Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?

is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?

2005-11-07 by djon43

I got a quick response to my sharpening question on the QTR Group,
supporting my observation of an issue with QTR sharpness. 

(note: I've tentatively addressed with "smart sharpen" in shadows,
more sharpening than required for Black-Only...I'm not happy with the
extra sharpening)

I wonder if anyone's compared 2200 Black-Only to 2400, sharpness-wise?

I'd assume the same sharpness can be accomplished with 2400, but do
files that print well via 2200 in Black-Only require extra sharpening
to rival that sharpness using a 2400 ?

RE: [Digital BW] is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?

2005-11-07 by John Moody

By chance are you comparing BO @2880 to QTR @1440 dpi?  If so, have you
tried 2880 with QTR?

Best regards,
John Moody
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of djon43
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:51 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?

I got a quick response to my sharpening question on the QTR Group,
supporting my observation of an issue with QTR sharpness.

(note: I've tentatively addressed with "smart sharpen" in shadows,
more sharpening than required for Black-Only...I'm not happy with the
extra sharpening)

I wonder if anyone's compared 2200 Black-Only to 2400, sharpness-wise?

I'd assume the same sharpness can be accomplished with 2400, but do
files that print well via 2200 in Black-Only require extra sharpening
to rival that sharpness using a 2400 ?




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

Re: is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?

2005-11-07 by Clayton Jones

Hello djon43,

>I wonder if anyone's compared 2200 Black-Only to 2400, 
>sharpness-wise?

In my experience 2400 ABW prints are just as sharp as 2200 BO prints.
 I don't add any additional sharpening.

As for BO on the 2400, I've done it using QTR but the results are very
poor.  For some reason the dot sizes are extremely large.  Roy said he
would try to find a fix but I haven't heard back from him yet.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Re: [Digital BW] is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?

2005-11-07 by djon43

"John Moody" <moodymz3@y...> wrote:
>
> By chance are you comparing BO @2880 to QTR @1440 dpi?  If so, have you
> tried 2880 with QTR?

At your suggestion I did just compare. There seems no improvement at
2880...and it doesn't begin to match results at 1440 with a little
smart sharpen, which do come close to Black Only without extra sharpening.

Black Only is significantly sharper at 1440 than QTR at 1440 or 2880
in my setup.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 
> I got a quick response to my sharpening question on the QTR Group,
> supporting my observation of an issue with QTR sharpness.
> 
> (note: I've tentatively addressed with "smart sharpen" in shadows,
> more sharpening than required for Black-Only...I'm not happy with the
> extra sharpening)

Re: is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?

2005-11-08 by Roy Harrington

Clayton,

Have you tried version 2.3.1 ?  This has fixes for the R2400.

Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" <cj@c...> 
wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Hello djon43,
> 
> >I wonder if anyone's compared 2200 Black-Only to 2400, 
> >sharpness-wise?
> 
> In my experience 2400 ABW prints are just as sharp as 2200 BO prints.
>  I don't add any additional sharpening.
> 
> As for BO on the 2400, I've done it using QTR but the results are very
> poor.  For some reason the dot sizes are extremely large.  Roy said he
> would try to find a fix but I haven't heard back from him yet.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Re: [Digital BW] is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?

2005-11-08 by Brian Ellis

>If so, have you
>tried 2880 with QTR?

I was under the impression from things read here from Roy and others that 
QTR is set up for 1440 and it isn't a good idea to use it at 2880.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Moody" <moodymz3@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 5:08 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?


By chance are you comparing BO @2880 to QTR @1440 dpi?  If so, have you
tried 2880 with QTR?

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of djon43
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:51 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?

I got a quick response to my sharpening question on the QTR Group,
supporting my observation of an issue with QTR sharpness.

(note: I've tentatively addressed with "smart sharpen" in shadows,
more sharpening than required for Black-Only...I'm not happy with the
extra sharpening)

I wonder if anyone's compared 2200 Black-Only to 2400, sharpness-wise?

I'd assume the same sharpness can be accomplished with 2400, but do
files that print well via 2200 in Black-Only require extra sharpening
to rival that sharpness using a 2400 ?




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



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

  a..  Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.

  b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

  c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

RE: [Digital BW] is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?

2005-11-08 by John Moody

2880 on the 2200 printer uses only the small dots; variable drop size is
cancelled.  True, the supplied curves have been made in 1440 mode and work
best in that mode.  2880 mode tends to use more ink, and most people don’t
find any useful improvement so they don’t use it.  It does allow finer
detail however, so I thought it would be a simple enough test to see if any
difference was found.

