Digital BW, The Print

With all the talk about Dmax I am wondering is this dmax  actually measured by most users with a densiometer or is it perceptual Dmax as experienced by how the prints actually look framed, matterd , hung and viewed at a normal viewing distance. Normal being a few feet away as oposed to abnormal with someone's nose stuck to the glass and pixel peeping. 
   
  I have read a few articles by Caponigro and he mentions often about the amount of ink that is being put down by certain drivers and printers and how that affects Dmax. If a paper has let's say a Dmax of 3, (just for an arbitrary number) and your printer is not laying down enough ink to get the the 3 , then you will never experience the full potential of a high Dmax paper being your printer can't achieve it. Or will you?
   
  I have seen several posts where the poster is trying different papers and saying that they don't like the Dmax of certain paperss and then try another paper with a higher Dmax. It is seemingly almost like climbing the Dmax ladder with no satisfaction on any rung on the way up. Is it the printer, or the printer settngs as to the amount of ink being laid down, or is it actually the Dmax itself or is it perceptual and personal preferences
   
   I have also seen posts where one poster like the Dmax of paper A, another poster with the same  printer does not like it and has to use paper B to get the blacks they want. Should or should not both the same printers, using the same inks should acheive the same Dmax, or again..is it the individual characteristics of each printer and/or the personal preferences of the viewers. 
   
  I am reading this posts very closely because I am about to make a few hundred dollar purchase of papers, and being a lot of companies don't make sample packs of all their papers, I do not want to make mistakes and waste a lot of  money on papers that don't produce the results I want. 
   
  Any help or comment that will give me a better understanding of Dmax, be it measured or perceptual will be appreciated.
  thanks
  Frank


"The luckiest dogs are those with clipped tails....they're the ones who won't be chasing their own arses."
       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

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

Frank,

Dmax is measured with a densitometer or a spectrophotometer.  Glossy 
and luster papers have a higher Dmax, and matter papers have a lower 
Dmax.  Some of that is due to the fact that glossy papers tend to 
reflect back like a mirror, whereas matte papers scatter the light so 
less reflects back to reach the measuring device.  

Even though the Dmax of a matte paper may be lower, it may "appear" a 
lot darker than it is.  This is particularly true when framed and set 
behind glass.  For matte papers, a Dmax higher than 1.6 is usually 
good enough for a solid black look, but I prefer to get closer to 1.7 
if possible.  When you get below 1.6, blacks can start to look a 
little weak.  

Every paper its own potential Dmax, but this is based not only on the 
paper, but the inkset used.   And even then, you need to get the 
right amount of ink on the paper.  Too little ink will generally 
result in lower Dmax, but too much can also cause fogging, pooling, 
bleeding, and may actually cause the Dmax to drop too.  So, you need 
to get the ink limit set about right for the best blacks.  The dither 
pattern also has an influence.  Ideally, you want no white flecks 
visible under a loupe, and you want just enough ink to give you the 
best Dmax, but no more.  

For color profiles, there are also other considerations, and it is 
often a trade-off.  Sometimes the highest Dmax can reduce the color 
gamut a little, and sometimes maximum color gamut may slightly reduce 
Dmax.  Sometimes, you are lucky enough to get both.  

Like most people, I test each paper using a specific printer and 
inkset to find the best overall compromise.  For B&W, color gamut is 
a non-issue, so you can shoot for Dmax without worrying about 
lessening the color gamut slightly.  With QTR, you print a 21 step 
grayscale and find the step that gives you the very best black you 
can get.  It can be done by eye, but a densitometer or spectro is a 
better way to nail the best settings.  

I have some matte papers that measure a fairly low Dmax (around 1.6) 
but they look fantastic when printed.  I'd like a higher Dmax, but in 
the final analysis, we are after a print that looks great and shows a 
wide, smooth range of tones.  Surface texture, how the ink lays on 
the print, and other factors come into play.  Dmax is one guide to 
help us in the quest for better prints, but can't be taken as the 
only measure, IMO.

Hope that sheds a little light on the subject.  

Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Frank Jay 
<frankjay02@...> wrote:

>    
>   Any help or comment that will give me a better understanding of 
Dmax, be it measured or perceptual will be appreciated.
>   thanks
>   Frank

definitively. Thanks!

