Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

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

Thread

Does this look right for 3MK on a R1800?

Does this look right for 3MK on a R1800?

2009-06-22 by Roger

After being content with the UTR2 inkset on a R220 for a few years I stepped up to an R1800 a while ago and tried the 3MK workflow.  

I printed a 11x14 wedding album with it and am generally happy with the results, but for shots that call for smoothness (fog, skies, etc) it doesn't look nearly as good as UTR2.  I'm wondering if the results I am getting are typical for this inkset.

I don't have a flatbed scanner so the following were shot on my 20D with a macro lens (forgive any color artifacts, etc this introduced).

Here are a few shots to illustrate the difference:

http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fogUTR2.jpg
vs
http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fog3mk.jpg

Take a look at the skin tones and sky:
http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kissUTR2.jpg
vs
http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kiss3MK.jpg

http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dressUTR2.jpg
and
http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dress3MK.jpg

Does this look normal to you?
Thanks,
Roger

Re: [Digital BW] Does this look right for 3MK on a R1800?

2009-06-22 by Andrew Sharpe

There seems to be a lot of noise in both, but I agree that the UT2 looks
better and has less noise. Were these shot at high ISOs?

Andrew
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On 06/21/2009 08:15 PM, Roger wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> After being content with the UTR2 inkset on a R220 for a few years I
> stepped up to an R1800 a while ago and tried the 3MK workflow.
> 
> I printed a 11x14 wedding album with it and am generally happy with the
> results, but for shots that call for smoothness (fog, skies, etc) it
> doesn't look nearly as good as UTR2. I'm wondering if the results I am
> getting are typical for this inkset.
> 
> I don't have a flatbed scanner so the following were shot on my 20D with
> a macro lens (forgive any color artifacts, etc this introduced).
> 
> Here are a few shots to illustrate the difference:
> 
> http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fogUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fogUTR2.jpg>
> vs
> http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fog3mk.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fog3mk.jpg>
> 
> Take a look at the skin tones and sky:
> http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kissUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kissUTR2.jpg>
> vs
> http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kiss3MK.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kiss3MK.jpg>
> 
> http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dressUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dressUTR2.jpg>
> and
> http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dress3MK.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dress3MK.jpg>
> 
> Does this look normal to you?
> Thanks,
> Roger
> 
>

Re: Does this look right for 3MK on a R1800?

2009-06-22 by pr_roark

"Roger" <rsmith02@...> wrote:
>
> After being content with the UTR2 inkset on a R220 for a few years I stepped up to an R1800 a while ago and tried the 3MK workflow.  
> 
> I printed a 11x14 wedding album with it and am generally happy with the results, but for shots that call for smoothness (fog, skies, etc) it doesn't look nearly as good as UTR2.  I'm wondering if the results I am getting are typical for this inkset.


The 3-MK workflow is not as smooth as the UTR2.  In fact, it's not quite as smooth as the 1400 Black Only mode printing, but they are close.  What some of us have noticed is that the noise in the process seems to be additive with noise in the image.  I suppose that is normal for noise in any system, but it sometimes seems to result in an unexpected level relative to, for example, what we we see in the 21-step test strips.

I can't say for sure that the sample images you posted are "normal" for the 3-MK workflow or not.  If the nozzle check was fine, then they probably are.

I find with the 1400 that I now use for most 11x14 prints is that I use a blend of profiles that combines Eboni-6 (or "Eboni-5" in the current inkset I use) with Black Only.  Using a 50-50 blend of the profiles in QTR with the sliders seems to tame the roughness as well as bring the warmth of the dilute Eboni approach down to what I find pleasing.  At the same time, it retains the 100% carbon aspect that I favor.

I'm told, by the way, that MIS now has carts for the 1800 that do not have the sponges in them that interacted with Eboni-6, but I have not seen these.  They are apparently similar to the 1400 carts.  I think I bought my latest 1800 carts from www.Inkjetcarts.us, but I don't use that printer now.

The inkset I'm now using is written up at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eb1400.pdf  It's basically Eboni-6, inclusing the Eboni BO option, with one position for HP's Z3100 neutral PK.  With my 1400, one position is enough for smooth glossy and toned matte prints.  On the 1800, I doubt one position would be smooth.  

I have 1600 dpi scans of several printing modes on the last page of the above PDF.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Re: [Digital BW] Does this look right for 3MK on a R1800?

2009-06-22 by Roger

Hi Andrew,
Thanks for the reply.  

These were shots of 4x6 inch prints in matte paper.  I checked the Exif and the camera was at ISO 100 for shooting the prints.  It's possible I underexposed them.  I think these shots do a reasonable job at showing the difference in "grain" between the two prints (the 3MK prints aren't bad, mind you but much rougher than UTR2 or the original files).