Best regards,
John Moody
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Ellis
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:32 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?

>If so, have you
>tried 2880 with QTR?

I was under the impression from things read here from Roy and others that
QTR is set up for 1440 and it isn't a good idea to use it at 2880.




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

RE: [Digital BW] is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?

2005-11-08 by John Moody

Have you used QTR-create-ICC to profile both BO and the curves you are using
with QTR?  That would output both prints with the same tonal characteristic.
If this has not been done, I wonder if the BO shadow compression is
generating more contrast in the features that appear sharp?

Best regards,
John Moody
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of djon43
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 6:21 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?

  "John Moody" <moodymz3@y...> wrote:
>
> By chance are you comparing BO @2880 to QTR @1440 dpi?  If so, have you
> tried 2880 with QTR?

At your suggestion I did just compare. There seems no improvement at
2880...and it doesn't begin to match results at 1440 with a little
smart sharpen, which do come close to Black Only without extra sharpening.

Black Only is significantly sharper at 1440 than QTR at 1440 or 2880
in my setup.

>
> I got a quick response to my sharpening question on the QTR Group,
> supporting my observation of an issue with QTR sharpness.
>
> (note: I've tentatively addressed with "smart sharpen" in shadows,
> more sharpening than required for Black-Only...I'm not happy with the
> extra sharpening)






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

*          Visit your group " DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> " on the web.

*          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Uns
ubscribe>

*          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

  _____



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

Re: [Digital BW] is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?

2005-11-08 by djon43

"Brian Ellis" <bellis60@v...> wrote:
>
> >If so, have you
> >tried 2880 with QTR?
> 
> I was under the impression from things read here from Roy and others
that 
> QTR is set up for 1440 and it isn't a good idea to use it at 2880.
> 

Brian, please check it out with your own printer, I'd be interested to
hear your results. Also, maybe you'd compare QTR sharpness to
Black-Only while you're at it? 

In my own testing there is no gain from 1440 to 2880 under any
circumstance (color, black only, QTR). 

I don't understand why, since 2200 reportedly defaults to 720 anyway,
but 1440 is distinctly better than 720 for me, using the Epson driver
(black-only).

QTR vs BO sharpness

2005-11-08 by djon43

"John Moody" <moodymz3@y...> wrote:
>
> Have you used QTR-create-ICC to profile both BO and the curves you
are using
> with QTR?  That would output both prints with the same tonal
characteristic.
> If this has not been done, I wonder if the BO shadow compression is
> generating more contrast in the features that appear sharp?

John, May I ask you to try that? I don't have your expertise: I'd be
very interested in your results (comparing best QTR sharpness to BO). 

I hate to be the only person reporting a QTR sharpness problem...maybe
I'm really describing MY problem, rather than a flaw in QTR...

...it seems a fault if QTR requires a profile that matches BO in order
to arrive at maximum sharpness. It also seems a fault if it requires 
different post-processing sharpning (as it may).  

 BO obviously does create more contrast in shadow details* than QTR,
but "smart sharpen" of shadows (one of the Photoshop "smart sharpen"
adjustments) in post-processing does cause QTR to approximate BO
sharpness...a matter of tinkering. 

* shadow details for Photoshop CS2's "smart sharpen" seems to mean
control of dark areas that contain whites as opposed to control of
dark details contained by whites...in practice this is not the same thing.

Re: QTR vs BO sharpness

2005-11-08 by Louis Dina

There may or may not be a parallel here, but when sending jobs to a 
printing press, you will generally see more "apparent" sharpness when 
using a coarser line screen.  A 133 lpi screen will appear 
contrastier, hence sharper, than a 175 or 200 lpi line screen.  The 
finer screen tends to reduce the differentiation of contrast and 
sharpness in favor of smoothness, since it is filling in more white 
space on the sheet.  

I wouldn't be surprised if the same effect is showing up when 
printing with BO vs. using QTR or any other RIP using multiple 
inks.   

If this is the case, which makes some sense to me, then I don't see 
that as a problem with QTR so much as it is a workflow problem.  I 
know I have to consider the line screen when I design a job for press 
output, and will increase the contrast and sharpness of my final 
images to account for it.   At least in press work, it is just part 
of the territory.  

