Digital BW, The Print

Hello everybody

I am baffled.

Some of you have reported that there seems to be some "coloration" in their Epson 2400 B&W prints.

I have never seen any in mine.

Just to be sure, I just scanned a  Advanced B&W Mode "Warm" print on Epson Premium Glossy (Epson 4870, Vuescan, 600 DPI, Color Photo). It is dead neutral even at a magnification of  600 per cent.

???

Ukko Heikkinen

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

Hello Ukko,

>Some of you have reported that there seems to be some "coloration" 
>in their Epson 2400 B&W prints.
> I have never seen any in mine.
> Just to be sure, I just scanned a  Advanced B&W Mode "Warm" print on
Epson Premium Glossy (Epson 4870, Vuescan, 600 DPI, Color Photo). It
is dead neutral even at a magnification of  600 per cent.

I think I'm the one who introduced that, so let me explain.  From the
beginning of my involvement almost 4 years ago I have been unsatisfied
with the tones resulting from adding color inks to the blacks in order
to push them cool toward neutral or warm toward sepia.  Where someone
claimed neutral I could see tinges of C and M, sometimes a
blue-greenish  look.  In claimed sepia prints I could see some M and Y
and various orange-ish colors.  None of it was really convincing to
me.  I didn't see shades of black, I saw brown with colors mixed in,
both with RIP prints using separate color ink dots and grayscale ink
sets where the colors are mixed into the inks as toners.

This is one of the reasons I have stuck with BO printing all this
time, because there are no color inks involved.  By divine grace or
whatever, Eboni is a bit cooler than MK, and is rendered anywhere from
very warm to nearly pure black by various papers.  These tones are
"pure", in the sense that those various tinges of colors simply aren't
there.  Over these years I have experimented with other systems (as I
write this I am deep into some experiments using QTR and various ink
mixtures) and every time I try something I bump into this coloration
problem, in one form or another.

A few weeks ago someone sent me several 4800 prints, on a couple of
different glossy papers as well as EEM, and I recently made a 2400
MK/ABW print on PR in a store.  While these prints are all about as
good as it gets using current technology, in all cases I can see the
presence of these colors.  The simple fact is that we are trying to
emulate shades of gray using color inks, and no matter how well done,
colors are colors.

So it seems to me that while the K3 printers make it as easy as it has
ever been to get good results, there has been no real advance in the
area of tones.  They have just made it easier to do out of the box
what has already been achieved by other more laborious means.  When I
look at these prints, they look great on one level, but on the more
subtle level that I am sensitive to, nothing has changed.  I don't
want to pay $850 to get something I don't want.

I know that many (maybe even most) other users aren't bothered by the
coloration, probably don't even see it.  That's fine, but my gut
feeling is that we have been looking at it for so long now we've
simply accepted the look.  Perhaps as a group we have lost our
collective memory of what BW emulsion prints looked like.   Funny that
I should be saying that because I have continually made the case that
ink prints are a different media and we shouldn't expect them to look
like silver.  It's true, but it doesn't mean I can't strive for pure
tones.  I'm actually getting them and have been ever since Eboni
arrived in 2003.  They just come with a price - dots.  The only
difference between us BO users and everyone else is that we haven't
been willing to sacrifice certain qualities we love in order to get
rid of the dots.

I'm probably more sensitive to the coloration because I've stuck with
BO all along.  I sit here surrounded by prints that look, well, black
and white.  They are rich, black, and they glow with a gorgeous
intensity.  And when I pull out the K3 prints...I just don't get that
warm fuzzy feeling about them, my stomach gets uncomfortable.  They
look fake, somehow, with unconvincing blacks.  As an analogy, it's
like looking at a fake Picasso, albeit one that is very skillfully
done.  It may fool the masses, but the museum director who has handled
the real thing for years isn't fooled.  His gut instinct waves red
flags all over the place.

Please understand I am not trying to be critical of those who like K3
prints.  I think it great, and these printers will surely have a huge
impact and bring legions of photographers over the line into digital
printing.  In the long run this will be a boon to the industry and
will help propel more R&D.  I just don't think we are where we need to
be just yet, and I'm not satisfied.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote: "Perhaps as a group we have lost our
collective memory of what BW emulsion prints looked like."

Ah, thanks for this post; I saw it after I posted my "I"m confused" 
response to the comments on color in black and white prints. BUT, I 
find your comment quoted above fascinating because, as I noted in the 
bottom of my last post, I compared a new digital r2400 ABW print and my 
best effort Ilford Multigrade selenium toned print. My reaction was 
that the Ilford print looked surprisingly green in comparison under 
halogen lighting (I never would have predicted this). I also note that 
there is some metamerism in the Ilford print from Halogen to daylight. 
This sort of blows my mind. I am not so sure we have EVER been looking 
at "pure" black tones in our traditional printing....

Food for thought.

I have to agree. I think we have tended to over romanticize
characteristics of gelatin silver and platinum printing because the
beginnings of inkjet monochrome in years past were so truely dreadful.
These days it is simply another ball game altogether and the quality
and creativity is already possible to those who work at it.

Over my mantle is a beautifully printed Jerry Uelsman silver print
done on Ilford paper and slightly selenium toned. As perfect as this
print is it changes from light source to light source in regard to
print color (obs in the paper base?) and has no more unusual color
content than my QTR produced UC prints. Personally I think what we can
do in Photoshop with these new inksets is simply amazing and we're
lucky to be where we are. Actually the technology is superior to what
most of us are even producing with it. Right now black and white
inkjet is better than darkroom imaging in most respects and very soon
it will be so much better that a year or two from now people will have
forgotten that the darkroom ever existed at all.

John  


 I compared a new digital r2400 ABW print and my 

> best effort Ilford Multigrade selenium toned print. My reaction was 
> that the Ilford print looked surprisingly green in comparison under 
> halogen lighting (I never would have predicted this). I also note that 
> there is some metamerism in the Ilford print from Halogen to daylight. 
> This sort of blows my mind. I am not so sure we have EVER been looking 
> at "pure" black tones in our traditional printing....
> 
> Food for thought.

Hopefully over the next few weeks we'll find out whether the Piezo K7 
inkset solves both the coloration and dot problems. Have you or anyone 
else heard any feedback on this new inkset?

Chris Hargens

Clayton Jones wrote:

  Over these years I have experimented with other systems (as I

> write this I am deep into some experiments using QTR and various ink
> mixtures) and every time I try something I bump into this coloration
> problem, in one form or another.

I agree to that too. I ordered a sample 8x10 that should be here
today. If this is what I believe it will be I'll get into it large
format for sure at whatever cost. Is anyone using them yet? This could
be what Cone has been trying to do for 20 years. There is no substitue
for persistence and risk.

John





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Hargens"
<chargens@s...> wrote:

> Hopefully over the next few weeks we'll find out whether the Piezo K7 
> inkset solves both the coloration and dot problems. Have you or anyone 
> else heard any feedback on this new inkset?
> 
> Chris Hargens
> 
> Clayton Jones wrote:
> 
>   Over these years I have experimented with other systems (as I
> > write this I am deep into some experiments using QTR and various ink
> > mixtures) and every time I try something I bump into this coloration
> > problem, in one form or another.

Ukko,

Your wrote:

> Some of you have reported that there seems to be some "coloration" in
> their Epson 2400 B&W prints.
> 
> I have never seen any in mine.
> 
> Just to be sure, I just scanned a  Advanced B&W Mode "Warm" print on Epson
> Premium Glossy (Epson 4870, Vuescan, 600 DPI, Color Photo). It is dead
> neutral even at a magnification of  600 per cent.
> 

I wasn't sure if you were referring to the visual "coloration" some see, or
whether your scan showed no color dots in the ABW warm print.  I just did a
1600 dpi scan of a 4800 ABW "warm" test strip on EAM.  It's posted at
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4800_ABW_0-25_Warm_1600scan.jpg .  It seems to
show lots of color dots.

