Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "gochatunbdotca" <goch@...> 
wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a from-the-ground-up set of instructions for using MIS Associates' 
> UT3D inks on an Epson 2200 with the PrintFix Pro profiling system?

Hello Myron, I can help get you forward but my workflow is gradually evolving over my 
free time during the holidays so nothing is fully formed or down pat.

I'm using an R220 but the UT3D/PFP approach will be the same.  

1) I use MIS PKN in the K position for glossy papers and Eboni for the matte.  I don't know 
of a way yet to replicate Paul Roark's system using curves to hold back the Eboni on the 
glossy papers.  I get decent d-max out of everything so far but I can see room for 
improvement somewhere within the profiles.  For example with Crane Silver Rag I can get a 
d-max of 2.28 out of one patch on the PFP printout but I can only get 2.2 out of a 21-step 
image printed through the profile.  Just looks like there is more work to do there.

2)  I was using the 225 patch printouts originally but I am now tending to use the 150 
patch and I'm not really sure the Enhanced Black printout would add anything with the 
UT3D inkset.  I'd be interested in hearing from others.  I also find that the PFP profiling 
process gives a reasonably good linearization.  I think there is room for improvement and 
it can probably be found in the PFP advanced processes under a different name.

3)  I go to the print dialogue with Adobe RGB images primarily and with sRGB occasionally 
but the RGB is important with the UT3D and PFP.  With the PFP profiles you are actually 
printing a color image with a color inkset, just that it is limited in its color.  Paul's method 
prints from a grayscale image and you have an ability to view the tonality on your monitor 
using a unique function of the QTR create icc profile, but it is different than the RGB 
approach of PFP.  (And I assume you have PFP 2.0. and PS CS or CS2)

4)  Now we get to the variables.  I started this project with CS-2 and went looking for ways 
to tone the prints through PS, again, treating the image as a color image, rather than 
making individual curves for different profiles and a greyscale image.  What I found I liked 
best was Image/Color Balance.  There you can influence the color with three sliders and 
three area settings (highlights, mid-tones, and shadows).  The yellow/blue slider, of 
course, has the strongest influnce on warm to cool and corresponds to the b* axis of 
UT3D.  The other two have less influence and I'm still working on getting my head around 
exactly what angle  the a* axis of UT3D takes.  Suffice it to say a great deal can be done 
instantly with the yellow/blue slider and lot's of playing can be done with the other two.  I 
activate the profile for the paper I'm going to use in View/Proof Set-up/Custom then I 
engage View/Gamut Warning.  I also change the default gamut warning grey to an oddball 
chartruese or something similar in Photoshop/Preferences/Transparency and Gamut...  
this will give you an instant warning when and where your toning has exceeded the 
capability of the inkset.   You can use this command and go cooler or warmer across the 
image by using the same settings in all three areas, (highlight, midtones, shadows) or you 
can vary them quite easily: warm highlights, nuetral midtones, cool shadows etc.  Fairly 
broad strokes but very easy to work.  The above method might be a little too easy as it can 
lend itself toward unreal prints if you're not careful.  Masks could still be used for split 
toning in different parts of the print.  (A note on the above process.   The UT3D gamut 
through the PFP profile is very sensitive and your monitor's capabilities are important.  For 
the last week I've been working on my laptop monitor only and it is very susceptable to 
ambient light and can easily overshadow the affect of the toning done in PS.  So a well 
calibrated monitor and nuetral workplace seems to be important.  Eventually that was 
overcome by simply making some prints and comparing them the next day in day light.  
I'm eager to get back to my normal monitor and workspace for this.)

I also transferred all of this to CS3 Beta recently and there are a few differences.  The first 
is that you can get to Color Balance through Adjustment Layers now so the adjustments 
are Smart and easy to change.  There is also a new B&W adjustment layer that can give you 
even more tone control in a similar mannner by engaging the profile and Gamut Warning 
and seeing it on screen (of course this precludes a calibrated screen) but the B&W 
adjustment Layer doesn't have (or I haven't found a way without resorting to masks) to 
affect only particular tonal areas of the image.

6)  I've gotten very good prints with this method though there is probably room for 
improvement.  The same print with Paul's profile using the basic approach he has outlined 
is slightly different, slightly nicer contrast but with a small loss of shadow detail.  That 
could probably be remedied in the PFP advanced processes.  There is also a measurably 
smoother plot of the a* and b* axes using Paul's profiles although the PFP method does 
give a very nuetral looking print.  I tried Paul's method of profiling and found myself 
having a hard time getting my head around the curve process both as it relates to holding 
back the Eboni on the glossy papers and getting a handle on the relationship between the 
ink positions and how they relate to the a* and b* axes of the UT3D.  I think I'll probably 
keep working on Paul's process as I think it can inherently produce a better print albeit 
with a greater amount of work.  That said I'd love to here of any methods to apply 
correction curves to the PFP profiles that would smooth out the a* and b* axes.  (There 
probably already is within PFP's advanced diologues and the real problem is me getting my 
head around the above mentioned areas.)

Right now I have a long project that needs various tones (duplicating photes from over a 
hundred year period) and the UT3D will work wonderfully using the PFP approach, but in 
the long run I think I'd like to either get Paul's approach down or find a way to even better 
nuetralize the PFP profiles for any new work.

I'm sure there is something I've missed and hopefully some others are playing with the 
PFP/UT3D approach.

Robert