Lou Dina

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" 
<djon43@y...> wrote:
>
>  "John Moody" <moodymz3@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Have you used QTR-create-ICC to profile both BO and the curves you
> are using
> > with QTR?  That would output both prints with the same tonal
> characteristic.
> > If this has not been done, I wonder if the BO shadow compression 
is
> > generating more contrast in the features that appear sharp?
> 
> John, May I ask you to try that? I don't have your expertise: I'd be
> very interested in your results (comparing best QTR sharpness to 
BO). 
> 
> I hate to be the only person reporting a QTR sharpness 
problem...maybe
> I'm really describing MY problem, rather than a flaw in QTR...
> 
> ...it seems a fault if QTR requires a profile that matches BO in 
order
> to arrive at maximum sharpness. It also seems a fault if it 
requires 
> different post-processing sharpning (as it may).  
> 
>  BO obviously does create more contrast in shadow details* than QTR,
> but "smart sharpen" of shadows (one of the Photoshop "smart sharpen"
> adjustments) in post-processing does cause QTR to approximate BO
> sharpness...a matter of tinkering. 
> 
> * shadow details for Photoshop CS2's "smart sharpen" seems to mean
> control of dark areas that contain whites as opposed to control of
> dark details contained by whites...in practice this is not the same 
thing.
>

RE: [Digital BW] QTR vs BO sharpness

2005-11-08 by John Moody

Sure, I have a bunch of things going on here, but I was planning to fire up
the 2200 anyway.
What paper are you printing on, and what ink is in your 2200?  Do you have a
website or somewhere that you can post a small part of the image?  If so,
please post it, and make sure you let us know what dpi you are printing it
at so we are looking at the same size print.

To clarify the QTR-create-ICC issue, that exercise was intended to correct
the “fault” in BO, in that it is not very linear, and QTR is.  Printing the
same file to both processes we should not expect the prints to have the same
tone, unless they have been converted with a profile from the QTR tool.  I’m
assuming you have an i1, maybe that’s a bad assumption; you need that or
equivalent to use the QTR-create-ICC tool.

Best regards,
John Moody
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of djon43
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:36 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] QTR vs BO sharpness

"John Moody" <moodymz3@y...> wrote:
>
> Have you used QTR-create-ICC to profile both BO and the curves you
are using
> with QTR?  That would output both prints with the same tonal
characteristic.
> If this has not been done, I wonder if the BO shadow compression is
> generating more contrast in the features that appear sharp?

John, May I ask you to try that? I don't have your expertise: I'd be
very interested in your results (comparing best QTR sharpness to BO).

I hate to be the only person reporting a QTR sharpness problem...maybe
I'm really describing MY problem, rather than a flaw in QTR...

...it seems a fault if QTR requires a profile that matches BO in order
to arrive at maximum sharpness. It also seems a fault if it requires
different post-processing sharpning (as it may).

BO obviously does create more contrast in shadow details* than QTR,
but "smart sharpen" of shadows (one of the Photoshop "smart sharpen"
adjustments) in post-processing does cause QTR to approximate BO
sharpness...a matter of tinkering.

* shadow details for Photoshop CS2's "smart sharpen" seems to mean
control of dark areas that contain whites as opposed to control of
dark details contained by whites...in practice this is not the same thing.






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

RE: [Digital BW] Re: QTR vs BO sharpness

2005-11-08 by John Moody

Hi Lou,
Yes, I was thinking the same thing, until he described some details on the
trash containers that sound like it should be pretty sharp with any process.
I wonder if it’s a high ink limit issue; I asked for details on the inkset
and paper, maybe that would help answer the question.

Best regards,
John Moody
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Louis Dina
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 11:05 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: QTR vs BO sharpness

There may or may not be a parallel here, but when sending jobs to a
printing press, you will generally see more "apparent" sharpness when
using a coarser line screen.  A 133 lpi screen will appear
contrastier, hence sharper, than a 175 or 200 lpi line screen.  The
finer screen tends to reduce the differentiation of contrast and
sharpness in favor of smoothness, since it is filling in more white
space on the sheet.

I wouldn't be surprised if the same effect is showing up when
printing with BO vs. using QTR or any other RIP using multiple
inks.

If this is the case, which makes some sense to me, then I don't see
that as a problem with QTR so much as it is a workflow problem.  I
know I have to consider the line screen when I design a job for press
output, and will increase the contrast and sharpness of my final
images to account for it.   At least in press work, it is just part
of the territory.

