Digital BW, The Print

I've been experimenting with different ways to profile the C6 inkset in
the 2200.  The QTR rip appears to be just a bit better than the Epson
driver, but they are so close I don't think even with a magnifier anyone
will notice the difference.

With the Epson driver the LK cross-over can cause problems with curves
unless the curves converge evenly as they approach 100%.  I've been
using my Grand Canyon shot -- http://paulroark.com/Grand_Cyn.html
<http://paulroark.com/Grand_Cyn.html>  -- as the test print  Even when
the 21-step ramp looks perfect, most of the Photoshop curves I tried put
artifacts in the sky.  The artifacts look like haze waves and are caused
by the slope of the ramp being un-even.  So, it's a very tough image to
print well.  I'm quite sure the LK cross-over is what causes the
problem, and having the color curves converge very evenly solved the
problem.

While partitioned curves made in Photoshop and embedded in an ICC with
Create ICC-RGB make among the best prints, a very simple grayscale ICC
is visually equal and essentially perfect.  That is, I just print a
21-step test file with the driver at 2880 and Color Controls gamma 2.2. 
I read that 21-step file and make an ICC with Create-ICC (no curves). 
Then print the test print with that grayscale ICC, and the image is
visually -- even with a magnifying hood -- as good as the best I've
seen.  So, easy works for me.

1440 will be visually OK for most, but upon very close inspection, I can
see the difference between it and 2880.

Since I'll actually be using the 2200 for my printing, I'll no doubt
have a number of profiles for it with time.

Next up is the C88+.  Epson has them in stock, so I bought one for my
daughter who is going away to college and will need a printer.  While
I'll set that up with a SuperJet (eBay) CIS and color for her, before
that I'll see if Carbon-6 works for that printer.

Paul

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





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

Hi Paul,

You mention using LK as part of your Carbon-6 setup here, but I didn't
see LK mentioned in your Carbon-6 PDF. Are you referring to something
different? 

On a related note, I was wondering why only 6 position in Carbon-6.
Would adding a 7th position not make any practical difference on a
7-position printer like a 7600? I was curious whether diluting Y 1 to
1 with base would make prints any smoother - and using this dilution
as #7.

Thanks,

Mark   

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

>
> 
> I've been experimenting with different ways to profile the C6 inkset in
> the 2200.  The QTR rip appears to be just a bit better than the Epson
> driver, but they are so close I don't think even with a magnifier anyone
> will notice the difference.
> 
> With the Epson driver the LK cross-over can cause problems with curves
> unless the curves converge evenly as they approach 100%.  I've been
> using my Grand Canyon shot -- http://paulroark.com/Grand_Cyn.html
> <http://paulroark.com/Grand_Cyn.html>  -- as the test print  Even when
> the 21-step ramp looks perfect, most of the Photoshop curves I tried put
> artifacts in the sky.  The artifacts look like haze waves and are caused
> by the slope of the ramp being un-even.  So, it's a very tough image to
> print well.  I'm quite sure the LK cross-over is what causes the
> problem, and having the color curves converge very evenly solved the
> problem.
> 
> While partitioned curves made in Photoshop and embedded in an ICC with
> Create ICC-RGB make among the best prints, a very simple grayscale ICC
> is visually equal and essentially perfect.  That is, I just print a
> 21-step test file with the driver at 2880 and Color Controls gamma 2.2. 
> I read that 21-step file and make an ICC with Create-ICC (no curves). 
> Then print the test print with that grayscale ICC, and the image is
> visually -- even with a magnifying hood -- as good as the best I've
> seen.  So, easy works for me.
> 
> 1440 will be visually OK for most, but upon very close inspection, I can
> see the difference between it and 2880.
> 
> Since I'll actually be using the 2200 for my printing, I'll no doubt
> have a number of profiles for it with time.
> 
> Next up is the C88+.  Epson has them in stock, so I bought one for my
> daughter who is going away to college and will need a printer.  While
> I'll set that up with a SuperJet (eBay) CIS and color for her, before
> that I'll see if Carbon-6 works for that printer.
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.PaulRoark.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi Mark,
 
> You mention using LK as part of your Carbon-6 setup here, 
> but I didn't see LK mentioned in your Carbon-6 PDF. 

At page 3 of http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf in the 
Mixing Ratios section I note that the M position ink (16.7% Eboni) is 
also used for the LK position.  I probably ought to make it more 
clear.  

> On a related note, I was wondering why only 6 position in Carbon-6.
> Would adding a 7th position not make any practical difference on a
> 7-position printer like a 7600? 

