Digital BW, The Print

I am early in the journey of learning the ins and outs of getting a 
decent BW print from my 2200. At this stage I want to stick with this 
printer and get the best out of it and use it to experiment with 
before moving on to the latest and greatest. I am currently using the 
Epson inks and have experimented a little with QTR. 

The two big issues I want to resolve initially are those of getting a 
BW print without color cast and also getting a print that may 
initially be without color cast but as soon as it is viewed under a 
different light source it suddenly looks bright pink (or whatever). I 
understand that this is referred to as metamerism?

I have done lots of web searching and have purchased Amadou's book. I 
have narrowed down next steps to the following options:

1. Stay with Epson inks and use QTR. Will this solve my problems by 
eliminating the use of color pigments by the printer?

2. If not then move away from Epson inks to a dedicated BW inkset. I 
have narrowed the choices of ink down to three:
  a. UT-3D from MIS
  b. UT7 from MIS
  c. K7 from Piezography

My questions are:

  a. How far will QTR go to solving my two issues in combination with 
the Epson inks.

  b. If I need to move away from Epson inks, is there a clear 
recommendation from the three inks mentioned above? Alternatively, is 
there a better inkset available that I have not found yet?  

All comments are appreciated. If these questions are naive and/or 
simplistic then please point this out and the reasons why they are 
naive or simplistic. But please be gentle - I am new at this!

Regards

Alistair

Hi Alistair,

>I am early in the journey of learning the ins and outs of 
>getting a decent BW print from my 2200...

> I am currently using the 
> Epson inks and have experimented a little with QTR. 

>The two big issues I want to resolve initially are those 
> of getting a BW print without color cast and also 
> getting a print that may initially be without color cast
> but as soon as it is viewed under a 
> different light source it suddenly looks bright pink (or whatever).
> I understand that this is referred to as metamerism?

Yes.

>... I have narrowed down next steps to the following options:

> 1. Stay with Epson inks and use QTR. Will this solve my 
> problems by eliminating the use of color pigments by the printer?

With QTR you'll use the K, LK, LM and LC.  This will give you a minimum
color for a neutral print other than the pure Eboni MK 1800 prints I'm now
doing.  To keep the LK dots to a minimum, use 2880.  It may well be smooth
enough for you then.

>2. If not then move away from Epson inks to a dedicated BW inkset.

You can do the above with MIS inks also.

> I have narrowed the choices of ink down to three:
>a. UT-3D from MIS
>b. UT7 from MIS
>c. K7 from Piezography

>My questions are:

>a. How far will QTR go to solving my two issues in combination 
> with the Epson inks.

With proper profiles a 2200 with the least amount of LC and LM will be
essentially equal to the blended inkset options with respect to the issues
you mentioned above.  The blended ones might be a bit smoother, but you may
not see the difference in actual prints.

>b. If I need to move away from Epson inks, is there a clear 
>recommendation from the three inks mentioned above? Alternatively, is 
>there a better inkset available that I have not found yet? 

All of the inksets mentioned can make excellent prints.

The ability to make glossy prints differs among the inksets.  With the OEM
color setup you'll need to change the black inks.  With the 3D and UT7,
matte and glossy can be printed without changing ink. The K7 is still matte
paper only, I believe.

Good luck with your system.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

In a message dated 7/12/2007 10:00:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
owens@... writes:

I am  early in the journey of learning the ins and outs of getting a 
decent BW  print from my 2200. At this stage I want to stick with this 
printer and  get the best out of it and use it to experiment with 
before moving on to  the latest and greatest. I am currently using the 
Epson inks and have  experimented a little with QTR. 