If your test strips do not have dots, then I wonder what the differences
are.  Is it possible the 2400 and 4800 use different printing algorithms?

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hello Chris,

>Hopefully over the next few weeks we'll find out whether the Piezo
>K7 inkset solves both the coloration and dot problems. Have you or
>anyone else heard any feedback on this new inkset?

I was just thinking the same thing.  They seem to be claiming that
they have achieved gray inks with pure carbon (I take that to mean
without color pigments).  If so I think that is a huge achievement and
I'll be eager to test some.  Over the past few days Steve Karafyllakis
and I have succeeded in diluting Eboni to use in the LK slot. 
Unfortunately, the more diluted it became the warmer it got.  By the
time we got to the LK density it was about as warm as standard LK. 
Sigh.  So back to square one.  


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Next month (they say) InkJet Mall is coming out with a spongeless 
cartridge system (at $16.95 USD per cartridge) for the 2200 and some 
other Epson printers using all pure blacks of different densities. 
There will be 7 cartridges thus 7 densities of pure blacks. Uses QTR 
as the software ($50). This ain't a bad deal. A big thing in my 
opinion is that they are saying that their new formulation of inks 
allows for an extended sit time in the printer without degrading the 
ink. This caused problems for me in the past because I found their 
ink would degrade if left to sit in the printer for only a few weeks. 
The system relies on the paper to change the tone and many profiles 
will be available -- plus profiling yourself if you're an advanced 
user and you have an EyeOne.

The problem with InkJet Mall (and a show-stopper in my opinion) has 
always been that they can't keep things in stock and weeks (if not 
months) pass without receiving your order and its difficult to get 
ahold of anyone. In other words, their customer service is lacking. 
Great products, no-so-great service -- dang. Hopefully they will get 
this fixed. But this is the danger of a limited distribution system 
for a single-source of inks for a system -- where else are you going 
to go?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:
> Hello Chris,
> 
> >Hopefully over the next few weeks we'll find out whether the Piezo
> >K7 inkset solves both the coloration and dot problems....

> I was just thinking the same thing.  They seem to be claiming that
> they have achieved gray inks with pure carbon...

Clayton, I did not have that impression. Perhaps this needs to be
clarified.
Tyler

The description on the website -- 
http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/bw2/piezography-neutral-k7.html
seems unequivocal. Or perhaps I misunderstand the issue.
Chris Hargens

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
> <cj@c...> wrote:
> > Hello Chris,
> > 
> > >Hopefully over the next few weeks we'll find out whether the Piezo
> > >K7 inkset solves both the coloration and dot problems....
> 
> > I was just thinking the same thing.  They seem to be claiming that
> > they have achieved gray inks with pure carbon...
> 
> Clayton, I did not have that impression. Perhaps this needs to be
> clarified.
> Tyler

Hello Scott,

><cj@c...> wrote: "Perhaps as a group we have lost our
>collective memory of what BW emulsion prints looked like."

>I am not so sure we have EVER been looking at "pure" black tones in 
>our traditional printing....

I think you are misinterpreting what I said, I was not referring only
to black prints.  If you read it again you will see that I also
referred to sepia prints, and described the various tones from neutral
to very warm that I get using BO.  What I was trying to say (I'll try
again, this is about the 4th time) is that the tones we get using
color inks don't look like the various color tones we get with
emulsion prints.  Look closely at a supposedly neutral print (neutral
means black, not blue or green or anything else) and you see all sorts
of subtle colors.  You don't see black that looks like the black of a
cold tone silver paper (or whatever other tone is being imitated), you
see imitation black with all sorts of tints floating around in it.  If
that doesn't bother you, then fine.  But print Eboni BO on Kayenta and
you won't see those colors. I'm spoiled I guess.  The same for sepia.
 I have yet to see an inkjet "sepia" print that looks anything like a
real sepia print.  I have only seen unconvincing fake sepia and to me
it looks horrible.  

I agree that in many ways our IJ prints are better.  But on this
particular issue I find the mixing of color inks very unsatisfying. 
I'm waiting and hoping for something better.

Here's another analogy.  Walk into Office Depot and you'll see a wide
range of nice looking office furniture.  It's all made of particle
board covered with veneers and bolted together with various fasteners.
It all looks real nice, the technology has come a long way.  This
stuff is ubiquitous, and we all accept it.  It performs a real need
for nice looking furniture that is relatively inexpensive, reduces
hardwood tree usage and other good stuff.  It's a real boon and
satisfies the masses. There's nothing wrong with it. But anyone who
has done woodwork or knows fine furniture isn't fooled by it for a
second. Those who appreciate the difference and can afford it have the
real thing.  The imitation stuff is fine as long as you don't examine
it too closely.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

John,

I have the 2200 set on order. I'll keep everyone
posted on what I see. 

I'm quite curious to see how it looks on other color
papers. It was designed for H. Photo Rag but how will
it work on Entrada or Fiba Print? We shall soon see...

Guy

--- john dean <deanwork2003@...> wrote:

> I agree to that too. I ordered a sample 8x10 that
> should be here
> today. If this is what I believe it will be I'll get
> into it large
> format for sure at whatever cost. Is anyone using
> them yet? This could
> be what Cone has been trying to do for 20 years.
> There is no substitue
> for persistence and risk.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> "Chris Hargens"
> <chargens@s...> wrote:
> > Hopefully over the next few weeks we'll find out
> whether the Piezo K7 
> > inkset solves both the coloration and dot
> problems. Have you or anyone 
> > else heard any feedback on this new inkset?
> > 
> > Chris Hargens
> > 
> > Clayton Jones wrote:
> > 
> >   Over these years I have experimented with other
> systems (as I
> > > write this I am deep into some experiments using
> QTR and various ink
> > > mixtures) and every time I try something I bump
> into this coloration
> > > problem, in one form or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Are you refering to this?-
"This pure pigment solution contains no dye"

It says no dye, it does not say no color.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Hargens"
<chargens@s...> wrote:

> The description on the website -- 
> http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/bw2/piezography-neutral-k7.html
> seems unequivocal. Or perhaps I misunderstand the issue.
> Chris Hargens
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
> <tyler@t...> wrote:
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
> > <cj@c...> wrote:
> > > Hello Chris,
> > > 
> > > >Hopefully over the next few weeks we'll find out whether the Piezo
> > > >K7 inkset solves both the coloration and dot problems....
> > 
> > > I was just thinking the same thing.  They seem to be claiming that
> > > they have achieved gray inks with pure carbon...
> > 
> > Clayton, I did not have that impression. Perhaps this needs to be
> > clarified.
> > Tyler

Hello Tyler,

>>They seem to be claiming that they have achieved gray inks with 
>>pure carbon...
> 
>Clayton, I did not have that impression. Perhaps this needs to be
>clarified.

You're right, thanks for the heads up.  I somehow got the idea that
"100% pure pigment neutral" meant pure carbon.  Wishful thinking I
guess.  I'm still interested to see what it looks like.  Have you
tried it?

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

> The description on the website --

> http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/bw2/piezography-neutral-k7.html

> seems unequivocal. 

> 

 

This is from the above URL:

 

"Piezography Neutral K7 is the first 100% pure pigment neutral ink set
offering the ultimate in quality and increased fidelity for fine art black
and white printing. This pure pigment solution contains no dye and is not
designed for glossy papers. Each of the seven inks is a perfectly neutral
gray, so that the user's choice of paper can determine the "color" of the
print. ."

 

My reaction is: 

 

(1) We've been using pure pigment B&W for several years now; 

 

(2) There have been "neutral" inksets, to the extent there is such a thing.
If they mean here that the inkset is pure carbon, then that too has been
done, but carbon has never been neutral yet.  If they've made a "more
neutral" pure carbon inkset, then that is interesting and could be more than
just hype; and

 

(3) What is "neutral" if the user's choice of paper can determine the
"color?" 

