Digital BW, The Print

OK, based on absorbing lots of information in a very short amount of 
time, I seem to have reached a choice between two options, using the 
Ultra Tone inks on a dedicated B&W printer or using ImagePrint with 
the Ultrachromes on a 7-color Epson printer.  Assuming that the 
ImagePrint prints will also display no matamerism (correct me if I'm 
wrong), here is how I've come to understand both options:

Option 1: Ultra Tones on a dedicated B&W printer:
     -high quality results with no metamerism
     -avoids colored inks fading before black ink
     -choice of warm, neutral, cool toning
     -an expensive RIP not needed
     -would end up spending money on a separate printer for color

Option 2: Ultrachromes/ImagePrint on Epson 7-color printer
     -high quality results with no metamerism (due to the use of more
         colors)
     -colored inks could conceivably fade before the black ink
     -some, limited, control over toning
     -high cost of RIP, increasing considerably for WF models (but
         the RIP would also be extremely useful for color printing)
     -could print B&W on the same printer, which could save quite a
         lot if we're talking WF (though the increased cost of a WF
         RIP would eat up a god chunk of that)

So, is that a good estimation?  Am I wrong anywhere?  Are there other 
advantages or drawbacks to either choice?

Also, there's the upcoming Epson 4000 that will supposed have drivers 
that will handle B&W better.  (Will this mean new drivers for the 
2200/7600/9600 that also do better?)  Plus, having Photo Black and 
Matte Black available as a software change makes it all the more 
viable as a printer for both color and B&W.  (Though I'm unsure if 
I'd be willing to pay that much more than the 2200 for a few extra 
inches.  At that point, why not just spend a bit more and go with the 
7600 and get an impressive size increase, I think, maybe.)

Mike

I think that's a pretty fair assesment.  I elected the 'pay someone else to do the work' approach.  I have a 9600 with Imageprint.  I don't regret it at all.  If there is a perception that 'money is no object', then this a good way to go.  (Actually, in my case, there was a difference of opinion in the household on the 'money is no object' question, but the print quality has helped smooth that over.)  
 
The ink/paper costs due to experimention have been very small.  When I download a profile from Colorbyte (at no additional cost over the RIP price), it is spot on, and I can use it immediately.  This due in part to Colorbyte's quality, and the fact that there is almost no variation between individual printers in the 9600 and 7600 line.  I was under the impression that was also the case with the 2200, but some posts on here indicate that might not be the case.  So, if you're thinking about the 2200, you might want to independently verify that issue.
 
Tom Baker

Mike Botelho <mfractl@...> wrote:
OK, based on absorbing lots of information in a very short amount of 
time, I seem to have reached a choice between two options, using the 
Ultra Tone inks on a dedicated B&W printer or using ImagePrint with 
the Ultrachromes on a 7-color Epson printer.  Assuming that the 
ImagePrint prints will also display no matamerism (correct me if I'm 
wrong), here is how I've come to understand both options:

Option 1: Ultra Tones on a dedicated B&W printer:
     -high quality results with no metamerism
     -avoids colored inks fading before black ink
     -choice of warm, neutral, cool toning
     -an expensive RIP not needed
     -would end up spending money on a separate printer for color

Option 2: Ultrachromes/ImagePrint on Epson 7-color printer
     -high quality results with no metamerism (due to the use of more
         colors)
     -colored inks could conceivably fade before the black ink
     -some, limited, control over toning
     -high cost of RIP, increasing considerably for WF models (but
         the RIP would also be extremely useful for color printing)
     -could print B&W on the same printer, which could save quite a
         lot if we're talking WF (though the increased cost of a WF
         RIP would eat up a god chunk of that)

So, is that a good estimation?  Am I wrong anywhere?  Are there other 
advantages or drawbacks to either choice?

Also, there's the upcoming Epson 4000 that will supposed have drivers 
that will handle B&W better.  (Will this mean new drivers for the 
2200/7600/9600 that also do better?)  Plus, having Photo Black and 
Matte Black available as a software change makes it all the more 
viable as a printer for both color and B&W.  (Though I'm unsure if 
I'd be willing to pay that much more than the 2200 for a few extra 
inches.  At that point, why not just spend a bit more and go with the 
7600 and get an impressive size increase, I think, maybe.)

Mike


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

For: Mike Botelho

> Also, there's the upcoming Epson 4000 that will supposed have drivers
> that will handle B&W better. (Will this mean new drivers for the
> 2200/7600/9600 that also do better?) Plus, having Photo Black and
> Matte Black available as a software change makes it all the more
> viable as a printer for both color and B&W. (Though I'm unsure if
> I'd be willing to pay that much more than the 2200 for a few extra
> inches. At that point, why not just spend a bit more and go with the
> 7600 and get an impressive size increase, I think, maybe.)

