Digital BW, The Print

OK, nobody kill me, I'm only the guy with the spectro. I just 
finished measuring all the papers, and zipped it up. For those that 
care... You will get Lab, spectral, and status T densitometric 
measuresments (two files for each paper). Each paper is divided into 
the reference print, then the test (faded) print in the same file (I 
was lazy). Please take a moment to notice that there is a paper white 
measurement added. Also notice how the paper white has changed on the 
EEM paper (as well as maybe some others).

Abbreviations shoud be obvious, but here are some that I can remember:

HPRS - Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Satin
EPG - Epson Photo Glossy
EPSG - semi gloss
EEM - Epson Enhanced Matte
Albrecht - Hahnemuhle Albrecht Durer

And again, if you don't like the way the test was done, or don't like 
the results, or really anything else that might be even closely 
related to this, please don't take it out on me, I'm just the guy 
that was willing to measure it. Sorry no cool graphs, the changes 
weren't pronounced enough yet to make a real good visual impact. If 
there was more fading, then I might have made some 2D ab graphs or 
maybe even some Lab graphs to show how much they had changed. If you 
want something that will show a big change, try graphing the spectral 
values for several of the "colors", you might get some info that a 
Lab value would not show (especially paper white for EEM). Spectral 
values start at 400nm.

So with all that said, here you go:
http://www.dfaprinting.com/nanotest.zip

I'll leave it there for a while (a couple weeks at the shortest), but 
not forever. Enjoy

Hello Greg;

Lovely bunch of numbers I'm sure; you wouldn't care to sumarize it 
for us non-techie dunderheads, would you?

Steve Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
>
> OK, nobody kill me, I'm only the guy with the spectro. I just 
> finished measuring all the papers, and zipped it up. For those 
that 
> care... You will get Lab, spectral, and status T densitometric 
> measuresments (two files for each paper). Each paper is divided 
into 
> the reference print, then the test (faded) print in the same file 
(I 
> was lazy). Please take a moment to notice that there is a paper 
white 
> measurement added. Also notice how the paper white has changed on 
the 
> EEM paper (as well as maybe some others).
> 
> Abbreviations shoud be obvious, but here are some that I can 
remember:
> 
> HPRS - Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Satin
> EPG - Epson Photo Glossy
> EPSG - semi gloss
> EEM - Epson Enhanced Matte
> Albrecht - Hahnemuhle Albrecht Durer
> 
> And again, if you don't like the way the test was done, or don't 
like 
> the results, or really anything else that might be even closely 
> related to this, please don't take it out on me, I'm just the guy 
> that was willing to measure it. Sorry no cool graphs, the changes 
> weren't pronounced enough yet to make a real good visual impact. 
If 
> there was more fading, then I might have made some 2D ab graphs or 
> maybe even some Lab graphs to show how much they had changed. If 
you 
> want something that will show a big change, try graphing the 
spectral 
> values for several of the "colors", you might get some info that a 
> Lab value would not show (especially paper white for EEM). 
Spectral 
> values start at 400nm.
> 
> So with all that said, here you go:
> http://www.dfaprinting.com/nanotest.zip
> 
> I'll leave it there for a while (a couple weeks at the shortest), 
but 
> not forever. Enjoy
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
Karafyllakis" <stevekphoto@b...> wrote:
>
> Hello Greg;
> 
> Lovely bunch of numbers I'm sure; you wouldn't care to sumarize it 
> for us non-techie dunderheads, would you?
> 


Nope! I'm staying as far away from the fight as possible. I almost 
didn't make the measurements public after the arguing that happened 
previously!

But we need some row labels to be able to interpret the data.   
Example, the CMYV density values for HPRS are in two blocks of 25  
rows each.  The columns are clearly labelled as CMYV, but what do the  
rows correspond to?

On Feb 1, 2006, at 9:48 AM, Greg wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven
> Karafyllakis" <stevekphoto@b...> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Greg;
>>
>> Lovely bunch of numbers I'm sure; you wouldn't care to sumarize it
>> for us non-techie dunderheads, would you?
>>
>
>
> Nope! I'm staying as far away from the fight as possible. I almost
> didn't make the measurements public after the arguing that happened
> previously!
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
<scho@m...> wrote:
>
> But we need some row labels to be able to interpret the data.   
> Example, the CMYV density values for HPRS are in two blocks of 25  
> rows each.  The columns are clearly labelled as CMYV, but what do 
the  
> rows correspond to?
> 

white then K, C, M, Y, lc, lm, lk in 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% from QTR

Obviously the R220 will not have the lk row. And only the first 
measurement is white, there is no other measurement of white per 
paper.

Sorry, I thought that was a standard QTR chart that most would be 
familiar with. The Lab values show the differences much more clearly, 
as there might have been a few instances where the density increased  
or stayed the same with sun, but the color changed.

Note also that the prints look very similar when compared side by 
side, with the exception of EEM paper white which I noticed 
immediately.

Not immediately obvious what you were doing.  So, these were printed  
QTR calibration charts at Limit=100.  The LK data appear to be  
missing from the HPRS Nanochrome density data file, based on your  
array description.  I didn't look at any of the other files yet.

On Feb 1, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Greg wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
> <scho@m...> wrote:
>>
>> But we need some row labels to be able to interpret the data.
>> Example, the CMYV density values for HPRS are in two blocks of 25
>> rows each.  The columns are clearly labelled as CMYV, but what do
> the
>> rows correspond to?
>>
>
> white then K, C, M, Y, lc, lm, lk in 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% from QTR
>
> Obviously the R220 will not have the lk row. And only the first
> measurement is white, there is no other measurement of white per
> paper.
>
> Sorry, I thought that was a standard QTR chart that most would be
> familiar with. The Lab values show the differences much more clearly,
> as there might have been a few instances where the density increased
> or stayed the same with sun, but the color changed.
>
> Note also that the prints look very similar when compared side by
> side, with the exception of EEM paper white which I noticed
> immediately.

Sorry, forgot that the Nanochromes were missing the LK in the 220  
printer.

Not immediately obvious what you were doing.  So, these were printed  
QTR calibration charts at Limit=100.  The LK data appear to be  
missing from the HPRS Nanochrome density data file, based on your  
array description.  I didn't look at any of the other files yet.

On Feb 1, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Greg wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
> <scho@m...> wrote:
>>
>> But we need some row labels to be able to interpret the data.
>> Example, the CMYV density values for HPRS are in two blocks of 25
>> rows each.  The columns are clearly labelled as CMYV, but what do
> the
>> rows correspond to?
>>
>
> white then K, C, M, Y, lc, lm, lk in 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% from QTR
>
> Obviously the R220 will not have the lk row. And only the first
> measurement is white, there is no other measurement of white per
> paper.
>
> Sorry, I thought that was a standard QTR chart that most would be
> familiar with. The Lab values show the differences much more clearly,
> as there might have been a few instances where the density increased
> or stayed the same with sun, but the color changed.
>
> Note also that the prints look very similar when compared side by
> side, with the exception of EEM paper white which I noticed
> immediately.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
<scho@...> wrote:
>
> Not immediately obvious what you were doing.  So, these were printed  
> QTR calibration charts at Limit=100.  The LK data appear to be  
> missing from the HPRS Nanochrome density data file, based on your  
> array description.  I didn't look at any of the other files yet.
> 


These were the test sheets that Shilesh printed and tested. I was just 
the measurer. So no lk data for the Nanochromes since the r220 only has 
the 6 inks. And I'm pretty sure he said he used QTR to print these. If 
not some kind of RIP was used to drive the individual colors, there is 
definitely no mix of colors like you get trying to print yellow through 
the RGB driver.

It's kind of too bad we don't have a profile target of the control and 
fade, it would make a comparison graph. But it's unlikely that we'll 
get a chance to do this after the more basic test that has been 
performed. It looks like a really nice dye equivalent/replacement ink, 
that if used on compatible papers might be really nice. For people 
using gloss and semi gloss papers, these might be a really good 
solution since you can get that type of swellable paper, or even the 
Infu6 papers when they come out. But do note that the over inking of at 
least the black ink, so you might still need a RIP to set limits, etc.

Greg,

Thank you for doing this. I will not get a chance to look at the 
data any time soon. I am on a trip to the Rocky Mountains - really 
beautiful here. But I am an engineer, remember ;-) so it is all work 
right now - groan.