Lou Dina

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
<djon43@y...> wrote:
>
>  "John Moody" <moodymz3@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Have you used QTR-create-ICC to profile both BO and the curves you
> are using
> > with QTR?  That would output both prints with the same tonal
> characteristic.
> > If this has not been done, I wonder if the BO shadow compression
is
> > generating more contrast in the features that appear sharp?
>
> John, May I ask you to try that? I don't have your expertise: I'd be
> very interested in your results (comparing best QTR sharpness to
BO).
>
> I hate to be the only person reporting a QTR sharpness
problem...maybe
> I'm really describing MY problem, rather than a flaw in QTR...
>
> ...it seems a fault if QTR requires a profile that matches BO in
order
> to arrive at maximum sharpness. It also seems a fault if it
requires
> different post-processing sharpning (as it may).
>
>  BO obviously does create more contrast in shadow details* than QTR,
> but "smart sharpen" of shadows (one of the Photoshop "smart sharpen"
> adjustments) in post-processing does cause QTR to approximate BO
> sharpness...a matter of tinkering.
>
> * shadow details for Photoshop CS2's "smart sharpen" seems to mean
> control of dark areas that contain whites as opposed to control of
> dark details contained by whites...in practice this is not the same
thing.
>






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.




SPONSORED LINKS
Digital wedding photography
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+wedding+photography&w1=Digital+
wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+coll
ege&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photog
raphy+course&c=6&%20>
Learn digital photography
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Learn+digital+photography&w1=Digital+we
dding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+colleg
e&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photogra
phy+course&c=6&s=%20>
Digital photography college
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+college&w1=Digital+
wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+coll
ege&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photog
raphy+course&c=6&%20>
Digital photography
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+photography&w1=Digital+wedding+
photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=D
igital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+co
urse&c=6&s=188&.s%20>
Digital photography web site
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+web+site&w1=Digital
+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+col
lege&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photo
graphy+course&c=6%20>
Digital photography course
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+course&w1=Digital+w
edding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+colle
ge&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photogr
aphy+course&c=6&s%20>

  _____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

*          Visit your group " DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> " on the web.

*          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Uns
ubscribe>

*          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

  _____



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

Re: QTR vs BO sharpness

2005-11-08 by Clayton Jones

Hello Djon,

>BO obviously does create more contrast in shadow details* than QTR,
>but "smart sharpen" of shadows (one of the Photoshop "smart sharpen"
>adjustments) in post-processing does cause QTR to approximate BO
>sharpness...a matter of tinkering. 

If you print a step wedge in BO and also with a typical QTR curve and
compare the ramps you'll see that the BO version holds off dropping
into the dark zones longer.  This I believe is the reason BO has
better shadow separation.  If you create a QTR BO curve that matches
that ramp I think you'll get equally good results.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Re: [Digital BW] is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?

2005-11-08 by Roy Harrington

Right.  Most of the curves were created with 1440 in mind.  On the 2200 you
can try them at 2880 by reducing the ink limit adj when printing.  I think about
-45% is very close to get the same overall ink usage.

Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody" 
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> 2880 on the 2200 printer uses only the small dots; variable drop size is
> cancelled.  True, the supplied curves have been made in 1440 mode and work
> best in that mode.  2880 mode tends to use more ink, and most people don't
> find any useful improvement so they don't use it.  It does allow finer
> detail however, so I thought it would be a simple enough test to see if any
> difference was found.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Brian
> Ellis
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:32 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?
> 
> >If so, have you
> >tried 2880 with QTR?
> 
> I was under the impression from things read here from Roy and others that
> QTR is set up for 1440 and it isn't a good idea to use it at 2880.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: QTR vs BO sharpness

2005-11-08 by djon43

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Louis Dina" 
<lbdina@c...> wrote:
>
> There may or may not be a parallel here, but when sending jobs to a 
> printing press, you will generally see more "apparent" sharpness 
when 
> using a coarser line screen.  

Yes, that's true about coarse screens...and as was commented earlier, 
a very grainy negative can appear sharper than a grainless negative or 
digital camera file.

However, what I see is less fine, sharp detail (eg small grafitti and 
labels on trash in a particular image)with QTR...actually I think 
the "detail" is almost there, but it needs CS smart sharpen to make it 
form up, whereas BO doesn't need that extra sharpening.

Re: QTR vs BO sharpness

2005-11-08 by djon43

Clayton, thanks. Sounds like a plan. 

