Digital BW, The Print

What are the best results with QTR and BO for the different  Dither 
Algorithms ?  The effect must be more visible in BO printing and may 
vary per printer and paper. I also wonder what looks most alike the 
Epson driver in BO mode. Just curious.

Ernst

Hello Ernst,

>What are the best results with QTR and BO for the different  Dither 
>Algorithms ?  The effect must be more visible in BO printing and may 
>vary per printer and paper. I also wonder what looks most alike the 
>Epson driver in BO mode. Just curious.

I've been wondering that myself (haven't used QTR much yet, been
working only with the "Ordered" setting which is slightly
tighter/smoother than Epson) so your question made me go find out.  On
a 2200 w/ Eboni and my current QTR BO curve (still under development)
I printed a step wedge on EEM for each dither setting and compared
them.  All were with 2880 and "Faster" speed setting (more about that
below).  Here are the results:

-----------------------------------------------
Ordered - smaller patterns of dots than Epson's squigglies, slightly
tighter pattern, slightly smoother in appearance.

Adaptive Hybrid - tiny difference in pattern if you look hard for it
with the loupe, but for eyeball appearance is nearly indistinguishable
from Ordered.

Fast - Pretty much same as Adaptive Hybrid, but under the loupe I see
a tiny bit of dither banding.

Very Fast - Horrible!  Prints streaks of graphic patterns.

Hybrid Floyd-Steinberg - Surprise!  Very tight and smooth.  Noticeably
smoother to the eye compared to Ordered and Epson.

EvenTone - More surprise.  Ever so slightly smoother than Hybrid FS.
-----------------------------------------------

For a more practical test to verify the above, I printed a landscape
with clouds, an image that has always showed up BO weakest area,
smooth midtones.  It verified all of the above ramp observations. 
There is a place in the clouds with little swirling patterns that are
barely defined in Epson BO, are a tiny bit better with Ordered, and
are very crisp and clearly defined with HFS and EvenTone, with
EvenTone being a tiny bit the better of those.

I am delighted.  This is going to make a huge difference to BO lovers.
 Just on this one test print I can see it's an enormous improvement,
with a greatly reduced grainy look and retains the luminance.  Now I
just need to finish working on the curve.  It's still too blocked up
at the dark end.  I will post it as soon as it's done, probably over
the coming weekend.  Wahoo!  Imahappycamper.  Why didn't I try this
before???!!!!  Still need to test with other papers...

About the "Speed" setting: I printed a TrueTone ramp with Speed set to
"Better" (still 2880), and it messed up the ramp, introducing some
bumps and streaks into what had been a smooth ramp using "Faster"


Regards,
Clayton


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

> From: Clayton Jones
>
> For a more practical test to verify the above, I printed a landscape
> with clouds, an image that has always showed up BO weakest area,
> smooth midtones.  It verified all of the above ramp observations.
> There is a place in the clouds with little swirling patterns that are
> barely defined in Epson BO, are a tiny bit better with Ordered, and
> are very crisp and clearly defined with HFS and EvenTone, with
> EvenTone being a tiny bit the better of those.

You should probably also test the dithering on stuff with fine detail.
Improving the behavior on smooth gradients may degrade it on edges or fine
lines.

--

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

Paul,

This landscape has lots of fine detail (grass, bushes, pine tree
branches with needles), and the improvement there is equally impressive.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Clayton

Go for it my friend. Wow it is great when you see this
kind of enthusiasm, not just for oneself, but for the
BO community at large.

We all owe you a great debt

Woody Spedden

--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
Hello Ernst,

>What are the best results with QTR and BO for the
different  Dither 
>Algorithms ?  The effect must be more visible in BO
printing and may 
>vary per printer and paper. I also wonder what looks
most alike the 
>Epson driver in BO mode. Just curious.

I've been wondering that myself (haven't used QTR much
yet, been
working only with the "Ordered" setting which is
slightly
tighter/smoother than Epson) so your question made me
go find out.  On
a 2200 w/ Eboni and my current QTR BO curve (still
under development)
I printed a step wedge on EEM for each dither setting
and compared
them.  All were with 2880 and "Faster" speed setting
(more about that
below).  Here are the results:

-----------------------------------------------
Ordered - smaller patterns of dots than Epson's
squigglies, slightly
tighter pattern, slightly smoother in appearance.

Adaptive Hybrid - tiny difference in pattern if you
look hard for it
with the loupe, but for eyeball appearance is nearly
indistinguishable
from Ordered.

Fast - Pretty much same as Adaptive Hybrid, but under
the loupe I see
a tiny bit of dither banding.

Very Fast - Horrible!  Prints streaks of graphic
patterns.

Hybrid Floyd-Steinberg - Surprise!  Very tight and
smooth.  Noticeably
smoother to the eye compared to Ordered and Epson.