At least if one is using the Epson driver, the k2 printers clearly 
must have all 7 positions appropriately filled.  The 16.7% M position 
ink is the appropriate density to work well with the Epson driver.  I 
don't think yet another density would have any impact on smoothness.  

For simplicity, I've limited my write-ups to one set of dilutions -- 
the same for the Epson driver and QTR.  That way one can try each 
workflow and see what works best.  I, in fact, find myself using the 
Epson driver with an ICC made with Create ICC-RGB.  But, if one wants 
to use QTR exclusively, there is obviously more flexibility as to 
what the LK position is used for.

> I was curious whether diluting Y 1 to 1 with base would 
> make prints any smoother - and using this dilution as #7.

I don't think you'd see any difference even with a loupe.  The 2.1% Y 
mix in a modern printer is extremely smooth.  Then again, give it a 
try and let us know.  If you're using QTR or other rip, it's easy 
enough to try it.


Paul  
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks, Paul. I was looking at the 3-11-08 version of the PDF, which
doesn't mention LK. I should have checked for a later version!

Mark 

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

>
> Hi Mark,
>  
> > You mention using LK as part of your Carbon-6 setup here, 
> > but I didn't see LK mentioned in your Carbon-6 PDF. 
> 
> At page 3 of http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf in the 
> Mixing Ratios section I note that the M position ink (16.7% Eboni) is 
> also used for the LK position.  I probably ought to make it more 
> clear.  
> 
> > On a related note, I was wondering why only 6 position in Carbon-6.
> > Would adding a 7th position not make any practical difference on a
> > 7-position printer like a 7600? 
> 
> At least if one is using the Epson driver, the k2 printers clearly 
> must have all 7 positions appropriately filled.  The 16.7% M position 
> ink is the appropriate density to work well with the Epson driver.  I 
> don't think yet another density would have any impact on smoothness.  
> 
> For simplicity, I've limited my write-ups to one set of dilutions -- 
> the same for the Epson driver and QTR.  That way one can try each 
> workflow and see what works best.  I, in fact, find myself using the 
> Epson driver with an ICC made with Create ICC-RGB.  But, if one wants 
> to use QTR exclusively, there is obviously more flexibility as to 
> what the LK position is used for.
> 
> > I was curious whether diluting Y 1 to 1 with base would 
> > make prints any smoother - and using this dilution as #7.
> 
> I don't think you'd see any difference even with a loupe.  The 2.1% Y 
> mix in a modern printer is extremely smooth.  Then again, give it a 
> try and let us know.  If you're using QTR or other rip, it's easy 
> enough to try it.
> 
> 
> Paul  
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Hi, Paul.
 I've been following your C88+ and 1400 discussions and realize I 
have only a uncluttered cabinet top of 23 inches for a CIS and 
printer which unfortunately rules out the 1400 or a larger printer, 
that is of course without a great deal of moving stuff around.  

Looks like the C88+ is about 19 inches wide so this leaves just 4 
inches for a CIS. I assume either the MIS or superjetUSA CIS will fit 
in this space. So, if you would be so kind:

After using both CIS's which one would you recommend for ease of 
setting up for B&W and also which ink would you recommend. 

I have printed on a 4800 a few prints on Epson Enhanced Matte now 
called Ultra Premium and like the way it looks (although not quite 
the look of RC paper which I do prefer). And have recently seen 
several glossy prints that were printed on a 2200 and really like the 
way they look.

My system is a Windows Vista and am about to get Photoshop and 
colorimeter to calibrate the monitor.

Thanks in advance for you help.     



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
>
> 
> I've been experimenting with different ways to profile the C6 
inkset in
> the 2200.  The QTR rip appears to be just a bit better than the 
Epson
> driver, but they are so close I don't think even with a magnifier 
anyone
> will notice the difference.
> 
> With the Epson driver the LK cross-over can cause problems with 
curves
> unless the curves converge evenly as they approach 100%.  I've been
> using my Grand Canyon shot -- http://paulroark.com/Grand_Cyn.html
> <http://paulroark.com/Grand_Cyn.html>  -- as the test print  Even 
when
> the 21-step ramp looks perfect, most of the Photoshop curves I 
tried put
> artifacts in the sky.  The artifacts look like haze waves and are 
caused
> by the slope of the ramp being un-even.  So, it's a very tough 
image to
> print well.  I'm quite sure the LK cross-over is what causes the
> problem, and having the color curves converge very evenly solved the
> problem.
> 
> While partitioned curves made in Photoshop and embedded in an ICC 
with
> Create ICC-RGB make among the best prints, a very simple grayscale 
ICC
> is visually equal and essentially perfect.  That is, I just print a
> 21-step test file with the driver at 2880 and Color Controls gamma 
2.2. 
> I read that 21-step file and make an ICC with Create-ICC (no 
curves). 
> Then print the test print with that grayscale ICC, and the image is
> visually -- even with a magnifying hood -- as good as the best I've
> seen.  So, easy works for me.
> 
> 1440 will be visually OK for most, but upon very close inspection, 
I can
> see the difference between it and 2880.
> 
> Since I'll actually be using the 2200 for my printing, I'll no doubt
> have a number of profiles for it with time.
> 
> Next up is the C88+.  Epson has them in stock, so I bought one for 
my
> daughter who is going away to college and will need a printer.  
While
> I'll set that up with a SuperJet (eBay) CIS and color for her, 
before

