Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

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

Thread

5K v. 3K smoothness

5K v. 3K smoothness

2006-12-16 by Paul Roark

I was curious how much additional smoothness a 5K setup would have over a 3K
setup in the 2200.  Both of the inksets are variants of the approach I
outline at http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf   This approach is similar
to the Epson K3 approach in that it starts with the standard gray inks --
MK, LK, and LLK.  The toning is done with LM and, in my case, "LLC," which
is a 50% dilution of standard LC.  For the 5K variant, I add 2 more grays:
PK and LLLK (1 part LLK + 2 parts base).  For this test I used a neutral QTR
profile on Premier Art's Matte BW paper.  Note that with the neutral
profile, even the 3K approach always has at least 3 inks firing because the
LM and LLC are always there.  

 

At the black end, the 5K approached used a PK overlap (under printing the
MK).  In the 3K approach I switched to standard cyan color pigment for the
under printing.  This allows one to print a cool MK, which can add some
visual separation in the deep shadows and, in warm interior light, will look
slightly darker for a given density.  As we know from my neutralized Photo
Black (PKN) mixing, cyan (or blue mixed with cyan) can significantly
increase glossy dmax.  With Eboni the results are more modest.

 

To measure smoothness scanned the 21-step test strips with an Epson 1600 dpi
flatbed scanner at 1600 dpi, using RGB mode.  I then used Photoshop's
Histogram standard deviation to measure the relative smoothness.

 

These are the results:

 

%         5K        3K 

 

5%        3         3.8

10%      3.2       4.1

15%      3.8       4.4

30%      4.4       5.4

40%      4.2       5.7

50%      6          5.9

70%      6.1       6.1

80%      5.7       6.9

90%      5.9       6.2

100%    5.7       4.7

 

At 14 inches, I cannot see any difference in the test strips.  With a
magnifying hood at 5 inches, I can see the difference, but it's not dramatic
at all.

 

Of interest, the standard dark cyan in the black was as effective as the PK
for under printing in terms of dmax, and actually resulted in a smoother
100% black.  (Note that I'm not particularly proficient with QTR.  I'm using
the under printing of the black ink primarily to get rid of the small white
lines in the deep blacks that reduce the dmax and smoothness in those areas.
The dmax I'm getting is still not impressive.)

 

At the light end, I noticed that when I removed the super-light LLLK, I
could also reduce the amount of color toners.  As such, the 3K approach is
probably more lightfast, for 2 reasons.  First, the 3K neutral print has
fewer color pigments relative to the more lightfast carbon.  Second, the
more dilute an ink, the faster it fades, all else being equal.  So,
eliminating the super light LLLK probably results in a more lightfast image.


 

At the dark end, eliminating the PK required me to use more color toners
there.  The lighter the carbon ink, the more color is needed to neutralize
it.  However, at the dark end I could have used the same curve and the
darkness of the image would hide the color differences.

 

Also, at the dark end I used standard cyan color for the under printing
instead of a mixed blue for several reasons.  First, cyan pigments are very
lightfast - considerably more so than a mixed blue.  Second, I wanted to
avoid blended inks for large format stability and stay with off the shelf
inks as much as possible.  Third, as one goes deeper into the shadows, the
tones often become too magenta.  Note that even with the pure cyan under
printing (about 15%) the Lab for 100% is 16.8, 1.1, -0.8.  So, the cyan is
not making it green - just cool.  (This could be interesting with the Epson
MK, which is much warmer than Eboni.)  Finally, where I'm going with this is
hopefully a basic hextone version of the Epson K3 inkset that can be run
with either a rip or the Epson driver, including profiling with PFP.  So, I
need relatively normal cross-overs, even if the colors are not where they
were originally intended.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

 

 



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

QTR dmax (was 5K v. 3K smoothness)

2006-12-17 by Paul Roark

Forget the dmax limitations I mentioned in the last post.  The way one gets
a super dmax with QTR appears to be to print with 2880, at least on the
2200.  I'm now at less that L 15.  Under printing is a cure to a problem
that should not exist in the first place.  (If you want speed, use the Epson
driver.)