HOWEVER, do you think ramp-matching will add sharpness? If so, I'm 
amazed that this issue/fix has not come up before here.

I'm hoping someone who still uses 2200 will compare QTR to black-
only without creating a black-only curve for QTR, just to confirm 
that this is really the center of my sharpness issue.

It sounds like nobody's experienced this sharpness issue, and Black 
Only is so attractive that I'd have thought someone would have tried 
to approximate it with QTR... 



 If you create a QTR BO curve that matches
> that ramp I think you'll get equally good results.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton

Clayton, thanks. I'll give it a try. Sounds like a plan.

Re: [Digital BW] QTR vs BO sharpness

2005-11-08 by djon43

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody" 
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
>
> Sure, I have a bunch of things going on here, but I was planning 
to fire up
> the 2200 anyway.

Thanks John!

I'll plead primative here...no i1 and no photo website (hmm..maybe I 
could do it on photo.net). 

Lacking the i1, what I'd most like is your subjective impression of 
the relative sharpness of BO Vs QTR using a highly sharp-detailed 
image and your most standard QTR curve, without adjusting to match 
BO...

I'd most like to know if I've got a local problem (with the printer 
or QTR itself) or if we're talking about a workflow issue, *such as 
creating sharper images from QTR than it wants to create when it's 
linear.*

My goal isn't to fix any fault in BO. My impression is that BO's 
LACK of linearity is a virtue, sharpness-wise, but I prefer QTR's 
tone control.

I'm using OEM pigs and, for example, EEM  and Kirkland. I'm printing 
everything at 1440.

> What paper are you printing on, and what ink is in your 2200?  Do 
you have a
> website or somewhere that you can post a small part of the image?  
If so,
> please post it, and make sure you let us know what dpi you are 
printing it
> at so we are looking at the same size print.
> 
> To clarify the QTR-create-ICC issue, that exercise was intended to 
correct
> the "fault" in BO, in that it is not very linear, and QTR is.  
Printing the
> same file to both processes we should not expect the prints to 
have the same
> tone, unless they have been converted with a profile from the QTR 
tool.  I'm
> assuming you have an i1, maybe that's a bad assumption; you need 
that or
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> equivalent to use the QTR-create-ICC tool.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
>

RE: [Digital BW] QTR vs BO sharpness

2005-11-08 by John Moody

OK, that makes it even easier.  Since you are not calibrated, I can be
somewhat casual with the paper and curve selection.  Please don’t take that
the wrong way, owners of spectros like to think they are indispensable
tools, while some may think we dispensed our money like fools. :-)

I ran BO at 2880 dpi, with OEM/PK ink, since that is what happens to be in
the 2200 right now.  I printed on both matte and semigloss; yes PK on matte,
since it is just a sharpness test.  No huge difference, so I’ll talk about
the matte print.

The BO is sharper than QTR, more so near graphics like lettering, less so
where the local contrast is less, and not at all sharper in low contrast
areas like sedimentary canyon walls.  Everywhere QTR has more detail,
although it appears softer, which is not a big surprise.

On matte, the warm BO ink against the cold paper white exaggerates the
contrast even more than the image file.  Also, as Clayton said, the tonal
response of BO enhances high contrast graphic type features, so unless you
had a similar hockey stick shaped ramp in QTR, you should not expect the
same thing.

All that aside, I don’t think it is so straightforward to make a curve and
sharpening operation that will make a two tone (K/LK) print like 2200/QTR
and a 2200/BO print look identical.  The BO has higher local contrast at the
expense of detail, and it’s a function of the amount of local contrast.

With a boost in contrast, and more sharpening applied to the QTR image, I
expect the difference to be less.  Well, I just tried the sharpening part,
and for dark graphics against light backgrounds or the inverse, QTR looks a
little sharper than BO, but for light against mid-toned backgrounds it is
oversharpened.  Without a loupe, this sharpened QTR print looks similar in
sharpness to the lightly sharpened BO print.

I hope this answers some of your questions.

Best regards,
John Moody
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of djon43
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 3:28 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] QTR vs BO sharpness

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
>
> Sure, I have a bunch of things going on here, but I was planning
to fire up
> the 2200 anyway.

Thanks John!

I'll plead primative here...no i1 and no photo website (hmm..maybe I
could do it on photo.net).