There are a couple of additional options. ImagePrint with your 2200 will  
give you excellent B/W prints, and if you print for neutral gray rather than  
toned prints and print on Fine Art matte papers, I think you will be more than  
satisfied. I use IP on my 7600's and 4800's as well as a 4000. This is with  
Epson UC and K 3 inksets.
Having said that, I used Mediastreet G Quad black inks on my 2200 and I am  
very happy with the toning I am able to get. I'm even thinking of switching to  
those inks on one of my 4000's. I use NK 7 inks on yet another 4000. Why so 
many  printers and inksets? Because the image demands whatever treatment works 
best  for that particular image. (In my wet darkroom work, I used all manner 
of light  sources, developer formula and papers to alter the look and feel of 
my  prints.)
See _Black &  White Prints by Richard Wolfson_ 
(http://www.richardwolfson.com/printmaking.php)  for an example. 
If you are going to print on glossy papers with GQ inks, you will need to  
lift the final rollers on your 2200 because those inks dry too slowly.  
MediaStreet will supply you with the lifters.
 
HTH
 
Richard (Brooklyn)



************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


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

Paul and Richard, thank you very much for your responses. Thank you 
also Myron for your email response. Your time is appreciated.

Paul, I am finding smoothness is indeed an issue with the QTR/Epson 
UC combo. If I use 1440, images look a little on the grainy side and 
transitions block up a little and even look a little posterized. In 
bright daylight I can see banding in the midtones with my naked eye. 
I am printing off an 8 bit TIFF file. Presumably printing off a 16 
bit file would make no difference. Also shadows are a bit dark and I 
have tried taking -5 on the ink limit slider which helps some.

When I use 2880 things get darker and grittier and shadows over-ink 
to the point of the rollers picking up ink before it can dry. I have 
tried -10 ink limit and this helps but looks like I will need to 
limit it further. 

I am using the PK carttidge and Ilford Smooth Pearl with some curves 
I got from the kind folk at the QTR Yahoo group. I like the feel and 
look of this paper but maybe I need to go back to matt for BW. 

Judging by your comments I should be able to get acceptable results 
from the QTR/EPson UC combo so I would like to persist until I am 
getting the best out of this combo.

Richard, I would love to buy Imageprint but it is a little too far 
out of the budget at the moment.

>... I am finding smoothness is indeed an issue with the 
>QTR/Epson UC combo. If I use 1440, images look a little 
>on the grainy side ...

>When I use 2880 things get darker and grittier and 
>shadows over-ink to the point of the rollers picking 
>up ink before it can dry...

There are reasons I put the LLK in my 2200 setup.  It will take care of the
smoothness issues and probably help the banding issue.  Other problems you
mention could be profile problems.

> I am using the PK cartridge and Ilford Smooth Pearl ...
> I like the feel and look of this paper but maybe I 
> need to go back to matt for BW. 

The 4K inkset I describe at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/4K+.pdf can
print both matte and glossy without ink changes, as can the UT-3D, described
at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/UT-3D_Readme.pdf.  Some profiles are
posted for the 3D inkset.  That one can also be profiled, at least for
neutral matte prints, with the ColorVision PFP software.

>Judging by your comments I should be able to get acceptable 
>results from the QTR/EPson UC combo so I would like to persist 
>until I am getting the best out of this combo.

I'd stick with 2880 and make your own profiles with QTR.  Try running a
calibration print (with slider at 100) and setting the default ink limit at
the point that gives the best damx.  Leave the ink limit box for the LK
blank.  Fill in the density box in the usual manner.  Do this for both the
PK and MK -- in different profiles.  If you see blotchiness in the midtones,
then the LK limit will need to be lowered.  Whether you'll be able to avoid
the banding with the 2200 may depend on the individual printer and how well
made it is.  You might be able to reduce banding by having more ink overlap,
but do this via manually pulling the black curves out further, with no LK
going into the 100% black end.  You can convert the curves into a list of
points by just noting the coordinates at the curve generated when you push
the Create Curve button on the Curve Creator.  Look for bulges in a curve
due to the smoothing algorithm.  You may need to pin down the K curve with a
series of points at 0.  For the best glossy dmax, try putting some full
strength cyan in at 100% and the deep shadows.

Good luck.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I don't have that grainy issue with my 2200 @ 1440 but I do find 2880
frequently over-inking ...does that suggest something about my
settings/curves? 