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

  _____  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Roark
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:04 AM
To: DigitalB&WPrint
Subject: [Digital BW] 5K v. 3K smoothness

 

.
Of interest, the standard dark cyan in the black was as effective as the PK
for under printing in terms of dmax, and actually resulted in a smoother
100% black. (Note that I'm not particularly proficient with QTR. I'm using
the under printing of the black ink primarily to get rid of the small white
lines in the deep blacks that reduce the dmax and smoothness in those areas.
The dmax I'm getting is still not impressive.)

 . Lab for 100% is 16.8, . 



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

Re: [Digital BW] QTR dmax (was 5K v. 3K smoothness)

2006-12-17 by Tom Baker

Which paper?
   
  Tom Baker
  

Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:
          Forget the dmax limitations I mentioned in the last post. The way one gets
a super dmax with QTR appears to be to print with 2880, at least on the
2200. I'm now at less that L 15. Under printing is a cure to a problem
that should not exist in the first place. (If you want speed, use the Epson
driver.)

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/> 

_____ 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Roark
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:04 AM
To: DigitalB&WPrint
Subject: [Digital BW] 5K v. 3K smoothness

.
Of interest, the standard dark cyan in the black was as effective as the PK
for under printing in terms of dmax, and actually resulted in a smoother
100% black. (Note that I'm not particularly proficient with QTR. I'm using
the under printing of the black ink primarily to get rid of the small white
lines in the deep blacks that reduce the dmax and smoothness in those areas.
The dmax I'm getting is still not impressive.)

. Lab for 100% is 16.8, . 

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



         


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

RE: [Digital BW] QTR dmax (was 5K v. 3K smoothness)

2006-12-17 by Paul Roark

Tom,

 

I'm getting L 14.8 - 14.95 on Premier Art's Matte BW, using Eboni in a 2200,
QTR at 2880, ink load 65, no under-printing (i.e., no overlap or the llike)
It'll be interesting to see if these dmax figures increase over night - they
usually do.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

  _____  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Baker
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:30 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] QTR dmax (was 5K v. 3K smoothness)

 

Which paper?

Tom Baker


Paul Roark <paul.roark@verizon. <mailto:paul.roark%40verizon.net> net>
wrote:
Forget the dmax limitations I mentioned in the last post. The way one gets
a super dmax with QTR appears to be to print with 2880, at least on the
2200. I'm now at less that L 15. Under printing is a cure to a problem
that should not exist in the first place. (If you want speed, use the Epson
driver.)

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroar <http://www.paulroark.com/> k.com/> 

_____ 

From: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Roark
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:04 AM
To: DigitalB&WPrint
Subject: [Digital BW] 5K v. 3K smoothness

.
Of interest, the standard dark cyan in the black was as effective as the PK
for under printing in terms of dmax, and actually resulted in a smoother
100% black. (Note that I'm not particularly proficient with QTR. I'm using
the under printing of the black ink primarily to get rid of the small white
lines in the deep blacks that reduce the dmax and smoothness in those areas.
The dmax I'm getting is still not impressive.)

. Lab for 100% is 16.8, . 

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

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

 



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

Re: [Digital BW] QTR dmax (was 5K v. 3K smoothness)

2006-12-18 by dlruckus

That seems about right in my experience with the 1200 also. I can do
just a bit better than that on the old 3000.

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> Tom,
> 
>  
> 
> I'm getting L 14.8 - 14.95 on Premier Art's Matte BW, using Eboni in
a 2200,
> QTR at 2880, ink load 65, no under-printing (i.e., no overlap or the
llike)
> It'll be interesting to see if these dmax figures increase over
night - they
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> usually do.
> 
>  
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  
> 
>

Re: [Digital BW] QTR dmax (was 5K v. 3K smoothness)

2006-12-18 by Joost Horsten

By coincidence, this weekend I have been working to change my 2100/QTR 
windows/UT3D from 1440 super resolution to 2880 resolution. I was doing 
so in order see if could get rid of some minor (but once you've seen it 
annoying) horizontal banding and some coarseness in the midtones. This 
seems to work out fine.

