Digital BW, The Print

I'm just getting started using a new 1280, a UT2 ink set including
Eboni in the black slot.  I have been using two of Paul Roark's
recommended workflows - specificly the Epson driver/slider workflow
(latest driver) & the Image editor workflow (PS CS2 in this case)
created specificly for the 1280/UT2 combo.  Paper is Epson Enhanced Matte.

In both cases, the fine detail is muddy and the contrast is poor
compared to other "black only" prints I've gotten off a lower end
Epson machine (785EPX) using both matt & satin papers.  

I've tried four or five different original shots and some manipulation
of the original photos' contrast to get them to 'snap' but no luck. 

This is day three of working with it (and looking for answers in past
messages here) but no luck.  

The only thing that's kept me going has been one single early print
that was so beautiful I almost cried . . . but now I'm in a closed
loop and am in need of suggestions.

Thanks for any suggestions, Dan

Dan,

> 
> I'm just getting started using a new 1280, a UT2 ink set including
> Eboni in the black slot.

At this point in our B&W progress I don't think one should start with a 1280
and variable-tone approach.  The problems of the hardware and partitioning
curves make the chances of success too low compared to starting with a R220
and UT-R2 inkset.

> I have been using two of Paul Roark's
> recommended workflows - specificly the Epson driver/slider workflow
> (latest driver) & the Image editor workflow (PS CS2 in this case)
> created specificly for the 1280/UT2 combo.  Paper is Epson Enhanced Matte.

If the system is working correctly, the 1280, UT2 and curves work.  There
are lots of things that can go wrong, however.  The newer approaches offer a
much higher rate of success.  The more modern Epson printers are more
consistent and easier to deal with and support.
 
> In both cases, the fine detail is muddy and the contrast is poor
> compared to other "black only" prints I've gotten off a lower end
> Epson machine (785EPX) using both matt & satin papers.

I've put some test files at http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/Test-files.htm
that might help you determine if the system is working normally.  Assuming
the nozzle check is perfect, using the posted purge pattern test to check
the inkset would be next.  Also, printing the 21-step file provides a much
more accurate way to pinpoint the problems and communicate what you're
seeing.  If your system can't produce a well-separated 21-step with no curve
and driver set to Color Controls, something is definitely wrong with the
system -- hardware, inks, workflow, or operator error.

In general, I recommend people start simple with an easy, cheap but modern
machine like the R220 and the R2 inkset.  The 1280 is getting too long in
the tooth.


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hello Dan,

>I'm just getting started using a new 1280, a UT2 ink set including
>Eboni in the black slot...  
> 
>In both cases, the fine detail is muddy and the contrast is poor
>compared to other "black only" prints I've gotten off a lower end
>Epson machine 
>
>The only thing that's kept me going has been one single early print
>that was so beautiful I almost cried . . . but now I'm in a closed
>loop and am in need of suggestions.

I spent the past four years doing mostly BO printing, all the while
trying various other inks, workflows and approaches, including UT7
(the equivalent of UT2, for the 2200).  My own conclusion is that
nothing else out there is going to produce the beautiful luminance and
clarity as well as BO does.  I had the same response to UT7 as you are
describing here.  On certain images who's tones fell within its sweet
spot it can be excellent, but in general the prints have a slightly
veiled opaque look and rather muddy blacks compared to BO.

BO's luminance comes from the bare paper that shows between the dots,
which most of the full ink systems don't allow.  I think this is what
causes the opaque look.  The muddy blacks are caused by the system's
mixing the 2nd black in with the Eboni in all but the darkest zones
(at above 99% or RGB 0-2).

I discovered this one day with UT7 and a high key print with a few
small almost black areas (sand dunes with clumps of bushes in the
distance).  Suddenly on one test print there were white areas in the
dark bushes.  Inspection with a loupe showed that there was no ink in
those areas.  I ran a nozzle check and found that the Eboni cart had
totally clogged.  In Photoshop I examined those areas in the image
with the densitometer tool and discovered that the areas of white were
the only areas in the image that were RGB 2 or less.  

