Digital BW, The Print

As I understand when printing out the Ink Separation Page in QTR, the Photo Black (PK) or Matte Black ink (MK) at 100% is the maximum black.  Yet visually, on most Luster/Pearl/Semi-glossy papers, the 55, 60, or 65% ink square is as black looking as the 100%.

For example, when I measure the 100% PK ink square on Harman Crystaljet Luster RC paper, printed with Epson inks on my R800 / R1800 with my densitometer I get 2.64.  The 60% black measures 2.13 yet visually looks as black as the 100%.  The 60% is typically chosen to create the QTR profile yet the maximum density achievable is never really used.  This general relationship is the same for all Luster/Pearl/Satin/Semi-gloss papers I've tested.

Yet for the inherent difference between Luster & Matte papers what is the "big deal" about high Dmax and can you really use the 100% in creating a profile?

Terry, When printing out to 100%, you are trying to determine just how much
ink can go down on a piece of paper. Since the dmax doesn't change with more
ink, you stop using the ink. Why, too much can allow bleeding that causes
images to lose sharpness.  What does your 70% read?  Different ink sets,
different amounts, different printers different ink amounts. The  curves
posted or starting points. we all have are own set of perfect numbers and
preferred looks and controls. 

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 12:40 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Maximum Usable Black vs. Dmax - What's the Big Deal?

 

  


As I understand when printing out the Ink Separation Page in QTR, the Photo
Black (PK) or Matte Black ink (MK) at 100% is the maximum black. Yet
visually, on most Luster/Pearl/Semi-glossy papers, the 55, 60, or 65% ink
square is as black looking as the 100%.

For example, when I measure the 100% PK ink square on Harman Crystaljet
Luster RC paper, printed with Epson inks on my R800 / R1800 with my
densitometer I get 2.64. The 60% black measures 2.13 yet visually looks as
black as the 100%. The 60% is typically chosen to create the QTR profile yet
the maximum density achievable is never really used. This general
relationship is the same for all Luster/Pearl/Satin/Semi-gloss papers I've
tested.

Yet for the inherent difference between Luster & Matte papers what is the
"big deal" about high Dmax and can you really use the 100% in creating a
profile?





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

Thanks Eric,

My 70% densitometer reading on the Harman Crystaljet is 2.34.  My readings for Epson Ultra Premium Luster are 100% - 2.53, 70% - 2.2, and at 60% - 2.05.

On the Epson Luster I'd say the the 60% ink square visually looks as dark as the 100% ink square.  Basically the same as the Crystaljet paper.

So if an ink density of around 2.1 or 2.2 is an "acceptable black" to the eye, Why do we need to push for higher Dmax ink/papers (speaking of luster/semi-gloss, etc papers)?

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:

>
> Terry, When printing out to 100%, you are trying to determine just how much
> ink can go down on a piece of paper. Since the dmax doesn't change with more
> ink, you stop using the ink. Why, too much can allow bleeding that causes
> images to lose sharpness.  What does your 70% read?  Different ink sets,
> different amounts, different printers different ink amounts. The  curves
> posted or starting points. we all have are own set of perfect numbers and
> preferred looks and controls. >  
> 
> Eric Neilsen> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography> 
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9> 
> Dallas, TX 75226>  
> 
> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
> skype me with ejprinter>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 12:40 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Maximum Usable Black vs. Dmax - What's the Big Deal?> 
> 
> As I understand when printing out the Ink Separation Page in QTR, the Photo
> Black (PK) or Matte Black ink (MK) at 100% is the maximum black. Yet
> visually, on most Luster/Pearl/Semi-glossy papers, the 55, 60, or 65% ink
> square is as black looking as the 100%.
> 
> For example, when I measure the 100% PK ink square on Harman Crystaljet
> Luster RC paper, printed with Epson inks on my R800 / R1800 with my
> densitometer I get 2.64. The 60% black measures 2.13 yet visually looks as
> black as the 100%. The 60% is typically chosen to create the QTR profile yet
> the maximum density achievable is never really used. This general
> relationship is the same for all Luster/Pearl/Satin/Semi-gloss papers I've
> tested.
> 
> Yet for the inherent difference between Luster & Matte papers what is the
> "big deal" about high Dmax and can you really use the 100% in creating a
> profile?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Terry,

Your readings that 100% patch has highest measured density is unusual. I don't have any experience with your inkset, so that may be it. Another quick check worth considering. Are you printing the QTR calibration chart at 100% ink limits?

