Digital BW, The Print

I'm new to this forum.  

Having a big problem getting a "reasonable" print on my new K7 inkset
using the latest QTR RIP and profiles.  Printing on Epson Enhanced
Matte and tried Hahnamule PhotoRag 308.  The blacks are "smokey" (to
quote Bill Atkinson).  They don't even measure up to the sample prints
I got from Inkjetmall.  I have followed instrucitons on using K7 inks
per the Inkjetmall web site.  Nozzle check and test pattern all work fine.

I'm stumped...any ideas?

Milt

If you print out a pure black square, is it very black?
Mark

On Nov 28, 2005, at 3:14 PM, reederimages wrote:

> I'm new to this forum.



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

Milt,
Pardon me if I’m assuming too little, but are you comparing them to other
prints on PR308?
Is it smokey only in the solid zero-pixel value areas, or smokey overall?
It could be too much ink if the former; are you using the dpi setting that
the profiles were created for?
Another thing that has tripped people up is that the slot location of K1 to
K7 is not intuitive, double check that the correct inks are in the correct
slots per the instructions, then try printing a smooth white to black
gradient, not a step-wedge and see if it looks uniform.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
reederimages
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 3:15 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Low Dmax on Epson 2200 with K7 inks

I'm new to this forum.

Having a big problem getting a "reasonable" print on my new K7 inkset
using the latest QTR RIP and profiles.  Printing on Epson Enhanced
Matte and tried Hahnamule PhotoRag 308.  The blacks are "smokey" (to
quote Bill Atkinson).  They don't even measure up to the sample prints
I got from Inkjetmall.  I have followed instrucitons on using K7 inks
per the Inkjetmall web site.  Nozzle check and test pattern all work fine.

I'm stumped...any ideas?

Milt





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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
>
> Milt,
> Pardon me if I'm assuming too little, but are you comparing them to
other
> prints on PR308?
> Is it smokey only in the solid zero-pixel value areas, or smokey
overall?
> It could be too much ink if the former; are you using the dpi
setting that
> the profiles were created for?
> Another thing that has tripped people up is that the slot location
of K1 to
> K7 is not intuitive, double check that the correct inks are in the
correct
> slots per the instructions, then try printing a smooth white to black
> gradient, not a step-wedge and see if it looks uniform.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
John,
Thanks for taking the time to help.
1.  Yes I am comparing them to other Piezo images printed on the same
paper.
2.  It seems smokey in the dark areas only.
3.  I am using the 2880 dpi setting that the profile calls for.
4.  I did triple check the cartridges and they are in their respective
slots.  
5   But you last idea of printing a gradient gave me bizzare results.
 It printed all black with no gradient.

Milt

Milt,

I've been away from the PC for Thanksgiving.  Not sure if you have found a solution yet.  
John, is on the right track.  I am also using K7 on a 2200.  You need to make sure that the 
files are being sent to QTR as GrayGamma 2.2.  You can do a direct conversion to that 
working space, or you can use print preview, "Let Photoshop determine colors", and select 
GG2.2 for the profile.  I will add one caveat that when I was using the Cone curves printed 
from GG2.2, I occasionally had the same problem that you are experiencing on SOME 
images printed on HPR 308, and I can't figure out for the life of me what caused it.  I have 
since then purchased an i1, and am now using QTR create icc to profile the output, and I 
am now THRILLED with the output on Innova Photo Smooth Cotton.  

I got this idea from Walt and Steve - since they are using ABW to provide linearization, and 
QTR create ICC to profile the results.  It has worked well for me on the Innova products.

I can tell you that I have not been able to profile HPR very well yet.  When I use a 51 patch 
target, QTR create ICC tells me that the data is out of order, and in fact it is.  The 21 patch 
target does allow me to create a profile, and I have achieved satisfactory prints with this 
profile.  This whole thing is an issue that I need to address to Cone, but have not had time 
to figure out how to present it in a logical way.  Since I have quite successfully profiled 
both Innova Photo Smooth Cotton, and Soft Texture, I suspect there is something funny 
with HPR, or with the Cone curve for HPR.  I haven't bothered to figured it out yet, because 
I have been so pleased with the Innova papers.  

I noticed that someone posted to the piezo forum that it isn't 100% that's the problem, but 
75%-95% - I can relate to that problem, and I'm not sure of the solution.  I'd be happy to 
send you a copy of my HPR icc profile if you want to give it a try - contact me off list.

Someone also suggested that you might be printing on the wrong side of the paper - try 
the lip test.  Lick your lips (get 'em wet but not too wet) and then squeeze them on a piece 
of HPR.  The side that sticks to one of your lips is the coated side.  Make note of which 
side was up in the box, so you don't have to lick every sheet!  :) 

In summary, I have found the best results when using K7, QTR, the Cone Curves for k7/
QTR, AND QTR create ICC to profile each paper.

Good Luck.

Josh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "joshhackney" 
<joshhackney@g...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you that I have not been able to profile HPR very well 
yet.  When I use a 51 patch 
> target, QTR create ICC tells me that the data is out of order, and 
in fact it is.  The 21 patch 
> target does allow me to create a profile, and I have achieved 
satisfactory prints with this 
> profile.  This whole thing is an issue that I need to address to 
Cone, but have not had time 
> to figure out how to present it in a logical way.  Since I have 
quite successfully profiled 
> both Innova Photo Smooth Cotton, and Soft Texture, I suspect there 
is something funny 
> with HPR, or with the Cone curve for HPR.  I haven't bothered to 
figured it out yet, because 
> I have been so pleased with the Innova papers.  


Could you post the measurement file for the HPR? You might be getting 
some kind of reversal that doesn't show up in the 21 step target.
You could just copy and paste it into a message, that way you can get 
input from many different people.