 

Is a pure carbon, "more" neutral inkset possible?  Yes, I think it is.  I
hope Jon has found the pigs that'll do it.  Whether the smaller pigment
particle sizes that are probably required for this cause the fade resistance
to drop below a larger carbon pigment that is toned with blue pigments is an
open question. 

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 



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

Good point. It looks like the only way one can definitely know is to 
actually look at the prints. 

Chris Hargens

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> Are you refering to this?-
> "This pure pigment solution contains no dye"
> 
> It says no dye, it does not say no color.
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Hargens"
> <chargens@s...> wrote:
> > The description on the website -- 
> > http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/bw2/piezography-neutral-k7.html
> > seems unequivocal. Or perhaps I misunderstand the issue.
> > Chris Hargens
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler 
Boley" 
> > <tyler@t...> wrote:
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton 
Jones"
> > > <cj@c...> wrote:
> > > > Hello Chris,
> > > > 
> > > > >Hopefully over the next few weeks we'll find out whether the 
Piezo
> > > > >K7 inkset solves both the coloration and dot problems....
> > > 
> > > > I was just thinking the same thing.  They seem to be claiming 
that
> > > > they have achieved gray inks with pure carbon...
> > > 
> > > Clayton, I did not have that impression. Perhaps this needs to 
be
> > > clarified.
> > > Tyler

Clayton, I haven't tried it. Frankly I think we part ways with our
preferences here. I hear everything you are saying about the presence
of color in our prints, and generally have the same reaction. However,
dead neutral may not appeal to me either. Most of my favorite prints
by any number of people made numerous traditional ways have a hint of
hue, or hue variation, that contributes to their luminosity, or depth.
Also, since I print for others, I can't jump ship too quickly on
inksets I use.
However, I would have happily tried them if I had a spare 2200 lying
around. I have seen mono ink prints partitioned out to 6 dilutions and
they were amazingly smooth, really no digital artifact that I can
detect. So I'm sure 7 will be great. I have it from a trusted friend
and expert printer, who beta tested them, that they are very impressive.
But they are neutral, on the paper it was designed for anyway, so I
might not like them as much, and you may love them <G>.

Tyler


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:

> Hello Tyler,
> 
> >>They seem to be claiming that they have achieved gray inks with 
> >>pure carbon...
> > 
> >Clayton, I did not have that impression. Perhaps this needs to be
> >clarified.
> 
> You're right, thanks for the heads up.  I somehow got the idea that
> "100% pure pigment neutral" meant pure carbon.  Wishful thinking I
> guess.  I'm still interested to see what it looks like.  Have you
> tried it?
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Clayton - I offer another take on this subject which I hope isn't too
personal for you!

I wonder whether you're one whose vision is hyper-critical and
hyper-tuned to the extent that it is well beyond what most of us can
recognise.  If that is so then I can fully understand what you say
about your seeing the coloured inks B&W prints that others appear to
not see.  I offer suggestion this based on some of my own very
personal and perhaps unique(?) experience as someone who a) doesn't
have binocular vision, b) but has near perfect vision in each eye
independently, and c) can notice slight differences in colouration of
a scene depending on which eye I use to look at it.  The only point I
am making here is that through my own personal experience through the
evidence of my eyesight I know that the brain interprets things
differently; dependent on which eye I use.  From this I draw the
conclusion that if I personally can see differences in an identical
image (via my left or right eye) then there is no such thing as a
universal and common interpretation of the colour of an image when
judged by different individuals.

So, perhaps for many of us who don't see what you see, perhaps it's
truly a reflection of how our brains are tuned.  Without going too far
down this route, there are many examples of people with substantially
heightened senses who have been unaware of it until some event or
other reveals it for them.

I'm not suggesting that this precisely explains what you and certainly
some others see and but many others don't.  But I can't help think
that at least it's related.

Then again, I could be talking nonsense.

By the way, my somewhat unusual ability also allows me to see every
potential image in true 2D – through one eye at a time.  I know we can
all do it by shutting one eye – but for most of us that is a very
occasional experience – for me it is constant.  But whether or not
that helps me be a `better' photographer or not is another and
speculative question.

Steve Gledhill
http://www.VirtuallyGrey.co.uk

> 
> I'm probably more sensitive to the coloration because I've stuck with
> BO all along.  I sit here surrounded by prints that look, well, black
> and white.  They are rich, black, and they glow with a gorgeous
> intensity.  And when I pull out the K3 prints...I just don't get that
> warm fuzzy feeling about them, my stomach gets uncomfortable.  They
> look fake, somehow, with unconvincing blacks.  As an analogy, it's
> like looking at a fake Picasso, albeit one that is very skillfully
> done.  It may fool the masses, but the museum director who has handled
> the real thing for years isn't fooled.  His gut instinct waves red
> flags all over the place.
> 
> Please understand I am not trying to be critical of those who like K3
> prints.  I think it great, and these printers will surely have a huge
> impact and bring legions of photographers over the line into digital
> printing.  In the long run this will be a boon to the industry and
> will help propel more R&D.  I just don't think we are where we need to
> be just yet, and I'm not satisfied.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

I like your yahoo code name, virtually grey. That says it all. That's
the best we can hope for in this imperfect carbon based world...

Your post got me thinking.  All of the pigment inks available, are
based on carbon.  Why?  Does anyone know if any other archival
substances have been used, possibly even oxidized silver?  It seems
to me, that since the oxidized silver particles in a gelatin silver
print are as small as they are, with the proper preparation and
suspension, an alternative to the realm of carbon pigment prints
could be explored.

Sorry if this is a bit off topic.  Just a thought.

Eric


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@y...> 
wrote:
> I like your yahoo code name, virtually grey. That says it all.
That's
> the best we can hope for in this imperfect carbon based world...

That is an analogy that I can "see"  Dan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clayton Jones" <cj@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 12:10 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 2400 B&W And Coloration


Hello Scott,

><cj@c...> wrote: "Perhaps as a group we have lost our
>collective memory of what BW emulsion prints looked like."

>I am not so sure we have EVER been looking at "pure" black tones in
>our traditional printing....

I think you are misinterpreting what I said, I was not referring only
to black prints.  If you read it again you will see that I also
referred to sepia prints, and described the various tones from neutral
to very warm that I get using BO.  What I was trying to say (I'll try
again, this is about the 4th time) is that the tones we get using
color inks don't look like the various color tones we get with
emulsion prints.  Look closely at a supposedly neutral print (neutral
means black, not blue or green or anything else) and you see all sorts
of subtle colors.  You don't see black that looks like the black of a
cold tone silver paper (or whatever other tone is being imitated), you
see imitation black with all sorts of tints floating around in it.  If
that doesn't bother you, then fine.  But print Eboni BO on Kayenta and
you won't see those colors. I'm spoiled I guess.  The same for sepia.
 I have yet to see an inkjet "sepia" print that looks anything like a
real sepia print.  I have only seen unconvincing fake sepia and to me
it looks horrible.

I agree that in many ways our IJ prints are better.  But on this
particular issue I find the mixing of color inks very unsatisfying.
I'm waiting and hoping for something better.

Here's another analogy.  Walk into Office Depot and you'll see a wide
range of nice looking office furniture.  It's all made of particle
board covered with veneers and bolted together with various fasteners.
It all looks real nice, the technology has come a long way.  This
stuff is ubiquitous, and we all accept it.  It performs a real need
for nice looking furniture that is relatively inexpensive, reduces
hardwood tree usage and other good stuff.  It's a real boon and
satisfies the masses. There's nothing wrong with it. But anyone who
has done woodwork or knows fine furniture isn't fooled by it for a
second. Those who appreciate the difference and can afford it have the
real thing.  The imitation stuff is fine as long as you don't examine
it too closely.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links







-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the MailScanner at SWKO.net and is
believed to be clean.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content
by MX3.SWKO.NET, and is believed to be clean.




