Digital BW, The Print

Hi all,

Has anyone data of the print tones (lab A and lab B values) of HP-C6 on Photo Rag? How close can it come to a truly neutral print (fractional lab values)?

As a background:

As posted some time ago, I have set up an R285 with UT3D inks. Pragmatic reason to go for UT3D was that I had it already in stock. Print smoothness and tonal control are just perfect to me. However, the amount of color pigments in this set is increasingly nagging me (it's basically the same as in my 3800 B&W prints, just that the pigments are blended with the inks). And I don't even need the full tonal control range, I just want to have neutral prints (with some subtle tone control as a nice-to-have)

So, after all, I'm considering as alternatives UT-14 and HP-C6. But both do not fit my needs fully. 

My key finding was that I want a 3K (K+LK+LLK) setup. Both 2K options (K+LK and K+LLK) are very smooth, but just that tiny bit off perfection. And for gloss, UT-14 is a 2K setup. Another consideration is that I don't want invest in more ink bottles then needed. So that eliminates UT-14.

On the other hand, the 5K approach of HP-C6 is way overdone for a 1.5 pl printer as the R285. While perfection is the goal for this printer, I do not see the need to go further then 3K. So I could easily leave out some inks. Furhtermore the single ink+dilutions approach appeals to me.

So I am considering a stripped down version of HP-C6: 
MK - Eboni
PK - HP
LK carbon (as warm toner)
LK cool (diluted HP-PK)
LLK cool (dilted HP-PK)
GLOP

I will run this with QTR. My key question though is what neutrality I can achieve on my favorite paper, Photo Rag? Any experience, data or considerations?

Thanks,

Joost

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> 
> Has anyone data of the print tones (lab A and lab B values) of HP-C6 on Photo Rag? How close can it come to a truly neutral print (fractional lab values)?

Lab L    A       B
96.76	1.61	-0.12
92.58	1.75	0.04
88.4	1.89	0.2
84.48	2.08	0.35
80.49	2.16	0.42
76.11	2.21	0.54
71.53	2.23	0.5
67.65	2.17	0.43
64.4	2.14	0.3
60.16	2.04	0.14
55.97	1.9	-0.09
51.58	1.75	-0.36
47.64	1.56	-0.64
43.54	1.35	-0.96
39.56	1.19	-1.24
35.2	0.98	-1.25
31.16	0.95	-1.18
26.78	1	-0.86
22.8	1.19	0.45
19.01	1.07	0.69
14.99	0.64	-0.02

This is the HPR "cool" curve with NC2 (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/1400-NC2.pdf) which is basically HP-PK, 30% HP-PK, and Eboni.


> ... I have set up an R285 with UT3D inks. Pragmatic reason to go for UT3D was that I had it already in stock. Print smoothness and tonal control are just perfect to me. However, the amount of color pigments in this set is increasingly nagging me (it's basically the same as in my 3800 B&W prints, just that the pigments are blended with the inks). 


I think the 3800 ABW has more color in it.  Epson colors are stronger, but there is so much of it, the MIS wins the fade tests I've down.  On the other hand, if you use QTR so that the Epson color pigs are at a minumum, Epson would probably win the fade & color shift contest.

> I just want to have neutral prints (with some subtle tone control as a nice-to-have)

The HP-PK tends to cool shadows.  One MIS LK in the mix to help there could give you all the warming you'd probably ever want.  

> My key finding was that I want a 3K (K+LK+LLK) setup. ...
 
> ... the single ink+dilutions approach appeals to me.

If you do glossy, Glop is nice to include.  I, frankly, pulled it out of my latest 1400 setup, which is just Eboni-6 with HP-PK.


> So I am considering a stripped down version of HP-C6: 
> MK - Eboni
> PK - HP
> LK carbon (as warm toner)
> LK cool (diluted HP-PK)
> LLK cool (dilted HP-PK)
> GLOP
> 

Yep, that's what I was thinking of.

Let us know how it works.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your reply

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <pr_roark@...> wrote:
> Lab L    A       B
> 96.76	1.61	-0.12

That's a bit odd... my eye-one gives (consistently) Lab a and Lab b values for HPR paper white around Lab A=0.6-0.7 and Lab B=0.1-0.3. The deviation seems larger than the system noise...


> 92.58	1.75	0.04
> 88.4	1.89	0.2
> 84.48	2.08	0.35
> 80.49	2.16	0.42
> 76.11	2.21	0.54
> 71.53	2.23	0.5
> 67.65	2.17	0.43
> 64.4	2.14	0.3
> 60.16	2.04	0.14
> 55.97	1.9	-0.09
> 51.58	1.75	-0.36
> 47.64	1.56	-0.64
> 43.54	1.35	-0.96
> 39.56	1.19	-1.24
> 35.2	0.98	-1.25
> 31.16	0.95	-1.18
> 26.78	1	-0.86
> 22.8	1.19	0.45
> 19.01	1.07	0.69
> 14.99	0.64	-0.02
> 
> This is the HPR "cool" curve with NC2 (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/1400-NC2.pdf) which is basically HP-PK, 30% HP-PK, and Eboni.

But apart from that especially the lab B values are close enough to neutral... 


> > So I am considering a stripped down version of HP-C6: 
> > MK - Eboni
> > PK - HP
> > LK carbon (as warm toner)
> > LK cool (diluted HP-PK)
> > LLK cool (dilted HP-PK)
> > GLOP
> > 
> 
> Yep, that's what I was thinking of.
> 
> Let us know how it works.

I will but it will take some time as the family summer holiday will force a shift of priorities ;-) 

As this is the most cumbersome part to experiment with: what would you choose as dilutions for LK cool and LLK cool? I was thinking of 33% (3:1) and 17% (6:1) but could easily do something different.

Joost

"Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> wrote:
>
> <pr_roark@> wrote:
> > Lab L    A       B
> > 96.76	1.61	-0.12

> That's a bit odd... my eye-one gives (consistently) Lab a and Lab b values for HPR paper white around Lab A=0.6-0.7 and Lab B=0.1-0.3. The deviation seems larger than the system noise...

I look at the starting points at usually within 1 unit of where they probably ought to be.  In comparing multiple units of PFP, i1, and another X-Rite I have, they all seem to be slightly different. I'm not convinced that at the price point of the PFP spectro more accuracy is possible.  However, the relative increase or decrease from the starting points seem to be more consistent.



> 
> As this is the most cumbersome part to experiment with: what would you choose as dilutions for LK cool and LLK cool? I was thinking of 33% (3:1) and 17% (6:1) but could easily do something different.

I use 30% for each step -- that is, LK = 30% PK + 70% base.  LLK = 30% LK ...

I've used 50% to 20% steps with good results.  So, you have some flexibility.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com