Hi Greg,

The settings for the following linearization file were:
2200, K7, HPR, QTR, Cone's K7 curve for HPR, 2880, Best, 21 patch random target

File: /Applications/QuadToneRIP/QTR 2.3.1/CurveDesign/Eye-One/i1 Read Data/
NK7_HPR_2880_best_21step_20051019-out.txt
Step	        Dens	        Lab	        A	B	
00.00	0.036	96.85	0.70	-0.80-                       b   | a                         L +
05.00	0.082	92.90	0.84	-0.14-                          b|  a                     L    +
10.00	0.144	87.83	1.08	0.48	-                             |b  a                 L       +
15.00	0.201	83.39	1.14	0.81	-                             |  ba               L         +
20.00	0.259	79.10	1.22	1.07	-                             |   b            L            +
25.00	0.321	74.64	1.27	1.37	-                             |    b        L               +
30.00	0.390	69.99	1.23	1.50	-                             |   a b    L                  +
35.00	0.432	67.28	1.23	1.56	-                             |   a b   L                   +
40.00	0.494	63.42	1.17	1.52	-                             |   a b L                     +
45.00	0.554	59.80	1.14	1.56	-                             |   aLb                       +
50.00	0.620	56.05	0.97	1.43	-                             |  a b                        +
55.00	0.691	52.25	0.73	1.32	-                             |La  b                        +
60.00	0.768	48.35	0.46	1.27	-                           L|a   b                        +
65.00	0.847	44.54	0.28	1.23	-                        L   |a  b                         +
70.00	0.939	40.44	0.24	1.05	-                       L     a   b                         +
75.00	1.018	37.10	0.18	0.82	-                     L       a  b                          +
80.00	1.107	33.61	0.41	0.53	-                   L         |ab                           +
85.00	1.218	29.54	0.51	0.21	-                L            b a                           +
90.00	1.333	25.71	0.47	0.24	-              L              ba                            +
95.00	1.477	21.35	0.49	0.51	-           L                 |ab                           +
100.00	1.641	16.93	0.64	1.31	-         L                   | a  b                        +

LINEARIZE="96.85 92.90 87.83 83.39 79.10 74.64 69.99 67.28 63.42 59.80 56.05 52.25 
48.35 44.54 40.44 37.10 33.61 29.54 25.71 21.35 16.93"

settings for the following file were the same, except 51 patch random target.
I've re-scanned the same target with the i1 days later with the same results, I've reprinted 
the target and re-scanned - same results.

File: /Applications/QuadToneRIP/QTR 2.3.1/CurveDesign/Eye-One/i1 Read Data/
NK7_HPR_2880_best_51step_20051019-out.txt
Step	        Dens   	Lab	        A	B	
00.00	0.034	97.00	0.83	-0.63-                        b  |  a                        L +
02.00	0.054	95.26	0.83	-0.33-                         b |  a                       L  +
04.00	0.077	93.38	0.95	-0.09-                          b|  a                      L   +
06.00	0.100	91.45	0.97	0.10	-                             b  a                    L     +
08.00	0.134	88.69	0.93	0.28	-                             |b a                   L      +
10.00	0.154	87.04	1.06	0.47	-                             |b  a                 L       +
12.00	0.182	84.90	1.04	0.50	-                             | b a               L         +
14.00	0.205	83.08	1.03	0.62	-                             | b a              L          +
16.00	0.221	81.91	1.15	0.81	-                             |  ba              L          +
18.00	0.245	80.08	1.05	0.78	-                             |  ba             L           +
20.00	0.288	76.97	0.96	0.81	-                             |  b            L             +
22.00	0.291	76.75	1.19	1.12	-                             |   b           L             +
24.00	0.326	74.35	1.15	1.18	-                             |   b         L               +
26.00	0.366	71.62	1.04	1.07	-                             |   b       L                 +
28.00	0.364	71.74	1.19	1.34	-                             |   ab       L                +
30.00	0.410	68.70	0.98	1.06	-                             |  ab      L                  +
32.00	0.443	66.58	0.93	1.09	-                             |  ab    L                    +
34.00	0.432	67.27	1.06	1.31	-                             |   ab    L                   +
36.00	0.454	65.86	1.12	1.41	-                             |   ab   L                    +
38.00	0.500	63.04	1.00	1.24	-                             |   b  L                      +
40.00	0.499	63.11	1.10	1.51	-                             |   a bL                      +
42.00	0.531	61.20	1.07	1.37	-                             |   abL                       +
44.00	0.565	59.19	1.00	1.34	-                             |   ab                        +
46.00	0.568	59.00	1.07	1.53	-                             |   aLb                       +
48.00	0.600	57.21	1.06	1.42	-                             |   ab                        +
50.00	0.640	55.00	0.91	1.29	-                             |  a b                        +
52.00	0.648	54.55	0.97	1.42	-                             | La b                        +
54.00	0.684	52.64	0.82	1.31	-                             |L a b                        +
56.00	0.729	50.28	0.63	1.13	-                             L a b                         +
58.00	0.742	49.62	0.58	1.29	-                            L| a  b                        +
60.00	0.779	47.79	0.50	1.12	-                           L | a b                         +
62.00	0.822	45.72	0.37	1.09	-                          L  |a  b                         +
64.00	0.841	44.85	0.35	1.21	-                         L   |a  b                         +
66.00	0.879	43.06	0.30	1.06	-                        L    |a  b                         +
68.00	0.917	41.38	0.19	0.99	-                       L     a  b                          +
70.00	0.936	40.56	0.17	0.97	-                       L     a  b                          +
72.00	0.982	38.58	0.12	0.77	-                      L      a  b                          +
74.00	1.026	36.79	0.13	0.69	-                     L       a b                           +
76.00	1.042	36.15	0.20	0.69	-                    L        a b                           +
78.00	1.084	34.47	0.25	0.49	-                   L         |b                            +
80.00	1.129	32.78	0.25	0.47	-                  L          |b                            +
82.00	1.159	31.65	0.45	0.33	-                 L           |b                            +
84.00	1.204	30.05	0.49	0.04	-                 L           ba                            +
86.00	1.248	28.51	0.49	-0.00-                L            ba                            +
88.00	1.266	27.89	0.51	-0.12-               L            b| a                           +
90.00	1.335	25.62	0.45	0.03	-              L              ba                            +
92.00	1.397	23.69	0.41	0.26	-             L               |b                            +
94.00	1.454	22.00	0.42	0.47	-            L                |b                            +
96.00	1.506	20.52	0.53	0.65	-           L                 | b                           +
98.00	1.571	18.75	0.44	0.89	-          L                  |a b                          +
100.00	1.644	16.84	0.75	1.40	-         L                   |  a b                        +