-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content 
by MX3.SWKO.NET, and is believed to be clean.

variety...

Hmm ... I think I have an interesting idea ...

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com



Me too, Ultrachrome with a light light black, only I might have to buy
another damn printer... what else is new.


 metallic inks?

You'd have to ask Paul or someone who actually knows about the physics
of pigments and inksets. But I'll tell you I have wondered the same
thing. A lot of the complaints people have about inkjet mono (not from
me by the way) photography have to do with this lack of sparkle that
only a metallic light forming compound can produce. I thought about
that today when I saw that new Piezzotone sample. I was just about to
take back some of the things I said about nasty darkroom work (na).

I assume for some type of metallic inkset you would have to start from
scratch with a new printing system, a new head, software drivers, etc.
I don't see why any of this couldn't be doable. They could be
beautuful,silver metallic compounds distributed through a piezzo type
head. But to me the bigggest two reasons not to pursue that line of
reasoning is that your going right back into toxic heavy metals
discarded into the landfil, into the drinking water,just what we don't
need, and second but not least, the cost of dealing with such hard to
acquire and handle materials. Carbon is cheap,reasonalby safe and
plentiful. So, yea for carbon. I'm quite happy with it. Lets don't
give up on that this year.

John 



<brigsby707@c...> wrote:

> Your post got me thinking.  All of the pigment inks available, are
> based on carbon.  Why?  Does anyone know if any other archival
> substances have been used, possibly even oxidized silver?  It seems
> to me, that since the oxidized silver particles in a gelatin silver
> print are as small as they are, with the proper preparation and
> suspension, an alternative to the realm of carbon pigment prints
> could be explored.
> :
> > I like your yahoo code name, virtually grey. That says it all.
> That's
> > the best we can hope for in this imperfect carbon based world...

> ... Does anyone know if any other archival
> substances have been used, possibly even oxidized silver?  ...

The specific gravity of most of the potentially interesting metallic pigs
I've look at probably excludes their use.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

True enough on the hazards of heavy metals, as well as their
availability.It's just that while I love the results I get with carbon
prints, every once in awhile, I have to wonder how the same image
would look in a gsp.  I always remember the first time I printed a 
carbon print, it just seemed... "flat" for lack of a better word. And
occasionally I notice that same "flatness" in a print I happen to be 
working on. Who knows, considering the cost would most likely be
quite prohibitive, a silver based inkset could either be a specialty
printing process, kind of like platinum printing with chemical
processes or just not done at all.  Who knows, maybe at some point
in the future, digital printing combined with chemical processes will
become affordable enough for the average photographer.  Till then,
I guess I can live with carbon :)

Eric



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:

>  metallic inks?
> 
> You'd have to ask Paul or someone who actually knows about the
physics
> of pigments and inksets. But I'll tell you I have wondered the same
> thing. A lot of the complaints people have about inkjet mono (not
from
> me by the way) photography have to do with this lack of sparkle that
> only a metallic light forming compound can produce. I thought about
> that today when I saw that new Piezzotone sample. I was just about
to
> take back some of the things I said about nasty darkroom work (na).
> 
> I assume for some type of metallic inkset you would have to start
from
> scratch with a new printing system, a new head, software drivers,
etc.
> I don't see why any of this couldn't be doable. They could be
> beautuful,silver metallic compounds distributed through a piezzo
type
> head. But to me the bigggest two reasons not to pursue that line of
> reasoning is that your going right back into toxic heavy metals
> discarded into the landfil, into the drinking water,just what we
don't
> need, and second but not least, the cost of dealing with such hard
to

> acquire and handle materials. Carbon is cheap,reasonalby safe and
> plentiful. So, yea for carbon. I'm quite happy with it. Lets don't
> give up on that this year.
> 
> John

Oh well, it was just a thought anyway.  I could always spend money I
don't have to set up a dark room, so I can get irritated at just how
frustrating it is to work with chemicals all over again and throw away
dozens of prints in order to get my dodging and burning just right, 
so I could get that "sparkle" back. On second thought, nope ;P

Eric


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> 
wrote:
 
> The specific gravity of most of the potentially interesting
metallic pigs

> I've look at probably excludes their use.  
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Hello Tyler,

>Clayton, I haven't tried it. 

Oh too bad, I was hoping you might have some info about it.


>Frankly I think we part ways with our preferences here. 

Please understand I am really not interested in whether anyone agrees
with me or has the same preferences.  I hope this thread has not given
that impression.  I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about what
they like.  I started this whole thing by expressing an observation
and opinion with the thought that it might be helpful for anyone
considering one of these printers.  I've been amazed and frustrated
because people's responses seem to indicate a complete
misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my words.  People continue to
react to only one part of it, and (I'm sorry to say) you have just
done it again.  My repeated posts on this are simply attempts to
clarify misunderstanding.  


>However, dead neutral may not appeal to me either. Most of my 
>favorite prints by any number of people made numerous traditional 
>ways have a hint of hue, or hue variation...

I am amazed by this statement because I just earlier in this thread
re-explained this exact point (for the 4th time) to someone else who
seemed to have gotten fixated on the word 'neutral'.  Maybe this word
triggers some sort of subconscious emotional reaction and the mind
shuts off and nothing else registers.  I have tried hard to explain my
point as clearly as I can, yet every time someone thinks I'm pushing
neutral prints on everyone.

-----------------------------------------------------
So, here we go, one more (hopefully last) time:

1) I am not in any way shape or form suggesting that neutral prints 
are what everything should be.  I was just using that as an example. 
I also used sepia as an example.

2) The main point is that when color inks are used to emulate any kind
of tone, from neutral to sepia, selenium toned Gallerie or whatever,
the various hues of the inks, however subtle, can be seen.  To me it's
just not convincing, I don't like it.  

3) If someone doesn't mind that it's fine with me and I don't want to
change their mind.  

4) I think I'm sensitive to the colors because I've been using BO for
several years and am used to seeing its pure tones, neutral through
warm (pure meaning without any color inks).  

5) I'm making a point of this because I think anyone coming into
digital BW printing should be aware of the issue.  Especially because
K3 uses yellow, which good RIPS and toned inks avoid (potential
longevity issues).  If they choose to go this route fine, but let it
be a conscious decision.  

6) Readers, please do not infer from my remarks that I like only
neutral prints.   I do like them, but I also like warm sometimes.  I
keep 6 or more papers on hand, which render Eboni BO in tones ranging
from neutral to very warm.  After I work up an image on EEM proof
paper I print it on these other papers to determine which it looks
best on.  My final prints span the range.
--------------------------------------------------------

Back to Tyler

>Also, since I print for others, I can't jump ship too quickly on
>inksets I use.

Understood.


>I have it from a trusted friend and expert printer, who beta tested 
>them, that they are very impressive. But they are neutral, 

Does your friend know how the neutrality was achieved?  IOW, is there
color toner in them?


>...neutral,...so I might not like them as much, and you may love 
>them <G>.