I have a 7600 and am printing with ImagePrint. First, my take on 
ImagePrint: I am very happy with it -- B&W is spot-on neutral without 
metamerism, and the TintPicker allows for subtle "toning" of the print 
if you want to make the prints, say, warmer or have a selenium-toned 
look. In my view the results are as good as B&W prints I previously 
made using Piezography. For color prints, I have found the ImagePrint 
paper profiles to be excellent obviating the need and cost and bother 
of having custom profiles made -- at least this seems to be the case 
for the 7600 and 9600 printers whose manufacturing tolerances, i.e., 
variability between individual printers, seem to better than those of 
the 2200. If you use a good number of different papers  -- apparently 
ColorByte will profile any paper free that for which there is not 
already a profile -- this means that you can save a lot of money that 
you would have spent on custom profiles. The ColorByte color profiles 
are a lot more accurate than the canned Epson profiles and a little 
better in color, particularly in terms of shadow detail, than the free 
Bill Atkinson profiles available for the 7600/9600 which themselves are 
excellent. (The current version of ImagePrint has a "slider" that 
allows you easily to control how much shadow detail or shadow 
compression that you want).

As for the 7600, it is an excellent printer but the problem is that it 
costs about $80 in wasted ink to change between Photo Black ink (used 
for printing on glossy-type papers) and Matte Black ink (used for 
printing on matte papers). For me this is a real problem. When I first 
got my 7600, I started using Photo Black and Epson Semi-Matte paper (a 
glossy-type paper) and eventually printed most of the prints for my 
forthcoming exhibition using this ink and paper combination. When I 
used up the Photo Black I switched to Matte Black and started printing 
on EEM and Photo Rag. However, when I needed to complete the rest of my 
exhibition prints I found that the matte color prints did not look as 
good (in terms of "sharpness", saturation and depth of the blacks) as 
the Photo Black/Semi-Matte paper combination; and this view was 
confirmed by every one who saw the prints, which means that I need to 
change back to Photo Black and Semi-Matte paper to complete the prints 
for my exhibition. The trouble is that B&W prints with Photo Black and 
Semi-Matte don't look very good and exhibit horrible "bronzing." This 
problem is solved by the new 4000 printer which has both Photo Black 
and Matte Black which allows you to change between glossy-type and 
matte paper at will without any cost. The 2200 involves insignificant 
ink waste in changing black inks but the small size of the ink 
cartridges means that ink costs are very high. With the 4000 you can 
use the same 220ml cartridges that the 7600/9600 use. (Incidentally, I 
found that with the Ultrachrome inks both B&W and color prints looked 
somewhat better on EEM than on Photo Rag.)

 From the above you can see that there is a great advantage in the 4000 
if you want to print both B&W  and color which, with the papers 
currently available, means that you need to use both the Photo Black 
and Matte Black, unless you like the way the color prints look on matte 
paper, and some people do.

In my case, I already have the 7600 and I like to be able to make 24x36 
inch prints but the only hope on the horizon right now is that there 
might be a new glossy-type paper which is not subject to bronzing for 
B&W prints. There is one new paper, Oriental Graphica FB Glossy, that 
may have such characteristics according to a July posting by Robert 
Morrison, and I'll be interested to see what results people have with 
this paper. In the meantime, does anyone have any solutions for 
printing good B&W with Photo Black?

--Mitch/Paris

Tom,

Now that I have got the IP Demo working with my 2200, I find that the B&W
works fine - better than I can do with a good custom profile. However, the
color prints I have made are nowhere near as accurate as those I have made
with a custom profile (ProfilerPro/Colormouse/Artisan). So for me the
question is are the B&W prints worth the money for IP, the color prints
clearly aren't. IP's canned profiles presumably don't take into account the
printer variations we get with the cheaper printers.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Baker" <tbaker1328@...>


> I think that's a pretty fair assesment.  I elected the 'pay someone else
to do the work' approach.  I have a 9600 with Imageprint.  I don't regret it
at all.  If there is a perception that 'money is no object', then this a
good way to go.  (Actually, in my case, there was a difference of opinion in
the household on the 'money is no object' question, but the print quality
has helped smooth that over.)
>
> The ink/paper costs due to experimention have been very small.  When I
download a profile from Colorbyte (at no additional cost over the RIP
price), it is spot on, and I can use it immediately.  This due in part to
Colorbyte's quality, and the fact that there is almost no variation between
individual printers in the 9600 and 7600 line.  I was under the impression
that was also the case with the 2200, but some posts on here indicate that
might not be the case.  So, if you're thinking about the 2200, you might
want to independently verify that issue.

