Digital BW, The Print

Images printed on EEM with following settings:

profile same as source
gamma 1.8 or 2.2
black only using eboni ink (ARC-T007-UTK)
matte heavyweight or photo quality ink jet paper setting

Note that my 1280 driver does not have the "advanced black and white" 
settings.

Multiple different prints for different images all appear drastically 
lighter than the image on screen.  My black areas on photoshop measure 
RGB values of 0,0,0 with decent histograms.

Any thoughts?  I really want to figure out BO before moving to UT2.

MO

Hello Mo,

>profile same as source
>gamma 1.8 or 2.2
>black only using eboni ink (ARC-T007-UTK)
>matte heavyweight or photo quality ink jet paper setting
>  
>Multiple different prints for different images all appear 
>drastically lighter than the image on screen.  My black areas on 
>photoshop measure RGB values of 0,0,0 with decent histograms.
> 
>Any thoughts?  I really want to figure out BO before moving to UT2.


Need more information, some questions:

1) Is the image a scanned neg or a converted color digicam file?  If a
scanned neg, was it scanned as RGB or grayscale?

2) What image profile is set as the default in Color Settings (IOW,
what is the default profile that an image gets when it's converted to
grayscale)?

3) Have you Assigned or Converted the image to a different profile
than the default one?

4) What paper are you using?


Regards,
Clayton


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

Converted color digicam file.  I have tried this 3 ways:  1. RAW image
 with saturation all the way down. 2. RAW converted to .tiff in adobe
rgb, then made a monochrome with a channel mixer layer 3. covert mode
straight to greyscale in PS.

Profile is dot gain 20%.  

I have tried to print in Adobe RGB with the saturation change to
essentially BW, same outcome.

I see what you are getting at however.  Possibly the profiling
workflow is in error and the printer is looking at a different image
when printing.  

Paper is Epson Enhanced Matte (EEM listed in my original post)

> Need more information, some questions:
> 
> 1) Is the image a scanned neg or a converted color digicam file?  If a
> scanned neg, was it scanned as RGB or grayscale?
> 
> 2) What image profile is set as the default in Color Settings (IOW,
> what is the default profile that an image gets when it's converted to
> grayscale)?
> 
> 3) Have you Assigned or Converted the image to a different profile
> than the default one?
> 
> 4) What paper are you using?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Hello Mo,

>Converted color digicam file. 
>Profile is dot gain 20%.  
> 
>I have tried to print in Adobe RGB with the saturation change to
>essentially BW, same outcome.
> 
>I see what you are getting at however.  Possibly the profiling
>workflow is in error and the printer is looking at a different image
>when printing.  

Well I was just searching for any clues.  Everything sounds fine, no
red flags.  Does the 1280 driver have an ink density setting of any
sort?  Sorry, I don't know what else to suggest other than to continue
double checking everything.  There has to be a reason, just have to
find it.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Isn't "profile - same as source" the problem? If  working on a file
that is DG20%, won't something like DG 10% as a printer profile be
needed to match monitor and print? I got this from Clayton's article
#4 years back. 

Or is it too late at night and I'm missing something?

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:

>
> Hello Mo,
> 
> >Converted color digicam file. 
> >Profile is dot gain 20%.  
> > 
> >I have tried to print in Adobe RGB with the saturation change to
> >essentially BW, same outcome.
> > 
> >I see what you are getting at however.  Possibly the profiling
> >workflow is in error and the printer is looking at a different image
> >when printing.  
> 
> Well I was just searching for any clues.  Everything sounds fine, no
> red flags.  Does the 1280 driver have an ink density setting of any
> sort?  Sorry, I don't know what else to suggest other than to continue
> double checking everything.  There has to be a reason, just have to
> find it.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Hello Bob,

>Isn't "profile - same as source" the problem? If  working on a file
>that is DG20%, won't something like DG 10% as a printer profile be
>needed to match monitor and print? I got this from Clayton's article
>#4 years back. 
> Or is it too late at night and I'm missing something?

Yep, too late at night I guess.  Same As Source for the printer (or
"back end") profile is the key that makes that workflow so easy.  It
ensures that the back end is always the same as the front end, which
is what allows us to change the screen image without changing the
print.  It's the key to getting good WYSIWYG by making the screen
match the print (as opposed to changing the print to match the screen).

Regards,
Clayton


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

Hello Mo,

>image profile DG 20%
>printer profile same as source
>gamma 1.8 or 2.2
>all appear drastically ighter than the image on screen.  

Bob's question got me thinking...wondering if maybe your system is
working properly, but perhaps something such as the particular
monitor/graphics card combination is producing that result.  I'm not
sure how much difference "drastically" means, but you might try
assigning (not converting) a different image profile to lighten the
screen image until it matches the print.  If you can actually achieve
a match (with say DG15 or DG10) then maybe that's what your particular
hardware requires.  Just a thought, won't hurt anything to try.

Regards,
Clayton


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

I'm starting to think it is the monitor too.  If my RBG is 0,0,0 then 
I know it will be the area that prints absolute black.  But the image 
as a whole may appear darker on the monitor because of the monitor.  

So the image is printing correctly for how it is set in PS, but the 
way it appears on-screen is inaccurate.  I'll play with the monitor 
tonight, but any advice on B+W monitor calibration?  From what I 
recollect, Clayton has said the need isn't necessarily the same as 
color (spyders, etc.)

Thanks to all.

MO


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Mo,
> 
> >image profile DG 20%
> >printer profile same as source
> >gamma 1.8 or 2.2
> >all appear drastically ighter than the image on screen.  
> 
> Bob's question got me thinking...wondering if maybe your system is
> working properly, but perhaps something such as the particular
> monitor/graphics card combination is producing that result.  I'm not
> sure how much difference "drastically" means, but you might try
> assigning (not converting) a different image profile to lighten the
> screen image until it matches the print.  If you can actually 
achieve
> a match (with say DG15 or DG10) then maybe that's what your 
particular

> hardware requires.  Just a thought, won't hurt anything to try.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Mo,

>I'm starting to think it is the monitor too.  If my RBG is 0,0,0 
>then I know it will be the area that prints absolute black.  But 
>the image as a whole may appear darker on the monitor because of 
>the monitor.  
> 
>So the image is printing correctly for how it is set in PS, but the 
>way it appears on-screen is inaccurate.  I'll play with the monitor 
>tonight, but any advice on B+W monitor calibration?  From what I 
>recollect, Clayton has said the need isn't necessarily the same as 
>color (spyders, etc.)

I have never used one of those devices, so I can't comment on that. 
All I've ever done is run the Adobe gamma program (and never needed to
change anything).  When I got this LCD monitor (Samsung 710n) I
adjusted brightness and contrast to suit my eyes and it seems fine for
PS work.  On the dpreview.com site at the bottom of each page of any
camera review there is a 26-step grayscale ramp.  I can differentiate
all 26 steps.  I don't know how relevent that might be to your
situation, but wouldn't hurt to see what it looks like on your monitor.

Regards,
Clayton


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

With my Dot Gain 20% image I almost always printed at Dot Gain 15% on the back end to 
get a better match.

Also, make sure to uncheck "high speed". I most definantly saw a difference here.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mowens" <mowensmd@...> 
wrote:

>
> Images printed on EEM with following settings:
> 
> profile same as source
> gamma 1.8 or 2.2
> black only using eboni ink (ARC-T007-UTK)
> matte heavyweight or photo quality ink jet paper setting
> 
> Note that my 1280 driver does not have the "advanced black and white" 
> settings.
> 
> Multiple different prints for different images all appear drastically 
> lighter than the image on screen.  My black areas on photoshop measure 
> RGB values of 0,0,0 with decent histograms.
> 
> Any thoughts?  I really want to figure out BO before moving to UT2.
> 
> MO
>

Clayton, I certainly defer to you. I remember discussing the original
concept while you were writing the articles. Based on your thoughts, I
hit upon the concept of using GG2.2 as a working space and DG10% as a
printer space to get perfect BO WYSIWYG in a 1280 with Gen4 K and
later Eboni. That's worked for me for years and I apparently I never
completely digested your Article #4. 

When my last 1280 got too long in the tooth, I bought a 2400. But I
still have a 890 and just made 20 Eboni BO prints on Condor BW for a
show with it. All with the working space of GG2.2 and printer space of
DG10% that has always worked for me. I was 19 of 20 for the first
print being the one I will use in the show. I guess it's just knowing
how it works after using it for so many years. 

Bob

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:

>
> Hello Bob,
> 
> >Isn't "profile - same as source" the problem? If  working on a file
> >that is DG20%, won't something like DG 10% as a printer profile be
> >needed to match monitor and print? I got this from Clayton's article
> >#4 years back. 
> > Or is it too late at night and I'm missing something?
> 
> Yep, too late at night I guess.  Same As Source for the printer (or
> "back end") profile is the key that makes that workflow so easy.  It
> ensures that the back end is always the same as the front end, which
> is what allows us to change the screen image without changing the
> print.  It's the key to getting good WYSIWYG by making the screen
> match the print (as opposed to changing the print to match the screen).
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Hello Bob,

>Based on your thoughts, I hit upon the concept of using GG2.2 as a 
>working space and DG10% as a printer space to get perfect BO WYSIWYG 
>in a 1280...
>I guess it's just knowing how it works after using it for so many 
>years. 

That's exactly right, and there's nothing wrong about that approach. 
You hit upon a combination that works for you.  But it might not work
for someone with a different monitor/graphics card, etc.  The approach
I took in the article was to explain the principle and how it works,
with the idea that once that is understood each user can find their
own "sweet spot".  Sort of like the old "give a man a fish or teach
him how to fish" proverb.  So I guess it's the really same thing from
different angles.  

But we still don't know why Mo's output is so light.  Just doesn't
make sense.  I'm stumped.  Do you have any other ideas?

Regards,
Clayton


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

Clayton: I know all my 1280s printed BO lighter than the calibrated
monitor. That's why I ended up using a different color space in the
printer than the working space to compensate. 
Bob
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:
> Hello Bob,
<snip> 

> But we still don't know why Mo's output is so light.  Just doesn't
> make sense.  I'm stumped.  Do you have any other ideas?
> Regards,
> Clayton

Wow, the high-speed really makes a difference!  I'll try without 
changing the dot 20% and see if this was the biggest difference.  So 
many setting,so little time...

i kind of miss my 1280 w/ BO work flow. i got the 2400 and have yet to 
duplicate the luminance i got w/ the 1280.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mowens" 
<mowensmd@...> wrote:

>
> Wow, the high-speed really makes a difference!  I'll try without 
> changing the dot 20% and see if this was the biggest difference.  So 
> many setting,so little time...
>

Hello Kevin,

>i kind of miss my 1280 w/ BO work flow. i got the 2400 and have yet 
>to duplicate the luminance i got w/ the 1280.

Yes, it does seem like a step down in that regard.  However, count
your blessings, it's much better than many other full ink systems. 
Under a loupe I can see very fine dots in the highlights with bare
paper showing between.  It of course doesn't go as far into the
midtones as BO, but it's still much better than systems that fully
cover the paper.  It still retains the clarity that is reminiscent of
a BO print.

Are you using K3 or something else?  If K3, have you tried using VFA?
 It has become my favorite K3 paper, with great dmax and luminance. 
I'm printing my portfolios with it and they have gotten very high
praise.  It's great stuff.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Kevin: I missed my 1280 BO so much that I put Eboni in my old 890
general office printer and do BO with that. No question my 2400 is a
great printer, but for my style the BO just seems to match the subject
matter better. It would be different if I photographed pretty landscapes.

