Digital BW, The Print

I've cobbled together a *fairly* good workflow for ABW on the 2400, but 
I feel that the screen match is still variable, image to image, in 
predicting the print.  I'm not a technical tinkerer and I'm wondering 
if I can hire someone in the San Francisco Bat Area (I'm in Berkeley) 
to linearize this printer (QTR?) and profile the ABW mode (i1?) so that 
I have a better, more consistent on-screen image.

Any ideas on an experiended genius with the equipment to do this job 
reliably and fairly quickly?

> ... for ABW on the 2400, ...
> I feel that the screen match is still variable, image to image, in
> predicting the print.  ...

I have not done a lot of printing with the 2400 yet, but in my initial
experiments I was amazed that the density varies as one changes the settings
with the AB&W tone controls.  Am I missing something?

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul-

I've tried using the ABW mode in two different ways, although at this 
point I'm not even sure what it is intended for.  One posssibility is 
that it is a do-it-yourself-by-eye RIP intended to be set once (for a 
given paper and screen view) and left; the other is that it is intended 
as a tone-only image editing program to be adjusted for each print.  
The latter is ridiculous unless you are trying to waste paper and ink 
through image-to-image trial and error or you don't have PS.

I first used the controls in the first way, finding a group of ABW 
control settings that matched the screen.  The linearization was, 
however, poor at the "darker" setting, with a lot of compression in the 
shadows (last three or four steps of the wedge).

I am now using it with all controls neutral except for the "light" 
setting.  The light setting gives the least compression of shadow areas 
and a fairly linear print of an unadjusted step wedge.  To compensate 
this setup for the screen, I use a PS curve to view the file on screen 
and then turn it off for printing.  The results are pretty good, with 
accurate preview of highlight and shadow separations and a good 
portrayal of gamma.  It's far from perfect however.

So I don't think I've answered your question because I'm not sure what 
you mean by "density."  The ABW controls (brightness, contrast, shadow, 
etc.) do change the density of the print, but that can't be what you 
meant.

What Epson should have done is provide a Soft Proof profile of the ABW 
at standard settings, and the standard settings should not compress the 
shadow end of the scale.

So, thinking of a visit to San Francisco?

 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 
> 
> > ... for ABW on the 2400, ...
> > I feel that the screen match is still variable, image to image, in
> > predicting the print.  ...
> 
> I have not done a lot of printing with the 2400 yet, but in my initial
> experiments I was amazed that the density varies as one changes the 
settings

> with the AB&W tone controls.  Am I missing something?
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

FWIW:

I picked up a 4800 Tuesday.

So far, my best prints have been printed using "color" with a RGB file, 
be it a grayscale saved as RGB or a "toned" file ( I've been using a 
Ken Lee curve) saved as a RGB file.

The "BLACK" setting looks nice, EXCEPT for the tone of the Epson PK: 
too blue for my taste.

With the "BLACK" setting, it looks to me as if ONLY the 3 black inks 
are being used. Using a 10X loupe, I could not see any other "color" 
being used.

Even with color inks being used to make B&W prints, it is hard to see 
those "colored inks" with that 10X loupe.

Just my 2 cents worth. : > )

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 
> 
> > ... for ABW on the 2400, ...
> > I feel that the screen match is still variable, image to image, in
> > predicting the print.  ...
> 
> I have not done a lot of printing with the 2400 yet, but in my initial
> experiments I was amazed that the density varies as one changes the 
settings

> with the AB&W tone controls.  Am I missing something?
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com