...I don't find LLK carts (UT 3D) for 2200 on the MIS site...just
bulk...is LLK now available as a cart or must I commit and fill my own? 

..if LLK was used in the LK position in an otherwise all UT-7 inkset,
what would I likely have to do to adjust?  

...are the OTHER inks in UT3D the same as UT-7 inks ?

John


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> >... I am finding smoothness is indeed an issue with the 
> >QTR/Epson UC combo. If I use 1440, images look a little 
> >on the grainy side ...
> 
> >When I use 2880 things get darker and grittier and 
> >shadows over-ink to the point of the rollers picking 
> >up ink before it can dry...
> 
> There are reasons I put the LLK in my 2200 setup.  It will take care
of the
> smoothness issues and probably help the banding issue.  Other
problems you
> mention could be profile problems.
> 
> > I am using the PK cartridge and Ilford Smooth Pearl ...
> > I like the feel and look of this paper but maybe I 
> > need to go back to matt for BW. 
> 
> The 4K inkset I describe at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/4K+.pdf can
> print both matte and glossy without ink changes, as can the UT-3D,
described
> at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/UT-3D_Readme.pdf.  Some profiles are
> posted for the 3D inkset.  That one can also be profiled, at least for
> neutral matte prints, with the ColorVision PFP software.
> 
> >Judging by your comments I should be able to get acceptable 
> >results from the QTR/EPson UC combo so I would like to persist 
> >until I am getting the best out of this combo.
> 
> I'd stick with 2880 and make your own profiles with QTR.  Try running a
> calibration print (with slider at 100) and setting the default ink
limit at
> the point that gives the best damx.  Leave the ink limit box for the LK
> blank.  Fill in the density box in the usual manner.  Do this for
both the
> PK and MK -- in different profiles.  If you see blotchiness in the
midtones,
> then the LK limit will need to be lowered.  Whether you'll be able
to avoid
> the banding with the 2200 may depend on the individual printer and
how well
> made it is.  You might be able to reduce banding by having more ink
overlap,
> but do this via manually pulling the black curves out further, with
no LK
> going into the 100% black end.  You can convert the curves into a
list of
> points by just noting the coordinates at the curve generated when
you push
> the Create Curve button on the Curve Creator.  Look for bulges in a
curve
> due to the smoothing algorithm.  You may need to pin down the K
curve with a

> series of points at 0.  For the best glossy dmax, try putting some full
> strength cyan in at 100% and the deep shadows.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Hi John,

>I don't have that grainy issue with my 2200 @ 1440 but 
>I do find 2880 frequently over-inking ...
>does that suggest something about my settings/curves?

With the Epson driver, I always found 1440 with high speed off was good
enough.  With QTR, however, I generally use 2880 to get a better black and
often better smoothness.  With QTR, I believe it usually takes a different
profile for 2880 v. 1440.

>...I don't find LLK carts (UT 3D) for 2200 on the MIS site...

The 2200 does not use LLK in the UT7 or UT-3D setups.  I use standard LLK in
the non-blended 4K setup I was using for a while, but that one also had the
LK in it, as well as Pk and Mk.  It's a totally different inkset than the
3D.  

Note that with dedicated B&W inksets when I'm using the Epson driver I find
the LK and LLK spots a detriment to the inkset.  Of course, with a rip they
simply give you some extra spots to put whatever you might want.  However,
with a dedicated B&W inkset the LK and LLK cross-overs just get in the way
of controlling the inkset.  The 3D inkset works best of hextone printers,
fairly well on k2 printers, and less well on k3 printers.  The more
cross-overs the Epson driver has, the more I'm inclined to use QTR or
IJC/OPM.

>...if LLK was used in the LK position in an otherwise all UT-7 
> inkset, what would I likely have to do to adjust?

It depends on the driver.  With the Epson driver, you'd probably have a very
difficult time dealing with black substitution cross-overs. The Epson driver
is assuming an LK, not an LLK.  With a rip you could work around this issue.
Frankly, I'm not sure I'd use either the UT7 or 3D LKs if I were using a
rip.  These inks were just passive place holders in these inksets.  Being
out of control, the UT7 and UT-3D LKs (and LLK on the 3D) were mostly
designed to do the least damage.  They are slightly neutralized in an
attempt to keep the shadow tones relatively as they are substituted in by
the driver.
 