(Again, I don't necessarily like everything neutral.)  What I got from
the announcement was that because they are neutral they require
various papers to achieve different tones, just as with Eboni BO.  But
I'm not sure what they mean by a neutral ink.  You can't call Eboni
neutral or warm, it depends what paper it's on.  On Kayenta it's
neutral.  On Wm Turner it's extremely warm.  So I wonder what they
mean.  If it prints neutral on PR then it's cooler than Eboni (which
is medium warm on PR).  I saw somewhere that research is being done
with white pigments, to be mixed with black to get grays.  I wonder if
K7 is done that way...Can you get any light on this from your friend?
 Thanks.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Clayton, my apologies for adding to the confusion. I knew exactly what
you meant. Simply had a brain meltdown (it's 90 degrees in my office)
and also got all caught up in the sound of my own musings.
I do that a lot.
Regarding the K7 inks, I have to think they were neutralized using
color pigs, just as hue is adjusted in the other "carbon" inks most of
us use. My read of Jon's info is that their target was lab neutral on
PhotoRag, and that print hue will vary from there on a per paper basis,
I too have heard of white inks. I believe Ernst may know something
about them. Makes sense to me that they could be worthwhile in
creation of gray inks, and a possibly different result from simple
dilution.
I think we are in agreement in general on this entire subject, but
that I have more tolerance for hues mixed in directly than you do. I
really do love a few of the sets as they are now, and I know they have
color pigs in them. There I think we part personal preferences with
regard to inkjet, as well as the opaque verses translucent look
(another subject entirely, and in fact relevant to the K7s).
To the K3s, and the beginning of this thread, I think when someone
using a RIP, anything from QTR on up that will partition well, starts
giving us their experiences, it'll be hard to get a handle on what
they'll do because of the RGB driver's use of the color inks as you
say. If someone has done this and reported impressions, I missed it.
I've never thought you are an opinion nazi, and can't imagine how
anyone here could interpret your contributions in that manner.
Need air conditioning.
Tyler


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:

> Hello Tyler,
> 
> >Clayton, I haven't tried it. 
> 
> Oh too bad, I was hoping you might have some info about it.
> 
> 
> >Frankly I think we part ways with our preferences here. 
> 
> Please understand I am really not interested in whether anyone agrees
> with me or has the same preferences.  I hope this thread has not given
> that impression.  I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about what
> they like.  I started this whole thing by expressing an observation
> and opinion with the thought that it might be helpful for anyone
> considering one of these printers.  I've been amazed and frustrated
> because people's responses seem to indicate a complete
> misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my words.  People continue to
> react to only one part of it, and (I'm sorry to say) you have just
> done it again.  My repeated posts on this are simply attempts to
> clarify misunderstanding.  
> 
> 
> >However, dead neutral may not appeal to me either. Most of my 
> >favorite prints by any number of people made numerous traditional 
> >ways have a hint of hue, or hue variation...
> 
> I am amazed by this statement because I just earlier in this thread
> re-explained this exact point (for the 4th time) to someone else who
> seemed to have gotten fixated on the word 'neutral'.  Maybe this word
> triggers some sort of subconscious emotional reaction and the mind
> shuts off and nothing else registers.  I have tried hard to explain my
> point as clearly as I can, yet every time someone thinks I'm pushing
> neutral prints on everyone.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> So, here we go, one more (hopefully last) time:
> 
> 1) I am not in any way shape or form suggesting that neutral prints 
> are what everything should be.  I was just using that as an example. 
> I also used sepia as an example.
> 
> 2) The main point is that when color inks are used to emulate any kind
> of tone, from neutral to sepia, selenium toned Gallerie or whatever,
> the various hues of the inks, however subtle, can be seen.  To me it's
> just not convincing, I don't like it.  
> 
> 3) If someone doesn't mind that it's fine with me and I don't want to
> change their mind.  
> 
> 4) I think I'm sensitive to the colors because I've been using BO for
> several years and am used to seeing its pure tones, neutral through
> warm (pure meaning without any color inks).  
> 
> 5) I'm making a point of this because I think anyone coming into
> digital BW printing should be aware of the issue.  Especially because
> K3 uses yellow, which good RIPS and toned inks avoid (potential
> longevity issues).  If they choose to go this route fine, but let it
> be a conscious decision.  
> 
> 6) Readers, please do not infer from my remarks that I like only
> neutral prints.   I do like them, but I also like warm sometimes.  I
> keep 6 or more papers on hand, which render Eboni BO in tones ranging
> from neutral to very warm.  After I work up an image on EEM proof
> paper I print it on these other papers to determine which it looks
> best on.  My final prints span the range.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Back to Tyler
> 
> >Also, since I print for others, I can't jump ship too quickly on
> >inksets I use.
> 
> Understood.
> 
> 
> >I have it from a trusted friend and expert printer, who beta tested 
> >them, that they are very impressive. But they are neutral, 
> 
> Does your friend know how the neutrality was achieved?  IOW, is there
> color toner in them?
> 
> 
> >...neutral,...so I might not like them as much, and you may love 
> >them <G>.
> 
> (Again, I don't necessarily like everything neutral.)  What I got from
> the announcement was that because they are neutral they require
> various papers to achieve different tones, just as with Eboni BO.  But
> I'm not sure what they mean by a neutral ink.  You can't call Eboni
> neutral or warm, it depends what paper it's on.  On Kayenta it's
> neutral.  On Wm Turner it's extremely warm.  So I wonder what they
> mean.  If it prints neutral on PR then it's cooler than Eboni (which
> is medium warm on PR).  I saw somewhere that research is being done
> with white pigments, to be mixed with black to get grays.  I wonder if
> K7 is done that way...Can you get any light on this from your friend?
>  Thanks.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hello Tyler,

>Clayton, my apologies for adding to the confusion. I knew exactly 
>what you meant. Simply had a brain meltdown (it's 90 degrees in my 
>office) and also got all caught up in the sound of my own musings.
>I've never thought you are an opinion nazi, and can't imagine how
>anyone here could interpret your contributions in that manner.

Thank you, I'm relieved <g>.  I'm tired of discussing that issue and
hope that was the end.


>Regarding the K7 inks, I have to think they were neutralized using
>color pigs, just as hue is adjusted in the other "carbon" inks most
>of us use. 

Hmmm...ok.  Will be interesting to see how they look on various
papers.


>My read of Jon's info is that their target was lab neutral on
>PhotoRag, and that print hue will vary from there on a per paper 
>basis

That kind of bother's me.  On PR, Eboni (BO) is medium warm.  At the
farthest ends of the range it goes up to extremely warm on Wm Turner,
and down to the closest thing I've seen to pure neutral black on
Kayenta (with other papers falling in various places in between). 
These papers provide a full range of tones, which of course is very
important for any mono-tone ink set.  If K7 is formulated to be
neutral on PR, that means it's considerably cooler than Eboni and
may not offer the same full range (i.e. will it turn blue on cooler
papers and only go to medium warm on the warmest ones?).  I will be
real interested in user reports.  They are frightfully expensive so I
won't be trying them myself any time soon.


>I too have heard of white inks. I believe Ernst may know something
>about them. Makes sense to me that they could be worthwhile in
>creation of gray inks, and a possibly different result from simple
>dilution.

Speaking of dilution, Steve Karafyllakis and I yesterday successfully
diluted Eboni using MIS EPS archival clear base (success means it
didn't settle out and printed ok).  Unfortunately it warmed as
dilution increased.  By the time it was LK density (15%) it was nearly
UC LK in warmpth.  I don't know if white would keep it from warming or
not...


>I think we are in agreement in general on this entire subject, but
>that I have more tolerance for hues mixed in directly than you do. 
>I really do love a few of the sets as they are now, and I know they 
>have color pigs in them. 

Understood.


>...as well as the opaque verses translucent look
>(another subject entirely, 

Ah, yes, there's that...<g>.


>and in fact relevant to the K7s).

Are they more opaque than other pigment sets?  I think of opaqueness
as being caused by full coverage of the paper, where BO get's it
luminance/translucence from allowing bare paper to show...are you
thinking of something different?


>To the K3s, and the beginning of this thread, I think when someone
>using a RIP, anything from QTR on up that will partition well, 
>starts giving us their experiences, it'll be hard to get a handle 
>on what they'll do because of the RGB driver's use of the color 
>inks as you say. 

Yes, much waits to be discovered.  At this point I'm going to proceed
with other stuff and just see what unfolds.  I'm now into fiddling
with a QTR curve.  

