Digital BW, The Print

Joost,


> <paul.roark@...> wrote:
>>
>> This is the approach I'm using on my 2200:
>> http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf
> 

>Paul,

> I must confess I'm a bit puzzled by your suggestion of 
> this inkset for the 2200. I just (2 weeks) started to 
> work with the UT-3D set on my 2100. I have not made 
> all required profiles yet, but the early 
> results are very satisfying. ...

> Why this apparent change in direction?

Short answer:  The 3D inkset is fine, and I use it.  But my large format
tone instability, the advantages of standard inks, QC issues, and what I see
as the future of B&W printing have combined to alter the approach I'll be
using going forward.

The long answer gets too long to put everything in one post, but here are a
few factors that have influenced this change in direction.

First, note that in many ways the UT-3D approach will still have advantages
over the 4K+ or 5K+cm approach I'm moving to.  For example, the Epson driver
is more convenient than a rip, and some purists may still prefer the blended
inks over the separate inks for desktop printers (but the 2200 with LM and
LLC is amazingly smooth, and standard inks allow me to use the best ink at
each position regardless of base compatibility, thus probably offsetting any
longevity advantages of blending).  I might also add that the 3D inkset is
the one that I'll will be using for most of the museum project I'm on.  It's
a good inkset, and I'm using it. 

That said, I had some specific problems I needed to solve, and the future
looks a lot different to me after the introduction of the Epson k3 approach.
The 3D inkset may seem new to most, but I've been trying to solve it's
production and other problems for quite some time -- too long, in fact.

The immediate problem I had to solve involved the tone instability in my
7500.  My tests showed a huge advantage to non-blended inks.  I tried some
experiments with altering the ink base to solve the problem, but I
ultimately gave up on that approach.  While I found how to alter the
direction of the shifts, and while I think with enough time I could control
2 different pigment types in an ink, when the number of pigments goes to 3,
I doubt a base can be made that will be as stable as one that can be
tailored to a single pigment type.  I certainly don't have the time to work
on that solution at this point.  Additionally, the other issues here argued
against a unique base as a solution.  

The bottom line is that a non-blended approach is all I'll be using for my
large format printers.  My printing with the 7500 is too intermittent to
assure that I'll have tone stability from printing session to the next.
(Note that those who use their printers regularly will be un-affected by
this problem.) When one considers that the 3800 is a large format design, I
doubt I'll be looking at blended inkset solutions for it either.  

There are numerous advantages to standardized inks.  Quality control,
competing vendors, and using the same inks in all printers, among them. One
should recall that the only reason we got into the dedicated inkset approach
and non-standard ink densities is that the mainstream color market did not
produce a system or inks that were adequate.  That has changed.  As with the
printers themselves, I think this small niche market needs to take
advantages of the high volume products that already exist if they serve our
purposes.  I used to mix my own POTA developer for Technical Pan film --
until Kodak and others came out with products that were as good or better.
Then I used the simpler, pre-mixed solutions. 

Additionally, I think people need to be able to profile whatever inkset they
are using.  There are all different levels of involvement here.  The EZ and
R2 approaches have broad appeal because they do not require any hardware or
software other than the driver.  I think these approaches will continue to
have appeal.  On the other hand, the older variable tone inksets are
difficult for people to write new curves for unless they have a spectro and
the patience to fool around with profiling.  Most do not.

Here the 2400 ABW mode really changes things.  The ColorVision PFP's ability
to profile the 2400 Y=Carbon arrangement also takes semi-automatic profiling
to an inkset that is about as lightfast as is possible with today's
technology.  The UT-3D inkset does work on the 2400, but, frankly, I'm not
sure there is much of a market at that level for an inkset that does not
take advantage of the technical improvements in profiling that are in place.
The Create ICC approach does extend the life of existing profiles somewhat,
but as totally new papers come onto the market, and as the ink tones drift,
keeping the print tones and ramps where they were intended becomes
increasingly difficult for most users, who simply rely on existing curves
and profiles.

Looking forward -- and that is the only direction I look -- for those who
want to do something that the OEM solutions can't do, I see rips and
standardized, competitive inks as the variable-tone approach that will
survive in this very changed environment. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com