The point of this is that only in areas at or close to pure black do
the UT2/7 inks put down pure Eboni.  In other areas of the dark zones
there is a blend of inks, which makes them look muddy compared to BO.
When dmax tests are done the UT inks rate as good as BO because the
tests lay down a patch of pure black (100% or RGB 0).  But in real
world images the shadow zones aren't all pure black, so most of the
darks in prints have the muddy look.  That, combined with the veiled
highlights, makes them look aenemic next to a BO print.

The only thing I've found that comes close to BO prints is the 2400
ABW mode.  I was surprised to find that they have very good luminance
(not as good as BO but still quite good).  With a loupe I can see that
in the highlights it does allow some bare paper to show between the
dots.  Plus, I don't know how it blends the grays in the shadows, but
the blacks look much better than the UT inks.  So for me the 2400/ABW
is the best compromise, giving smooth non-dotty prints with excellent
blacks and luminance.

So what does all this mean for you?  Well, since you're coming from a
BO experience you are spoiled for that clear intense look, and IMO
you'll not be satisfied with much else.  I tried varios things for
years and always came back to BO - until the 2400 (and to my great
happiness I also found that it can produce gallery quality prints with
the same easy workflow as BO).   So perhaps you should look into
getting one of these.  I hope this isn't too depressing.

Regards,
Clayton


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



























"pop" (or "snap" or whatever) that

First let me say that I'm delighted to have my first post on this
group answered by two of my B&W heros, Paul Roark and Clayton Jones. 
 Secondly, as Clayton suggest, the answers were a bit depressing.  

Trying to consolidate the feedback from you both:

One:  I bought the wrong printer.  

Paul and Clayton both suggest the 1280 is out-of-date and difficult to
use.  You each suggest a different one   - Paul the R220, $100 from
Epson and Clayton the 2400, $849.99 - as the 1280 is a bit "long in
the tooth".   

My first reaction is that the 1280 produced great prints before, I see
no reason this one won't.  Besides, I'm a bit long in the tooth
myself...seems like a good match. 

Two:  Both of you were kind enough to also suggest some alternative
strategies.  

From Paul: Test files to trouble shoot the system.  Paul thanks. I
will, of course try the alternative purge pattern (I run a standard
nozzle check before each new file run) as well as see if I can run the
21-step file correctly.   I look forward to trying your more
sophisticated approach and reporting back.  I'm betting on "operator
error" as the root cause.

From Clayton:  Black Only is hard to beat…unless you have $800 to
spare for a 2400. 

I looked at my early BO prints under a loupe and was surprised to see
the prominent dots. At normal viewing range, they were crisp, smooth
and had good contrast.  However, I was looking to expand both the size
of my "in studio" printing (hence the 1280) and add subtlety(tonal
range?) to my prints.  I read your write ups on BO previously but will
now go back and rethink what I'm doing.  Maybe I can get there on with
the BO route, too.

Gentlemen, thanks for your help.  It's obvious to me is that I do not
understand how these workflows work but I am determined to learn it. 
Please bear with me.

Dan

> Paul and Clayton both suggest the 1280 is out-of-date and difficult to
> use.  You each suggest a different one   - Paul the R220, $100 from
> Epson and Clayton the 2400, $849.99 ...

The R220 can often be found for under $70.  Some even sell the OEM inks on
Ebay to reduce the price further.
 
> My first reaction is that the 1280 produced great prints before, I see
> no reason this one won't...

The 1280 can produce excellent results.  However, the newer printers are
more consistent in their production.  So, the chance of getting a 1280 that
is marginal is higher than with a more modern printer.  I also think the
carts for the 1280 are not as good as the individual modern carts.  

When marginal printer performance is combined with partitioning curves, the
results can be a grayscale ramp that is not smooth.  A flat spot on the ramp
could be what is causing the "muddy" look in your prints.

Workflows that use all the inks (as Epson intended) or just the black ink
are more likely to hide the problems of a printer that is a bit off.