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" <cj@c...> wrote:
snip...
> Are they more opaque than other pigment sets?  I think of opaqueness
> as being caused by full coverage of the paper, where BO get's it
> luminance/translucence from allowing bare paper to show...are you
> thinking of something different?

No, we're talking about the same thing, and it's an interesting issue to me. I think the whole 
concept of multiple density K inks and partitioning them to their apropriate part of the tonal 
scale is pretty much the antithesis of what you like about BO printing <G>.
Yes, a LOT of covereage. The more partitions and inks you add, the higher the dot count 
everywhere, in all parts of the scale.
So, if we allow the probablity of coverage or the lack of it being responsible for the 
luminousity you prefer in BO prints, then K7, with more coverage than ever before, may just 
be the least interesting development in mono inkjet printing for you yet!
I think it will be very interesting to hear what you think of how they look.
Tyler

Tyler Boley wrote:

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" <cj@c...> wrote:
>snip...
>  
>
>>Are they more opaque than other pigment sets?  I think of opaqueness
>>as being caused by full coverage of the paper, where BO get's it
>>luminance/translucence from allowing bare paper to show...are you
>>thinking of something different?
>>    
>>
>
>No, we're talking about the same thing, and it's an interesting issue to me. I think the whole 
>concept of multiple density K inks and partitioning them to their apropriate part of the tonal 
>scale is pretty much the antithesis of what you like about BO printing <G>.
>Yes, a LOT of covereage. The more partitions and inks you add, the higher the dot count 
>everywhere, in all parts of the scale.
>So, if we allow the probablity of coverage or the lack of it being responsible for the 
>luminousity you prefer in BO prints, then K7, with more coverage than ever before, may just 
>be the least interesting development in mono inkjet printing for you yet!
>I think it will be very interesting to hear what you think of how they look.
>Tyler
>
>  
>
If the grey inks are diluted versions of the black ink then the amount 
of pigment per greyscale step shouldn't be higher than the same 
greyscale step has in a 3 or 4 grey B&W inkset. The dot distribution 
will reach 50% area coverage per ink sooner in the K7 inkset but detail 
loss due to bleeding will limit total coverage per ink as well. The 
coverage of print area per head is hardcoded and more nozzles (per head, 
or more heads) will contribute more to even coverage than having bigger 
dots. I have been quite skeptical about the quality gain when this 
inkset was announced. This is based on intuition and without any 
experience of the K7 inkset or having seen samples of the process. 
Nevertheless.

There's a wide variety of tone reproduction methods possible between 
continuous tone and halftone like the older printing processes have 
shown. Collotype, woodbury type at one end of the scale, plain halftone 
printing at the other end of the scale. All of them having their own 
characteristics. I doubt whether the K7 method is better in consistency 
from day to day. Collotype and screenless offset printing were/are 
difficult processes to control, I fear it will not be different with an 
inkjet type continuous tone printing and why seek that theoretical 
continuity when droplet sizes are so small already. If I had to print 
with 7 grey inks I would probably select two ranges of grey inks ( 4+3) 
that overlap one another. More nozzles to disguise the inconsistencies 
of the heads and the partition points in the 4 grey inkset falling at 
other places along the curve than those of the 3 grey inkset. The 
weaving and dithering of the printer taking care of good coverage. I 
would expect a quality improvement and more consistency to both quad and 
K7 insets but nothing dramatically better. QTR would drive this double 
range nicely. Another set could have 2 and 5 grey ink ranges but with 
the objective to have a gradual choice between a (semi) BO and extended 
quad. A multigrade quad. The new range of Epsons with 180 nozzles a 
head, improved weaving, nice droplet size ranges, better consistency  by 
firmware linearisation and again higher resolution will make it hard to 
get better results from K4,5,6,7 inksets.

Neutrality has been discussed already. There will be a standard for 
neutrality otherwise no ICC profiling could exist. Like with Munsell's 
color scales it is based on panels of viewers and the mean or average 
number computed of many subjective choices. That's an excellent way of 
getting a standard and it also says something about the limits of 
standards. Age, gender, taste, physical and emotional condition, 
cultural background, lighting conditions, environment, etc will color 
that neutrality to the subjective viewer again.

BTW, I think we call Clayton's luminosity in BO printing just "graphic" 
over here. Referring to the black only printing of woodcuts, linocuts up 
to conventional raster screening in autotype or offset. Gaining more 
"graphic" quality if the dots are more dense, coarser and the paper 
whiter. This may look like a simple method of printing but its looks you 
learn to appreciate more and more in the graphic arts, probably in 
contrast to the ever improving resolution and color gamut of the newer 
systems. Even with the almost invisible dot sizes of the latest Epson 
printers BO can still have that "graphic" quality.

Ernst

The new range of Epsons with 180 nozzles a
head, improved weaving, nice droplet size ranges, better consistency by
firmware linearisation and again higher resolution will make it hard to
get better results from K4,5,6,7 inksets.


This is what I suspect, and with a much added toning capability and
for someone like me, another color back up machine. If the printer is
linearized and a good rip used this is going to hard to beat.
But, we'll see within the next few months.


Thanks for that info about metallic display Ernst. That is interesting.

John

Tyler,

>No, we're talking about the same thing, and it's an interesting 
>issue to me...The more partitions and inks you add, the 
>higher the dot count everywhere, in all parts of the scale.
>So, if we allow the probablity of coverage or the lack of it being 
>responsible for the luminousity you prefer in BO prints, then K7, 
>with more coverage than ever before, may just be the least 
>interesting development in mono inkjet printing for you yet!
>I think it will be very interesting to hear what you think of how 
>they look.

Ok, we are talking the same language.  Having examined lots of prints
via exchanges, from just about every system in use, it's obvious that
the coverage is what's responsible for it (and it did cross my mind
when I read about K7).  However, I am interested in K7 for another
reason.

Experiments with the QTR/2K approach has shown that we can have
smoothness and luminance.  It has far better smoothness than BO,
although not quite as smooth as UT7.  It still has good luminance,
although not quite as much as BO (it's full coverage extends further
into the midtones from the dark end, so lower midtones lose some, but
upper midtones and highlights preserve it).  It's an excellent
compromise.  Steve Kar. and Carl S. have produced some outstanding 2K
work.

The big problem with 2K is the color inks required to cool off the LK
to match Eboni (those dastardly colors again!).  You can get a formula
that looks great on one paper but not on another.  That's why I was
trying to dilute Eboni.  What we need is a K/LK pair with the same
tone that will react equally across the different papers.  So my
thinking is that maybe the K7 set will provide that...I will be
watching the reports carefully.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hi Clayton
I really wonder if we won't need a considerable amount of help from
the paper folks to accomplish this as well as the ink people. I
haven't used a large number of different uncoated fine art papers with
 straight carbon dilutions so don't know if the ink tones vary as much
across these as they do on the coated papers but I suspect the
coatings have a tremendous impact on the tonal variations. Perhaps as
much or more even than the dilutions do. If this is so, the ink by
itself would have to be very bulletproof and impervious to external
chemistry of the coatings--an enormous undertaking.

I've been thinking of your exchanges with Tyler as regards your
perceptions of the colors added to alter ink tone as opposed to BO
prints. I know there can be exreme metamerism shown in trying to make
neutral tones from color inks and I wonder if your impressions might
not be due to a more subtle evidencing of that same factor. Maybe you
are simply very sensitive visualy to those effects.

I've enjoyed the thread. Thanks.

Regards
Duane

> 
> The big problem with 2K is the color inks required to cool off the LK
> to match Eboni (those dastardly colors again!).  You can get a formula
> that looks great on one paper but not on another.  That's why I was
> trying to dilute Eboni.  What we need is a K/LK pair with the same
> tone that will react equally across the different papers.  So my
> thinking is that maybe the K7 set will provide that...I will be
> watching the reports carefully.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@y...> wrote:
> ... I
> haven't used a large number of different uncoated fine art papers with
>  straight carbon dilutions so don't know if the ink tones vary as much
> across these as they do on the coated papers but I suspect the
> coatings have a tremendous impact on the tonal variations.