Gabriel



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Louis Dina" <lou@...> wrote:

>
> Frank,
> 
> Dmax is measured with a densitometer or a spectrophotometer.  Glossy 
> and luster papers have a higher Dmax, and matter papers have a lower 
> Dmax.  Some of that is due to the fact that glossy papers tend to 
> reflect back like a mirror, whereas matte papers scatter the light so 
> less reflects back to reach the measuring device.  
> 
> Even though the Dmax of a matte paper may be lower, it may "appear" a 
> lot darker than it is.  This is particularly true when framed and set 
> behind glass.  For matte papers, a Dmax higher than 1.6 is usually 
> good enough for a solid black look, but I prefer to get closer to 1.7 
> if possible.  When you get below 1.6, blacks can start to look a 
> little weak.  
> 
> Every paper its own potential Dmax, but this is based not only on the 
> paper, but the inkset used.   And even then, you need to get the 
> right amount of ink on the paper.  Too little ink will generally 
> result in lower Dmax, but too much can also cause fogging, pooling, 
> bleeding, and may actually cause the Dmax to drop too.  So, you need 
> to get the ink limit set about right for the best blacks.  The dither 
> pattern also has an influence.  Ideally, you want no white flecks 
> visible under a loupe, and you want just enough ink to give you the 
> best Dmax, but no more.  
> 
> For color profiles, there are also other considerations, and it is 
> often a trade-off.  Sometimes the highest Dmax can reduce the color 
> gamut a little, and sometimes maximum color gamut may slightly reduce 
> Dmax.  Sometimes, you are lucky enough to get both.  
> 
> Like most people, I test each paper using a specific printer and 
> inkset to find the best overall compromise.  For B&W, color gamut is 
> a non-issue, so you can shoot for Dmax without worrying about 
> lessening the color gamut slightly.  With QTR, you print a 21 step 
> grayscale and find the step that gives you the very best black you 
> can get.  It can be done by eye, but a densitometer or spectro is a 
> better way to nail the best settings.  
> 
> I have some matte papers that measure a fairly low Dmax (around 1.6) 
> but they look fantastic when printed.  I'd like a higher Dmax, but in 
> the final analysis, we are after a print that looks great and shows a 
> wide, smooth range of tones.  Surface texture, how the ink lays on 
> the print, and other factors come into play.  Dmax is one guide to 
> help us in the quest for better prints, but can't be taken as the 
> only measure, IMO.
> 
> Hope that sheds a little light on the subject.  
> 
> Lou
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Frank Jay 
> <frankjay02@> wrote:
> 
> >    
> >   Any help or comment that will give me a better understanding of 
> Dmax, be it measured or perceptual will be appreciated.
> >   thanks
> >   Frank
>

Hi Frank.
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Frank Jay
<frankjay02@...> wrote:
>
> With all the talk about Dmax I am wondering is this dmax  actually
measured by most users with a densiometer or is it perceptual Dmax as
experienced by how the prints actually look framed, matterd , hung and
viewed at a normal viewing distance. Normal being a few feet away as
oposed to abnormal with someone's nose stuck to the glass and pixel
peeping. 
>    

I think you will find that it is a broad sweep of both. However those
with actual instrument data usually post it. There have been threads
arguing the effectiveness of either method of observation. Some quite
heated. For instance, anyone who has ever observed a glossy print held
at the wrong angle to the light can tell you that it has a very poor
d'max from that perspective. On the other hand, measured with an
instrument that does not account for specularly reflected light, it
will read a terrific d'max and will look like it as well if viewed
from the correct(as regards lighting) perspective. There have been
many observations that framing and glazing reduce the apparent
difference between matt and gloss papers to the eye.


>   I have read a few articles by Caponigro and he mentions often
about the amount of ink that is being put down by certain drivers and
printers and how that affects Dmax. If a paper has let's say a Dmax of
3, (just for an arbitrary number) and your printer is not laying down
enough ink to get the the 3 , then you will never experience the full
potential of a high Dmax paper being your printer can't achieve it. Or
will you?
>    

It sounds reasonable but the devil is in the details. The Epson
drivers have different paper selections within the drivers and these
change the amount of ink laid down in many cases. These amount to
crude ink limit controls. Wrong choice selection gives more or less
ink than needed and that impacts apon d'max. If a full RIP is used one
can adjust the limits to optimize for the best the paper can do. That
might also mean using less ink than the machine is capable of because
it is possible in many cases to flood the paper with too much ink and
that can actually reduce d'max.