Lacking the i1, what I'd most like is your subjective impression of
the relative sharpness of BO Vs QTR using a highly sharp-detailed
image and your most standard QTR curve, without adjusting to match
BO...

I'd most like to know if I've got a local problem (with the printer
or QTR itself) or if we're talking about a workflow issue, *such as
creating sharper images from QTR than it wants to create when it's
linear.*

My goal isn't to fix any fault in BO. My impression is that BO's
LACK of linearity is a virtue, sharpness-wise, but I prefer QTR's
tone control.

I'm using OEM pigs and, for example, EEM  and Kirkland. I'm printing
everything at 1440.




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

Re: QTR vs BO sharpness

2005-11-09 by Clayton Jones

Hello Djon43,

>HOWEVER, do you think ramp-matching will add sharpness? 

No, I don't think it affects sharpness.  I was responding to your
comment about greater dark zone contrast.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Re: QTR vs BO sharpness

2005-11-09 by djon43

Clayton, I have the impression from use of CS "smart sharpen" that
more dark zone contrast is exactly what's necessary to make QTR rival
black only. 

I may be stretching a point, but I think that's the same as John
Moody's concept, though he addresses it from the frame of matching ramps.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Hello Djon43,
> 
> >HOWEVER, do you think ramp-matching will add sharpness? 
> 
> No, I don't think it affects sharpness.  I was responding to your
> comment about greater dark zone contrast.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Re: [Digital BW] QTR vs BO sharpness

2005-11-09 by djon43

John, Your observations are in accord with mine, and you've expanded
on them usefully. 

I think we've discovered that QTR and BO each serve certain purposes
better than the other. In particular, the quest for sense-of-sharpness
in certain images favors Black Only.

Also, I concluded after the recent Black-Only print exchange that BO
loses detail in the dots (while sometimes  looking especially 
"sharp") in small prints, but it is less distinctive and loses less
detail in larger prints because of the diminished importance of the
dots as size increases. 

You mentioned sharpening. I found CS2's "more sharpen" crudely useful,
but it added subtle jaggies. Extra USM did what extra USM does:
halos...but it didn't add sharpness. Modest "smart sharpen" in shadows
moved QTR into BO sharpness territory. Problem with all of this is
it's subjective, requires a lot of experimentation/proofing. If the
image is worth it, I suppose. But I want to come up with something
more predictable/reliable.



  "John Moody" <moodymz3@y...> wrote:
> 
> The BO is sharper than QTR, more so near graphics like lettering,
less so
> where the local contrast is less, and not at all sharper in low contrast
> areas like sedimentary canyon walls.  Everywhere QTR has more detail,
> although it appears softer

Qualification: "appears softer" literally means "less sharp." I have
this problem with some grasses that are out of focus prettily but are
also fuzzed excessively by QTR.

Re: [Digital BW] is 2200 Black-Only sharper than 2400 ?

2005-11-09 by Steve Kale

Djon

You are confusing two different things here:  ppi and dpi.  The driver
resamples (if necessary) images to 720ppi but prints at 720, 1440, 2880 or
other dpi as selected.  There can be more dots per pixel than just 1.

Steve
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: djon43 <djon43@...>
 
> 
> I don't understand why, since 2200 reportedly defaults to 720 anyway,
> but 1440 is distinctly better than 720 for me, using the Epson driver
> (black-only).

2880 dpi Vs 1440 dpi ?

2005-11-09 by djon43

As we all know Epson WILL print at 1440dpi..if we make no selection it
defaults/resamples to 720dpi, which "works" even on photocopy paper. 

1440 is obviously more attractive on photo papers than 720dpi
(visually/loupe) even on relatively soft papers (eg iplug up on
Entrada)...also better than 2880dpi, especially on soft papers...

***what I don't understand is why that driver offers 2880dpi: that
setting seems counterproductive even on the sharpest of papers (eg.
Kirkland and Kokopelli). What is the utility of 2880dpi? 

***2880dpi obviously does want to plug up dots (like lithography with
a too-fine halftone screen) so seems a more risky choice than 1440dpi. 

***Is there a *visual* advantage to using 2880dpi Vs 1440dpi IF one
tinkers carefully with ink limits?

Are there papers that will deliver more detail or beauty with 2880dpi
than 1440dpi? What are they? Special techniques?

Is 2880dpi intended for printing on a film base? Is it better than
1440dpi for that purpose?