The Lab values are not in order.
Cannot be linearized.

If anyone has some input, that would be great.

Best.

Josh


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" <dfaprinting@y...> wrote:

>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "joshhackney" 
> <joshhackney@g...> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I can tell you that I have not been able to profile HPR very well 
> yet.  When I use a 51 patch 
> > target, QTR create ICC tells me that the data is out of order, and 
> in fact it is.  The 21 patch 
> > target does allow me to create a profile, and I have achieved 
> satisfactory prints with this 
> > profile.  This whole thing is an issue that I need to address to 
> Cone, but have not had time 
> > to figure out how to present it in a logical way.  Since I have 
> quite successfully profiled 
> > both Innova Photo Smooth Cotton, and Soft Texture, I suspect there 
> is something funny 
> > with HPR, or with the Cone curve for HPR.  I haven't bothered to 
> figured it out yet, because 
> > I have been so pleased with the Innova papers.  
> 
> 
> Could you post the measurement file for the HPR? You might be getting 
> some kind of reversal that doesn't show up in the 21 step target.
> You could just copy and paste it into a message, that way you can get 
> input from many different people.
>

Well, looking at it from a color profiling viewpoint, you have nicely 
defined steps with no reversal, so both files should make a nice 
profile. So there is about where I have to stop with this topic, 
hopefully someone else can help.

There is a density reversal from step 38 to 40 in the 51 step.

On Dec 1, 2005, at 8:49 AM, joshhackney wrote:

>
> Hi Greg,
>
> The settings for the following linearization file were:
> 2200, K7, HPR, QTR, Cone's K7 curve for HPR, 2880, Best, 21 patch  
> random target
>
> File: /Applications/QuadToneRIP/QTR 2.3.1/CurveDesign/Eye-One/i1  
> Read Data/
> NK7_HPR_2880_best_21step_20051019-out.txt
> Step	        Dens	        Lab	        A	B	
> 00.00	0.036	96.85	0.70	-0.80-                       b   |  
> a                         L +
> 05.00	0.082	92.90	0.84	-0.14-                          b|   
> a                     L    +
> 10.00	0.144	87.83	1.08	0.48	-                             |b   
> a                 L       +
> 15.00	0.201	83.39	1.14	0.81	-                             |   
> ba               L         +
> 20.00	0.259	79.10	1.22	1.07	-                             |    
> b            L            +
> 25.00	0.321	74.64	1.27	1.37	-                             |     
> b        L               +
> 30.00	0.390	69.99	1.23	1.50	-                             |   a  
> b    L                  +
> 35.00	0.432	67.28	1.23	1.56	-                             |   a b    
> L                   +
> 40.00	0.494	63.42	1.17	1.52	-                             |   a b  
> L                     +
> 45.00	0.554	59.80	1.14	1.56	-                             |    
> aLb                       +
> 50.00	0.620	56.05	0.97	1.43	-                             |  a  
> b                        +
> 55.00	0.691	52.25	0.73	1.32	-                             |La   
> b                        +
> 60.00	0.768	48.35	0.46	1.27	-                           L|a    
> b                        +
> 65.00	0.847	44.54	0.28	1.23	-                        L   |a   
> b                         +
> 70.00	0.939	40.44	0.24	1.05	-                       L     a    
> b                         +
> 75.00	1.018	37.10	0.18	0.82	-                     L       a   
> b                          +
> 80.00	1.107	33.61	0.41	0.53	-                   L         | 
> ab                           +
> 85.00	1.218	29.54	0.51	0.21	-                L            b  
> a                           +
> 90.00	1.333	25.71	0.47	0.24	-              L               
> ba                            +
> 95.00	1.477	21.35	0.49	0.51	-           L                 | 
> ab                           +
> 100.00	1.641	16.93	0.64	1.31	-         L                   | a   
> b                        +
>
> LINEARIZE="96.85 92.90 87.83 83.39 79.10 74.64 69.99 67.28 63.42  
> 59.80 56.05 52.25
> 48.35 44.54 40.44 37.10 33.61 29.54 25.71 21.35 16.93"
>
> settings for the following file were the same, except 51 patch  
> random target.
> I've re-scanned the same target with the i1 days later with the  
> same results, I've reprinted
> the target and re-scanned - same results.
>
> File: /Applications/QuadToneRIP/QTR 2.3.1/CurveDesign/Eye-One/i1  
> Read Data/
> NK7_HPR_2880_best_51step_20051019-out.txt
> Step	        Dens   	Lab	        A	B	
> 00.00	0.034	97.00	0.83	-0.63-                        b  |   
> a                        L +
> 02.00	0.054	95.26	0.83	-0.33-                         b |   
> a                       L  +
> 04.00	0.077	93.38	0.95	-0.09-                          b|   
> a                      L   +
> 06.00	0.100	91.45	0.97	0.10	-                             b   
> a                    L     +
> 08.00	0.134	88.69	0.93	0.28	-                             |b  
> a                   L      +
> 10.00	0.154	87.04	1.06	0.47	-                             |b   
> a                 L       +
> 12.00	0.182	84.90	1.04	0.50	-                             | b  
> a               L         +
> 14.00	0.205	83.08	1.03	0.62	-                             | b  
> a              L          +
> 16.00	0.221	81.91	1.15	0.81	-                             |   
> ba              L          +
> 18.00	0.245	80.08	1.05	0.78	-                             |   
> ba             L           +
> 20.00	0.288	76.97	0.96	0.81	-                             |   
> b            L             +
> 22.00	0.291	76.75	1.19	1.12	-                             |    
> b           L             +
> 24.00	0.326	74.35	1.15	1.18	-                             |    
> b         L               +
> 26.00	0.366	71.62	1.04	1.07	-                             |    
> b       L                 +
> 28.00	0.364	71.74	1.19	1.34	-                             |    
> ab       L                +
> 30.00	0.410	68.70	0.98	1.06	-                             |   
> ab      L                  +
> 32.00	0.443	66.58	0.93	1.09	-                             |  ab     
> L                    +
> 34.00	0.432	67.27	1.06	1.31	-                             |   ab     
> L                   +
> 36.00	0.454	65.86	1.12	1.41	-                             |   ab    
> L                    +
> 38.00	0.500	63.04	1.00	1.24	-                             |   b   
> L                      +
> 40.00	0.499	63.11	1.10	1.51	-                             |   a  
> bL                      +
> 42.00	0.531	61.20	1.07	1.37	-                             |    
> abL                       +
> 44.00	0.565	59.19	1.00	1.34	-                             |    
> ab                        +
> 46.00	0.568	59.00	1.07	1.53	-                             |    
> aLb                       +
> 48.00	0.600	57.21	1.06	1.42	-                             |    
> ab                        +
> 50.00	0.640	55.00	0.91	1.29	-                             |  a  
> b                        +
> 52.00	0.648	54.55	0.97	1.42	-                             | La  
> b                        +
> 54.00	0.684	52.64	0.82	1.31	-                             |L a  
> b                        +
> 56.00	0.729	50.28	0.63	1.13	-                             L a  
> b                         +
> 58.00	0.742	49.62	0.58	1.29	-                            L| a   
> b                        +
> 60.00	0.779	47.79	0.50	1.12	-                           L | a  
> b                         +
> 62.00	0.822	45.72	0.37	1.09	-                          L  |a   
> b                         +
> 64.00	0.841	44.85	0.35	1.21	-                         L   |a   
> b                         +
> 66.00	0.879	43.06	0.30	1.06	-                        L    |a   
> b                         +
> 68.00	0.917	41.38	0.19	0.99	-                       L     a   
> b                          +
> 70.00	0.936	40.56	0.17	0.97	-                       L     a   
> b                          +
> 72.00	0.982	38.58	0.12	0.77	-                      L      a   
> b                          +
> 74.00	1.026	36.79	0.13	0.69	-                     L       a  
> b                           +
> 76.00	1.042	36.15	0.20	0.69	-                    L        a  
> b                           +
> 78.00	1.084	34.47	0.25	0.49	-                   L         | 
> b                            +
> 80.00	1.129	32.78	0.25	0.47	-                  L          | 
> b                            +
> 82.00	1.159	31.65	0.45	0.33	-                 L           | 
> b                            +
> 84.00	1.204	30.05	0.49	0.04	-                 L            
> ba                            +
> 86.00	1.248	28.51	0.49	-0.00-                L             
> ba                            +
> 88.00	1.266	27.89	0.51	-0.12-               L            b|  
> a                           +
> 90.00	1.335	25.62	0.45	0.03	-              L               
> ba                            +
> 92.00	1.397	23.69	0.41	0.26	-             L               | 
> b                            +
> 94.00	1.454	22.00	0.42	0.47	-            L                | 
> b                            +
> 96.00	1.506	20.52	0.53	0.65	-           L                 |  
> b                           +
> 98.00	1.571	18.75	0.44	0.89	-          L                  |a  
> b                          +
> 100.00	1.644	16.84	0.75	1.40	-         L                   |  a  
> b                        +
>
> The Lab values are not in order.
> Cannot be linearized.
>
> If anyone has some input, that would be great.
>
> Best.
>
> Josh
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"  
> <dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "joshhackney"
>> <joshhackney@g...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I can tell you that I have not been able to profile HPR very well
>> yet.  When I use a 51 patch
>>> target, QTR create ICC tells me that the data is out of order, and
>> in fact it is.  The 21 patch
>>> target does allow me to create a profile, and I have achieved
>> satisfactory prints with this
>>> profile.  This whole thing is an issue that I need to address to
>> Cone, but have not had time
>>> to figure out how to present it in a logical way.  Since I have
>> quite successfully profiled
>>> both Innova Photo Smooth Cotton, and Soft Texture, I suspect there
>> is something funny
>>> with HPR, or with the Cone curve for HPR.  I haven't bothered to
>> figured it out yet, because
>>> I have been so pleased with the Innova papers.
>>
>>
>> Could you post the measurement file for the HPR? You might be getting
>> some kind of reversal that doesn't show up in the 21 step target.
>> You could just copy and paste it into a message, that way you can get
>> input from many different people.
>>

Greg,

Actually, there are 3 reversals between steps 26-28, 32-34, and 38-40 on the 51 random 
step target data.

