Digital BW, The Print

Hello All,

Lot of water under the bridge so far, will try to summarize...

* QTR-BO results have been good in that I have replicated the contrast
and density ok, but even the best of the dither patterns is not as
smooth as the 2200.  So QTR-BO over all is just fair.  It works ok for
some images, but is not anywhere near the fine results of the 2200.
Very disappointing.  I'm glad I bought the R200, it's close to the
2200 in BO quality (the only thing I've seen that beats the 2200 for
BO is the 4000).

* ABW mode...not much new to report.  Most attempts to match an Eboni
BO tone are futile dances all around the target.  Like a ring-around,
with as little as a 1 point coordinate change the print looks more
pinkish/greenish/yellowish/blueish...take your pick...than the pure BO
tone.  Very frustrating.   However, there is a glimmer of hope.  On
VFA with the VFA paper setting, the 0h/0v point produces a very nice
slightly warm tone that doesn't look colorized.  Also have found that
a setting of -2h/0v gives a very pleasing neutral tone on Condor BW. 
So I know it's possible.  It's amazing how sensitive this process is
to the slightest change.

* QTR-2K experiments - am now experimenting with MK/LK + LC/LM for
toning and have proof of concept (will put more comments about this in
another thread).  I think this is going to work, but lots more to be
done.  Early results are consistant with earlier 2K experiments with
MIS mixed inks, in that luminance and dmax are a tiny bit less than BO
but significantly better than K3 and other full ink sets (however K3
has surprised me with its excellent luminance on some papers,
particularly VFA; Please also note that I did NOT say that K3 has poor
dmax, just that 2K is a bit better).  Smoothness also fits right
between the two: much smoother than BO but retains a tiny bit of the
"edge" that looks so nice.  Looking at the same image on 2K and K3
prints side by side (EEM), the 2K version has better dmax, better
luminance (the K3 print looks dull in comparison), and a nicer sense
of "presence".  Another advantage of this 2k approach is that it
contains no yellow.   All of this has been with MK, I'm looking
forward to getting some Eboni in here.  I think this is going to be a
winner.

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:
> Hello All,
> 
> Lot of water under the bridge so far, will try to summarize...

snip
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 

Thanks Clayton, for the progress report!

Ed

Clayton-

Essentially new to digital BW printing a few months ago (and therefor 
without preconceptions about materials), I tested 12 or 14 papers on 
the 2400 (something like $800 in paper, forget the ink).  To my eye, 
the VFA was the consistent standout and has been producing excellent 
K3 results.  I use the EEM for proofing because it is much cheaper 
and the density and contrast very closely match VFA (though, oddly 
given the apparent color and surface of the two papers, the VFA is a 
little brighter and crisper).  As a photographic print, the EEM 
prints look just awful, unusable to my eye.  The 2400/EEM combination 
is leaden, dense and has a slight magenta cast to it that is very 
ugly.  The deep blacks are also mottled and thin.  If this 
were "digital BW," I would find the medium useless.  By comparison, 
the VFA prints are lively, translucent and deep at the same time, 
neutral and very beautiful.  So, I feel lucky to have stumbled on 
this combination and the limitation to a single paper is not 
problematic for my work.  I hope Epson doesn't discontinue it.

Incidentally, I am now using both papers with their respective 
selections in the Epson driver main page, both with neutral settings 
except that I select "light" rather than "darker" in the Fine 
Adjustments menu.  The light setting provides uncompressed shadows 
and, to my eye, a very linear tonal scale that closely matches the 
(very linear) screen image with no Soft Proof.  The workspace is 
simply 2.2.    

Walt

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
> Hello All,
> 
> Lot of water under the bridge so far, will try to summarize...
> 
> * QTR-BO results have been good in that I have replicated the 
contrast
> and density ok, but even the best of the dither patterns is not as
> smooth as the 2200.  So QTR-BO over all is just fair.  It works ok 
for
> some images, but is not anywhere near the fine results of the 2200.
> Very disappointing.  I'm glad I bought the R200, it's close to the
> 2200 in BO quality (the only thing I've seen that beats the 2200 for
> BO is the 4000).
> 
> * ABW mode...not much new to report.  Most attempts to match an 
Eboni
> BO tone are futile dances all around the target.  Like a ring-
around,
> with as little as a 1 point coordinate change the print looks more
> pinkish/greenish/yellowish/blueish...take your pick...than the pure 
BO
> tone.  Very frustrating.   However, there is a glimmer of hope.  On
> VFA with the VFA paper setting, the 0h/0v point produces a very nice
> slightly warm tone that doesn't look colorized.  Also have found 
that
> a setting of -2h/0v gives a very pleasing neutral tone on Condor 
BW. 
> So I know it's possible.  It's amazing how sensitive this process is
> to the slightest change.
> 
> * QTR-2K experiments - am now experimenting with MK/LK + LC/LM for
> toning and have proof of concept (will put more comments about this 
in
> another thread).  I think this is going to work, but lots more to be
> done.  Early results are consistant with earlier 2K experiments with
> MIS mixed inks, in that luminance and dmax are a tiny bit less than 
BO
> but significantly better than K3 and other full ink sets (however K3
> has surprised me with its excellent luminance on some papers,
> particularly VFA; Please also note that I did NOT say that K3 has 
poor
> dmax, just that 2K is a bit better).  Smoothness also fits right
> between the two: much smoother than BO but retains a tiny bit of the
> "edge" that looks so nice.  Looking at the same image on 2K and K3
> prints side by side (EEM), the 2K version has better dmax, better
> luminance (the K3 print looks dull in comparison), and a nicer sense
> of "presence".  Another advantage of this 2k approach is that it
> contains no yellow.   All of this has been with MK, I'm looking
> forward to getting some Eboni in here.  I think this is going to be 
a

> winner.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

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

> 
> * QTR-2K experiments - am now experimenting with MK/LK + LC/LM for
> toning and have proof of concept (will put more comments about this in
> another thread).  I think this is going to work, but lots more to be
> done.  

I am sorry but people have been doing this ever since QTR supported the
21/2200.  The Epson MK ink has not changed with the new ink set and the
amendments to LK, LC and LM are not material on matte paper.

>Early results are consistant with earlier 2K experiments with
> MIS mixed inks, in that luminance and dmax are a tiny bit less than BO
> but significantly better than K3 and other full ink sets

Interesting comment.  What measurements are you recording?

The Epson MK ink has not changed and so you are suggesting that the driver
has altered dMax.  It is worth noting that I do not measure material
differences in dMax between the 4800 and the 2100 curves I have done which
is unsurprising when you think about the K ink being the same.

>(however K3
> has surprised me with its excellent luminance on some papers,
> particularly VFA; Please also note that I did NOT say that K3 has poor
> dmax, just that 2K is a bit better).  Smoothness also fits right
> between the two: much smoother than BO but retains a tiny bit of the
> "edge" that looks so nice.  Looking at the same image on 2K and K3
> prints side by side (EEM), the 2K version has better dmax, better
> luminance (the K3 print looks dull in comparison), and a nicer sense
> of "presence".  Another advantage of this 2k approach is that it
> contains no yellow.

People seem obsessed with yellow.  Interesting that Paul's fade tests have
thus far shown no b* axis shift which one would expect if yellow really were
weak.  Having just gone through the time consuming process of delicately
crafting QTR curves for 4 matte papers on the 4800, I can say that one has
to be really ENORMOUSLY keen to avoid yellow to make the process (vs using
Adv B&W) worthwhile.  I am not suggesting avoiding yellow is not a
worthwhile goal when striving for the very best (I did spend the time),
merely that in order to do so one incurs an enormous amount of extra work.
I would suggest that for many many people this extra work is not worth it.
Getting a QTR curve "right" (rather than simply "ok") takes a lot of work.


>   All of this has been with MK, I'm looking
> forward to getting some Eboni in here.  I think this is going to be a
> winner.

Has been for many for quite some time.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:
> Hello All,
> 
> Lot of water under the bridge so far, will try to summarize...
> 

Clayton,

This doesn't sound like it has been much fun :-).  Thanks for the
update on what you are finding.  I'm more and more inclined to keep my
4000 and forget about the 4800 for now.  I suspect in another year,
we'll see another 4000 series printer, maybe one that dosen't require
swapping out inks when we switch from luster to matte papers.  Geesh,
I can't believe Epson did that, a step backwards IMO.

Meanwhile, I'm still interested in seeing how the Pantone MK will work
for BO and I was told that my inkset shipped yesterday.  Hopefully, I
will have something to report by midweek.

Cheers,

Tony