>
Is it the printer, or the printer settngs as to the amount of ink
being laid down, or is it actually the Dmax itself or is it perceptual
and personal preferences
>    

It's most likely all of the above;)


>    I have also seen posts where one poster like the Dmax of paper A,
another poster with the same  printer does not like it and has to use
paper B to get the blacks they want. Should or should not both the
same printers, using the same inks should acheive the same Dmax, or
again..is it the individual characteristics of each printer and/or the
personal preferences of the viewers. 
>    

Yes and yes. And workflow being used.

>   I am reading this posts very closely because I am about to make a
few hundred dollar purchase of papers, and being a lot of companies
don't make sample packs of all their papers, I do not want to make
mistakes and waste a lot of  money on papers that don't produce the
results I want. 
>    

IMHO. If you take the direct comparisons between a variety of papers
tested on the same machine by the same person using "whatever"
workflow, you can get a crude feel of how they "might" be ranked. Then
from the upper tier of your choices solicit more input from others and
search the group for any data relevant to any given paper and your
particular circumstances and machine. You will then have done the best
you can. From there on it's all your workflow and experience or lack
of it, and whatever helpful info you garnered on the way. Join the
crowd :)

Regards
Duane



> Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.

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

Frank, it's mostly a matter of the choice of ink type as it relates to
the choice of paper...that's assuming you've not fiddled so much with
the system that you've under-inked...which is possible, but not by
default.

Some of the "special" inks beloved by the pixel peepers among us
inherently produce lower Dmax than OEM inks on some of the
most-favored papers. However, there's not much argument for anything
other than OEM inks these days, at least with new Epson
printers...unless you're trying to use one for mass production, where
lithography would make more sense.

Dmax is a pixel-peeper obsession, having little or nothing to do with
the looks of the print, as even the pixel-peepers will admit, since
they assert Dmax can't be determined by eye.

Relax. There are more important issues than Dmax. 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Frank Jay
<frankjay02@...> wrote:
>
> With all the talk about Dmax I am wondering is this dmax  actually
measured by most users with a densiometer or is it perceptual Dmax as
experienced by how the prints actually look framed, matterd , hung and
viewed at a normal viewing distance. Normal being a few feet away as
oposed to abnormal with someone's nose stuck to the glass and pixel
peeping. 
>    
>   I have read a few articles by Caponigro and he mentions often
about the amount of ink that is being put down by certain drivers and
printers and how that affects Dmax. If a paper has let's say a Dmax of
3, (just for an arbitrary number) and your printer is not laying down
enough ink to get the the 3 , then you will never experience the full
potential of a high Dmax paper being your printer can't achieve it. Or
will you?
>    
>   I have seen several posts where the poster is trying different
papers and saying that they don't like the Dmax of certain paperss and
then try another paper with a higher Dmax. It is seemingly almost like
climbing the Dmax ladder with no satisfaction on any rung on the way
up. Is it the printer, or the printer settngs as to the amount of ink
being laid down, or is it actually the Dmax itself or is it perceptual
and personal preferences
>    
>    I have also seen posts where one poster like the Dmax of paper A,
another poster with the same  printer does not like it and has to use
paper B to get the blacks they want. Should or should not both the
same printers, using the same inks should acheive the same Dmax, or
again..is it the individual characteristics of each printer and/or the
personal preferences of the viewers. 
>    
>   I am reading this posts very closely because I am about to make a
few hundred dollar purchase of papers, and being a lot of companies
don't make sample packs of all their papers, I do not want to make
mistakes and waste a lot of  money on papers that don't produce the
results I want. 
>    
>   Any help or comment that will give me a better understanding of
Dmax, be it measured or perceptual will be appreciated.
>   thanks
>   Frank
> 
> 
> "The luckiest dogs are those with clipped tails....they're the ones
who won't be chasing their own arses."
>        
> ---------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.

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

Hi Jay,

Dmax is a measured spec. A good dmax number does not mean you want your ink layed down on it .

These threads can indicate that you should "TRY" them. There have been suggestions of which dealers sell individual sheets.