EvenTone - More surprise.  Ever so slightly smoother
than Hybrid FS.
-----------------------------------------------

For a more practical test to verify the above, I
printed a landscape
with clouds, an image that has always showed up BO
weakest area,
smooth midtones.  It verified all of the above ramp
observations. 
There is a place in the clouds with little swirling
patterns that are
barely defined in Epson BO, are a tiny bit better with
Ordered, and
are very crisp and clearly defined with HFS and
EvenTone, with
EvenTone being a tiny bit the better of those.

I am delighted.  This is going to make a huge
difference to BO lovers.
 Just on this one test print I can see it's an
enormous improvement,
with a greatly reduced grainy look and retains the
luminance.  Now I
just need to finish working on the curve.  It's still
too blocked up
at the dark end.  I will post it as soon as it's done,
probably over
the coming weekend.  Wahoo!  Imahappycamper.  Why
didn't I try this
before???!!!!  Still need to test with other papers...

About the "Speed" setting: I printed a TrueTone ramp
with Speed set to
"Better" (still 2880), and it messed up the ramp,
introducing some
bumps and streaks into what had been a smooth ramp
using "Faster"


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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

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

Clayton,

Found your observation about the different dithering settings
interesting.  Keep us posted on your BO curve development too.  Do I
gather that you are considering moving from "BO" to "QTR with BO look"
????  Using QTR, it will no longer be the classic "BO" print, but
rather a QTR version.  Is that correct ?




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

> Hello Ernst,
> 
> >What are the best results with QTR and BO for the different  Dither 
> >Algorithms ?  The effect must be more visible in BO printing and may 
> >vary per printer and paper. I also wonder what looks most alike the 
> >Epson driver in BO mode. Just curious.
> 
> I've been wondering that myself (haven't used QTR much yet, been
> working only with the "Ordered" setting which is slightly
> tighter/smoother than Epson) so your question made me go find out.  On
> a 2200 w/ Eboni and my current QTR BO curve (still under development)
> I printed a step wedge on EEM for each dither setting and compared
> them.  All were with 2880 and "Faster" speed setting (more about that
> below).  Here are the results:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> Ordered - smaller patterns of dots than Epson's squigglies, slightly
> tighter pattern, slightly smoother in appearance.
> 
> Adaptive Hybrid - tiny difference in pattern if you look hard for it
> with the loupe, but for eyeball appearance is nearly indistinguishable
> from Ordered.
> 
> Fast - Pretty much same as Adaptive Hybrid, but under the loupe I see
> a tiny bit of dither banding.
> 
> Very Fast - Horrible!  Prints streaks of graphic patterns.
> 
> Hybrid Floyd-Steinberg - Surprise!  Very tight and smooth.  Noticeably
> smoother to the eye compared to Ordered and Epson.
> 
> EvenTone - More surprise.  Ever so slightly smoother than Hybrid FS.
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> For a more practical test to verify the above, I printed a landscape
> with clouds, an image that has always showed up BO weakest area,
> smooth midtones.  It verified all of the above ramp observations. 
> There is a place in the clouds with little swirling patterns that are
> barely defined in Epson BO, are a tiny bit better with Ordered, and
> are very crisp and clearly defined with HFS and EvenTone, with
> EvenTone being a tiny bit the better of those.
> 
> I am delighted.  This is going to make a huge difference to BO lovers.
>  Just on this one test print I can see it's an enormous improvement,
> with a greatly reduced grainy look and retains the luminance.  Now I
> just need to finish working on the curve.  It's still too blocked up
> at the dark end.  I will post it as soon as it's done, probably over
> the coming weekend.  Wahoo!  Imahappycamper.  Why didn't I try this
> before???!!!!  Still need to test with other papers...
> 
> About the "Speed" setting: I printed a TrueTone ramp with Speed set to
> "Better" (still 2880), and it messed up the ramp, introducing some
> bumps and streaks into what had been a smooth ramp using "Faster"
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hello Tony,

>Do I gather that you are considering moving from "BO" to "QTR 
>with BO look"

Yes, but now I'm disappointed because it's not such a big improvement
on other papers.  My original comparison was on Kayenta.  Then I tried
it on EEM and the difference wasn't as dramatic, and even less on
Condor BW, hardly any difference (to the eye, still smoother dither
under the loupe).  Bummer!

I'm going to try some of the other dithers on these papers and see if
maybe certain ones are better for them.  Sigh.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Clayton,

I too have been playing around with QTR curves trying to duplicate the
"BO" look with Entrada Natural, Red River Aurora Art, and EEM papers.
 Mainly because QTR gives me the option to use the different dithering
and 2880 dpi.  I don't remember the options on the 2200, but on my
Epson 4000, using BO in the Epson driver, your are limited to a max of
1440 dpi for matte and cotton papers, and on my particular 4000, there
is some microbanding at 1440 with BO that annoys me.  