Tom

I can¹t recall which OS you are using but if you use a Mac then for B&W you
should definitely test QTR with the OEM inks.

Steve

From: "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:03 +0100
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Ultra Tones & Dedicated B&W vs ImagePrint &
7-Color

Tom,

Now that I have got the IP Demo working with my 2200, I find that the B&W
works fine - better than I can do with a good custom profile. However, the
color prints I have made are nowhere near as accurate as those I have made
with a custom profile (ProfilerPro/Colormouse/Artisan). So for me the
question is are the B&W prints worth the money for IP, the color prints
clearly aren't. IP's canned profiles presumably don't take into account the
printer variations we get with the cheaper printers.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Baker" <tbaker1328@...>


> I think that's a pretty fair assesment.  I elected the 'pay someone else
to do the work' approach.  I have a 9600 with Imageprint.  I don't regret it
at all.  If there is a perception that 'money is no object', then this a
good way to go.  (Actually, in my case, there was a difference of opinion in
the household on the 'money is no object' question, but the print quality
has helped smooth that over.)
>
> The ink/paper costs due to experimention have been very small.  When I
download a profile from Colorbyte (at no additional cost over the RIP
price), it is spot on, and I can use it immediately.  This due in part to
Colorbyte's quality, and the fact that there is almost no variation between
individual printers in the 9600 and 7600 line.  I was under the impression
that was also the case with the 2200, but some posts on here indicate that
might not be the case.  So, if you're thinking about the 2200, you might
want to independently verify that issue.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 
 ADVERTISEMENT
 <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705019
182:HM/A=1732163/R=0/SIG=11n0nglqg/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=305
10&media=zone>  

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



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

Hi Mike,

Your assessment of the pros/cons of each "solution" seems about right. I just moved from running an Epson 1160/UT inks/Roark curves to IP 5.6 to drive my Epson 2200. I have been very happy with both the color and B&W results from IP. BTW, IP doesn't use the yellow ink for B&W which, reportedly, eliminates metamerism--have not noticed any color cast in my B&W prints--and the UC inks already have a reputation for being pretty stable.

Overall, I have been happy with IP...so far. I like the fact that many seemingly accurate paper profiles are free for download--custom profiles ain't cheap--and, my overall workflow has been greatly simplified...Drag-n-drop image onto IP main layout window, select appropriate paper profile, hit print. Printer starts running almost immediately--compare that to the wait time of whatever spooling the Epson driver is doing--and I'm free to use my machine for other tasks. Less mistakes works for me!

Just my 2 cents,
Alan Huntley

> 
> From: "Mike Botelho" <mfractl@...>
> Date: 2003/10/22 Wed PM 11:03:27 EDT
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Ultra Tones & Dedicated B&W vs ImagePrint & 7-Color
> 
> OK, based on absorbing lots of information in a very short amount of 
> time, I seem to have reached a choice between two options, using the 
> Ultra Tone inks on a dedicated B&W printer or using ImagePrint with 
> the Ultrachromes on a 7-color Epson printer.  Assuming that the 
> ImagePrint prints will also display no matamerism (correct me if I'm 
> wrong), here is how I've come to understand both options:
> 
> Option 1: Ultra Tones on a dedicated B&W printer:
>      -high quality results with no metamerism
>      -avoids colored inks fading before black ink
>      -choice of warm, neutral, cool toning
>      -an expensive RIP not needed
>      -would end up spending money on a separate printer for color
> 
> Option 2: Ultrachromes/ImagePrint on Epson 7-color printer
>      -high quality results with no metamerism (due to the use of more
>          colors)
>      -colored inks could conceivably fade before the black ink
>      -some, limited, control over toning
>      -high cost of RIP, increasing considerably for WF models (but
>          the RIP would also be extremely useful for color printing)
>      -could print B&W on the same printer, which could save quite a
>          lot if we're talking WF (though the increased cost of a WF
>          RIP would eat up a god chunk of that)
> 
> So, is that a good estimation?  Am I wrong anywhere?  Are there other 
> advantages or drawbacks to either choice?
> 
> Also, there's the upcoming Epson 4000 that will supposed have drivers 
> that will handle B&W better.  (Will this mean new drivers for the 
> 2200/7600/9600 that also do better?)  Plus, having Photo Black and 
> Matte Black available as a software change makes it all the more 
> viable as a printer for both color and B&W.  (Though I'm unsure if 
> I'd be willing to pay that much more than the 2200 for a few extra 
> inches.  At that point, why not just spend a bit more and go with the 
> 7600 and get an impressive size increase, I think, maybe.)
> 
> Mike

