Digital BW, The Print

I'm having some of the same problems with UT2 inks that Ted is 
having although my 21step.tif file looks fine on my monitor, which 
has been calibrated with a ColorVision Spyder and PhotoCAL. 
Regardless of the state of the monitor the 21step.tif file should 
print with even separation.

I recently purchased a 1280 and UT2 inks for black and white 
printing. I tried black only printing with my 2200 and liked 
everything except the coarse dot pattern. QTR did a great job of 
making my 2200 print black and white without color casts or 
metamerism but I thought the dots were still too visible in the 
lighter values. I had high hopes for the UT2 inkset but after years 
of creating very accurate color prints I am currently very unhappy 
with the black and white results I'm getting using UT2.

After 3 days of testing here are my findings. 
Like Ted, I found the contrast very lacking in the middle and darker 
values. Printing the 21step.tif file confirms this. I have printed 
the 21step.tif file using Roark's curves, the Epson Driver (slider 
method) and QTR. The results are consistent with a little variation. 
Generally the steps between 60% and 85% show very little separation, 
the steps from 0% to 5% are too large and the three steps from 90% 
to 100% are too large. The values between 70% and 85% show almost no 
separation. I noticed that neutral prints had slightly better 
separation the carbon prints so I printed cool and sepia versions 
and found that the cool version of the 21step.tif file printed with 
much better separation and the sepia version had very uneven value 
separation with a large jump between 60% and 70%. I printed the 
21step.tif file on my 2200 using Epson UC inks and QTR and got great 
separation across the value range. Images I've printed using the 
three methods mentioned above are all lacking in contrast and 
exhibit some posterization, which is very noticeable in skin tones. 

I can't help think that there may be a problem with the UT2 inks. 
Maybe a bad batch? I hope somebody can prove me wrong because I just 
invested a lot of time and money into this system.

Jim


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tgos3" 
<egosfield@c...> wrote:
> 
> Hi --
> This my first post to the group.  I have spent a fair bit of time 
> looking through previous posts and 'files', as well as relevant 
QTR 
> and UT2 website files, help files, etc.
> 
> I have done B&W gelatin-silver printing for about 40 years, using 
> Zone system for the last 20 or so.  I used to use Ilfobrome, 
> Gallerie, Seagull, and Dektol.  Now I use a Windows XP Pro, a 1280 
> with Epson inks, profiled in PhotoCal 2.6 for color, unprofiled 
for 
> G2.2 sisngle black printing, and a Spyder monitor profile on a CRT 
> monitor.  Have been almost happy with single tone Epson black, 
except 
> for the nasty dither pattern in the high values.  Tried the 
> ImagePrint RIP demo, but still had metamerism,(faint magenta) 
> although the dither is much less obtrusive.  Don't want to spend 
the 
> bucks for an obsolescent printer with dongle and still have 
> metamerism.
> 
> Sprang for UT2 inks, which i used up (well, there's a bunch of 
Eboni 
> left over) in a day of experimenting and printing.  When viewing 
the 
> 21 patch file, from 90% to 50% seems pretty compressed, as do the 
> patches on a printout. I only have a transmission densitometer, so 
I 
> couldn't measure them.  My UT2 prints certainly do not have the 
> contrast in the shadows that i could achieve with single black, or 
> with ImagePrint.  Reducing the ink limit and gamma in QTRgui 
didn't 
> really solve the problem, since the blacks got weaker without the 
> shadow contrast problem being solved.
> 
> I tried Epson HW Matte, Archival Matte, and Arches Hot press 
> watercolor.  I tried setting paper type (and presumably ink 
deposit) 
> to Photo Paper, Matte Heavyweight, and Photo Quality Glossy Film 
> (which was the best).  I tried printing both with QTR and using 
> Paul's curves in Photoshop.  (eventually had to reinstall my 1280 
> driver due to software nastiness/printer hang)  I played a bit 
with 
> Gama setting using the Epson driver to print at 1.8 or 2.2.  I 
tried 
> carbon, neutral, and cool curves in photoshop.
> 
> For some images Carbon looks nice, but still the low densities are 
> pretty muddy and flat looking by my standards, using UT2 inks, 
when 
> the gray mode print looks good on the screen, and has printed fine 
> using other ink/apps.  I was able to make new files that printed 
> better, by making the print look 'too light' in G2.2 mode on the 
> screen, before RGB/curves were applied.
> 
> I tried making a PS Working Space custom file to change the gray 
> scale image on screen, but even with 'preview' checked i can not 
get 
> the image to update on the screen in real time.  PS seems to be 
set 
> up to have reflection density values entered numerically, although 
i 
> can move the curve.
> 
> Before i order any more MIS inks, i am interested to know whether 
> people have had to change their images to adapt to UT2 inks, as 
one 
> would, say, to a new paper/developer combination, or have they 
been 
> able, using stock Ruark curves, to get 'good' prints, matching the 
> G2.2 monitor image of the unmanipulated files that have printed 
well 
> in the past.
> 
> At this point i am tempted to wait for the new Epson printer 
> announced in Japan, which supposedly prints tritone blacks.  
> Basically I want a good Dmax and invisible dither in the lightest 
> tones below paper white.  I think the stock Epson black ink looks 
ok, 
> although the UT2 colors are ok with me too.
> 
> So far UT2 'caliberation' has been more expensive and time 
consuming 
> than it would have been for wet printing with a new combination ;-
)  
> Kinda frustrating that at this point in digital printing we still 
> don't have a conveniently achievable WYSIWYG method to print high 
> quality B&W.  I am perfectly willing to believe this is entirely 
due 
> to user error and inexperience on my part, since so many others 
seem 
> to be happy with their results.  I'd love to hear what I am doing 
> wrong.
> 
> 
> Ted