Digital BW, The Print

I know the 3000 for quads all to well, well enough to need therapy.
I've made CMYK curves for it from way back with the old StylusRIP, RGB
curves for the Epson driver, and CMYK curves later for the now extinct
PressReady. So...
Here's how to make the most of it. With most papers you won't need any
limiting, maybe some Hawk Mountian papers or Somerset (Epson) Velvet
(enhanced), but probably not any Hanna papers. You don't want to limit
unless you absolutely have to, mottle and bleed is your clue to limit.
As long as an ink continues to gain density and there is no mottle or
bleed, don't limit it. The idea is to get as far as possible down the
scale with each ink, limiting inhibits that. With most drivers you
should be able to get down near 40% with the first ink alone, 60-70 or
more with the second, then your third, and K won't need to be brought
in untill 90% or higher.
I don't specifically know how you would do it with IJC or QTR, but I
left a lot of each light ink in under the next. Smoother because of 2
inks dithered together, and more density. Bleed, with most papers,
will still not be a problem because you're still most likely under
200% total ink, not very high really.
Once you get it right, 3000 quad output still qualifies as some of the
best. Better dmax then smaller dot printers, and each ink will get
farther down the scale.
I had a lot of 3000 quads hanging next to 9600 quads recently. Without
a loup, there was no practical quality difference without extreme
inspection, knowing what to look for.
Have at it.
Tyler


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "gulstenek"
<keving@d...> wrote:
> Thanks Roy.  
> 
> In the early stages I took a look at the curves that QTR was 
> generating.  That's when I realized there was more than one approach 
> to creating a curve set.
> 
> I handn't really thought much about the amount of ink the paper could 
> take.  The 3000 has ink dots the size of baseballs compared to the 
> newer printers and managing the entry of the black ink was one of the 
> stumbling blocks I had.  I may think about the ink levels more on the 
> next iteration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" 
> <roy@h...> wrote:
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "gulstenek" 
> <keving@d...> wrote:
> > > Antonis-
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the very detailed answers.  It's very helpful - 
> confirming 
> > > some things I'd thought and giving me more the think about.
> > > 
> > > Having gone through the first paper with a lot of expirementation 
> the 
> > > following papers, as you suggest, are very straight forward when
> > > based 
> > > on the existing profile.
> > > 
> > > I don't want to leave the impression that creating the curves is 
> hard 
> > > - it's not.  It's just that having arrived at a very good result, 
> I 
> > > am, for some reason, compelled to worry whether I could make it
> > > better 
> > > :)
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Kevin,
> > 
> > I think Antonis' description is very much the general idea.
> > 
> > The difficulty I think is mainly figuring how much ink the paper can 
> handle.
> > You've got to decrease a lighter ink as you increase a darker ink.  
> But if
> > you come down too fast relative to the new ink coming in you'll get 
> a plateau
> > or dip in density and linearizing doesn't fix this.  Its hard to 
> compare rates
> > because a 5% increase from 10 to 15% might not correspond to a 5% 
> decrease
> > from 75 to 70%.  It would depend how the curve settings map into ink 
> quantities.
> > 
> > With QTR, access to the raw level allows the voodoo math to work :)  
> I just make
> > sure the amount of ink is always increasing as well as the balance 
> of light vs
> > dark ink is always increasing.  Then linearization can straighten it 
> all out.
> > 
> > Roy