>...are the OTHER inks in UT3D the same as UT-7 inks?

The UT7 and UT-3D midtone carbons -- C and LC -- as well as the Eboni and PK
are the same.  The other ink positions are different, including the LKs.

Hope this helps.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> >... I am finding smoothness is indeed an issue with the 
> >QTR/Epson UC combo. If I use 1440, images look a little 
> >on the grainy side ...
> 
> >When I use 2880 things get darker and grittier and 
> >shadows over-ink to the point of the rollers picking 
> >up ink before it can dry...
> 
> There are reasons I put the LLK in my 2200 setup. It will take care
of the
> smoothness issues and probably help the banding issue. Other
problems you
> mention could be profile problems.
> 
> > I am using the PK cartridge and Ilford Smooth Pearl ...
> > I like the feel and look of this paper but maybe I 
> > need to go back to matt for BW. 
> 
> The 4K inkset I describe at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/4K+.pdf can
> print both matte and glossy without ink changes, as can the UT-3D,
described
> at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/UT-3D_Readme.pdf. Some profiles are
> posted for the 3D inkset. That one can also be profiled, at least for
> neutral matte prints, with the ColorVision PFP software.
> 
> >Judging by your comments I should be able to get acceptable 
> >results from the QTR/EPson UC combo so I would like to persist 
> >until I am getting the best out of this combo.
> 
> I'd stick with 2880 and make your own profiles with QTR. Try running a
> calibration print (with slider at 100) and setting the default ink
limit at
> the point that gives the best damx. Leave the ink limit box for the LK
> blank. Fill in the density box in the usual manner. Do this for
both the
> PK and MK -- in different profiles. If you see blotchiness in the
midtones,
> then the LK limit will need to be lowered. Whether you'll be able
to avoid
> the banding with the 2200 may depend on the individual printer and
how well
> made it is. You might be able to reduce banding by having more ink
overlap,
> but do this via manually pulling the black curves out further, with
no LK
> going into the 100% black end. You can convert the curves into a
list of
> points by just noting the coordinates at the curve generated when
you push
> the Create Curve button on the Curve Creator. Look for bulges in a
curve
> due to the smoothing algorithm. You may need to pin down the K
curve with a

> series of points at 0. For the best glossy dmax, try putting some full
> strength cyan in at 100% and the deep shadows.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Paul, thanks ...

...you've supported my own 2200 seat-of-pants, rock & roll findings :-)

John Kelly
 
> >I don't have that grainy issue with my 2200 @ 1440 but 
> >I do find 2880 frequently over-inking ...
> >does that suggest something about my settings/curves?
> 
> With the Epson driver, I always found 1440 with high speed off was
good enough.  

Yes.... 

>With QTR, however, I generally use 2880 to get a better black and
> often better smoothness.  

For me 2880 never seems contributes importantly Vs 1440 but the
difference can be seen with a loupe on highest resolution paper (so
far that seems to be Moab's alpha cellulose) and certain files. Maybe
this has to do with digicam files Vs film & grain scans.

I'm happy with QTR/Epson OEM and Epson/UT7 but have given up on QTR/UT7,

> Note that with dedicated B&W inksets when I'm using the Epson driver
I find the LK and LLK spots a detriment to the inkset.   
> 

Yes, that answered my biggest question.
_____________

> Frankly, I'm not sure I'd use either the UT7 or 3D LKs if I were
using a rip.  

YES... UT7/QTR seems less effective than OEM/QTR. Teats on a bull at
best. QTR with the Epson pigments can be so wonderful that UT7 is for
me only a flavor, not "the answer." With scans of B&W film that show
the real grain, both are FAR better than Black Only, however Black
Only with Eboni makes a lot of sense with digicam files, especially
for prints large enough that the dots aren't noticed. 

Thanks Paul...John Kelly