Digital BW, The Print

Paul....I can't read your .pdf...it dowloads fine (I'm on a mac), but reads as gobbledygook.

anyplace else I could read this?

thank you,
Sarah




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