Shilesh

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

>
> Thanks Eric,
> 
> My 70% densitometer reading on the Harman Crystaljet is 2.34.  My readings for Epson Ultra Premium Luster are 100% - 2.53, 70% - 2.2, and at 60% - 2.05.
> 
> On the Epson Luster I'd say the the 60% ink square visually looks as dark as the 100% ink square.  Basically the same as the Crystaljet paper.
> 
> So if an ink density of around 2.1 or 2.2 is an "acceptable black" to the eye, Why do we need to push for higher Dmax ink/papers (speaking of luster/semi-gloss, etc papers)?
> 
> Terry
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@> wrote:
> >
> > Terry, When printing out to 100%, you are trying to determine just how much
> > ink can go down on a piece of paper. Since the dmax doesn't change with more
> > ink, you stop using the ink. Why, too much can allow bleeding that causes
> > images to lose sharpness.  What does your 70% read?  Different ink sets,
> > different amounts, different printers different ink amounts. The  curves
> > posted or starting points. we all have are own set of perfect numbers and
> > preferred looks and controls. >  
> > 
> > Eric Neilsen> 
> > Eric Neilsen Photography> 
> > 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9> 
> > Dallas, TX 75226>  
> > 
> > www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> > 
> > skype me with ejprinter>   _____  
> > 
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry
> > Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 12:40 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Maximum Usable Black vs. Dmax - What's the Big Deal?> 
> > 
> > As I understand when printing out the Ink Separation Page in QTR, the Photo
> > Black (PK) or Matte Black ink (MK) at 100% is the maximum black. Yet
> > visually, on most Luster/Pearl/Semi-glossy papers, the 55, 60, or 65% ink
> > square is as black looking as the 100%.
> > 
> > For example, when I measure the 100% PK ink square on Harman Crystaljet
> > Luster RC paper, printed with Epson inks on my R800 / R1800 with my
> > densitometer I get 2.64. The 60% black measures 2.13 yet visually looks as
> > black as the 100%. The 60% is typically chosen to create the QTR profile yet
> > the maximum density achievable is never really used. This general
> > relationship is the same for all Luster/Pearl/Satin/Semi-gloss papers I've
> > tested.
> > 
> > Yet for the inherent difference between Luster & Matte papers what is the
> > "big deal" about high Dmax and can you really use the 100% in creating a
> > profile?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

If you're building density all the way up to 100% that is something I
haven't done either. However, one issue with Epson printers/drivers is that
they do tend to block up. Perhaps they have lowered the density in this set.
Shilesh is asking the right question here. 

 

What type of densitometer are you using? 

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
shileshjani
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:55 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Maximum Usable Black vs. Dmax - What's the Big
Deal?

 

  

Terry,

Your readings that 100% patch has highest measured density is unusual. I
don't have any experience with your inkset, so that may be it. Another quick
check worth considering. Are you printing the QTR calibration chart at 100%
ink limits?

Shilesh






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

Yes, I'm printing the Ink Sep Page at 100%.  The Dmax (2.5+) for the PK ink at 100% with the Luster type papers is consistent with what Epson and others on this site & the Quadtone Yahoo site report.

My R800 / R1800 ink, 1.5pl and the 2880 dpi may be helping to increase the the Dmax.  As mentioned I build my profile curves in QTR at 60% ink density and since my printer only has the one black I add 2% of each of the CMYR and 5%Blue.

Thanks for your comments...I hope this explains...again since the 60% PK ink looks the same as the 100%, why do we need the 2.5+ Dmax?

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:

>
> If you're building density all the way up to 100% that is something I
> haven't done either. However, one issue with Epson printers/drivers is that
> they do tend to block up. Perhaps they have lowered the density in this set.
> Shilesh is asking the right question here. 
> 
>  
> 
> What type of densitometer are you using? 
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Neilsen
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
>  
> 
> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
> skype me with ejprinter
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> shileshjani
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:55 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Maximum Usable Black vs. Dmax - What's the Big
> Deal?
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Terry,
> 
> Your readings that 100% patch has highest measured density is unusual. I
> don't have any experience with your inkset, so that may be it. Another quick
> check worth considering. Are you printing the QTR calibration chart at 100%
> ink limits?
> 
> Shilesh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>... since the 60% PK ink looks the same as the 100%, 
> why do we need the 2.5+ Dmax?