> From Paul: Test files to trouble shoot the system.  Paul thanks. I
> will, of course try the alternative purge pattern (I run a standard
> nozzle check before each new file run) as well as see if I can run the
> 21-step file correctly.   I look forward to trying your more
> sophisticated approach and reporting back.  I'm betting on "operator
> error" as the root cause.

Most of the problems are settings.  So, pay close attention to the settings
in my 1280 UT2 notes at http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/UT2-Readme.htm .

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks Paul & Clayton.  I made progress - prints are crisper and the
tones less muddled.  Not where I hope want to be but way ahead of before.

Following Paul's settings to the letter plus taking a page from
Clayton's online suggestions, I did some experimenting and concluded
the following:

This 1280 with UT2 inks wants very different file pre-processing than
I did for the simpler BO on a 785EXP.  Higher contrast and lower dpi
for starters.  Additionally, it seems to respond better to alternative
Media types than the Epson Matte setting on the driver.  This is now
fun as it reminds me of when I first started doing my own prints.

Two new questions:

Paul - I downloaded both your "Purging test pattern - 6 color" and the 
21-step files.  The test pattern printed the 6 distinctly different
tones without any problems.  Does that mean it "passed" or is there
anything else it can tell me?

Also, the 21-step patterns (I printed all of them) printed a very
smooth set of transitions from dark to light.  In fact, it was
downright impressive how subtle the density changes were.  You
mentioned that you use different ones depending on the dmax of the
paper-ink combination.  How to I find that combination for the
paper/inks I'm using - is it a published?

Thanks, Dan 



 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> > Paul and Clayton both suggest the 1280 is out-of-date and difficult to
> > use.  You each suggest a different one   - Paul the R220, $100 from
> > Epson and Clayton the 2400, $849.99 ...
> 
> The R220 can often be found for under $70.  Some even sell the OEM
inks on
> Ebay to reduce the price further.
>  
> > My first reaction is that the 1280 produced great prints before, I see
> > no reason this one won't...
> 
> The 1280 can produce excellent results.  However, the newer printers are
> more consistent in their production.  So, the chance of getting a
1280 that
> is marginal is higher than with a more modern printer.  I also think the
> carts for the 1280 are not as good as the individual modern carts.  
> 
> When marginal printer performance is combined with partitioning
curves, the
> results can be a grayscale ramp that is not smooth.  A flat spot on
the ramp
> could be what is causing the "muddy" look in your prints.
> 
> Workflows that use all the inks (as Epson intended) or just the
black ink
> are more likely to hide the problems of a printer that is a bit off.
> 
> > From Paul: Test files to trouble shoot the system.  Paul thanks. I
> > will, of course try the alternative purge pattern (I run a standard
> > nozzle check before each new file run) as well as see if I can run the
> > 21-step file correctly.   I look forward to trying your more
> > sophisticated approach and reporting back.  I'm betting on "operator
> > error" as the root cause.
> 
> Most of the problems are settings.  So, pay close attention to the
settings

> in my 1280 UT2 notes at http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/UT2-Readme.htm .
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

> This 1280 with UT2 inks wants very different file pre-processing than
> I did for the simpler BO on a 785EXP...

The issue may be the match between the monitor and the print.  That is a
problem of non-color-managed workflows.  In the past, we adjusted the view
of the monitor in Photoshop with custom dot gain curves to match the print.
Many didn't bother, so the match was not that good, and different setups
printed differently.

I have now switched to a color managed approach.  I'm using Roy's Create ICC
program to make ICCs that are used in the Print Preview step of Photoshop or
Elements.  I recommend a Gray Gamma 2.2 space in PS Color Settings.  This is
also the most common default, and is what is used by the Web.  Then when a
proper ICC is inserted, the print will match the monitor.

I have some 1280 UT2 ICCs I can send you off list if you'd like to see how
that approach works.  If it works or is an approach that is appealing, the
best system is one where you make your own custom ICCs using Roy's program.
You can embed my curves (sometimes as modified to eliminate flat spots on
the curves) into your custom ICC and have a linearized output that takes
into consideration your system as well as the ink and paper variations.
It's a very powerful workflow.