And as side effect my Dmax improved as well a bit. But by no means to a 
sub-L=15 range. I'm now at L= 15.9-16.2. I'm using Epson Enhanced Matte 
(did not try on Photo Rag yet). Is it the difference in paper?  Or 
should I get rid of the interprinting with LK that I still do (as a 
heritage of the 1440 resolution curves)? What should be achievable on 
EEM?

Joost

P.S. What is actually the formula to convert L-values to density? I 
seem to be unable to find this.


---

 In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> Tom,
> 
>  
> 
> I'm getting L 14.8 - 14.95 on Premier Art's Matte BW, using Eboni in 
a 2200,
> QTR at 2880, ink load 65, no under-printing (i.e., no overlap or the 
llike)
> It'll be interesting to see if these dmax figures increase over 
night - they
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> usually do.
> 
>

Re: [Digital BW] QTR dmax (was 5K v. 3K smoothness)

2006-12-18 by Howard Shaw

Joost Horsten wrote:
...
> 
> P.S. What is actually the formula to convert L-values to density? I 
> seem to be unable to find this.

Joost

There's an excel spreadsheet called CurveEvalV2.xls in the yahoo qtr 
group files section that has the formula:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/files/

regards
Howard

Re: [Digital BW] QTR dmax (was 5K v. 3K smoothness)

2006-12-18 by CDTobie@aol.com

In a message dated 12/18/06 1:51:13 AM, j.h.j.h@... writes:


> P.S. What is actually the formula to convert L-values to density?
> 

There is no official method for converting L* to density... they are not in 
systems similar enought to allow for simple conversion.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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

Re: [Digital BW] QTR dmax (was 5K v. 3K smoothness)

2006-12-18 by Joost Horsten

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@... wrote:
> > P.S. What is actually the formula to convert L-values to density?
> > 
> 
> There is no official method for converting L* to density... they are 
not in 
> systems similar enought to allow for simple conversion.

One way or another I suspected this. But what is then the absolute 
measure to be used in comparing results from different measurement 
setups, L* or density? I assume density, since L is a relative measure. 
Right? If so, if someone makes a claim in L-values, it should be noted 
what system (s)he uses. 

Joost

Re: [Digital BW] QTR dmax (was 5K v. 3K smoothness)

2006-12-18 by CDTobie@aol.com

In a message dated 12/18/06 10:58:50 AM, j.h.j.h@... writes:


> One way or another I suspected this. But what is then the absolute
> measure to be used in comparing results from different measurement
> setups, L* or density? I assume density, since L is a relative measure.
> Right? If so, if someone makes a claim in L-values, it should be noted
> what system (s)he uses.
> 

No, L* is absolute... its density that is often expressed in relative terms.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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

RE: [Digital BW] QTR dmax (was 5K v. 3K smoothness)

2006-12-18 by Paul Roark

I use my PFP spectro and measure a test strip.  So now you're telling me the
2 readouts are only "un-officially" related?  <G>

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

  _____  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
CDTobie@...
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 6:30 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] QTR dmax (was 5K v. 3K smoothness)

 


In a message dated 12/18/06 1:51:13 AM, j.h.j.h@zonnet.
<mailto:j.h.j.h%40zonnet.nl> nl writes:

> P.S. What is actually the formula to convert L-values to density?
> 

There is no official method for converting L* to density... they are not in 
systems similar enought to allow for simple conversion.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@colorvision <mailto:CDTobie%40colorvision.com> .com
www.colorvision.com

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

 



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

RE: [Digital BW] QTR dmax (was 5K v. 3K smoothness)

2006-12-18 by Paul Roark

>... I have been working to change my 2100/QTR 
>windows/UT3D from 1440 super resolution to 2880 resolution. 
>I was doing so in order see if could get rid of some minor 
>(but once you've seen it annoying) horizontal banding and 
> some coarseness in the midtones. This seems to work out fine.

Yes, 2880 is the answer for QTR -- better smoothness and significantly
better dmax.  Additionally, it only adds a bit more than 10% to the printing
time relative to 1440 super (unlike with the Epson driver).  Sadly, the
profiles will all need re-doing.

> ... my Dmax improved as well a bit. But by no means to a 
> sub-L=15 range. I'm now at L= 15.9-16.2 ...using Epson Enhanced Matte...