Josh 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" <dfaprinting@y...> wrote:

>
> Well, looking at it from a color profiling viewpoint, you have nicely 
> defined steps with no reversal, so both files should make a nice 
> profile. So there is about where I have to stop with this topic, 
> hopefully someone else can help.
>

Are these inks in the right slots?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "joshhackney"
<joshhackney@g...> wrote:
>
> 
> Greg,
> 
> Actually, there are 3 reversals between steps 26-28, 32-34, and
38-40 on the 51 random 
> step target data.
> 
> Josh 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:

> >
> > Well, looking at it from a color profiling viewpoint, you have nicely 
> > defined steps with no reversal, so both files should make a nice 
> > profile. So there is about where I have to stop with this topic, 
> > hopefully someone else can help.
> >
>

John, 

Yup.  100% certain.  

I'm getting outstanding prints using QTR create ICC and Innova papers.  HPR is the only 
paper I have tried to profile while using the Cone linearlization curves that has given me a 
problem.

By the way.  I know you are debating between K6 and standard piezo's.  Have you made up 
your mind?  I gotta say that I'm very pleased with K7 results with my new workflow, and 
besides, it represents the latest and greatest.  If you have an established workflow and a 
clientel that demand that workflow like Tyler, I can understand sticking with what works, 
but if your adding a new service to your offerings, why not go with the latest development?  
Just my thoughts on the matter.  

As to my workflow, Jon Cone says his linearization curves are unbeatable, so I decided to 
use his linearization curves, and then use QTR create ICC to profile the results from my 
printer.  The only limitation to this approach is that Cone has only generated curves for 
Han., Innova, and Bradford products - but that in itself provides quite a few choices.

Best,

Josh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:

>
> Are these inks in the right slots?
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "joshhackney"
<joshhackney@g...> wrote:
>
> 
> ...I gotta say that I'm very pleased with K7 results with my new
workflow, and 
> besides, it represents the latest and greatest.  If you have an
established workflow and a 
> clientel that demand that workflow like Tyler, I can understand
sticking with what works, 
> but if your adding a new service to your offerings, why not go with
the latest development? ...


I just need lots more Epsons <G>
Tyler

Carl and Folks. 

I have done more testing.  About 1 week ago I printed out 3 more sets of QTR-51-random 
targets with the following settings

1.  2880, best
2.  1440, best
3.  2880, best, -25% ink limit

The 2880/best and 2880/best/-25% both resulted in the same reversals in the linearity.  
The 1440 does not have any reversals, and the profile was created properly.  My theory 
was that perhaps the inkloads were too high at 2880, and I was trying to prove it out.  I 
think Walt ran into similar problems in the 100-90% patches when he was trying to profile 
HPR using ABW.  Do you think it is possible that I would need more than a 25% ink limit?  I 
guess I'll try to limit the ink load even more and see if that helps.  My concern is that these 
are being printed with the QTR curves created by IJM for HPR.  Not sure why I would need 
to limit the ink, since I assume their curve should have the ink limits built in.

Carl, since you have had some experience with K7 (though I know you are using a 
modified inkset), do you have any thoughts on this issue?

Best.

Josh



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield <scho@m...> 
wrote:

>
> There is a density reversal from step 38 to 40 in the 51 step.
> 
> On Dec 1, 2005, at 8:49 AM, joshhackney wrote:
>

Yes, don't we all.  I'l be acquiring another when K7 is released for the x800 printers.  Any 
comments from Jon Cone on when that will be available?  ; )  Tech support at IJM tells me 
not to use the x600 carts in the x800 machines.  Would it even work?

Best,

Josh 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> wrote:

>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "joshhackney"
> <joshhackney@g...> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > ...I gotta say that I'm very pleased with K7 results with my new
> workflow, and 
> > besides, it represents the latest and greatest.  If you have an
> established workflow and a 
> > clientel that demand that workflow like Tyler, I can understand
> sticking with what works, 
> > but if your adding a new service to your offerings, why not go with
> the latest development? ...
> 
> 
> I just need lots more Epsons <G>
> Tyler
>

Josh,

My default ink limit for the k7 inks (Epson 4000) on HPR is 75%.  I  
looked at the IJM quad files and they seem to all be limited at 95%  
(which seems quite high).  So, if you are reducing ink limit in the  
driver by 25% I guess that would put the ink limit near to what I'm  
using.

Carl

On Dec 1, 2005, at 2:39 PM, joshhackney wrote:

>
> Carl and Folks.
>
> I have done more testing.  About 1 week ago I printed out 3 more  
> sets of QTR-51-random
> targets with the following settings
>
> 1.  2880, best
> 2.  1440, best
> 3.  2880, best, -25% ink limit
>
> The 2880/best and 2880/best/-25% both resulted in the same  
> reversals in the linearity.
> The 1440 does not have any reversals, and the profile was created  
> properly.  My theory
> was that perhaps the inkloads were too high at 2880, and I was  
> trying to prove it out.  I
> think Walt ran into similar problems in the 100-90% patches when he  
> was trying to profile
> HPR using ABW.  Do you think it is possible that I would need more  
> than a 25% ink limit?  I
> guess I'll try to limit the ink load even more and see if that  
> helps.  My concern is that these
> are being printed with the QTR curves created by IJM for HPR.  Not  
> sure why I would need
> to limit the ink, since I assume their curve should have the ink  
> limits built in.
>
> Carl, since you have had some experience with K7 (though I know you  
> are using a
> modified inkset), do you have any thoughts on this issue?
>
> Best.
>
> Josh
>
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield  
> <scho@m...>
> wrote:
>>
>> There is a density reversal from step 38 to 40 in the 51 step.
>>
>> On Dec 1, 2005, at 8:49 AM, joshhackney wrote:
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------- 
> ~-->
> Life without art & music? Keep the arts alive today at Network for  
> Good!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/7zgKlB/dnQLAA/Zx0JAA/ucIolB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

Carl,

I just printed the 51 step target again with 2880/better, and a -50% ink limit set in the 
driver.  Using the hair dryer to speed drying, followed by a quick scan with the i1 resulted 
in a file with no reversals - so I guess it's an ink limit issue.  I'll try reducing the ink limit 
back down toward 25% and see where the problem comes in.