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin"
<vinket@...> wrote:

>
> i kind of miss my 1280 w/ BO work flow. i got the 2400 and have yet to 
> duplicate the luminance i got w/ the 1280.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mowens" 
> <mowensmd@> wrote:
> >
> > Wow, the high-speed really makes a difference!  I'll try without 
> > changing the dot 20% and see if this was the biggest difference.  So 
> > many setting,so little time...
> >
>

i'm using the k3 inks from atlex.

i'll give the Velvet a try at $1.24 per page.
http://www.atlex.com/Epson/more/pro_velvet_fine_art.htm

right now i'm loaded to the gills w/ Red River Aurora and Dourian Art 
papers.

what i'm finding is that i like the 2400 prints which are 
predominantly smooth, bright images (lots of white) w/ little in the 
way of dark shadows.

for darker images w/ heavy shadows i prefer the old B/O 1280 prints.

good things about the 2400: faster printing, no clogs (so far), color 
pigments, great design and handy roll feed for heavy papers. takes up 
far less space than i anticipated.





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Kevin,
> 
> >i kind of miss my 1280 w/ BO work flow. i got the 2400 and have 
yet 
> >to duplicate the luminance i got w/ the 1280.
> 
> Yes, it does seem like a step down in that regard.  However, count
> your blessings, it's much better than many other full ink systems. 
> Under a loupe I can see very fine dots in the highlights with bare
> paper showing between.  It of course doesn't go as far into the
> midtones as BO, but it's still much better than systems that fully
> cover the paper.  It still retains the clarity that is reminiscent 
of
> a BO print.
> 
> Are you using K3 or something else?  If K3, have you tried using 
VFA?

>  It has become my favorite K3 paper, with great dmax and luminance. 
> I'm printing my portfolios with it and they have gotten very high
> praise.  It's great stuff.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

re: 1280, see my post a couple of minutes ago to Clayton...

what kinds of images are you printing? i print many family 
images...low light, northern exposure window light with fast moving 
kids. also, lots of outdoor shots w/ my kids playing or doing 
activities, family on vacation and some environmental portraiture 
(people at work) and urban landscapes/architecture, etc.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Michaels" 
<bob@...> wrote:
>
> Kevin: I missed my 1280 BO so much that I put Eboni in my old 890
> general office printer and do BO with that. No question my 2400 is a
> great printer, but for my style the BO just seems to match the 
subject
> matter better. It would be different if I photographed pretty 
landscapes.
> 
> Bob Michaels
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin"
> <vinket@> wrote:
> >
> > i kind of miss my 1280 w/ BO work flow. i got the 2400 and have 
yet to 
> > duplicate the luminance i got w/ the 1280.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mowens" 
> > <mowensmd@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Wow, the high-speed really makes a difference!  I'll try 
without 
> > > changing the dot 20% and see if this was the biggest 
difference.  So 

> > > many setting,so little time...
> > >
> >
>

Hello Bob,

>Kevin: I missed my 1280 BO so much that I put Eboni in my old 890
>general office printer and do BO with that. No question my 2400 is 
>a great printer, but for my style the BO just seems to match the 
>subject matter better. It would be different if I photographed 
>pretty landscapes.

Sounds like BO Nostalgia Week around here <g>.  I'm the same way, love
the 2400 but certain images just look better in BO.  

I didn't realize you had gotten a 2400 - how long have you had it?


Regards,
Clayton


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

Kevin: see www.BobMichaels.org, especially the North Orange County
series. I chose to print the exhibition prints BO instead of using my
2400.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin"
<vinket@...> wrote:
> what kinds of images are you printing?

Clayton, I've had the 2400 for a few months but only have been through
1 1/2 sets of ink carts. I only print when I have some good reason to
print. I prefer to photograph. I'm very thankful for people like you
and Paul so I can go photograph until you come up with an easy
workable solution, then I just use it.

I printed on EEM, HPR, and Condor BW using K3 and MIS K4 inks. Mostly
using your defaults as they work well for me. 

The 2400 sure is easy for those nice smooth tones but my work tends to
be a bit more "gritty" and BO just seems to work better for that in my
mind. You can see what I do at my new crude site www.BobMichaels.org

Bob 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:

> Sounds like BO Nostalgia Week around here <g>.  I'm the same way, love
> the 2400 but certain images just look better in BO.  
> 
> I didn't realize you had gotten a 2400 - how long have you had it?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>