BTW, printers and scanners do not enjoy the same degree of mechanical precision at any particular point in time. Results will vary. But yes, a new printer with new inks should print the same image if the same worflow(processing) is used.

Selecting paper is a big issue for everyone. The more you try the better your judgement will be.

You said it yourself; "....., I do not want to make mistakes and waste
>a lot of  money on papers that don't produce the results I want".

No other can decide what you want. The "print" is too subjective. You have to print samples.

gar


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 1/11/08 at 11:24 AM Frank Jay wrote:

>With all the talk about Dmax I am wondering is this dmax  actually
>measured by most users with a densiometer or is it perceptual Dmax as
>experienced by how the prints actually look framed, matterd , hung and
>viewed at a normal viewing distance. Normal being a few feet away as
>oposed to abnormal with someone's nose stuck to the glass and pixel
>peeping. 
>   
>  I have read a few articles by Caponigro and he mentions often about the
>amount of ink that is being put down by certain drivers and printers and
>how that affects Dmax. If a paper has let's say a Dmax of 3, (just for an
>arbitrary number) and your printer is not laying down enough ink to get
>the the 3 , then you will never experience the full potential of a high
>Dmax paper being your printer can't achieve it. Or will you?
>   
>  I have seen several posts where the poster is trying different papers
>and saying that they don't like the Dmax of certain paperss and then try
>another paper with a higher Dmax. It is seemingly almost like climbing the
>Dmax ladder with no satisfaction on any rung on the way up. Is it the
>printer, or the printer settngs as to the amount of ink being laid down,
>or is it actually the Dmax itself or is it perceptual and personal
>preferences
>   
>   I have also seen posts where one poster like the Dmax of paper A,
>another poster with the same  printer does not like it and has to use
>paper B to get the blacks they want. Should or should not both the same
>printers, using the same inks should acheive the same Dmax, or again..is
>it the individual characteristics of each printer and/or the personal
>preferences of the viewers. 
>   
>  I am reading this posts very closely because I am about to make a few
>hundred dollar purchase of papers, and being a lot of companies don't make
>sample packs of all their papers, I do not want to make mistakes and waste
>a lot of  money on papers that don't produce the results I want. 
>   
>  Any help or comment that will give me a better understanding of Dmax, be
>it measured or perceptual will be appreciated.
>  thanks
>  Frank
>
>
>"The luckiest dogs are those with clipped tails....they're the ones who
>won't be chasing their own arses."
>       
>---------------------------------
>Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
<djon43@...> wrote:
... 
>... However, there's not much argument for anything
> other than OEM inks these days, at least with new Epson
> printers...

That's certainly not universally accepted and must be respectfully
considered an opinion.

Tyler

djon43 wrote:
> Some of the "special" inks beloved by the pixel peepers among us
> inherently produce lower Dmax than OEM inks on some of the
> most-favored papers. However, there's not much argument for anything other than OEM inks these days, at least with new Epson
> printers...unless you're trying to use one for mass production, where lithography would make more sense.
Pixel peepers? Sounds like someone has been into the LL Kool-Aid again.

The K3s raised Epson's B&W prints to acceptable, not to leader of the 
pack. Not by a long ways. If one is after the highest quality B&W prints 
one can make, one must still look to MIS and Cone. Epson's not playing 
in that league, at least not yet.
--
Bruce Watson

djon43 wrote:

> Some of the "special" inks beloved by the pixel peepers among us
> inherently produce lower Dmax than OEM inks on some of the
> most-favored papers. However, there's not much argument for anything
> other than OEM inks these days, at least with new Epson
> printers...unless you're trying to use one for mass production, where
> lithography would make more sense.

What I recall is that the Epson OEM inks performed best on 
the Epson branded papers and that MIS Eboni did better on 
the plain Hahnemuhle coatings. Right now I get better Dmax 
with the HP Vivera on Photorag than I got with MIS Eboni. 
1.67 versus 1.77 D. The Vivera is neutral while the other 
two were warm, one more than the other. The Vivera should 
deliver an even better Dmax on the HP version of Photorag. 
Lithography in mass production is offset printing, the 
quality isn't comparable to inkjet printing.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Ernst and Tyler and Bruce are all right.