> that I'll see if Carbon-6 works for that printer.
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.PaulRoark.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Sammy Bar wrote:
>...I have only a uncluttered cabinet top of 23 inches for 
> a CIS and printer which unfortunately rules out the 1400 ...

> Looks like the C88+ is about 19 inches wide ... 
> I assume either the MIS or superjetUSA CIS will fit 
> in this space. ...
> 
> After using both CIS's which one would you recommend for ease of 
> setting up for B&W and also which ink would you recommend. 

I have not used an MIS CFS for many years.  So, I'm speculating 
here.  But, my optinion is that both will work fine for you.  I 
suspect the MIS CFS has better instructions as to how one sets up the 
system.  They may even make a pre-loaded one with the inkset you end 
up with.

With the SuperJet unit, I load them by filling the tanks and then 
pulling the air out of the carts and lines with a syringe and bottom 
fill adapter (modified as shown here: http://www.paulroark.com/BW-
Info/Mod_Bot_Fill.jpg), with the cart held up side down so that the 
air is removed.

This is so easy, I don't think I'd bother with a vacuum system again.

> I have printed on a 4800 a few prints on Epson Enhanced Matte now 
> called Ultra Premium and like the way it looks (although not quite 
> the look of RC paper which I do prefer). And have recently seen 
> several glossy prints that were printed on a 2200 and really 
> like the way they look.

If you like glossy prints, Carbon-6 is not a good choice.  It is for 
matte paper only.

With a CIS/CFS and a C88, you probably will neet to select either 
glossy or matte, because changin black inks from MK to PK is not 
feasible.

For the C88 and glossy printing, you might want to consider the MIS 
EZ inkset. See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/C86-EZ-UT-Readme.htm

Paul  
www.PaulRoark.com

To sidetrack a bit from this thread, I've read the C88+ Carbon 6 PDF
and I don't understand the ink mixing procedure.

"the single 13.5% mix is very smooth"... does this mean this workflow
uses only two black inks: 100% Eboni and 13.5% Eboni (mixed in the C6
base) ?

It appears that the EZ inksets use 100% black and 3 dilutions. Or
maybe I'm wrong.

So how many ink dilutions the C88+ C6 workflow uses? And in what
printer positions (YMCK) ?

I'd want to run one of these non expensive printer full time in BW in
parallel to the larger R1800.

Many thanks,

Denis Bouchard

>...I've read the C88+ Carbon 6 PDF
> and I don't understand the ink mixing procedure.
> 
> "the single 13.5% mix is very smooth"... 

> does this mean this workflow
> uses only two black inks: 100% Eboni and 13.5% Eboni 
>(mixed in the C6 base) ?

Yes, the C88+ "13-5" (13.5% Eboni, remainder clear base) approach is 
like the MIS EZ inks in that it uses only one dilution (in addition 
to the Eboni MK).

One advance I've made since the MIS EZ write-ups is that highlight 
smoothness can be significantly improved by using only a single 
channel (color position) at the beginning; the inks start one at a 
time.  Curves written to do this can easily be dropped into ICCS 
(Create ICC-RGB).  I don't think this system benefits from further 
partitioning -- that is with inks -- if the sequential starting 
curves are used.

 
> It appears that the EZ inksets use 100% black and 3 dilutions. 

No, MIS EZ has a single midtone density.  

> So how many ink dilutions the C88+ C6 workflow uses? 

One dilution -- to maintain the system you need a bottle of Eboni and 
the ability to mix a base (or buy Eboni-6 and mix).


> 
> I'd want to run one of these non expensive printer full time 
> in BW in parallel to the larger R1800.

