> It seems like the printer is pretty bullet proof, and very 
forgiving. 
> That was a surprise.

OK....I got an 8x loupe, and looked at my prints. I did see some 
evidence of there being a vague hint of the dots being organized in 
lines. (micro-banding)....Kind of the like the "ley" lines that connect 
stonehenge to various monoliths place about the globe. You, know a big 
rock that lines up with three trees half a mile away, that both line up 
with a pond another two miles away, and it points at stonehenge. You 
can see it until you're like 35000 feet up. You cant see these without 
the loupe thats for sure. Just for grins, I pulled out one of my best 
prints from my 1280/UT2/Glop prints and it was totally striped with 
obvious lines. Still cant see those either with (my) naked 
eyes.....then I tried a color print from my c86, and the dots were way 
farther apart but only in lines in the most vague way. Then I looked at 
prints from my 1200 with lyson quads on colorlife paper. The lines were 
about the same or worse than the 1280. but not noticable without the 
loupe. I would say that the 1280, and 1200 were about 20 times worse in 
the area of micro-banding
On Jul 14, 2005, at 3:33 PM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:

> Hi Douglas;
>
>  Thanks for the report; I like many are sitting on the fence on this
>  one one. The ink-swapping business is a bit of a set-back; I guess I
>  want it all, RIGHT NOW!
>
>  But do me a favor: put a 10x loupe to your prints (esp. the glossy)
>  and tell me if you see any microbanding-any at all. Thanks


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

Thanks Doug, for taking the trouble to check all these. I agree that 
much of the time it doesn't show to the naked eye on normal prints. 
I'm in fact still using a 1280 and an R200 (brand new) that show 
microbanding under a loupe, and for the most part it doesn't bother 
me; but I'm still hoping to find a 13" wide machine that shows none 
at all, because even the slightest trace shows a lot on the inkjet 
film I want to make enlarged internegatives with. The Epson rep told 
me today at Compusa (repeatedly) that I'm expecting too much, and if 
I get it it'll be sheer blind luck. I'm glad it's working well for 
you and your application, enjoy!

Steve Karafyllakis--- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Douglas meeuwsen 
<lipshurt@m...> wrote:
> OK....I got an 8x loupe, and looked at my prints. I did see some 
> evidence of there being a vague hint of the dots being organized 
in 
> lines. (micro-banding)....Kind of the like the "ley" lines that 
connect 
> stonehenge to various monoliths place about the globe. You, know a 
big 
> rock that lines up with three trees half a mile away, that both 
line up 
> with a pond another two miles away, and it points at stonehenge. 
You 
> can see it until you're like 35000 feet up. You cant see these 
without 
> the loupe thats for sure. Just for grins, I pulled out one of my 
best 
> prints from my 1280/UT2/Glop prints and it was totally striped 
with 
> obvious lines. Still cant see those either with (my) naked 
> eyes.....then I tried a color print from my c86, and the dots were 
way 
> farther apart but only in lines in the most vague way. Then I 
looked at 
> prints from my 1200 with lyson quads on colorlife paper. The lines 
were 
> about the same or worse than the 1280. but not noticable without 
the 
> loupe. I would say that the 1280, and 1200 were about 20 times 
worse in 
> the area of micro-banding
> On Jul 14, 2005, at 3:33 PM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
> 
> > Hi Douglas;
> >
> >  Thanks for the report; I like many are sitting on the fence on 
this
> >  one one. The ink-swapping business is a bit of a set-back; I 
guess I
> >  want it all, RIGHT NOW!
> >
> >  But do me a favor: put a 10x loupe to your prints (esp. the 
glossy)

> >  and tell me if you see any microbanding-any at all. Thanks
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]