I've seen a lot of these comparisons up close. The K6 and K7 Cone 
inks throught Studio Print or QTR provide a three dimensional quality 
to high end monochrome on matte rag papers that I've never seen on 
Epson K2 or K3 and it is easy to deal with. The dmax is slightly 
better also on matte papers, but it is the high end light value 
seperation that is the most obvious, along with perfectly consistent 
color at all times.

The MIS UT3D with a proper rip and a glop channel on glossy papers 
like Silver Rag can also be amazing, I've seen em, something that the 
Piezography inks are still struggling with, for the moment, the gloss 
fiber capability and amazing dmax that these papers give.

The HPZ3100 has the highest matte paper dmax numbers of them all. 
Witness Ernst's numbers there, wow. That is because it is adding some 
of their photo black into the mix, right out of the HP driver and not 
even requiring a rip. 

The Hp also provides the smootheset output on gloss type papers, 
without having to switch out any black inks, spray with toxins, 
etc... very neutral and easily hue alterable for warmer or cooler 
prints. It is the easiest and most versatle of them all and your next 
print could be color matte or glossy or whatever you need at that 
moment. 

The latest posts from Wilhelm do have Epson monochrome pigments rated 
extremely high for permanence and that is a good thing for us all. 
That was a surprise.

Also this trend to design paper coatings in association with various 
inksets is something to watch as well.

John 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
>
> djon43 wrote:
> 
> > Some of the "special" inks beloved by the pixel peepers among us
> > inherently produce lower Dmax than OEM inks on some of the
> > most-favored papers. However, there's not much argument for 
anything
> > other than OEM inks these days, at least with new Epson
> > printers...unless you're trying to use one for mass production, 
where

> > lithography would make more sense.
> 
> What I recall is that the Epson OEM inks performed best on 
> the Epson branded papers and that MIS Eboni did better on 
> the plain Hahnemuhle coatings. Right now I get better Dmax 
> with the HP Vivera on Photorag than I got with MIS Eboni. 
> 1.67 versus 1.77 D. The Vivera is neutral while the other 
> two were warm, one more than the other. The Vivera should 
> deliver an even better Dmax on the HP version of Photorag. 
> Lithography in mass production is offset printing, the 
> quality isn't comparable to inkjet printing.
> 
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
> 
> 
> |  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
> |     www.pigment-print.com    |
> |             ( unvollendet )            |
>

Ernst,

>... Right now I get better Dmax
> with the HP Vivera on Photorag than I got with MIS Eboni.
> 1.67 versus 1.77 D. ...

Is the HP black a 100% pigment ink?

Apparently the HP machines use 4 inks for the 100% black. These include
the light gray inks.   The use of all these inks at once is said to be
what is behind the high matte paper dmax.  This is certainly different
than my experience with pigment inks in Epson printers.  The only time
I've seen addition of an LK to the 100% spot raise the dmax is when the
K is not covering well.  If the MK is covering well, I almost always see
a decrease in dmax when a lower load ink is added to the mix.

I believe Wilhelm tests do not pick up a hybrid black, which my testing
indicates included the original Eposn 7500 Archival K.  So, a good
Wilhelm rating may not be a guarantee that the black ink is not a
hybrid.

I'm very curious how HP is getting the results they are.

Paul

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





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

pr_roark wrote:
> Ernst,
> 
>> ... Right now I get better Dmax
>> with the HP Vivera on Photorag than I got with MIS Eboni.
>> 1.67 versus 1.77 D. ...
> 
> Is the HP black a 100% pigment ink?

A carbon pigment. There must be another colorant in/on the 
pigment particle, in the encapsulation or the ink media as 
carbon itself isn't neutral. Could be another trick but in 
the end it behaves as a colorant and could shift test 
results. The inks test well in fade tests though both for 
color and B&W with light and ozone fading counted. The test 
results have been updated recently by Wilhelm.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/WIR_HP_Z3100_2007_12_28.pdf

another test result for color only:

http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/downloads/Haltbarkeit_Papiere-Cofo.pdf

There are some English articles on the same site.
Given the high resistance of all the colors to the tests I 
think they will have a good neutraliser on the grey inks too.