You wrote in your last post, "I looked at the IJM quad files and they seem to all be limited 
at 95% (which seems quite high)."  Are you saying you looked at K7 curves for QTR from 
IJM or did you look at QTR curve files from IJM for the older Piezo products?  The only 
curves I have found for K7 are .quad files which I thought were un-editable/viewable.

Thanks for your help.

Best regards,

Josh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield <scho@m...> 
wrote:

>
> Josh,
> 
> My default ink limit for the k7 inks (Epson 4000) on HPR is 75%.  I  
> looked at the IJM quad files and they seem to all be limited at 95%  
> (which seems quite high).  So, if you are reducing ink limit in the  
> driver by 25% I guess that would put the ink limit near to what I'm  
> using.
> 
> Carl
>

Yea Josh,

I've debated with myself back and forth about what mono inkset to go
with in the Piezzotone area. I actually like the quad sets. But I have
decided on the K6 for all the obvious reasons. I just received my new
used 7000 from John V. last night and I'll be ordering the inks by
Saturday. It should be fun using papers to control hue differences. If
I like em, as I'm sure I will, I'll go bigger with em this spring and
won't look back.

Oh, come on Tyler use that 7600 for the neutrals. What do you need
color for anyway? Your Mr. Piezzotone of the greater North West. 

John


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "joshhackney"
<joshhackney@g...> wrote:
>
> 
> John, 
> 
> Yup.  100% certain.  
> 
> I'm getting outstanding prints using QTR create ICC and Innova
papers.  HPR is the only 
> paper I have tried to profile while using the Cone linearlization
curves that has given me a 
> problem.
> 
> By the way.  I know you are debating between K6 and standard
piezo's.  Have you made up 
> your mind?  I gotta say that I'm very pleased with K7 results with
my new workflow, and 
> besides, it represents the latest and greatest.  If you have an
established workflow and a 
> clientel that demand that workflow like Tyler, I can understand
sticking with what works, 
> but if your adding a new service to your offerings, why not go with
the latest development?  
> Just my thoughts on the matter.  
> 
> As to my workflow, Jon Cone says his linearization curves are
unbeatable, so I decided to 
> use his linearization curves, and then use QTR create ICC to profile
the results from my 
> printer.  The only limitation to this approach is that Cone has only
generated curves for 
> Han., Innova, and Bradford products - but that in itself provides
quite a few choices.

> 
> Best,
> 
> Josh
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
> <deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Are these inks in the right slots?
> >
>

joshhackney wrote:
> ...The only 
> curves I have found for K7 are .quad files which I thought were un-editable/viewable.

If you have XP you can at least look at the curves by right-clicking on 
them in the Blend part of the QTRgui dialog box. The highest point of 
the curve is where the limit is set. Not sure if you can do this with a mac.

Howard

You can open and look at the curve in the .quad file using  text  
edit.  The limit used is in the file header.

On Dec 1, 2005, at 3:16 PM, joshhackney wrote:

>
> Carl,
>
> I just printed the 51 step target again with 2880/better, and a  
> -50% ink limit set in the
> driver.  Using the hair dryer to speed drying, followed by a quick  
> scan with the i1 resulted
> in a file with no reversals - so I guess it's an ink limit issue.   
> I'll try reducing the ink limit
> back down toward 25% and see where the problem comes in.
>
> You wrote in your last post, "I looked at the IJM quad files and  
> they seem to all be limited
> at 95% (which seems quite high)."  Are you saying you looked at K7  
> curves for QTR from
> IJM or did you look at QTR curve files from IJM for the older Piezo  
> products?  The only
> curves I have found for K7 are .quad files which I thought were un- 
> editable/viewable.
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Josh
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield  
> <scho@m...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Josh,
>>
>> My default ink limit for the k7 inks (Epson 4000) on HPR is 75%.  I
>> looked at the IJM quad files and they seem to all be limited at 95%
>> (which seems quite high).  So, if you are reducing ink limit in the
>> driver by 25% I guess that would put the ink limit near to what I'm
>> using.
>>
>> Carl
>>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
...
> Oh, come on Tyler use that 7600 for the neutrals. What do you need
> color for anyway?

believe me I'm thinkin' on it. We're in line for the infamously late
9800 for color. Just need to see if we can afford to keep the 7600
after that...

Josh, haven't heard a word about what will happen with K7s for the x800s.
Tyler

Carl Schofield wrote:
> You can open and look at the curve in the .quad file using  text  
> edit.  The limit used is in the file header.
> 

I don't think the text files for the NK7 curves work the same as normal 
qtr curves. The long series of numbers for each ink overides the limit 
that is referred to in the headers.

Josh-

Yes. I had reversals in the 90-100% grays with HPR on the 2400 
through the ABW.  I did not try 1440.  I did try limiting the ink 
with the ABW driver (a feature on the 2400 driver, but not the 4800) 
and this did not solve the problem.  I do get a linear target from 
the 4800 on HPR with no adjustments.  The Crane Museo (original) also 
showed this problem on the 2400 and I have not tried it on the 4800 
because I don't want to use it for other reasons.