Duane, my limited experience with uncoated papers makes me suspect you are correct. There 
does seem to be less hue variation amongst them, than the various coatings.
I still think coating remains an issue lagging in great new solutions. Many issues- physical 
frailty, susceptibility to chemical degradation, appeal, gamut/density performance, total ink, 
etc..
Tyler

Hello Duane,

>I really wonder if we won't need a considerable amount of help 
>from the paper folks to accomplish this as well as the ink people...

Interesting ideas.  I don't know where the final solution lies, maybe
with something entirely new that hasn't been invented yet.  I'm just
happy that things continually get better and I have confidence that
the trend won't stop.

 

>I've been thinking of your exchanges with Tyler as regards your
>perceptions of the colors added to alter ink tone as opposed to 
>BO prints. I know there can be exreme metamerism shown in trying 
>to make neutral tones from color inks and I wonder if your
>impressions might not be due to a more subtle evidencing of that 
>same factor. Maybe you are simply very sensitive visualy to those 
>effects.

I don't think metamerism is really the issue.  And I don't know that
I'm more sensitive to colors than any one else, it's just that we get
used to things.  I suspect that most of the people who don't mind the
mixing of colors have been looking mostly at mixed inks because that's
been the main trend.  But there is a big (to me) difference in a tone,
neutral or otherwise, that results from a single ink's response to a
paper, and one that is made up of several colors in an attempt to
imitate that tone.  I have never found mixed inks to be very
convincing.  And then of course there's the longevity issue.

Sometimes I despair of the struggle, the constant time consuming and
expensive experimenting, the endless search for the holy grail. 
Sometimes I think (for a brief moment) that I should forget about all
this and just go buy a 2400 and make prints and be happy with what it
produces.  But then I look and these sample K3 prints and I can't do
it.  It simply isn't what I'm searching for.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

I must admit I find this subject of perceived/observed colouration in a
greyscale comprising colour dots rather interesting and, at times, amusing.
With regard to the former, Clayton (for one) is claiming that he can readily
sense the use of colour dots in the greyscale even when these individual
dots are not observable at 6x magnification at a distance of 2 inches.  I am
not suggesting that he can't, merely that I am sure this would make
interesting fodder for those who scientifically study colour and human
vision.  I am sure that such people could construct some appropriate
rigorous tests.  

On the 4th of August coovert1912 posted a rather interesting example of how
readily the eye can be fooled.  I would find it rather remarkable that
objective tests would show that the eye can perceive the presence of colour
dots in a 2880dpi image at even less than normal viewing distance while at
the same time dealing with all the other factors it must deal with,
including white point adjustment, relative/local contrast and other
extraneous viewing factors such as the colour of other objects within the
field of view.

> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 05:07:21 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] K7 coverage was Re: 2400 B&W And Coloration
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" <cj@c...>
> wrote:
> snip...
>> Are they more opaque than other pigment sets?  I think of opaqueness
>> as being caused by full coverage of the paper, where BO get's it
>> luminance/translucence from allowing bare paper to show...are you
>> thinking of something different?
> 
> No, we're talking about the same thing, and it's an interesting issue to me. I
> think the whole 
> concept of multiple density K inks and partitioning them to their apropriate
> part of the tonal
> scale is pretty much the antithesis of what you like about BO printing <G>.
> Yes, a LOT of covereage. The more partitions and inks you add, the higher the
> dot count 
> everywhere, in all parts of the scale.
> So, if we allow the probablity of coverage or the lack of it being responsible
> for the 
> luminousity you prefer in BO prints, then K7, with more coverage than ever
> before, may just 
> be the least interesting development in mono inkjet printing for you yet!
> I think it will be very interesting to hear what you think of how they look.
> Tyler

Steve Kale,

>With regard to the former, Clayton (for one) is claiming that he 
>can readily sense the use of colour dots in the greyscale even 
>when these individual dots are not observable at 6x magnification 
at a distance of 2 inches.  I am not suggesting that he can't, 
>merely that I am sure this would make interesting fodder for those 
>who scientifically study colour and human vision.  
>I would find it rather remarkable that objective tests would show 
>that the eye can perceive the presence of colour dots 

You have once again demonstrated your absolute mastery of the dark
arts of misinterpretation, twisting people's words around to imply
something else, and the not-so-subtle insult.  Congratulations.

For the record, I never said I could perceive color dots.  What I said
was that I can see colors.  I have before me as I write this a
stepwedge printed on PR with MK ink in a 2400 in ABW neutral mode.  I
can clearly see subtle shades of C M and Y in different places in the
ramp.  I do not see any dots without a loupe.  I can see them with a
Peak 8x loupe.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Steve,

> I must admit I find this subject of perceived/observed colouration in a
> greyscale comprising colour dots rather interesting and, at times,
> amusing.
> With regard to the former, Clayton (for one) is claiming that he can
> readily
> sense the use of colour dots in the greyscale even when these individual
> dots are not observable at 6x magnification at a distance of 2 inches.

I'm reminded of the debate with respect to how much "sharpness" the eye can
detect.  While most find that humans can separate only about 5 line pairs
per millimeter at normal viewing distance, the consensus is that we can
detect edge sharpness increases up to at least the equivalent to 30 lp/mm,
with some claims going up to 100 lp/mm.

So, I think there may be an argument that color dots have some sort of
impact beyond what can actually be "seen" as individual dots.

> ... I am sure this would make
> interesting fodder for those who scientifically study colour and human
> vision.  I am sure that such people could construct some appropriate
> rigorous tests.

Probably, but in a simple double-blind test that included BO, I'll bet the
BO aficionados would prefer BO every time.  This is because the BO style,
which I think of as the "Tri-X" look, is usually rather distinctive not only
in its texture but also in the hue of the ink.  The more interesting test
would be just between 2400 v. a blended B&W inkset with no color dots but
color mixed into the inks.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>


> I'm reminded of the debate with respect to how much "sharpness" the eye can
> detect.  While most find that humans can separate only about 5 line pairs
> per millimeter at normal viewing distance, the consensus is that we can
> detect edge sharpness increases up to at least the equivalent to 30 lp/mm,
> with some claims going up to 100 lp/mm.
> 
> So, I think there may be an argument that color dots have some sort of
> impact beyond what can actually be "seen" as individual dots.

An interesting thing to test, although it is likely very difficult to get a
perfect hue match that would make the test appropriate.


> 
>> ... I am sure this would make
>> interesting fodder for those who scientifically study colour and human
>> vision.  I am sure that such people could construct some appropriate
>> rigorous tests.
> 
> Probably, but in a simple double-blind test that included BO, I'll bet the
> BO aficionados would prefer BO every time.

Oh I agree completely with you here.  I meant a blind test of a greyscale
made with pre-mixed ink vs dots of colour ink. Black Only is very different
in its construction and look from either "dot-mixed" or "pre-mixed"
greyscale (for want of better labels).  I would describe it as extremely
"coarse" when viewed alongside one of the latter.  I would not describe the
look in terms of "luminance".  You either like it (with respect to an
individual image) or you don't - I don't care which.  The question is
whether one should promote it on the basis that, unlike Black Only,
coloration is VISIBLE in the alternatives.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I must admit I find this subject of perceived/observed colouration in a
> greyscale comprising colour dots rather interesting and, at times,
amusing.

It's so gratifying to hear that my personal goal, to be both
compelling AND entertaining, has been achieved at least this month.
Good morning Las Vegas!!