Another factor to consider is the chance of "pizza wheel" marks.  I've found that more ink on a glossy paper can lead to a higher chance of these annoying marks.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks Paul for a good point...also if you choose to set your Black % much above the visual looking "max black" don't you "hurt" your shadow detail when you linearize the steps? ... or another way of describing is you lineraize OK with the densitometer reading but visually the blacks at 95%, 90%, etc visually look the same as the 100% black which was chosen from say a 70 or 80% reading on the ink sepration page. (I'm thinking of luster/satin type papers but the concept applies to matte, also)

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

>
> 
> >... since the 60% PK ink looks the same as the 100%, 
> > why do we need the 2.5+ Dmax?
> 
> 
> Another factor to consider is the chance of "pizza wheel" marks.  I've found that more ink on a glossy paper can lead to a higher chance of these annoying marks.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

"Terry" <TerryGls@...> wrote:
>
> ... if you choose to set your Black % much above the visual
> looking "max black" don't you "hurt" your shadow detail when
> you linearize the steps? 

I don't think so.  QTR will not linearize if there is not some increase in density above some minimum.  In fact, QTR works better when it has an abundance of deep shadow information.  So, a somewhat compressed toe -- similar to the final gray gamma 2.2 curve -- is helpful to avoid interpolation errors in the deep shadows.

By the way, I recommend you put your K ink limit at the visual max and use the Black Boost (I'm assuming we're talking QTR here) to set the final measured dmax if that is what you want to do.  This results in a better pre-linearized ramp, and, in general, the better the ramp going into the linearization step, the better the the final result. 

> ... the blacks at 95%, 90%, etc visually look the same ...

Coming from the old days of 8 bit files, I used to object avoid using the Gray Gamma 2.2 space because it compresses the deep shadows (what we old darkroom people call the "toe" of the curve).  With the limited 8 bit gray steps we used to have, I thought this was just a waste of those precious 256 steps.  

However, with 16 bit files now the norm, I'm a big fan of Gray Gamma 2.2 and the compressed shadows.  It's a reserve of information that sometimes becomes valuable.  Not only does it often save the day if you need more detail in an area, but it also relates to why I switched to glossy paper for my gallery brochures.  

While I find matte paper prints look the same as glossy prints under glass in the gallery, when people take my brochures out into the sun, the "excess" information in those shadows becomes visible, whereas the old matte brochures would just show gray down there.  So, a very high dmax and gray gamma 2.2 makes a real nice combo when a print may go from standard indoor lighting into direct sun.  That seemingly excess dmax and "wasted" toe info may not be totally useless.  With direct sun, you can really see into those deep glossy shadows.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul, if I understand, looking at the 100% QTR Ink Separation Page for Epson Ultra Premium Luster printed with my R1800 at 2880, uni-directional my "max visual PK black" is at the 60% ink limit.

So, are you suggesting I use 60% for my PK Ink Limit?...then for Black Boost 65 or 70%?

I've been linearizing using ChartThrob & scanner and placing the generated Photoshop .ACV curve in the GRAY CURVE TAB's "Curve Section."  Previous to generating the ChartThrob PS curve I've played with the Shadow, Highlight and Gamma settings to "shape" the ink curve.  The resulting .ACV curve is a very mild adjustment to this "shaped" ink curve.

BTW – Using GG 2.2 and 16bit files.

Comments appreciated.

Terry


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

>
>  "Terry" <TerryGls@> wrote:
> >
> > ... if you choose to set your Black % much above the visual
> > looking "max black" don't you "hurt" your shadow detail when
> > you linearize the steps? 
> 
> I don't think so.  QTR will not linearize if there is not some increase in density above some minimum.  In fact, QTR works better when it has an abundance of deep shadow information.  So, a somewhat compressed toe -- similar to the final gray gamma 2.2 curve -- is helpful to avoid interpolation errors in the deep shadows.
> 
> By the way, I recommend you put your K ink limit at the visual max and use the Black Boost (I'm assuming we're talking QTR here) to set the final measured dmax if that is what you want to do.  This results in a better pre-linearized ramp, and, in general, the better the ramp going into the linearization step, the better the the final result. 
> 
> > ... the blacks at 95%, 90%, etc visually look the same ...
> 
> Coming from the old days of 8 bit files, I used to object avoid using the Gray Gamma 2.2 space because it compresses the deep shadows (what we old darkroom people call the "toe" of the curve).  With the limited 8 bit gray steps we used to have, I thought this was just a waste of those precious 256 steps.  
> 
> However, with 16 bit files now the norm, I'm a big fan of Gray Gamma 2.2 and the compressed shadows.  It's a reserve of information that sometimes becomes valuable.  Not only does it often save the day if you need more detail in an area, but it also relates to why I switched to glossy paper for my gallery brochures.  
> 
> While I find matte paper prints look the same as glossy prints under glass in the gallery, when people take my brochures out into the sun, the "excess" information in those shadows becomes visible, whereas the old matte brochures would just show gray down there.  So, a very high dmax and gray gamma 2.2 makes a real nice combo when a print may go from standard indoor lighting into direct sun.  That seemingly excess dmax and "wasted" toe info may not be totally useless.  With direct sun, you can really see into those deep glossy shadows.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

"Terry" <TerryGls@...> wrote:

> Paul, if I understand, looking at the 100% QTR Ink Separation Page for Epson Ultra Premium Luster printed with my R1800 at 2880, uni-directional my "max visual PK black" is at the 60% ink limit.
> 
> So, are you suggesting I use 60% for my PK Ink Limit?...then for Black Boost 65 or 70%?

If the actual dmax is at 70 but the slope of the curve is very low between 60 and 70 -- that is, they are barely separated -- then I'd use 60 as the K limit and put 70 in the black boost box.  (Note that there may be other factors like pizza wheel issues, but I'm not considering that at the moment.)  

One thing I've noticed when I use the boost is that when the relative densities are based on the lower K limit, here 60, the resulting partitioning gives a more linear pre-linearization curve.  

In general, I also tend not to set the limits of the midtones all the way to their max density either.  I use a loupe to see when the bleed starts to become an issue, and I also don't want there to be too much ink particularly on glossy papers.  Frankly, my glossy printing is now black only with HP PK on a 1400.  Drier glossy printing results in fewer pizza wheel issues and reflective artifacts, though the HP PK prints do still show some bronzing.


 
> I've been linearizing using ChartThrob ...

I've never used it.  So, my comments relate only to QTR.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

On Nov 27, 2009, at 2:55 PM, pr_roark wrote:

> Frankly, my glossy printing is now black only with HP PK on a 1400.  
> Drier glossy printing results in fewer pizza wheel issues and  
> reflective artifacts, though the HP PK prints do still show some  
> bronzing.


Sorry to bust in, but I've been following this thread with great  
interest. I haven't yet experimented with third party inks - I've been  
doing my B&W printing with an HP B9180, and getting good results  
printing as color (I'm partial to a faux-selenium toned Agfa Portriga  
look).

I'm curious. Am I reading correctly? Are you using HP ink in an Epson  
printer?

Thanks,
Dave

http://davereichertphoto.com/

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

Dave <cowcreekroad@...> wrote:
>
> 
>... Am I reading correctly? Are you using HP ink in an Epson  
> printer?

You're reading it correctly.  You can even mix full dilute inksets from the HP PK and generic base.  See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf

When I first published this I wasn't sure if I was going to get a nasty threatening letter from HP or what.  It turned out the other way around.  When you think of it, I was using their inks -- where the profit is -- in their competitor's machines.  So, their reaction was to put me on the HP mailing list.  

But, at any rate, I'm very happy with my black only Epson 1400 HP PK prints.  Needless to say, while my 1400 does not microband with the HP PK in the C position, I may just be lucky.  There is always a risk of microbanding when only one ink position is used.

The full 1400 inkset I use is described at 
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eb1400.pdf

I experimented with a number of variations before settling on this one.  It gives me my 100% carbon matte, cooler matte if I want it, neutral glossy, and a simple Epson driver workflow for quick matte prints, though I usually use QTR for my serious printing.  It's clog free and can be very inexpensive.  Note that when one uses black only printing or dilutes with a generic base, even the OEM ink prices are no big deal when it's purchased in wide format carts.  The dilute inks are where the money goes. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

OK. This is not a troll.
If the HP ink works so well, then why not just use an HP printer (say,  
a 9180) and print with the black only option?
Would you get the same results on glossy stock?

I think I'm going to have to spend some time studying your site...

BTW - you mentioned bronzing in a prior message. I see it on the 9180  
glossy prints, but I've been able to tone it down quite successfully  
after the fact, by applying Hahnemuhle Protective Spray.

Thank you, Paul.



On Nov 27, 2009, at 4:09 PM, pr_roark wrote:

> Dave <cowcreekroad@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >... Am I reading correctly? Are you using HP ink in an Epson
> > printer?
>
> You're reading it correctly. You can even mix full dilute inksets  
> from the HP PK and generic base. See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf
>
> When I first published this I wasn't sure if I was going to get a  
> nasty threatening letter from HP or what. It turned out the other  
> way around. When you think of it, I was using their inks -- where  
> the profit is -- in their competitor's machines. So, their reaction  
> was to put me on the HP mailing list.
>
> But, at any rate, I'm very happy with my black only Epson 1400 HP PK  
> prints. Needless to say, while my 1400 does not microband with the  
> HP PK in the C position, I may just be lucky. There is always a risk  
> of microbanding when only one ink position is used.
>
> The full 1400 inkset I use is described at
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eb1400.pdf
>
> I experimented with a number of variations before settling on this  
> one. It gives me my 100% carbon matte, cooler matte if I want it,  
> neutral glossy, and a simple Epson driver workflow for quick matte  
> prints, though I usually use QTR for my serious printing. It's clog  
> free and can be very inexpensive. Note that when one uses black only  
> printing or dilutes with a generic base, even the OEM ink prices are  
> no big deal when it's purchased in wide format carts. The dilute  
> inks are where the money goes.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
> 



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> "Terry" <TerryGls@> wrote:
> 
> > Paul, if I understand, looking at the 100% QTR Ink Separation Page for Epson Ultra Premium Luster printed with my R1800 at 2880, uni-directional my "max visual PK black" is at the 60% ink limit.
> > 
> > So, are you suggesting I use 60% for my PK Ink Limit?...then for Black Boost 65 or 70%?
> 
> If the actual dmax is at 70 but the slope of the curve is very low between 60 and 70 -- that is, they are barely separated -- then I'd use 60 as the K limit and put 70 in the black boost box.  (Note that there may be other factors like pizza wheel issues, but I'm not considering that at the moment.)  


Paul, You mention "actual Dmax" 
 I think I'm understanding part of your point except in one area of "visual PK max black" or "actual Dmax."  My 100% Ink Sep Page print out for the PK ink shows actual densitometer readings as follows: 60%-2.05, 65%-2.11, 70%-2.2, 75%-2.28, 80%-2.34, 85%-2.4, 90%-2.40, 95%-2.51, and 100%-2.53.

As mentioned before the 60% square visually looks as black as the 65%, 70% all the way to 100%..

So, if I follow your point and set the PK Ink Limit to 60% and Black Boost to 70%, my measured density will be 2.2 but not near the 2.53 Dmax black possible "in theory."


> 
> One thing I've noticed when I use the boost is that when the relative densities are based on the lower K limit, here 60, the resulting partitioning gives a more linear pre-linearization curve.  
> 
> In general, I also tend not to set the limits of the midtones all >the way to their max density either.  

>I use a loupe to see when the bleed starts to become an issue, and I >also don't want there to be too much ink particularly on glossy >papers.


What do you mean by "bleed" and what are you looking for with the loupe?

Thanks, Terry


  Frankly, my glossy printing is now black only with HP PK on a 1400.  Drier glossy printing results in fewer pizza wheel issues and reflective artifacts, though the HP PK prints do still show some bronzing.

> 
> 
>  
> > I've been linearizing using ChartThrob ...
> 
> I've never used it.  So, my comments relate only to QTR.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Dave, this is pure economics. You buy HP inks in large carts, then you put them into third party carts available mostly for Epson printers, you use QTR to drive printer. End result is much less expensive than using small carts on HP printer. You probably could use BO mode through driver too, but QTR gives you more control. So reason to use Epson is to get refillable carts.
Optionally you could dilute inks to get smooth tonalities.

--Sergei

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Dave <cowcreekroad@...> wrote:

>
> OK. This is not a troll.
> If the HP ink works so well, then why not just use an HP printer (say,  
> a 9180) and print with the black only option?

What is the light source you are inspecting your prints Terry? As Paul
example is illustrating, a visual black will change as light intensity
changes in the viewing environment. You can establish your printing process
to look good in certain lights, but when shown in the light of day, or a
reasonably bright room, they may lack the depth that you wish they had.  

 

 

Bleeding is when the dye or pigment from your print head doesn't stay put
but moves away from the intended spot on the page it should stay at; that
movement may be slight or quite a bit. The amount of ink was too much for
the page to accept and allow the ink to stay put.  

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 6:43 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Maximum Usable Black vs. Dmax - What's the Big
Deal?

 

  



--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> "Terry" <TerryGls@> wrote:
> 
> > Paul, if I understand, looking at the 100% QTR Ink Separation Page for
Epson Ultra Premium Luster printed with my R1800 at 2880, uni-directional my
"max visual PK black" is at the 60% ink limit.
> > 
> > So, are you suggesting I use 60% for my PK Ink Limit?...then for Black
Boost 65 or 70%?
> 
> If the actual dmax is at 70 but the slope of the curve is very low between
60 and 70 -- that is, they are barely separated -- then I'd use 60 as the K
limit and put 70 in the black boost box. (Note that there may be other
factors like pizza wheel issues, but I'm not considering that at the
moment.) 

Paul, You mention "actual Dmax" . I think I'm understanding part of your
point except in one area of "visual PK max black" or "actual Dmax." My 100%
Ink Sep Page print out for the PK ink shows actual densitometer readings as
follows: 60%-2.05, 65%-2.11, 70%-2.2, 75%-2.28, 80%-2.34, 85%-2.4, 90%-2.40,
95%-2.51, and 100%-2.53.

As mentioned before the 60% square visually looks as black as the 65%, 70%
all the way to 100%..

So, if I follow your point and set the PK Ink Limit to 60% and Black Boost
to 70%, my measured density will be 2.2 but not near the 2.53 Dmax black
possible "in theory."

> 
> One thing I've noticed when I use the boost is that when the relative
densities are based on the lower K limit, here 60, the resulting
partitioning gives a more linear pre-linearization curve. 
> 
> In general, I also tend not to set the limits of the midtones all >the way
to their max density either. 

>I use a loupe to see when the bleed starts to become an issue, and I >also
don't want there to be too much ink particularly on glossy >papers.

What do you mean by "bleed" and what are you looking for with the loupe?

Thanks, Terry

Frankly, my glossy printing is now black only with HP PK on a 1400. Drier
glossy printing results in fewer pizza wheel issues and reflective
artifacts, though the HP PK prints do still show some bronzing.
> 
> 
> 
> > I've been linearizing using ChartThrob ...
> 
> I've never used it. So, my comments relate only to QTR.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>





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

Dave <cowcreekroad@...> wrote:

> If the HP ink works so well, then why not just use an 
> HP printer (say, a 9180) and print with the black only option?
> Would you get the same results on glossy stock?

I don't know.  The Epson 1400 has 1.5 picoliter drops that look good in black only printing.  I'm not sure what the drop size is for the HP.  Also, for the 1400 I use QTR to print with the HP PK only.  I'm not sure what the driver situation is with the HP.

I use Epson printers in part because the piezo heads can pump the third party inks I use or make.  I think the thermal heads of the HP and Canon require lower viscosity inks.

The 1400 is also cheap, and using HP inks from a Z3100 cart is relatively cheap compared to buying small carts.

At some point I'm going to re-examine the use of the thermal head printers for third party inks, but right now, I think the piezo head still has some advantages for the inks I use, in particular the dilute Eboni, which already has a settling problem even with a high viscosity base.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

"Terry" <TerryGls@...> wrote:
 
> "pr_roark" <paul.roark@> wrote: ... 
> > If the actual dmax is at 70 but the slope of the curve is very low between 60 and 70 -- that is, they are barely separated -- then I'd use 60 as the K limit and put 70 in the black boost box.  (Note that there may be other factors like pizza wheel issues, but I'm not considering that at the moment.)  


> Paul, You mention "actual Dmax" … I think I'm understanding part of your point except in one area of "visual PK max black" or "actual Dmax."  My 100% Ink Sep Page print out for the PK ink shows actual densitometer readings as follows: 60%-2.05, 65%-2.11, 70%-2.2, 75%-2.28, 80%-2.34, 85%-2.4, 90%-2.40, 95%-2.51, and 100%-2.53.

> As mentioned before the 60% square visually looks as black as the 65%, 70% all the way to 100%..
> 
> So, if I follow your point and set the PK Ink Limit to 60% and Black Boost to 70%, my measured density will be 2.2 but not near the 2.53 Dmax black possible "in theory."

If the black boost is set to 70, you're get your 2.2 density with a file input of 100%.  If you set the black boost to 100, you'll get 2.53.  As noted, you may run into other issues like more pizza wheel marks due to the ink not being very dry by the time it hits the exit rollers.

I like to use the QTR Black Boost for several reasons.  I think it makes for a better partitioning when you use a K limit that is closer to the more linear parts of the black curve.  Also, you can change the black boost without messing up the rest of the profile.

... 
> >I use a loupe to see when the bleed starts to become an issue, ...

> What do you mean by "bleed" and what are you looking for with the loupe?

It'll look like roughness in the print.  The inkjet coatings are made to pull the water straight down into the paper as opposed to wicking out laterally across the paper fibers.  With glossy paper the barrier between the coating and the paper limits how much water the coating can pull away from the surface, thus excessive fluid will start to flow laterally and also simply stay wet on the surface.  In matte inkjet papers the paper base is part of the reservoir for the water.  So, it's less of a problem.  

With the Arches watercolor paper I'm starting to use there is no inkjet coating.  As such, I have to use very low midtone ink limits to avoid this bleed and roughness problem.   The ink just starts to wick out across the fibers on the surface of the paper, and the image starts to look very rough.  On the other hand for the black dmax with Arches, I pour on lots of ink.  The deep shadow hide the bleed and roughness and I don't have a pizza wheel problem.  So, with Arches the Epson driver does not work because it sets too high an ink limit for the midtones and too low a limit for the black.  QTR or other rip is essential for good printing.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thank you, Sergei and Paul!

Dave

http://davereichertphoto.com/



On Nov 28, 2009, at 9:01 AM, pr_roark wrote:

> The 1400 is also cheap, and using HP inks from a Z3100 cart is  
> relatively cheap compared to buying small carts.



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

pr_roark schreef:
> Dave <cowcreekroad@...> wrote:
> 
>> If the HP ink works so well, then why not just use an 
>> HP printer (say, a 9180) and print with the black only option?
>> Would you get the same results on glossy stock?
> 
> I don't know.  The Epson 1400 has 1.5 picoliter drops that look good in black only printing.  I'm not sure what the drop size is for the HP.  Also, for the 1400 I use QTR to print with the HP PK only.  I'm not sure what the driver situation is with the HP.
> 
> I use Epson printers in part because the piezo heads can pump the third party inks I use or make.  I think the thermal heads of the HP and Canon require lower viscosity inks.
> 
> The 1400 is also cheap, and using HP inks from a Z3100 cart is relatively cheap compared to buying small carts.
> 
> At some point I'm going to re-examine the use of the thermal head printers for third party inks, but right now, I think the piezo head still has some advantages for the inks I use, in particular the dilute Eboni, which already has a settling problem even with a high viscosity base.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 

It was the right choice when we discussed it and it still is. The HP 
desktop models in general have a larger droplet size than 1.5 picoliter 
(2x at least) and there are no QTR drivers for them. It doesn't look 
like a driver port from for example GutenPrint will happen any time soon.

That said there are nice aspects on the HP desktop models: user 
replaceable heads, separate and larger inkcarts with tubes to the heads 
and some office models with dual sided printing hardware. I also think 
that the nozzle quantity per head is higher so less need for using two 
heads with the same ink.

I considered an ink swap on an office model using the Z model monochrome 
inks but right now it would mean a return Photoshop curves to drive it 
and that is too much a compromise compared to QTR and I probably would 
need your skills to do that. I see no problems  using the Z inks in an 
HP office jet thermohead. An Epson 1400 is quite expensive here, I can 
buy two HP office models for that price or half an HP B9180.

The B9180 isn't the ideal printer on gloss papers. The gloss enhancer of 
the Z 3100-3200 would be needed to get there. The B9180 is a very 
capable B&W printer on matte papers though.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst


Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions

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

Eric,

I'm using an X-Rite 810.  I just created two QTR profiles with PK ink at 60% & Black Boost at 70% and another profile at 60% again and Black Boost at 90%.  No excessive ink and the steps look "uniform" in both cases due to "shaping the curve" with a Gamma of 2.6.

Visually the 21st Step after of the 70% & 90% black look the same but measure 2.24 & 2.40. (As expected)

Will it make a difference in an actual print?...will need to try some prints.

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:

>
> If you're building density all the way up to 100% that is something I
> haven't done either. However, one issue with Epson printers/drivers is that
> they do tend to block up. Perhaps they have lowered the density in this set.
> Shilesh is asking the right question here. 
> 
>  
> 
> What type of densitometer are you using? 
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Neilsen
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
>  
> 
> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
> skype me with ejprinter
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> shileshjani
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:55 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Maximum Usable Black vs. Dmax - What's the Big
> Deal?
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Terry,
> 
> Your readings that 100% patch has highest measured density is unusual. I
> don't have any experience with your inkset, so that may be it. Another quick
> check worth considering. Are you printing the QTR calibration chart at 100%
> ink limits?
> 
> Shilesh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Terry, Forgive me if I restate something here, but the viewing light is
going to make a difference to the absolute look of the image and that is
something that may not be under your control throughout the life of the
print. Measuring and looking might start to get conflicting inner thoughts
going. Do you have a measure light source to view your images under?  The
digital standard 5000K light boxes can assist one in getting a base line for
some printing and viewing standards, but there is also the reality of home
light situations and again personal preference. I go by the thinking that
give you print as much black as the substrate can handle without bleed, and
maintain a good slope your images should look good in nearly any reasonable
light.    You can even set your own standard if you tell buyers, if that is
your aim, that your images look best at this amount and type of
illumination. If the Terry standard is within reason of normal lighting,
that should not be a problem. The plotting and control will then give you
the means to make the Terry look. It sounds like you have the tools to make
it happen.  