I would add, more or less in line with this discussion, that I have 
been using a lot of the Epson UltraSmooth on the 4800 and that it 
looks a lot better than it measures (measures 1.65 or so, but I'd 
say, compared visually to the VFA (measures 1.75-1.77), that it looks 
more like a 1.70-1.72).  So the measurement isn't everything--how the 
ink sits on the paper and the sheen of the ink have a lot to do with 
final results.  The buildup of ink on the HPR reduces the visual 
impression of dmax to me.

Walt



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "joshhackney" 
<joshhackney@g...> wrote:
>
> 
> Carl and Folks. 
> 
> I have done more testing.  About 1 week ago I printed out 3 more 
sets of QTR-51-random 
> targets with the following settings
> 
> 1.  2880, best
> 2.  1440, best
> 3.  2880, best, -25% ink limit
> 
> The 2880/best and 2880/best/-25% both resulted in the same 
reversals in the linearity.  
> The 1440 does not have any reversals, and the profile was created 
properly.  My theory 
> was that perhaps the inkloads were too high at 2880, and I was 
trying to prove it out.  I 
> think Walt ran into similar problems in the 100-90% patches when he 
was trying to profile 
> HPR using ABW.  Do you think it is possible that I would need more 
than a 25% ink limit?  I 
> guess I'll try to limit the ink load even more and see if that 
helps.  My concern is that these 
> are being printed with the QTR curves created by IJM for HPR.  Not 
sure why I would need 
> to limit the ink, since I assume their curve should have the ink 
limits built in.
> 
> Carl, since you have had some experience with K7 (though I know you 
are using a 
> modified inkset), do you have any thoughts on this issue?
> 
> Best.
> 
> Josh
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
<scho@m...> 

> wrote:
> >
> > There is a density reversal from step 38 to 40 in the 51 step.
> > 
> > On Dec 1, 2005, at 8:49 AM, joshhackney wrote:
> >
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "joshhackney" 
<joshhackney@g...> wrote:
>
> 
> Greg,
> 
> Actually, there are 3 reversals between steps 26-28, 32-34, and 38-
40 on the 51 random 
> step target data.
> 


0.1 L? That shouldn't be big enough to cause a problem. Maybe the 
flat spot is making it trip. But 0.1 L is within the hardware's 
tolerance, and if you measure the same patch several times without 
measuring any other patch, you'll see an even bigger difference.

And....  If you print the same target three times, you will get slightly
different results; small, but real.

So that suggests, when getting down to the final tweaks, printing more than
target, give proper dry down time, measuring each target more than once, and
averaging all the measurements.  A nozzle check before each target, and
after the last, for the overly obsessive. :-)
Putting them all into a spreadsheet allows finding, and correcting, the
occasional outlier before averaging.

I’m sure this procedure is not for everyone, but, there it is....

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Greg
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:53 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Low Dmax on Epson 2200 with K7 inks response

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "joshhackney"
<joshhackney@g...> wrote:
>
>
> Greg,
>
> Actually, there are 3 reversals between steps 26-28, 32-34, and 38-
40 on the 51 random
> step target data.
>


0.1 L? That shouldn't be big enough to cause a problem. Maybe the
flat spot is making it trip. But 0.1 L is within the hardware's
tolerance, and if you measure the same patch several times without
measuring any other patch, you'll see an even bigger difference.





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]

John-

In a recent test that Paul and I did we found that there was 
significantly more variation in consecutive prints than in the 
consecutive readings of any given single target. He was using a 220, 
me a 4800.  The print-to-print variations were not great, but my 
memory is that they were about twice the reading-to-reading 
variations.  And let's not even mention consecutive prints in Dektol. 

Walt


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody" 
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
>
> And....  If you print the same target three times, you will get 
slightly
> different results; small, but real.
> 
> So that suggests, when getting down to the final tweaks, printing 
more than
> target, give proper dry down time, measuring each target more than 
once, and
> averaging all the measurements.  A nozzle check before each target, 
and
> after the last, for the overly obsessive. :-)
> Putting them all into a spreadsheet allows finding, and correcting, 
the
> occasional outlier before averaging.
> 
> I'm sure this procedure is not for everyone, but, there it is....
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of 
Greg
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:53 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Low Dmax on Epson 2200 with K7 inks 
response
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m, "joshhackney"
> <joshhackney@g...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Greg,
> >
> > Actually, there are 3 reversals between steps 26-28, 32-34, and 
38-
> 40 on the 51 random
> > step target data.
> >
> 
> 
> 0.1 L? That shouldn't be big enough to cause a problem. Maybe the
> flat spot is making it trip. But 0.1 L is within the hardware's
> tolerance, and if you measure the same patch several times without
> measuring any other patch, you'll see an even bigger difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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+photograph
y+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+ph
otogra
> 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+photograph
y+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+colleg
e&w4=D
> 
igital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photogra
phy+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+photograp
hy+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+p
hotogr
> 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]
>

I think this is a good point.  There are a lot of reasons for variations.  Just in the 
printing the dithering has a pseudo random component.  Which jets are used for the
particular area you are measuring will most likely be different.   Printer variation is
there but its hard to characterize.

Anyway, I decided to try this on my 2200-NK7.  A 51-step does show some choppiness
but curiously the posted reads had most of the problem in the lighter areas where as
mine showed more in the darker end.  There's a Photo Rag curve in the set that I created
on my 2200 using QTR as opposed to the supplied Piezo curves -- it's the one starting
with K7 instead of NK7.  At 1440dpi this also shows choppiness mostly in thee dark
region.  I have two suspicions on the issue.  First, is just that the large number of inks
puts a more critical burden on all the transitions from ink to ink.  Since there are more
transitions and they happen more steeply.  The other is the variable dotsize transitions.
This isn't an issue for the 2200 at 2880dpi but does show up in 1440dpi.  My 7500
has always been a lot smoother even before linearization, and the K6 inks bear this
out too.  So I've made some changes to dotsize transitions.  I've usurped the old "Fast"
dither algorithm which wasn't particularly good to try this out.  Of the various print
methods, using the K7 curve at 1440dpi (or super) and the Fast dither I get the 
smoothest and straightest overall curve.