Steve, this issue is interesting primarily because it involves
perception, how the eye/brain registers information and how that
information strikes us as satisfying, or not. Particularly, all that
with regard to a bunch of people extremely experienced at responding
to B&W prints of any kind, as we have here.
It's all about the effectiveness of the prints, period.
Some people might be interested in quantifying all of that if
possible. I'm more interested in the result. I saw a show by a famous
photographer, all B&W, all UC(K2) RGB driver stuff with good profiles.
All carefully lit so they were neutral. I couldn't find a thing wrong
with them, files were well edited, tones nicely chosen, no color
banding, no visible color dots, nothing at all.
But I just didn't like them, without knowing how they were printed at
first. Other options with far less color ink involved, assuming well
done prints, have been much more satisfying. This is my personal
reaction, not one I preach.
Sometimes it just gets down to that. What the smallest perceptible
color dot size is, well it just doesn't matter all that much. I've got
some K3 samples here to compare with quad output, but to be fair I
need some on good coated art papers, this photo stuff is not appealing
and I can't print quads on it to compare directly. When the x800s come
out, I'll have one here for direct testing myself.
Tyler

Well I'm glad for the laugh because having been away for 10 days there
wasn't that much fun in wading through the list email!!  Hey I wasn't
intending to pass judgement on taste.  Each to their own of course and I
have respect for the many that like black only on the one hand and those
that want the maximum possible number of shades of grey to work with.  I
just think one has to be careful (particularly those with influence) when
one expresses why they like or don't like something.   I simply find it hard
to believe that one can see/perceive the color dots at a sensible viewing
distance.  I think smoothness of tonal gradation is another thing and more
readily notable although again I can't help thinking that you're pushing it
when you demand more than 3 shades.  I can respect someone who says I prefer
the smoother greyscale of quad inks or K3 over BO and those that argue the
other way.  The differences are obvious even to the untrained eye and is a
matter of taste (religion?).  And I would really like to see some decent
sized prints of K3 (with QTR ;-) ) alongside K7 - and probably have a
trained eye point out to me their view of the  differences!  I can see the
advantage (in my opinion) of developing the greyscale from 1 to 2 to 3 key
components and would like to see just how much if any (yes I am a little
sceptical) gain there is in moving from 3 to 7.  But I do have a tough time
when someone says they prefer BO over K3 because they can see/perceive the
color dots in K3.  Anyway just my two cents as you Americans like to say ...
;-)

(BTW if ever you want an image printed on a 4800 for comparison let me know.
I am very much an amateur but would be happy to help where I can.  I am just
now taking a look at QTR curves for the K3 inks.  I stopped because I'll
likely swap Eboni for Epson MK as it really is a lot better.)

> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:05:57 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Color dots was K7, 2400 B&W And Coloration
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>> I must admit I find this subject of perceived/observed colouration in a
>> greyscale comprising colour dots rather interesting and, at times,
> amusing.
> 
> It's so gratifying to hear that my personal goal, to be both
> compelling AND entertaining, has been achieved at least this month.
> Good morning Las Vegas!!
> 
> Steve, this issue is interesting primarily because it involves
> perception, how the eye/brain registers information and how that
> information strikes us as satisfying, or not. Particularly, all that
> with regard to a bunch of people extremely experienced at responding
> to B&W prints of any kind, as we have here.
> It's all about the effectiveness of the prints, period.
> Some people might be interested in quantifying all of that if
> possible. I'm more interested in the result. I saw a show by a famous
> photographer, all B&W, all UC(K2) RGB driver stuff with good profiles.
> All carefully lit so they were neutral. I couldn't find a thing wrong
> with them, files were well edited, tones nicely chosen, no color
> banding, no visible color dots, nothing at all.
> But I just didn't like them, without knowing how they were printed at
> first. Other options with far less color ink involved, assuming well
> done prints, have been much more satisfying. This is my personal
> reaction, not one I preach.
> Sometimes it just gets down to that. What the smallest perceptible
> color dot size is, well it just doesn't matter all that much. I've got
> some K3 samples here to compare with quad output, but to be fair I
> need some on good coated art papers, this photo stuff is not appealing
> and I can't print quads on it to compare directly. When the x800s come
> out, I'll have one here for direct testing myself.
> Tyler
> 
>

Clayton,

Not sure what 'PR' is, but, assuming it is a non-Epson paper, then you will 
probably see color casts in various steps of a grayscale. The AdvancedB&W 
part of the R2400 Epson driver will only have been programmed with the 
correct proportions of the black and colored dots of K3 inks for each of the 
grayscale steps on the Epson papers specified for use with that printer. Use 
a third-party paper or ink and what you will get is anyone's guess. Do you 
see varying color casts when you look at prints done with the correct 
settings on Epson papers in AdvancedB&W mode? Surely that is the test of the 
printer's programming/profiling.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clayton Jones" <cj@...>

 What I said
was that I can see colors.  I have before me as I write this a
stepwedge printed on PR with MK ink in a 2400 in ABW neutral mode.  I
can clearly see subtle shades of C M and Y in different places in the
ramp.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> ... I do have a tough time
> when someone says they prefer BO over K3 because they can
see/perceive the
> color dots in K3...

I don't believe anyone has said that. I could very well have a faulty
memory, but my recollection is that anyone, including myself,
expressing reservations about using color inks in separate heads/tanks
for mono prints have simply said they like other methods better for
subjective reasons.
I don't recall anyone claiming to actually see the dots.
Lately though, when I close my eyes, I think I see them. pretty sure.
Tyler

Hello Bob,

My response to the K3 printers is based on several 4800 prints that
were properly profiled.  They were sent to me a while before I printed
the ramp on the 2400.  The ramp is on Photo Rag and was not specially
profiled, but it's irrelevant to the point I have been trying to make
(this is just like the color dot thing all over again - sigh).  It is
just an example to underscore a very simple point, and that is that
prints made with color inks look different than prints made without
color inks and I like the latter better than the former.  It's that
simple.  The K3 prints I've seen are unconvincing to me.  And the fact
that it uses yellow makes me even more wary.  If everyone else likes
it that's great and I'm happy for them.  It's just not what I'm
looking for.  I'm sorry if that makes some people uncomfortable.    

I'm going to continue looking for an LK forumla that will do what I
want in a 2K approach with QTR.  Even if it requires using a small
amount of color ink I think it's going to be the best compromise (not
that I like the idea <g>).  


Regards,
Clayton

Having just come back from a week in Ibiza I see all sorts of dots when I
close my eyes!

I think the relevant quote was "I can see colors" and "subtle shades of C M
and Y in different places in the ramp". Anyway enough said for now.  Time to
close my eyes and watch the stars...

> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>

> Lately though, when I close my eyes, I think I see them. pretty sure.
> Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
...
Let's go back, shall we?

you say-

>> > ... I do have a tough time
>> > when someone says they prefer BO over K3 because they can
>> see/perceive the
>> > color dots in K3...

then I say-

>> I don't recall anyone claiming to actually see the dots.

then you say-

> I think the relevant quote was "I can see colors" and "subtle shades
of C M
> and Y in different places in the ramp". Anyway enough said for now.

without the aid of quoting the post to which you reply. Dots. No one
said dots. Play fair Steve. Enough said indeed, more than, in fact.

Now I say- You seem to be very happy with your printer and you should
be. Make some art. Let's end this thread.
Tyler

The Force was listening...and pushing....

> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>

> 
> Sometimes I despair of the struggle, the constant time consuming and
> expensive experimenting, the endless search for the holy grail.
> Sometimes I think (for a brief moment) that I should forget about all
> this and just go buy a 2400 and make prints and be happy with what it
> produces.  But then I look and these sample K3 prints and I can't do
> it.  It simply isn't what I'm searching for.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton

> The Force was listening...and pushing....

I think so.  There has been more than one occasion when I've been
"pushed out of the nest" in some manner by The Force.  

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm