Digital BW, The Print

I've loaded my 2200 with what I call the 4K+, non-blended B&W setup that I'm
using in my 7500.  (See http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf)   With 7
positions available, I have the 4 Ks (MK, PK, LK and LLK) plus full - if
light - color: LC, LM, and Y.  It appears to work very well.  The approach
requires at least a B&W rip (QTR or IJC).  If one had a rip that could
handle cmyk, this approach would even be more appealing, allowing, in
effect, virtually perfect B&W plus color in a k2 printer. 

 

The 7th ink position is fairly open.  Other obvious options would be Glop
for those who want to eliminate the gloss differential in the highlights of
glossy paper or red for what might be a more stable warm tone than the
yellow + magenta can give.  

 

For the 2200, I used the standard ink positions where possible.  The only
exceptions are that the PK is in the C position and LLK in the M position.

 

In the 7500, with its large, non-variable dots, I use a 50% dilution of the
LC to increase smoothness.  In the 2200, as I expected, the standard LC
works fine.  At a 14 inch standard viewing distance I can barely detect the
standard LC version from the 50% LC version.  With a magnifying hood at 6
inches I can see very fine dots in the full LC version, but the 50% LC
version is totally smooth.  While I can see the color dots with a 1600 dpi
scan, the 50% LC approach makes prints that are visually perfect as far as I
can see.  

 

I may standardize on the 50% LC, but it's easy to modify the profiles for
the full LC by just cutting the ink limit in half. I'll continue to
experiment a bit with the full LC to see if there are uses for it in B&W
(aside from the obvious advantages for k2 printers with a cmyk rip).  There
may be uses in B&W with split toning, but in general, I find obvious B&W -
color split tones look a bit gimmicky.  On the other hand, it's
effectiveness in advertising is obvious.  

 

While I doubt I'll have any interest in high gamut cyan in B&W, I do like
the ability to have the yellow available in the 2200 for warmer highlights
and warming brightened paper boarders.  This requires a rip that supports
alpha channels and split-toning.  (IJC does; I'm not sure about QTR.)

 

The 4K+ approach offers standard, widely-available and competitively priced
inks, as well as a workflow that allows full Lab control of B&W tones with
the minimum of color pigments.  It eliminates most of the QC issues that
were due to mixing errors.  The 50% LC is such an easy mix even clueless
employees should be able to get it right, and if they can't anyone can mix
it by pouring a bottle of MIS LC and MIS Glop together.  If one has a cmyk
rip and wants color for the k2 machines, this might also be possible.  

 

Going forward, with the k3 and the like taking the mainstream, high end of
the market, I think the dedicated B&W, lower-priced market will need to
coalesce around some practical standards.  I think this 4K+ approach may be
the ticket.  I'll try the 220 with it next.  Right now it's looking to me
like I'll be supporting the EZ monochrome approach (which includes the R2
inkset for hextones) and this 4K+ approach as the only ones that are needed.
The market is changing fast, and the dedicated B&W market will, I believe,
survive best by having just a few standard inksets that can be used on lots
of different printers.

 

I might add that with a rip, it appears fairly easy to support this
approach.  The carbon curves are the only ones that have any cross-overs,
and that is where the difficulty usually is with curves.  I found that the
7500 IJC carbon curves would work fine on the 2200 just by adjusting the ink
limits based on comparing 100% ink limit step wedges of the 2 printers.
While I ended up tweaking them a bit, it was not necessary.  All I had to do
was switch the ink positions to match the 2200 ink order and adjust the ink
limits based on comparison of step wedges.  The color curves needed some
modification, but that was easily accomplished.  If machines that are this
different can use the same underlying carbon curve cross-overs, this
suggests that most modern printers will be very easy to support with this
type of approach.

 

I might add that the 2200 prints with IJC are smoother than the Epson driver
prints.   I'll be trying to get down the learning curve for QTR as soon as I
can to lower the rip cost for users.  I suspect it and IJC print about the
same.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 



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