Digital BW, The Print

*Now* I finally understand why one would use simulate ink black in a 
soft proof:  K3 MK on HPR.  It's practically a perfect screen to print 
match, and pretty much unusable in my opinion.  Is the Eboni now 
available in carts for the 2400 or is this a suck and squirt refill 
thing?

> ... Is the Eboni now
> available in carts for the 2400 or is this a suck and squirt refill
> thing?
> 


I'm not sure if MIS will sell their 2400 inks yet.  However, the Eboni is
the same, and the carts are the same as the C86.  I suppose the chip is
different, but I've actually found that sometimes Epson uses the same chips
on different printers that use the same inks and carts.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets" <odets@c...> 
wrote:
>
> *Now* I finally understand why one would use simulate ink black in a 
> soft proof:  K3 MK on HPR.  It's practically a perfect screen to print 
> match, and pretty much unusable in my opinion.  Is the Eboni now 
> available in carts for the 2400 or is this a suck and squirt refill 
> thing?
>

You mean MK isn't usable?

Roy-

It's very weak compared to the same ink on VFA.  On HPR it looks more 
or less like the soft proof with simulate ink black checked.

Walt


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" 
<roy@h...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets" 
<odets@c...> 
> wrote:
> >
> > *Now* I finally understand why one would use simulate ink black in 
a 
> > soft proof:  K3 MK on HPR.  It's practically a perfect screen to 
print 

> > match, and pretty much unusable in my opinion.  Is the Eboni now 
> > available in carts for the 2400 or is this a suck and squirt refill 
> > thing?
> >
> 
> You mean MK isn't usable?
>

Walt

I think you are going round in circles here.  I very much doubt that a
combination that produces a dMax of L*16.5 or so gives you a match but a
combination with an L* of 13.9 doesn't.  Especially when your display is
capable of producing both (and stronger) blacks.  I guess you see what you
see but it's rather illogical.  You use an i1 right?  Take a look at the
contents of your i1 monitor profile to se what the latent black of your
display is.

Steve 

> From: wwodets <odets@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:51:45 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Simulate Ink Black . . .
> 
> Roy-
> 
> It's very weak compared to the same ink on VFA.  On HPR it looks more
> or less like the soft proof with simulate ink black checked.
> 
> Walt

What happens if you try to do a soft proof of PK ink on photo paper?

(What you are in effect saying is that you get a black point shift from
Simulate Black Ink that hits the mark in one case but not in another. And
this over relatively small differences - 7% visual density - in black.)

> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:46:13 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Conversation: [Digital BW] Re: Simulate Ink Black . . .
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Simulate Ink Black . . .
> 
> Walt
> 
> I think you are going round in circles here.  I very much doubt that a
> combination that produces a dMax of L*16.5 or so gives you a match but a
> combination with an L* of 13.9 doesn't.  Especially when your display is
> capable of producing both (and stronger) blacks.  I guess you see what you
> see but it's rather illogical.  You use an i1 right?  Take a look at the
> contents of your i1 monitor profile to se what the latent black of your
> display is.
> 
> Steve 
> 
> 
>> From: wwodets <odets@...>
>> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:51:45 -0000
>> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Simulate Ink Black . . .
>> 
>> Roy-
>> 
>> It's very weak compared to the same ink on VFA.  On HPR it looks more
>> or less like the soft proof with simulate ink black checked.
>> 
>> Walt

Steve-

This is where the measurement approach fails.  The MK on HPR has 
the "veiled," "fogged" look of the simulate ink black on screen.  It 
as if a milkiness has been introduced into the shadows.  By 
comparison, the same ink of VFA as a deep, rich, clean look that is 
much more like the preview without simulate ink color.  This is an 
obvious difference.  

I've had two prints of the same full-range image sitting side by side 
on an easel in the kitchen for two days.  Not only are the blacks 
better on the VFA, the VFA print gives the impression of more detail 
(local contrast?).  I suspect the latter is an issue of dot gain.  
Bottom line, comparitively speaking:  the HPR is murky, the VFA 
crisp.  The HPR, by itself, is a good (very good?) print, but it 
doesn't hold up to a side-by-side comparison to the VFA.  So this is 
a disappointment to me because I like the hand, color, surface and 
weight (308) of the HPR.  But I certainly can't use it for an image 
with a lot of shadow area.  Having begun my experience with the 2400 
with VFA, I have always been a bit puzzled with the preoccupation 
with matte Dmax.  Now I know.

Thanks,
Walt 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
>
> What happens if you try to do a soft proof of PK ink on photo paper?
> 
> (What you are in effect saying is that you get a black point shift 
from
> Simulate Black Ink that hits the mark in one case but not in 
another. And
> this over relatively small differences - 7% visual density - in 
black.)
> 
> 
> > From: Steve Kale <stevekale@b...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:46:13 +0100
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Conversation: [Digital BW] Re: Simulate Ink Black . . .
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Simulate Ink Black . . .
> > 
> > Walt
> > 
> > I think you are going round in circles here.  I very much doubt 
that a
> > combination that produces a dMax of L*16.5 or so gives you a 
match but a
> > combination with an L* of 13.9 doesn't.  Especially when your 
display is
> > capable of producing both (and stronger) blacks.  I guess you see 
what you
> > see but it's rather illogical.  You use an i1 right?  Take a look 
at the
> > contents of your i1 monitor profile to se what the latent black 
of your
> > display is.
> > 
> > Steve 
> > 
> > 
> >> From: wwodets <odets@c...>
> >> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> >> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:51:45 -0000
> >> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> >> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Simulate Ink Black . . .
> >> 
> >> Roy-
> >> 
> >> It's very weak compared to the same ink on VFA.  On HPR it looks 
more

> >> or less like the soft proof with simulate ink black checked.
> >> 
> >> Walt
>

> From: wwodets <odets@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:24:53 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Simulate Ink Black . . .
> 
> Steve-
> 
> This is where the measurement approach fails.  The MK on HPR has
> the "veiled," "fogged" look of the simulate ink black on screen.  It
> as if a milkiness has been introduced into the shadows.  By
> comparison, the same ink of VFA as a deep, rich, clean look that is
> much more like the preview without simulate ink color.  This is an
> obvious difference.