Anyway, I love QTR, but STILL have not been able to get a curve that
has the "luminosity" of true BO prints.  I've gotten close, but no
cigar yet.  The differences are particularly noticeable in images
where there is a lot of fine high contrast detail, such as vegetation
in landscapes, etc.

I have to admit though, I'm still on the steep slope of the QTR
learning curve.  Some of the posts on this group are greek to me, but
hopefully I'll catch on someday.

Keep us posted on your progress getting that BO look with QTR.

Tony 




 (on the Epson 4000, the paper settings which use the PK (Eboni in my
case) ink with BO in the epson driver

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

> Hello Tony,
> 
> >Do I gather that you are considering moving from "BO" to "QTR 
> >with BO look"
> 
> Yes, but now I'm disappointed because it's not such a big improvement
> on other papers.  My original comparison was on Kayenta.  Then I tried
> it on EEM and the difference wasn't as dramatic, and even less on
> Condor BW, hardly any difference (to the eye, still smoother dither
> under the loupe).  Bummer!
> 
> I'm going to try some of the other dithers on these papers and see if
> maybe certain ones are better for them.  Sigh.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Tony,

Well, this is plain weird. On some papers a dither that's marginally
better on one paper and significantly better on another is worse on
another.  On PR some fine details are dramatically better while the
clouds are worse.  On Aurora, one area of fine detail is significantly
better and another is dramatically worse.  Strange strange.

>I too have been playing around with QTR curves trying to duplicate 
>the "BO" look with Entrada Natural, Red River Aurora Art, and EEM 
>papers.  Mainly because QTR gives me the option to use the 
>different dithering and 2880 dpi.  

Ahh, so you know what I'm going through.  Are you finding the same
mixed results?


>Anyway, I love QTR, but STILL have not been able to get a curve 
>that has the "luminosity" of true BO prints.  I've gotten close, 
>but no cigar yet.  

My curve is getting close (I'm attempting to match the ramp I get from
the 2200 driver and it's working, I'm almost there).  I have good
luminance, but am having trouble getting the same good dmax.  That
dark end is really tricky.

I'm going to continue experimenting with it, but over all I'm
disappointed because it's so inconsistent.   I've gotten this far, so
I should at least perfect the curve.  Then I can decide if I want to
use it on a per image basis.  Please post your results here too, I'm
interested in what you find.

Almost 1:30 here, time for bed. I'm whupped.

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:

> On Aurora, one area of fine detail is significantly
> better and another is dramatically worse.  Strange strange.
> 
Geesh!  How do we deal with that ?  I've got to do a lot more
experimenting.  Also, I'm not sure how the 4000 results are going to
compare with the 2200 (I no longer have my 2200).  I hadn't noticed
the differences within the same image, that is disturbing news..
  
> 
> My curve is getting close (I'm attempting to match the ramp I get from
> the 2200 driver and it's working, I'm almost there).  I have good
> luminance, but am having trouble getting the same good dmax.  That
> dark end is really tricky.
> 
> I'm going to continue experimenting with it, but over all I'm
> disappointed because it's so inconsistent.   I've gotten this far, so
> I should at least perfect the curve.  Then I can decide if I want to
> use it on a per image basis.  Please post your results here too, I'm
> interested in what you find.
> 
> Almost 1:30 here, time for bed. I'm whupped.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton

Get rested Clayton - this could take awhile :-)

I'm back into work mode - actually having some other problems right
now with the 4000 unrelated to my personal B&W printing.

Tony

Tony,


>>Almost 1:30 here, time for bed. I'm whupped.
>Get rested Clayton - this could take awhile :-)

I'm Baaaaack.  Did some more work on the curve, getting closer.


>>On Aurora, one area of fine detail is significantly
>>better and another is dramatically worse.  Strange strange.
>Geesh!  How do we deal with that?  

With a great amount of patience <g>.  What a hassle.  Well, I now have
much more appreciation for what Epson has done for their Black Only
internal code, in terms of both the ramp and the dither pattern. 



>I've got to do a lot more experimenting.  Also, I'm not sure how 
>the 4000 results are going to compare with the 2200 

Yes, my 2200 curve may not be much good on that.