I printed the steps using QTR. Each color was printed at 25, 50, 75, 
and 100 percent ink limit. Easy to do with QTR. Yup, no LK for the 
Epson dye and NanoChrome because the R220 printer is a 6 color 
machine.

By the 18th day of the south window exposure, I was interested only 
in the K (I have my reasons). Hence I measured only the K values at 
25% ink limit. It was enough for my needs. Your tests may shed a 
light on these inks for a more general color use.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
<dfaprinting@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl 
Schofield 
> <scho@> wrote:
> >
> > Not immediately obvious what you were doing.  So, these were 
printed  
> > QTR calibration charts at Limit=100.  The LK data appear to be  
> > missing from the HPRS Nanochrome density data file, based on 
your  
> > array description.  I didn't look at any of the other files yet.
> > 
> 
> 
> These were the test sheets that Shilesh printed and tested. I was 
just 
> the measurer. So no lk data for the Nanochromes since the r220 
only has 
> the 6 inks. And I'm pretty sure he said he used QTR to print 
these. If 
> not some kind of RIP was used to drive the individual colors, 
there is 
> definitely no mix of colors like you get trying to print yellow 
through 
> the RGB driver.
> 
> It's kind of too bad we don't have a profile target of the control 
and 
> fade, it would make a comparison graph. But it's unlikely that 
we'll 
> get a chance to do this after the more basic test that has been 
> performed. It looks like a really nice dye equivalent/replacement 
ink, 
> that if used on compatible papers might be really nice. For people 
> using gloss and semi gloss papers, these might be a really good 
> solution since you can get that type of swellable paper, or even 
the 
> Infu6 papers when they come out. But do note that the over inking 
of at 
> least the black ink, so you might still need a RIP to set limits, 
etc.
>

Oops, I should have said "shed more LUX"

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani" 
<shileshjani@...> wrote:
>
> Greg,
> 
> Thank you for doing this. I will not get a chance to look at the 
> data any time soon. I am on a trip to the Rocky Mountains - really 
> beautiful here. But I am an engineer, remember ;-) so it is all 
work 
> right now - groan.
> 
> I printed the steps using QTR. Each color was printed at 25, 50, 
75, 
> and 100 percent ink limit. Easy to do with QTR. Yup, no LK for the 
> Epson dye and NanoChrome because the R220 printer is a 6 color 
> machine.
> 
> By the 18th day of the south window exposure, I was interested 
only 
> in the K (I have my reasons). Hence I measured only the K values 
at 
> 25% ink limit. It was enough for my needs. Your tests may shed a 
> light on these inks for a more general color use.
> 
> Shilesh
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" 
> <dfaprinting@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl 
> Schofield 
> > <scho@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Not immediately obvious what you were doing.  So, these were 
> printed  
> > > QTR calibration charts at Limit=100.  The LK data appear to 
be  
> > > missing from the HPRS Nanochrome density data file, based on 
> your  
> > > array description.  I didn't look at any of the other files 
yet.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > These were the test sheets that Shilesh printed and tested. I 
was 
> just 
> > the measurer. So no lk data for the Nanochromes since the r220 
> only has 
> > the 6 inks. And I'm pretty sure he said he used QTR to print 
> these. If 
> > not some kind of RIP was used to drive the individual colors, 
> there is 
> > definitely no mix of colors like you get trying to print yellow 
> through 
> > the RGB driver.
> > 
> > It's kind of too bad we don't have a profile target of the 
control 
> and 
> > fade, it would make a comparison graph. But it's unlikely that 
> we'll 
> > get a chance to do this after the more basic test that has been 
> > performed. It looks like a really nice dye 
equivalent/replacement 
> ink, 
> > that if used on compatible papers might be really nice. For 
people 
> > using gloss and semi gloss papers, these might be a really good 
> > solution since you can get that type of swellable paper, or even 
> the 
> > Infu6 papers when they come out. But do note that the over 
inking 
> of at 
> > least the black ink, so you might still need a RIP to set 
limits, 

> etc.
> >
>

Ugh..  Not the pretty charts Greg mentioned earlier. ;-)

Well, looking at delta E values for all inks, it looks like the eem 
paper took a hit, confirming what we knew about that paper.  It may 
not be wise to look at it for longevity testing.
On epsg, the NC ink shows its best performance, but we don't have an 
ED sample to compare it to.  
On epg it looks much like the ED ink sample.  
On albrecht, the M and m ink took a bigger hit than the respective ED 
inks, while the other colors look somewhat similar to ED.
For the UC inks sample, they are in a different class.  Only the M 
shows some weakness on glossy, and both M and lm are weak on matte.  
All other colors show much lower delta E than the other two inks.