My 2200 with C-6 is reliably churning out cards as I type this and 
work on other printers doing other things.  C-6 has, so far, been the 
most reliable, cheapest and best system I've used.  (But, of course, 
no guarantees from me as to what happens tomorrow.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Would the C88+ "13-5" (13.5% Eboni, remainder clear base) approach
work also in the C120?

This printer is available while the C88+ is hard to find (in Canada at
least).

Thanks Paul!

Denis

> Would the C88+ "13-5" (13.5% Eboni, remainder clear base) approach
> work also in the C120?

I've never tested a C120.  At least some of its specifications do 
look very similar to the C88+.  

The speed of the 120 probably comes from more nozzles devoted to 
black ink.  Uses 2 black channels.  I hope this second black is from 
a larger black head and does not take away from the colors.  

The Epson America website characterizes the C88 as 
having, "Monochrome head 180 nozzles, Color head 59 nozzles x 3 
(CMY)."  I do not see similar information on the C120.  Does the C120 
have more nozzles, and if not, has color quality been sacrificed?

The bottom line is that I do not know enough about the C120 to say 
how well the C 13-5 approach would work.

Paul   
www.PaulRoark.com

Wow, Carbon-6 actually sounds like the way to go.  Would this be 
correct for the C88+.

100% Eb6-M in K; and, 
50% Eb6-M and 50% EbLC in the other positions?

thanks again for you help.  



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
>
> >...I've read the C88+ Carbon 6 PDF
> > and I don't understand the ink mixing procedure.
> > 
> > "the single 13.5% mix is very smooth"... 
> 
> > does this mean this workflow
> > uses only two black inks: 100% Eboni and 13.5% Eboni 
> >(mixed in the C6 base) ?
> 
> Yes, the C88+ "13-5" (13.5% Eboni, remainder clear base) approach 
is 
> like the MIS EZ inks in that it uses only one dilution (in addition 
> to the Eboni MK).
> 
> One advance I've made since the MIS EZ write-ups is that highlight 
> smoothness can be significantly improved by using only a single 
> channel (color position) at the beginning; the inks start one at a 
> time.  Curves written to do this can easily be dropped into ICCS 
> (Create ICC-RGB).  I don't think this system benefits from further 
> partitioning -- that is with inks -- if the sequential starting 
> curves are used.
> 
>  
> > It appears that the EZ inksets use 100% black and 3 dilutions. 
> 
> No, MIS EZ has a single midtone density.  
> 
> > So how many ink dilutions the C88+ C6 workflow uses? 
> 
> One dilution -- to maintain the system you need a bottle of Eboni 
and 
> the ability to mix a base (or buy Eboni-6 and mix).
> 
> 
> > 
> > I'd want to run one of these non expensive printer full time 
> > in BW in parallel to the larger R1800.
> 
> My 2200 with C-6 is reliably churning out cards as I type this and 
> work on other printers doing other things.  C-6 has, so far, been 
the 
> most reliable, cheapest and best system I've used.  (But, of 
course, 

> no guarantees from me as to what happens tomorrow.)
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

> Wow, Carbon-6 actually sounds like the way to go.  Would this be 
> correct for the C88+.
> 
> 100% Eb6-M in K; and, 
> 50% Eb6-M and 50% EbLC in the other positions?

Yes.  The C88 (EZ) carbon solution I recommend can be achieved either 
with Eboni-6 or the Carbon-6 mixing approaches.

See See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/C88-C13-5.pdf 
for the C88+  for the full write-up.

Paul  
www.PaulRoark.com

I am no Paul Roark :-) but I'd say that from my understanding for the
C88+:

K 100% Eboni
Y 13,5% Eboni 86,5% Clear base as per the Carbon 6 ink mixing instructions
C Same as Y
M Same as Y

Denis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Sammy Bar"
<sammysbar@...> wrote:

>
> Wow, Carbon-6 actually sounds like the way to go.  Would this be 
> correct for the C88+.
> 
> 100% Eb6-M in K; and, 
> 50% Eb6-M and 50% EbLC in the other positions?
> 
> thanks again for you help.  
> 
> 
>

Oupss... I guess mixing two Eboni-6 to obtain the 13.5% dilution would
work to. I read too fast and respond too quickly.

Denis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Sammy Bar"
<sammysbar@...> wrote:

>
> Wow, Carbon-6 actually sounds like the way to go.  Would this be 
> correct for the C88+.
> 
> 100% Eb6-M in K; and, 
> 50% Eb6-M and 50% EbLC in the other positions?
> 
> thanks again for you help.  
> 
>