Two of the original shots were also at ISO 100 and both look fairly smooth (at reasonable magnifications- up to 8x12 inch or so):

http://www.jingai.com/photography/NHWedding/photos/20080628_Liza_Wedding__Image_0001_54.jpg

http://www.jingai.com/photography/NHWedding/photos/20080628_Liza_Wedding__Image_0001_111.jpg

Roger


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Sharpe <asharpe@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> There seems to be a lot of noise in both, but I agree that the UT2 looks
> better and has less noise. Were these shot at high ISOs?
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> On 06/21/2009 08:15 PM, Roger wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > After being content with the UTR2 inkset on a R220 for a few years I
> > stepped up to an R1800 a while ago and tried the 3MK workflow.
> > 
> > I printed a 11x14 wedding album with it and am generally happy with the
> > results, but for shots that call for smoothness (fog, skies, etc) it
> > doesn't look nearly as good as UTR2. I'm wondering if the results I am
> > getting are typical for this inkset.
> > 
> > I don't have a flatbed scanner so the following were shot on my 20D with
> > a macro lens (forgive any color artifacts, etc this introduced).
> > 
> > Here are a few shots to illustrate the difference:
> > 
> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fogUTR2.jpg
> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fogUTR2.jpg>
> > vs
> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fog3mk.jpg
> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fog3mk.jpg>
> > 
> > Take a look at the skin tones and sky:
> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kissUTR2.jpg
> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kissUTR2.jpg>
> > vs
> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kiss3MK.jpg
> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kiss3MK.jpg>
> > 
> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dressUTR2.jpg
> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dressUTR2.jpg>
> > and
> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dress3MK.jpg
> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dress3MK.jpg>
> > 
> > Does this look normal to you?
> > Thanks,
> > Roger
> > 
> >
>

Re: [Digital BW] Does this look right for 3MK on a R1800?

2009-06-24 by Andrew Sharpe

I see, thanks. I hadn't realized that the first images you presented
were magnified so greatly (though you did say that you used a macro lens).

Andrew
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On 06/22/2009 09:27 AM, Roger wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> These were shots of 4x6 inch prints in matte paper. I checked the Exif
> and the camera was at ISO 100 for shooting the prints. It's possible I
> underexposed them. I think these shots do a reasonable job at showing
> the difference in "grain" between the two prints (the 3MK prints aren't
> bad, mind you but much rougher than UTR2 or the original files).
> 
> Two of the original shots were also at ISO 100 and both look fairly
> smooth (at reasonable magnifications- up to 8x12 inch or so):
> 
> http://www.jingai.com/photography/NHWedding/photos/20080628_Liza_Wedding__Image_0001_54.jpg
> <http://www.jingai.com/photography/NHWedding/photos/20080628_Liza_Wedding__Image_0001_54.jpg>
> 
> http://www.jingai.com/photography/NHWedding/photos/20080628_Liza_Wedding__Image_0001_111.jpg
> <http://www.jingai.com/photography/NHWedding/photos/20080628_Liza_Wedding__Image_0001_111.jpg>
> 
> Roger
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>, Andrew Sharpe
> <asharpe@...> wrote:
>>
>> There seems to be a lot of noise in both, but I agree that the UT2 looks
>> better and has less noise. Were these shot at high ISOs?
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> On 06/21/2009 08:15 PM, Roger wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > After being content with the UTR2 inkset on a R220 for a few years I
>> > stepped up to an R1800 a while ago and tried the 3MK workflow.
>> >
>> > I printed a 11x14 wedding album with it and am generally happy with the
>> > results, but for shots that call for smoothness (fog, skies, etc) it
>> > doesn't look nearly as good as UTR2. I'm wondering if the results I am
>> > getting are typical for this inkset.
>> >
>> > I don't have a flatbed scanner so the following were shot on my 20D with
>> > a macro lens (forgive any color artifacts, etc this introduced).
>> >
>> > Here are a few shots to illustrate the difference:
>> >
>> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fogUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fogUTR2.jpg>
>> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fogUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fogUTR2.jpg>>
>> > vs
>> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fog3mk.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fog3mk.jpg>
>> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fog3mk.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fog3mk.jpg>>
>> >
>> > Take a look at the skin tones and sky:
>> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kissUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kissUTR2.jpg>
>> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kissUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kissUTR2.jpg>>
>> > vs
>> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kiss3MK.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kiss3MK.jpg>
>> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kiss3MK.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kiss3MK.jpg>>
>> >
>> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dressUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dressUTR2.jpg>
>> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dressUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dressUTR2.jpg>>
>> > and
>> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dress3MK.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dress3MK.jpg>
>> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dress3MK.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dress3MK.jpg>>
>> >
>> > Does this look normal to you?
>> > Thanks,
>> > Roger
>> >
>> >
>>
> 
>

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.