> 
> Apparently the HP machines use 4 inks for the 100% black. These include
> the light gray inks.   The use of all these inks at once is said to be
> what is behind the high matte paper dmax.  This is certainly different
> than my experience with pigment inks in Epson printers.  The only time
> I've seen addition of an LK to the 100% spot raise the dmax is when the
> K is not covering well.  If the MK is covering well, I almost always see
> a decrease in dmax when a lower load ink is added to the mix.

The quad set is only used in 2 media presets for matte 
papers, the other matte papers and the gloss depend on 3 
inks only. I have used two different ones (3 and 4 inks both 
MK) for Photorag and there was a Dmax difference, the quad 
was better. HP's gives different inkloads for the two too: 
42 versus 60 but call that ink limiting and now I doubt it 
is what we call ink limiting. I thought that the PK would be 
used in the quad to offer that higher Dmax but I'm no longer 
sure that that is the case since I observed that the Z3100 
PK doesn't deliver that much density on matte papers and 
could cooperate well as a second quad ink for that reason 
alone and not as an addition to boost the MK Dmax. The ink 
load term then corresponds better with an additional use of 
PK and and less MK in the lighter shadows. The Quad media 
presets are only used on heavier stock, there's for example 
a split between Photorag above 250 grams and below (HP uses 
other names in the media presets). The PK is squirted as a 4 
picoliter droplet and the MK as a 6 picoliter droplet, I 
guess the last together with the latest dithering/weaving 
methods is the reason for the high Dmax on matte papers. A 
real difference in inklimit on the black between the Kkk and 
Kkkk on top of that.  The Dmax is not higher than the K3 on 
some Epson matte papers as I have seen quotes of 1.77 D for 
that combination too. Whether they both end equal with real 
neutral black prints is something else. On plain HM Photorag 
I didn't get better Dmax with any other inkset before.

> 
> I believe Wilhelm tests do not pick up a hybrid black, which my testing
> indicates included the original Eposn 7500 Archival K.  So, a good
> Wilhelm rating may not be a guarantee that the black ink is not a
> hybrid.

True but as written both B&W and color test extremely well 
with Vivera pigment if compared to the other manufacturers. 
The Epson 7500 Archival (with a universal gloss/matte K) was 
the first Epson pigment ink for their own brand of printers 
with lots of metamerism problems and the black not high in 
density on matte papers. Since then there have been 2 new 
Epson pigment inks with changes on the black inks.  Epson 
went for straight carbon so one needs compensation colors to 
get neutral prints. HP introduced a neutral K range in the 
Vivera pigment inks for the B9180, Z2100, Z3100 and Z6100. 
If the test institutes use the plain B&W mode of the drivers 
and do not seek neutrality in the test targets then at least 
HP sticks its head more out than Epson.

Neutrality shifts during fading are checked by Image 
Engineering on some density numbers, in fact the majority of 
the criteria is related to neutrality, see:

http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/downloads/printer_test_white_paper1.0.pdf

I guess Wilhelm must have similar methods.
There's a note under the test criteria list where they 
explain that the densities measured may be altered in the 
future and the density loss may be changed from percentage 
to Delta E. The ISO is more than 10 years in draft now and I 
understand that this is one of the issues that keeps the 
discussion going. Another opinion on what to test and 
measure is what Mark McCormick voices here and testing will 
start soon as I understand it:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=26244617
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/digitalprintresearch.html

He has a list where the new Fiber papers are included, an 
omission in the latest testing results. Wilhelm has the 
Epson Exhibition Fiber also on the list to do though.

Wilhelm, McCormick and Wueller, all three are or were on the 
ISO committee. There may not be a universal testing method 
yet but with more labs around with some credibility  (WR, 
IE, RIT, Fogra, McC)  that use different methods it may even 
be better than one standard with some flaws