I just measured L 14.74 on Premier Art's Matte BW paper (cheap as EEM and
acid free).  See http://www.premierimagingproducts.com/pm_mattebw.php   

I use the 210 gsm version of this paper.  I wonder if the 110 version would
make a good book paper.  It's double sided and is relatively scuff
resistant.

It's not a perfect paper by any means, but it's cheap, acid free, very
smooth (hot press type surface) and has a terrific dmax.  I'd prefer less
(or no) brightening and less curl.  It also has strange things in the
coating that look like small dark threads with a loupe -- curious, but it's
hard to argue with success.  It's known by several names, including Premium
Matte or just Dual Sided 210.

For the best letter-size prices (50 sheet for $12), see
http://www.itsupplies.com/cgi-bin/itsupplies.storefront/4586ba3f00ca54a42740
4200c14c0656/Catalog/1623 

I don't know who ships overseas.  

> ... should I get rid of the interprinting with LK ...

Yes.  MK that is being properly laid down will have it's dmax lowered
whenever any less dense ink is also used in that spot.  It looks to me as if
Gimp print an only lay black down properly at 2880.

I wonder if the more expensive rips have better dithers that give better
speed?  IJC also uses gimp (all be it modified a bit), apparently at 2880
according to my speed comparisons.  At 2880 the quality of IJC/OPM and QTR
prints are great, however.  (It makes me wonder what BowHaus does when it
has a huge show to print.)

> What should be achievable on EEM?

I don't know.  In the first step of QTR, when you do the first Calibration
mode print, the highest dmax will show up on that print.  With Matte BW, it
was at 65.  I set the overall ink limit there and then use no black boost.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Re: [Digital BW] QTR dmax (was 5K v. 3K smoothness)

2006-12-18 by Tom Baker

If 'density is often expressed in relative terms', how is it expressed the rest of the time?  And, how is any consistency between 'methods' assured?
   
  Tom Baker

CDTobie@... wrote:
          
In a message dated 12/18/06 10:58:50 AM, j.h.j.h@... writes:

> One way or another I suspected this. But what is then the absolute
> measure to be used in comparing results from different measurement
> setups, L* or density? I assume density, since L is a relative measure.
> Right? If so, if someone makes a claim in L-values, it should be noted
> what system (s)he uses.
> 

No, L* is absolute... its density that is often expressed in relative terms.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com

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



         


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

Re: [Digital BW] QTR dmax (was 5K v. 3K smoothness)

2006-12-18 by Steve Kale

XYZ_Y=IF(L>8, ((L+16)/116)^3,(L*27)/24389)

Then 

Density = -LOG10(XYZ_Y)



From: Joost Horsten <j.h.j.h@...>


P.S. What is actually the formula to convert L-values to density? I
seem to be unable to find this.




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

Re: [Digital BW] QTR dmax (was 5K v. 3K smoothness)

2006-12-18 by Greg

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@... wrote:
>
> 
> In a message dated 12/18/06 10:58:50 AM, j.h.j.h@... writes:
> 
> 
> > One way or another I suspected this. But what is then the absolute
> > measure to be used in comparing results from different measurement
> > setups, L* or density? I assume density, since L is a relative
measure.
> > Right? If so, if someone makes a claim in L-values, it should be noted
> > what system (s)he uses.
> > 
> 
> No, L* is absolute... its density that is often expressed in
relative terms.
> 

Density is often specified in the measured value, or minus paper, so
there it is already relative to something. That's why I usually just
use L*a*b* values to represent things like this. Lab value should be
able to be traced back to the BACRA tiles used for accuracy testing,
and are listed in the measurement device's specification.

Re: [Digital BW] QTR dmax (was 5K v. 3K smoothness)

2006-12-19 by john eckenrode

This calulator works too.

http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?CompandCalculator.html

right on
john E

--- Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> XYZ_Y=IF(L>8, ((L+16)/116)^3,(L*27)/24389)
> 
> Then 
> 
> Density = -LOG10(XYZ_Y)
> 
> 
> 
> From: Joost Horsten <j.h.j.h@...>
> 
> 
> P.S. What is actually the formula to convert
> L-values to density? I
> seem to be unable to find this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> 
>

Move to quarantaine

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