Well, on to other things.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Clayton, I have a dumb question. Can't you just linearize QTR for each
of these papers and be done with it?
Tyler

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

> Tony,
> 
> 
> >>Almost 1:30 here, time for bed. I'm whupped.
> >Get rested Clayton - this could take awhile :-)
> 
> I'm Baaaaack.  Did some more work on the curve, getting closer.
> 
> 
> >>On Aurora, one area of fine detail is significantly
> >>better and another is dramatically worse.  Strange strange.
> >Geesh!  How do we deal with that?  
> 
> With a great amount of patience <g>.  What a hassle.  Well, I now have
> much more appreciation for what Epson has done for their Black Only
> internal code, in terms of both the ramp and the dither pattern. 
> 
> 
> 
> >I've got to do a lot more experimenting.  Also, I'm not sure how 
> >the 4000 results are going to compare with the 2200 
> 
> Yes, my 2200 curve may not be much good on that.
> 
> Well, on to other things.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Clayton,
   Though I don't question at all what you see, that is very
strange. Are you perhaps relinearizing for the different 
papers?  If so, then the same  values in an image may be 
printing different numeric values ?  Then you could run 
into dot size crossovers or strangeness in the dither.

I have usually found (with two different model printers) the 
lightest steps to be problematic with darker inks
in that the dither patterns were uneven and very subject
to fine banding. (That said I recently tried a 2880 BO 
print and it looked just fine).

If you print a 1 or 2% step wedge instead of 5% you can
see all kinds abrubt changes in the patterns. Maybe
what you are seeing, particularly when closely examing
a small area of detail,  is the effect of moving differently
through these dither variations.

On older versions of QTR I tried different dithers (using
4 inks)  and got many wierd artifacts. Never with
ordered or Adaptive Hybrid. The gimp-print
release notes mention finding/fixing bugs in the dither
code for Eventone. I don't know whether these fixes
exist in the later versions of QTR (which are not based
on the latest bleeding egde gimp). So, perhaps 
small changes in values can throw wierd artifacts.

Otherwise, I can't imagine how dot gain differences
or contrast would give an apparent change in the
dither patterns. Very strange.

Costa



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

> Tony,
> 
> Well, this is plain weird. On some papers a dither that's marginally
> better on one paper and significantly better on another is worse on
> another.  On PR some fine details are dramatically better while the
> clouds are worse.  On Aurora, one area of fine detail is significantly
> better and another is dramatically worse.  Strange strange.
> 
> >I too have been playing around with QTR curves trying to duplicate 
> >the "BO" look with Entrada Natural, Red River Aurora Art, and EEM 
> >papers.  Mainly because QTR gives me the option to use the 
> >different dithering and 2880 dpi.  
> 
> Ahh, so you know what I'm going through.  Are you finding the same
> mixed results?
> 
> 
> >Anyway, I love QTR, but STILL have not been able to get a curve 
> >that has the "luminosity" of true BO prints.  I've gotten close, 
> >but no cigar yet.  
> 
> My curve is getting close (I'm attempting to match the ramp I get from
> the 2200 driver and it's working, I'm almost there).  I have good
> luminance, but am having trouble getting the same good dmax.  That
> dark end is really tricky.
> 
> I'm going to continue experimenting with it, but over all I'm
> disappointed because it's so inconsistent.   I've gotten this far, so
> I should at least perfect the curve.  Then I can decide if I want to
> use it on a per image basis.  Please post your results here too, I'm
> interested in what you find.
> 
> Almost 1:30 here, time for bed. I'm whupped.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Clayton

I am a relatively new user of QTR. It is not clear to
me as to how you control the dithering for that
program. Could you say a few words of enlightenment?

Thanks so much
Woody Spedden

--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
Tony,


>>Almost 1:30 here, time for bed. I'm whupped.
>Get rested Clayton - this could take awhile :-)

I'm Baaaaack.  Did some more work on the curve,
getting closer.


>>On Aurora, one area of fine detail is significantly
>>better and another is dramatically worse.  Strange
strange.
>Geesh!  How do we deal with that?  

With a great amount of patience <g>.  What a hassle. 
Well, I now have
much more appreciation for what Epson has done for
their Black Only
internal code, in terms of both the ramp and the
dither pattern. 



>I've got to do a lot more experimenting.  Also, I'm
not sure how 
>the 4000 results are going to compare with the 2200 

Yes, my 2200 curve may not be much good on that.

Well, on to other things.

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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

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

Clayton Jones wrote:

>Well, this is plain weird. On some papers a dither that's marginally
>better on one paper and significantly better on another is worse on
>another.  On PR some fine details are dramatically better while the
>clouds are worse.  On Aurora, one area of fine detail is significantly
>better and another is dramatically worse.  Strange strange.
>  
>
Dotgain differences I guess. Dotsize differences, dot distribution, 
speed of printing can influence the amount of bleeding. Linearisation 
should control that and in the end it could well be that the best 
ditherings are almost alike in quality when the linearisations are done :-)

Anyway you could linearise the best paper/dithering combination and use 
that as the standard to measure the others against. The "fast" 
ditherings are not worth testing anyway.

Remember that this is also a matter of taste. Like a grainy print made 
with Tri-X may look nicer than what you get from HP5.

Ernst