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Paul,


There was something I had seen about the Z3100 black being
the one that went wrong on test criteria but I couldn't
recall it immediately. The articles on IE's site may have it
but reading the original article in ColorFoto again I see
the colors are mentioned that fail first in the fade tests,
for the Z3100 12 ink on Photorag it was the Black in the
ozone test and the Blue in the light fading test. As the
ozone test has a shorter life expectancy for the paper/ink
combo the black should fail at 50 years in
unframed/unprotected display conditions. That failing could
just be a warming up of the print, no details given on
that.. Same for the B9180 8 ink Photorag test but the Blue
there can only have been a Cyan + Magenta. With Instant Dry
Gloss RC paper the Black + Cyan fail the ozone test but with
a lifetime of 70 years. The IE test is a bare bulb test so
both the light and the ozone test correspond best with
indoor unframed exposure conditions. Any protection,
lacquer, waxing or framing should reduce ozone fading and
shift the lifetime to the light fading resistance that is
around 120 years in IE's tests for Photorag and with the
Blue as the deciding factor. Wilhelm's ozone testing is less
severe and gives an ozone resistance of >100 years for all
papers but a similar to IE bare bulb lifetime of 118 years.
The Wilhelm B&W results however give a much higher lifetime
on bare bulb testing: >200 years but still >100 years for
ozone. I think Wilhelm's ozone test is only telling
something when there's something utterly wrong with the
paper/ink combo I guess and not all that fails then is
published either.  Or IE's ozone test is too harsh. The
Epson 2400 inks show more problems at least.

http://digitalkamera.image-engineering.de/downloads/Haltbarkeit_Papiere-Cofo.pdf
bottom of the pages.

Given the ultra high ozone resistance of the thermo
sublimation prints a wax protection is still an attractive
solution for matte prints. In the past we have discussed the
First sign material that had a wax or resin in the substrate
integrated and would pass a thermo fixing station to embed
the pigments in the wax.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

On 12/01/2008 Ernst Dinkla wrote:
> Right now I get better Dmax
> with the HP Vivera on Photorag than I got with MIS Eboni.
> 1.67 versus 1.77 D. 

I haven't measured it, but subjectively I get far better DMax from Vivera 
on HPR than I did with Piezography BW ICC inks or the earlier Piezotones, 
which were rather better (Black Black) than BW ICC (Portfolio Black).

I don't see any less smoothness in tones either - the HP is smoother than 
Piezotone BW ICC, which never seemed as smooth as the earlier Plugin 
driven system. That was extremely smooth and beat the HP some, but was 
prone to intermittent nozzle issues that spoiled prints even though nozzle 
checks were clear. The self-maintaining HP never clogs, unlike the Epson 
1160 & 1290 I gave away because of endless trouble. In 4 years well over 
half the prints I ever made were spoiled one way or another, at least 250 
sheets of A3 HPR and ink to print them, straight in the bin. The HP has 
reduced wastage to zero, aside from stupid mistakes by me.

> The Vivera is neutral while the other
> two were warm, one more than the other. 

Yup, it's almost too neutral compared to most of the darkroom papers I 
liked. It can look just a little clinical as a result, which is really my 
only problem with it aside from the bronzing and gloss differential on 
gloss and FB gloss papers when printing with black and gray only. But it 
is vastly more tolerant of papers than the Cone inks I used.

I liked Piezotone on HPR a lot, but alongside the Vivera prints, they look 
flat and lifeless. The BW ICC I never got on with at all, it was a forced 
'upgrade' after the Piezotone driver and inks were withdrawn. I'm told BW 
ICC worked better with 6 ink printers than it did with my 1160, which gave 
poor Dmax and visible dither in highlights.

I can't say anything about K6/K7 as I've not used them, but unless the 
black ink formulation has improved radically DMax is always going to be on 
the low side. That's fine if it suits your work and wants.

> The Vivera should
> deliver an even better Dmax on the HP version of Photorag. 

I have tried the HP version and can see no difference at all, except the 
slightly thinner 265g base perhaps has a little less OBA. The coating 
looks and appears to behave identically to HPR308. A densitometer might 
tell a different story, but if I can't see it, it's not really significant 
to me.

-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

I think that Wilhelm has come to the conclusion long ago (and he 
deservs credit for it) that unlike analogue silver media, inkjet prints 
of All Kinds need to be stored in one of three ways 1. behind 
glass/plexi 2.if not glass then sprayed with an acrylic sealer 3. dark 
storage out of the reach of ozone. That is just where the technology is 
now. To me it is not prudent to ignore thatin these tests, with any 
inkjet media on any substrate unless permanence is not a concern. The 
German tests that Ernst quotes are not following that recomendation but 
do genearlly support Wilhelm's "bare bulb" results. Think about it the 
degree and intensity of ozone in the environment is so variable from 
location to location that it is almost impossible to account for in 
universal way.