 

Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:14 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Maximum Usable Black vs. Dmax - What's the Big
Deal?

 

  

Eric,

I'm using an X-Rite 810. I just created two QTR profiles with PK ink at 60%
& Black Boost at 70% and another profile at 60% again and Black Boost at
90%. No excessive ink and the steps look "uniform" in both cases due to
"shaping the curve" with a Gamma of 2.6.

Visually the 21st Step after of the 70% & 90% black look the same but
measure 2.24 & 2.40. (As expected)

Will it make a difference in an actual print?...will need to try some
prints.

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> If you're building density all the way up to 100% that is something I
> haven't done either. However, one issue with Epson printers/drivers is
that
> they do tend to block up. Perhaps they have lowered the density in this
set.
> Shilesh is asking the right question here. 
> 
> 
> 
> What type of densitometer are you using? 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Neilsen
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
> 
> 
> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
> skype me with ejprinter
> 
> 
> 
> _____ 
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> shileshjani
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:55 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Maximum Usable Black vs. Dmax - What's the Big
> Deal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terry,
> 
> Your readings that 100% patch has highest measured density is unusual. I
> don't have any experience with your inkset, so that may be it. Another
quick
> check worth considering. Are you printing the QTR calibration chart at
100%
> ink limits?
> 
> Shilesh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





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

Thanks Eric for reminding me...I use an OTT-LITE which has a 5000-5500K rating (not calibrated) for my evaluations but also look at my test & prints in shade daylight and tungsten.  Most of my prints are then under glass in fairly well lighted galleries or art exhibits.

Thanks, Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:

>
> Terry, Forgive me if I restate something here, but the viewing light is
> going to make a difference to the absolute look of the image and that is
> something that may not be under your control throughout the life of the
> print. Measuring and looking might start to get conflicting inner thoughts
> going. Do you have a measure light source to view your images under?  The
> digital standard 5000K light boxes can assist one in getting a base line for
> some printing and viewing standards, but there is also the reality of home
> light situations and again personal preference. I go by the thinking that
> give you print as much black as the substrate can handle without bleed, and
> maintain a good slope your images should look good in nearly any reasonable
> light.    You can even set your own standard if you tell buyers, if that is
> your aim, that your images look best at this amount and type of
> illumination. If the Terry standard is within reason of normal lighting,
> that should not be a problem. The plotting and control will then give you
> the means to make the Terry look. It sounds like you have the tools to make
> it happen.  
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Neilsen
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
>  
> 
> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
> skype me with ejprinter
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:14 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Maximum Usable Black vs. Dmax - What's the Big
> Deal?
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Eric,
> 
> I'm using an X-Rite 810. I just created two QTR profiles with PK ink at 60%
> & Black Boost at 70% and another profile at 60% again and Black Boost at
> 90%. No excessive ink and the steps look "uniform" in both cases due to
> "shaping the curve" with a Gamma of 2.6.
> 
> Visually the 21st Step after of the 70% & 90% black look the same but
> measure 2.24 & 2.40. (As expected)
> 
> Will it make a difference in an actual print?...will need to try some
> prints.
> 
> Terry
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@> wrote:
> >
> > If you're building density all the way up to 100% that is something I
> > haven't done either. However, one issue with Epson printers/drivers is
> that
> > they do tend to block up. Perhaps they have lowered the density in this
> set.
> > Shilesh is asking the right question here. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > What type of densitometer are you using? 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Eric Neilsen
> > 
> > Eric Neilsen Photography
> > 
> > 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> > 
> > Dallas, TX 75226
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> > 
> > skype me with ejprinter
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _____ 
> > 
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > shileshjani
> > Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:55 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Maximum Usable Black vs. Dmax - What's the Big
> > Deal?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Terry,
> > 
> > Your readings that 100% patch has highest measured density is unusual. I
> > don't have any experience with your inkset, so that may be it. Another
> quick
> > check worth considering. Are you printing the QTR calibration chart at
> 100%
> > ink limits?
> > 
> > Shilesh
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>