So for anyone who wants to experiment, try the K7-PhotoRag profile and the Fast
dither.  I'd be curious how this works on other printers. 

Roy


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets" <odets@c...> wrote:

>
> John-
> 
> In a recent test that Paul and I did we found that there was 
> significantly more variation in consecutive prints than in the 
> consecutive readings of any given single target. He was using a 220, 
> me a 4800.  The print-to-print variations were not great, but my 
> memory is that they were about twice the reading-to-reading 
> variations.  And let's not even mention consecutive prints in Dektol. 
> 
> Walt
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m, "John Moody" 
> <moodymz3@y...> wrote:
> >
> > And....  If you print the same target three times, you will get 
> slightly
> > different results; small, but real.
> > 
> > So that suggests, when getting down to the final tweaks, printing 
> more than
> > target, give proper dry down time, measuring each target more than 
> once, and
> > averaging all the measurements.  A nozzle check before each target, 
> and
> > after the last, for the overly obsessive. :-)
> > Putting them all into a spreadsheet allows finding, and correcting, 
> the
> > occasional outlier before averaging.
> > 
> > I'm sure this procedure is not for everyone, but, there it is....
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > John Moody
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of 
> Greg
> > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:53 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Low Dmax on Epson 2200 with K7 inks 
> response
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "joshhackney"
> > <joshhackney@g...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Greg,
> > >
> > > Actually, there are 3 reversals between steps 26-28, 32-34, and 
> 38-
> > 40 on the 51 random
> > > step target data.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 0.1 L? That shouldn't be big enough to cause a problem. Maybe the
> > flat spot is making it trip. But 0.1 L is within the hardware's
> > tolerance, and if you measure the same patch several times without
> > measuring any other patch, you'll see an even bigger difference.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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+photograph
> y+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+ph
> otogra
> > 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+photograph
> y+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+colleg
> e&w4=D
> > 
> igital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photogra
> phy+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+photograp
> hy+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+p
> hotogr
> > 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]
> >
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" 
<roy@h...> wrote:
> I have two suspicions on the issue.  First, is just that the large 
number of inks
> puts a more critical burden on all the transitions from ink to 
ink.  Since there are more
> transitions and they happen more steeply.  The other is the 
variable dotsize transitions.
> This isn't an issue for the 2200 at 2880dpi but does show up in 
1440dpi.

Roy, couldn't you just set the dot size to the smallest dot and let 
the dither pick up all the rest of the work? I know on most of the 
commercially available color RIPs this is an option. This is the 
trick that people use to get the finer quality out of a 76/9600 when 
using the 1440 or 720 faster print modes. If not then you might need 
to do a linearization for each dot size, and then all the other 
programming involved to switch between those different maps, which is 
another thing that some of the color RIPs will do.

As far as the ink to ink crossovers go, I can't offer any help with 
that since I don't run that kind of system. I will say that sometimes 
I find it helpful to graph out the linearized densities on paper, and 
then make the curves for mixing on paper. Don't know if that would 
help or not, and again my experience is mostly for color ink mixing.

In the end, based on what you have already seen between the different 
dot sizes, I'd lean in that direction first with either a fixed dot 
size, or with seperate linearization tables for each dot size (which 
sounds really easy when typing it, but I bet it's not so simple to 
program).

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" <dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" 
> <roy@h...> wrote:
> > I have two suspicions on the issue.  First, is just that the large 
> number of inks
> > puts a more critical burden on all the transitions from ink to 
> ink.  Since there are more
> > transitions and they happen more steeply.  The other is the 
> variable dotsize transitions.
> > This isn't an issue for the 2200 at 2880dpi but does show up in 
> 1440dpi.
> 
> Roy, couldn't you just set the dot size to the smallest dot and let 
> the dither pick up all the rest of the work? I know on most of the 
> commercially available color RIPs this is an option. This is the 

Well if you have the smallest dot, at 1440x720 even if you fill every position with
ink  you can't get enough ink for a real black.  With 4pl drops you need to use a
2880x1440dpi resolution to get enough ink on the paper.   This is why 2880 can
use just one drop size.   It might be interesting to try the next larger dot which
would cover at 1440x720.  Ordinarily this would show dots but with the K7 inks
that wouldn't be a problem.

> trick that people use to get the finer quality out of a 76/9600 when 
> using the 1440 or 720 faster print modes. If not then you might need 
> to do a linearization for each dot size, and then all the other 

The thing about different dot sizes is the "dot gain" on the paper.  This is where a drop
of ink spreads out slightly.  But it depends on both size of the drops and number of
drops.  So even when you make a smooth dotsize transition with one ink when you
add other inks the new drops affect the original transition.  The idea is to make
the transitions wide enough the you can smooth them out with linearization.

Roy

> programming involved to switch between those different maps, which is 
> another thing that some of the color RIPs will do.
> 
> As far as the ink to ink crossovers go, I can't offer any help with 
> that since I don't run that kind of system. I will say that sometimes 
> I find it helpful to graph out the linearized densities on paper, and 
> then make the curves for mixing on paper. Don't know if that would 
> help or not, and again my experience is mostly for color ink mixing.
> 
> In the end, based on what you have already seen between the different 
> dot sizes, I'd lean in that direction first with either a fixed dot 
> size, or with seperate linearization tables for each dot size (which 
> sounds really easy when typing it, but I bet it's not so simple to 
> program).
>