> Paul - I downloaded both your "Purging test pattern - 6 color" and the
> 21-step files.  The test pattern printed the 6 distinctly different
> tones without any problems.  Does that mean it "passed" or is there
> anything else it can tell me?

The tones it printed should match the scan of the output that is also posted
on the web.  The idea is to be sure the inkset is correct.  The scanned
image may be off a bit, but if things look radically different, there is a
problem.

> Also, the 21-step patterns (I printed all of them) printed a very
> smooth set of transitions from dark to light.  In fact, it was
> downright impressive how subtle the density changes were.

That suggests the system is working as intended.

>  You
> mentioned that you use different ones depending on the dmax of the
> paper-ink combination.  How to I find that combination for the
> paper/inks I'm using - is it a published?

Assume EEM and PhotoRag are at 1.68.  I don't have a list.

The only difference is the target density.  As the dmax gets higher, the
adjacent values also get higher.  However, I used a standard 50% value.  The
21-step files are all that same except for the typed in density targets --
which are an older standard that is closer to Dot Gain 20% and not Gray
Gamma 2.2, the target I now recommend for a color managed approach.

Good luck.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> I have some 1280 UT2 ICCs I can send you off list if you'd like to see how
> that approach works.  If it works or is an approach that is appealing, the
> best system is one where you make your own custom ICCs using Roy's program.
> You can embed my curves (sometimes as modified to eliminate flat spots on

Paul - I, too, am getting started with a 1280 and UT2. I was wondering if the ICC's you 
mention might be made available to me, too, so I can learn about them? It would be truly 
great.

In any case, I have to thank you for the help you've given me (unbeknownst to you) through 
this list and your web docs.

I've placed the UT2 1280 ICCs on my UT2 Curves page at 
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/UT2-curves.html

I have the procedure for how to use these in the R220 notes at 
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/R220_R2_Readme.htm

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> ebenostby
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 10:27 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Just starting B&W - 1280 w/ UT2 - Poor Contrast
> & Detail
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> 
> > I have some 1280 UT2 ICCs I can send you off list if you'd like to see
> how
> > that approach works.  If it works or is an approach that is appealing,
> the
> > best system is one where you make your own custom ICCs using Roy's
> program.
> > You can embed my curves (sometimes as modified to eliminate flat spots
> on
> 
> Paul - I, too, am getting started with a 1280 and UT2. I was wondering if
> the ICC's you
> mention might be made available to me, too, so I can learn about them? It
> would be truly
> great.
> 
> In any case, I have to thank you for the help you've given me (unbeknownst
> to you) through
> this list and your web docs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Thanks Paul. 

I read your prior response a couple times and I think you absolutely
right.  I've been using the proofing process as my matching technique
and it means I start from scratch with each print.  I'll do my color
management home work and then follow up on your posted documents.

That said, the other conclusion I've made is that there is no
substitute for a good photo file and I am regularly guilty of trying
print more than the shot has to "give".  Oh well, another lesson
learned twice.

Thanks again.  Dan



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> I've placed the UT2 1280 ICCs on my UT2 Curves page at 
> http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/UT2-curves.html
> 
> I have the procedure for how to use these in the R220 notes at 
> http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/R220_R2_Readme.htm
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > ebenostby
> > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 10:27 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Just starting B&W - 1280 w/ UT2 - Poor
Contrast
> > & Detail
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> > <paul.roark@> wrote:
> > 
> > > I have some 1280 UT2 ICCs I can send you off list if you'd like
to see
> > how
> > > that approach works.  If it works or is an approach that is
appealing,
> > the
> > > best system is one where you make your own custom ICCs using Roy's
> > program.
> > > You can embed my curves (sometimes as modified to eliminate flat
spots
> > on
> > 
> > Paul - I, too, am getting started with a 1280 and UT2. I was
wondering if
> > the ICC's you
> > mention might be made available to me, too, so I can learn about
them? It
> > would be truly
> > great.
> > 
> > In any case, I have to thank you for the help you've given me
(unbeknownst
> > to you) through
> > this list and your web docs.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
>