Yes because it has a better black and less shadow compression.  The look on
screen seems consistent with your observations below.

Above you are talking about proofing.  Below you are talking about the
actual prints.  The observations you make below about the finished print can
be a variety of issues but two big factors will be the lower dMax and shadow
cramming you have noted before with HPR.  It is not at all surprising that
make the observations you do given the details you have posted before now.
But the observations below have nothing to do with soft-proofing.

The two need to be segregated for a sensible discussion.  It would seem to
me the veiled soft proof you see for HPR vs VFA is consistent with what you
observe in the actual prints.

> 
> I've had two prints of the same full-range image sitting side by side
> on an easel in the kitchen for two days.  Not only are the blacks
> better on the VFA, the VFA print gives the impression of more detail
> (local contrast?).  I suspect the latter is an issue of dot gain.
> Bottom line, comparitively speaking:  the HPR is murky, the VFA
> crisp.  The HPR, by itself, is a good (very good?) print, but it
> doesn't hold up to a side-by-side comparison to the VFA.  So this is
> a disappointment to me because I like the hand, color, surface and
> weight (308) of the HPR.  But I certainly can't use it for an image
> with a lot of shadow area.  Having begun my experience with the 2400
> with VFA, I have always been a bit puzzled with the preoccupation
> with matte Dmax.  Now I know.
> 


Yep.  It's not the be-all-and-end-all but for a certain type of image it is
a very important issue.  If you like HPR a lot then may I suggest you try
Eboni ink when you can.  It performs better than Epson MK on non-Epson paper
albeit worse than Epson MK on Epson paper (I can't get the same dMax as you
are getting on VFA for example).

Steve-

Actually I think I wasn't clear on the soft proofing versus the 
print.  What I mean to say, in short, is that the HPR print is better 
predicted by the soft proof with simulate ink black, the VFA better 
predicted without the simulate ink black.

On the HPR shadow cramming, I've fixed that with the ABW driver 
in "Light" mode.  I posted about that the other day, but the HPR 
figures for 90-100% blacks are now:  23.93, 21.68, 19.90, 17.99, 
17.19, 16.91.  The previous equivalent figures were:  18.42, 17.69, 
17.21, 16.94, 16.69, 16.80.  Opened up with the Light ABW setting, 
the Dmax is actually slightly worse for some reason (16.91 vs. 
16.80).  The VFA Dmax is about LAB 2.7 better in either workflow (now 
14.19 vs. 16.91). 

Walt



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> > From: wwodets <odets@c...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:24:53 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Simulate Ink Black . . .
> > 
> > Steve-
> > 
> > This is where the measurement approach fails.  The MK on HPR has
> > the "veiled," "fogged" look of the simulate ink black on screen.  
It
> > as if a milkiness has been introduced into the shadows.  By
> > comparison, the same ink of VFA as a deep, rich, clean look that 
is
> > much more like the preview without simulate ink color.  This is an
> > obvious difference.
> 
> Yes because it has a better black and less shadow compression.  The 
look on
> screen seems consistent with your observations below.
> 
> Above you are talking about proofing.  Below you are talking about 
the
> actual prints.  The observations you make below about the finished 
print can
> be a variety of issues but two big factors will be the lower dMax 
and shadow
> cramming you have noted before with HPR.  It is not at all 
surprising that
> make the observations you do given the details you have posted 
before now.
> But the observations below have nothing to do with soft-proofing.
> 
> The two need to be segregated for a sensible discussion.  It would 
seem to
> me the veiled soft proof you see for HPR vs VFA is consistent with 
what you
> observe in the actual prints.
> 
> > 
> > I've had two prints of the same full-range image sitting side by 
side
> > on an easel in the kitchen for two days.  Not only are the blacks
> > better on the VFA, the VFA print gives the impression of more 
detail
> > (local contrast?).  I suspect the latter is an issue of dot gain.
> > Bottom line, comparitively speaking:  the HPR is murky, the VFA
> > crisp.  The HPR, by itself, is a good (very good?) print, but it
> > doesn't hold up to a side-by-side comparison to the VFA.  So this 
is
> > a disappointment to me because I like the hand, color, surface and
> > weight (308) of the HPR.  But I certainly can't use it for an 
image
> > with a lot of shadow area.  Having begun my experience with the 
2400
> > with VFA, I have always been a bit puzzled with the preoccupation
> > with matte Dmax.  Now I know.
> > 
> 
> 
> Yep.  It's not the be-all-and-end-all but for a certain type of 
image it is
> a very important issue.  If you like HPR a lot then may I suggest 
you try
> Eboni ink when you can.  It performs better than Epson MK on non-
Epson paper
> albeit worse than Epson MK on Epson paper (I can't get the same 
dMax as you
> are getting on VFA for example).
>