 The driver
> resamples (if necessary) images to 720ppi but prints at 720, 1440,
2880 or
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> other dpi as selected.  There can be more dots per pixel than just 1.
> 
> Steve
>

RE: [Digital BW] 2880 dpi Vs 1440 dpi ?

2005-11-09 by John Moody

This has been my experience with the R200, and limited experience with the
2200 (oem inks in 2200, I no longer use them for BW).
2880 is sharper and smoother than 1440 on gloss/semi-gloss, if the following
is true.

Don’t print on the first and last inch where the feed mechanism is not so
precise and microbanding often appears.

Set ink limits and densities by very critical examination of the way the
inks are received by the paper.  There is a fine line between sharp dots and
muddled dots at max gray ink, and Dmax, especially so with variable tone ink
sets.

Set ink partition densities to use significant amounts of each gray tone.
Run the light inks further into the darker inks, which results in more dots
laid down over the entire range.  Taking this too far will create dark dots,
so there is a tradeoff that I am still playing with.  Note this would be the
most costly way to print since it uses much more ink, obviously not for
everyone.

Before linearization, refine the curves until the deviation from ideal L* is
<2, paying particular attention to achieve a smooth slope from 85 to 100%
ink.  The better I achieve this goal, the smoother the ramps become, to the
point that 256 gray levels seems restrictive of what the printer is capable
of.

I’m still in the exploring/learning stage with BW and rips, and looking to
share experiences, so don’t take these comments too seriously.

Best regards,
John Moody
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of djon43
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:49 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] 2880 dpi Vs 1440 dpi ?

As we all know Epson WILL print at 1440dpi..if we make no selection it
defaults/resamples to 720dpi, which "works" even on photocopy paper.

1440 is obviously more attractive on photo papers than 720dpi
(visually/loupe) even on relatively soft papers (eg iplug up on
Entrada)...also better than 2880dpi, especially on soft papers...

***what I don't understand is why that driver offers 2880dpi: that
setting seems counterproductive even on the sharpest of papers (eg.
Kirkland and Kokopelli). What is the utility of 2880dpi?

***2880dpi obviously does want to plug up dots (like lithography with
a too-fine halftone screen) so seems a more risky choice than 1440dpi.

***Is there a *visual* advantage to using 2880dpi Vs 1440dpi IF one
tinkers carefully with ink limits?

Are there papers that will deliver more detail or beauty with 2880dpi
than 1440dpi? What are they? Special techniques?

Is 2880dpi intended for printing on a film base? Is it better than
1440dpi for that purpose?


The driver
> resamples (if necessary) images to 720ppi but prints at 720, 1440,
2880 or
> other dpi as selected.  There can be more dots per pixel than just 1.
>
> Steve
>




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

Re: [Digital BW] 2880 dpi Vs 1440 dpi ?

2005-11-09 by hogarth@snappydsl.net

djon43 wrote:

> As we all know Epson WILL print at 1440dpi..if we make no selection it
> defaults/resamples to 720dpi, which "works" even on photocopy paper.
>
> 1440 is obviously more attractive on photo papers than 720dpi
> (visually/loupe) even on relatively soft papers (eg iplug up on
> Entrada)...also better than 2880dpi, especially on soft papers...
>
> ***what I don't understand is why that driver offers 2880dpi: that
> setting seems counterproductive even on the sharpest of papers (eg.
> Kirkland and Kokopelli). What is the utility of 2880dpi?
>
> ***2880dpi obviously does want to plug up dots (like lithography with
> a too-fine halftone screen) so seems a more risky choice than 1440dpi.
>
> ***Is there a *visual* advantage to using 2880dpi Vs 1440dpi IF one
> tinkers carefully with ink limits?
>
> Are there papers that will deliver more detail or beauty with 2880dpi
> than 1440dpi? What are they? Special techniques?
>
> Is 2880dpi intended for printing on a film base? Is it better than
> 1440dpi for that purpose?

I'm using an Epson 7600, StudioPrint 10, and PiezoTone inks, mostly 
Hahnemuhle Photo Rag.

I print everything at 2880. Not because it's sharper (it might be, I 
haven't taken the time to test), but because I get better tones and 
tonal transitions over 1440. This could be due to the RIP doing a better 
job of placing ink ink vs. the Epson driver. I don't know.

I've talked to others using a similar setup. Some find 2880 works for 
them. Some fine 1440 is better. There may be some sample-to-sample 
variance in the printers, or it may just be aesthetic judgment.
--
Bruce Watson

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.