Best regards,
John Moody



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani" 
<shileshjani@...> wrote:
>
> Greg,
> 
> Thank you for doing this. I will not get a chance to look at the 
> data any time soon. I am on a trip to the Rocky Mountains - really 
> beautiful here. But I am an engineer, remember ;-) so it is all 
work 
> right now - groan.
> 
> I printed the steps using QTR. Each color was printed at 25, 50, 
75, 

> and 100 percent ink limit. Easy to do with QTR. Yup, no LK for the 
> Epson dye and NanoChrome because the R220 printer is a 6 color 
> machine.
> 
> By the 18th day of the south window exposure, I was interested only 
> in the K (I have my reasons). Hence I measured only the K values at 
> 25% ink limit. It was enough for my needs. Your tests may shed a 
> light on these inks for a more general color use.
> 
> Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani" 
<shileshjani@...> wrote:
>
> Oops, I should have said "shed more LUX"
> 

Since I work in TV here in the states, I normally use the imperial 
measure of foot candles. But a few more candela to spread around 
wouldn't hurt.

(for the extra nerdy among us: http://www.electro-
optical.com/whitepapers/candela.htm )

And for one more thing... Here is what the paper white for EEM looks 
like after that 18 days:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/Greg_E/EEMfade.gif

Some people still insist that EEM is perfectly fine for archival 
prints. If the things that Paul has been saying haven't changed their 
minds, hopefully this will!

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John M." 
<moodymz3@...> wrote:
>
> Ugh..  Not the pretty charts Greg mentioned earlier. ;-)
> 

Sorry, I tried. The change was not large enough (yet) to give a clear 
difference. The dots for the dark samples just got larger after the 
test samples were added so it wasn't nearly as clear as I would have 
liked. I tried a 2d ab graph and a 3d Lab graph and neither one would 
have worked well.

I did do one for the EEM paper white, maybe Paul can add it to his 
notes about that paper.

This is what it looked like when I zoomed in far enough:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/Greg_E/3Dzoom.gif
As you can see, there is lot's of other stuff missing.

The Nanochrome inks seem to have made the biggest difference in dmax on 
Hahnemuhle Photo Rag & I thought Shilesh had included it in his test. 
Are there any results available for Photo Rag?

Thanks
Howard

Greg wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
> <scho@...> wrote:
>>
>> Not immediately obvious what you were doing.  So, these were printed  
>> QTR calibration charts at Limit=100.  The LK data appear to be  
>> missing from the HPRS Nanochrome density data file, based on your  
>> array description.  I didn't look at any of the other files yet.
>> 
> 
> 
> These were the test sheets that Shilesh printed and tested. I was just 
> the measurer. So no lk data for the Nanochromes since the r220 only has 
> the 6 inks. And I'm pretty sure he said he used QTR to print these. If 
> not some kind of RIP was used to drive the individual colors, there is 
> definitely no mix of colors like you get trying to print yellow through 
> the RGB driver.
> 
> It's kind of too bad we don't have a profile target of the control and 
> fade, it would make a comparison graph. But it's unlikely that we'll 
> get a chance to do this after the more basic test that has been 
> performed. It looks like a really nice dye equivalent/replacement ink, 
> that if used on compatible papers might be really nice. For people 
> using gloss and semi gloss papers, these might be a really good 
> solution since you can get that type of swellable paper, or even the 
> Infu6 papers when they come out. But do note that the over inking of at 
> least the black ink, so you might still need a RIP to set limits, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Howard Shaw 
<glassman@...> wrote:
>
> The Nanochrome inks seem to have made the biggest difference in dmax 
on 
> Hahnemuhle Photo Rag & I thought Shilesh had included it in his test. 
> Are there any results available for Photo Rag?
> 
> Thanks
> Howard


He told me in an email that he was so unhappy with the fading, that he 
trashed the Photo Rag samples, and didn't measure the rest. So I had no 
Photo Rag to measure. What I received was what you got.