Digital BW, The Print

From: "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:54 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Epson 1400 vs 1800


Thanks for your input Tyler. It's much appreciated. I had thought
about possible bleeding problems also but hoped that using smaller
dots with multiple channels might help in limiting it while still
allowing good d'max. If it is a problem, I'll try the limits thing
with multi channels and see if it works. I have a 2nd 1200 that will
be a good candidate for multi black experiments as one channel has a
couple of nozzle drop outs I can't get rid of, so would just use 5
channels of black.
I remember the thread you are referring to and may have some of it
filed somewhere on one of my systems. I tend to do that when there's
info that seems pertinent to my machines.

Best regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> Daune, here's what I strongly suspect, not what I know...
> Since I've been doing this so long I actually have some uncoated mono
> Somerset prints around here somewhere (and they were beautiful in a
> delicate sort of way) and have indeed played with dot size a lot, this
>  MAY be useful.
> I hope Roy answers though as QTR behavior and driver/printer behavior
> is going to be more his area then mine.
> I think your non variable printers are still selectable, in that
> different quality settings may use different dots sizes, just not more
> than one at once. Somewhere on this list long ago Roy explained that
> to me.
> Anyway, the 1200- if variable the dots size shifts with limits in the
> sense that a severe limit will not allow the printer to go up to the
> next size, sounds like you got that. However, if limited to the
> smallest dot, it will not get to the same density at 1440 as it will
> at 2880, because the small dot is too widely spaced. That's why at
> 1440 more sizes are necessary and available, and in my RIP, variable
> dot, and sizes other than the smallest, are not selectable at 2880.
> That's why I suggested 2880, if QTR works like my RIP, 2880 will allow
> only the smallest dot for the entire doc, and with all inks, and still
> allow max coverage if you want it.
> What I don't know at all is if any of that is relevant to your 1200.
> If you want to insure small dot only, and there is no dpi setting, or
> any other setting, that lets you do that, you're back to your limit
> question for Roy and I'm just blowing smoke.
> Also possibly of interest to you, I suspect achieving good density
> with no bleed will be one of your challenges. I think, at least with
> one ink, you could get slightly higher density before bleed with
> smaller dots than larger. However, with multiple inks, the reverse may
> be true...
> Yes, I've been attempting to turn the art of applying ink to paper
> into some sort of mysticism, I'm beginning to suspect it's a
> shockingly flawed concept for which I will pay dearly...
> Tyler
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus"
> <dlruckus@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tyler. My printers are a 3000,a 1200 and a 7000. The 1200 is
> > variable dot. The others are not. It's my understanding (perhaps
> > warped but all I have to work with;) )that the dot size shifts with
> > ink limits in QTR. What I was asking was if the dot size could be
> > fixed at the smallest for an entire document regardless of ink limits.
> > I think Roy told me that could happen only with reduced limits. Maybe
> > you are correct and at the highest res that is what happens anyway. I
> > seem to recall reading somewhere that it does in regard to the 2880dpi
> > machines and the 1800. I don't know if that is the case with my older
> > machines.
> >  It's only really of interest to me in relation to using uncoated
> > papers(yes,I know--but see my reference to understanding above) where
> > I was considering that perhaps Paul's experiments could be
> > extrapolated into a means of gaining hi(relatively) density shadows
> > while still achieving a bit more smoothness within a BO workflow.
> > Considering what Roy said, it looks as if that might work out anyhow
> > and I can just try using multiple channels of black overlaid for the
> > bottom, at full bore, while limiting a couple more for mids to get
> > minimum dots and so on.
> >  If anyone would know if that could work out, it would be you, as I
> > understand you flagellate yourself with Rip texts as a means of
> > approaching Nirvana in this life :).
> >  With a paper such as the old Somerset Velvet and using Eboni which
> > seems to me to be a bit stiffer than other inks I have any experience
> > with, the old 1200 makes pretty fair BO prints as it is for some
> > images. With just a shade more help they might be considerably better
> > than just pretty fair. That, of course, might be very arguable for an
> > old hand with large format like yourself.
> >
> > Regards
> > Duane
> >
> >
> >
> >




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