Dmax

Could it be said that any black and white print that reflects a dmax of 
over say 1.69 or so on Photorag has something more than pure pigment in 
it? My dmax with Piezography K7 is 1.68 with an amazingly smooth 
result. I wouldn't consider it fair to compare that with the older 
generation quads run run out of an icc profile situation on a small 
printer. Studio Print and the Portfolio Black are a different story. We 
expect each generation to be an improvement. That is the whole point.

John




> The Wilhelm B&W results however give a much higher lifetime
> on bare bulb testing: >200 years but still >100 years for
> ozone. I think Wilhelm's ozone test is only telling
> something when there's something utterly wrong with the
> paper/ink combo I guess and not all that fails then is
> published either.  Or IE's ozone test is too harsh. The
> Epson 2400 inks show more problems at least.
> 
> http://digitalkamera.image-
engineering.de/downloads/Haltbarkeit_Papiere-Cofo.pdf
> bottom of the pages.
>

Hi Ernst,

Thanks for the detailed information.  It'll take some time to digest 
the information in those links.

You mentioned the dither as a variable, and I've been wondering if 
that is another stake in the piezo heart.  With the semiconductor 
type fabrication, these thermal heads are able to economically have 
an enormous number of nozzles.  Among other things, this may allow 
them to have more advanced dithering that avoids the overloading when 
additional inks are added to the 100% black patch.

Then again, I think there is a lot of advanced chemistry that is 
going into these pigments.  Carbon has the history, but my brother, 
who did his Ph.D. thesis on the vaunted carbon-carbon double bond, 
did not think carbon alone would be the ultimate inkjet black 
pigment.  I think we'll see more neutral, blacker, and possibly even 
more lightfast black pigments in the future.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hi All:

I have great respect for the skill and experience of many of the
contributors on this thread, and have no desire to start anything but
an amicable exchange, but my recent experience with the K7 inks is
contrary to the accepted wisdom.

I've been printing for some years on an Epson 4000 using the OEM inks
and ImagePrint.  I print primarily on Premier Hot Press 325, because I
love its apparent sharpness, but I also regularly use HPR and Condor
BW.  In IP, I use a tone setting that produces very cold dark tones
and slightly less cold highlights.

I recently installed the Cone K7 inkset and QTR, and was extremely
disappointed. 

First, the inks are brown.  Even on the coldest papers - in my tests,
Condor BW was coldest - the inks were still brown, although the
overall impression was cool.  On HPR, however, and on similar papers,
there was simply no getting around the fact of brown.  (And I don't
like brown.)

Second, the dMax was simply not there.  No matter which paper I tried
- including HPR, Condor BW, Premier HotPress, Entrada, Innova
FibaPrint, Innova Smooth Cotton, White Velvet and others - the blacks
on my IP/OEM/HotPress prints were, at least perceptually, way way
better.  (I didn't bother to measure because it wasn't close, but I
made a bunch of small test prints for comparison, so if you want to
see for yourself, send me an email offline.)

My conclusion from all of this is simply that different styles of
pictures require different styles of printing.  I've seen many
pictures that would look great in K7 - to me, it's telling that the
most popular version is the Sepia tone - but mine do not.

(To be as fair as possible, I concede that the K7 tonal transitions
were indeed smoother; some skies, for example, were positively creamy.
 But they weren't that much smoother, and the vaunted improvements in
shadow and highlight details are simply not there.)

Anyway, so it goes.

Cheers.

Chuck


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

>
> Hi Ernst,
> 
> Thanks for the detailed information.  It'll take some time to digest 
> the information in those links.
> 
> You mentioned the dither as a variable, and I've been wondering if 
> that is another stake in the piezo heart.  With the semiconductor 
> type fabrication, these thermal heads are able to economically have 
> an enormous number of nozzles.  Among other things, this may allow 
> them to have more advanced dithering that avoids the overloading when 
> additional inks are added to the 100% black patch.
> 
> Then again, I think there is a lot of advanced chemistry that is 
> going into these pigments.  Carbon has the history, but my brother, 
> who did his Ph.D. thesis on the vaunted carbon-carbon double bond, 
> did not think carbon alone would be the ultimate inkjet black 
> pigment.  I think we'll see more neutral, blacker, and possibly even 
> more lightfast black pigments in the future.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>