> BTW, IP doesn't use the yellow ink for B&W which, reportedly, 
> eliminates metamerism

I see this repeated all the time, but I really wonder whether it's
true... The Epson driver also uses a very large amount of cyan and
magenta to produce BW, and those inks clearly display strong metamerism
on color pictures - A have a picture with a deep blue sky in front of me
now, and under the fluorescent light on my desk it's very purple, while
under a normal lightbulb it's much closer to cyan - Big difference. This
reflects the metamerism I see in BW pictures printed with the Epson
driver.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

Bob  -
 
For me it was easy to decide.  I couldn't get the b&w that I wanted with the Epson drivers/profiles, or with the Atkinson profiles.  The next step was custom profiles, but I was still stuck with the Epson drivers.  So, I went to my local Epson WF dealer and they demo'd Imageprint on both b&w and color.  SOLD!.
 
But, this is very subjective.  Your personal tastes, bankroll, space, etc., all play into your decission.  On my machine the Imageprint b&w and color are excellent.
 
BTW, Colorbyte offers a 30 return policy.  I don't know if that applies only to purchases through them directly, or through 3rd part suppliers.  You could try it and see on your own machine.
 
Tom Baker


Bob Frost <bobfrost@...> wrote:
Tom,

Now that I have got the IP Demo working with my 2200, I find that the B&W
works fine - better than I can do with a good custom profile. However, the
color prints I have made are nowhere near as accurate as those I have made
with a custom profile (ProfilerPro/Colormouse/Artisan). So for me the
question is are the B&W prints worth the money for IP, the color prints
clearly aren't. IP's canned profiles presumably don't take into account the
printer variations we get with the cheaper printers.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Baker" <tbaker1328@...>


> I think that's a pretty fair assesment.  I elected the 'pay someone else
to do the work' approach.  I have a 9600 with Imageprint.  I don't regret it
at all.  If there is a perception that 'money is no object', then this a
good way to go.  (Actually, in my case, there was a difference of opinion in
the household on the 'money is no object' question, but the print quality
has helped smooth that over.)
>
> The ink/paper costs due to experimention have been very small.  When I
download a profile from Colorbyte (at no additional cost over the RIP
price), it is spot on, and I can use it immediately.  This due in part to
Colorbyte's quality, and the fact that there is almost no variation between
individual printers in the 9600 and 7600 line.  I was under the impression
that was also the case with the 2200, but some posts on here indicate that
might not be the case.  So, if you're thinking about the 2200, you might
want to independently verify that issue.


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

Does this mean you would prefer to use a 2200 over the 1280 for the B&W???
I am a bit confused as to which printer is better?
I¹ll go with which ever gives me the best image.
Just tell me which one?
Regards....




On 10/23/03 9:34 PM, "Alan.Huntley@..." <Alan.Huntley@...> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
> 
> Your assessment of the pros/cons of each "solution" seems about right. I just
> moved from running an Epson 1160/UT inks/Roark curves to IP 5.6 to drive my
> Epson 2200. I have been very happy with both the color and B&W results from
> IP. BTW, IP doesn't use the yellow ink for B&W which, reportedly, eliminates
> metamerism--have not noticed any color cast in my B&W prints--and the UC inks
> already have a reputation for being pretty stable.
> 
> Overall, I have been happy with IP...so far. I like the fact that many
> seemingly accurate paper profiles are free for download--custom profiles ain't
> cheap--and, my overall workflow has been greatly simplified...Drag-n-drop
> image onto IP main layout window, select appropriate paper profile, hit print.
> Printer starts running almost immediately--compare that to the wait time of
> whatever spooling the Epson driver is doing--and I'm free to use my machine
> for other tasks. Less mistakes works for me!
> 
> Just my 2 cents,
> Alan Huntley
> 
>> > 
>> > From: "Mike Botelho" <mfractl@...>
>> > Date: 2003/10/22 Wed PM 11:03:27 EDT
>> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> > Subject: [Digital BW] Ultra Tones & Dedicated B&W vs ImagePrint & 7-Color
>> > 
>> > OK, based on absorbing lots of information in a very short amount of
>> > time, I seem to have reached a choice between two options, using the
>> > Ultra Tone inks on a dedicated B&W printer or using ImagePrint with
>> > the Ultrachromes on a 7-color Epson printer.  Assuming that the
>> > ImagePrint prints will also display no matamerism (correct me if I'm
>> > wrong), here is how I've come to understand both options:
>> > 
>> > Option 1: Ultra Tones on a dedicated B&W printer:
>> >      -high quality results with no metamerism
>> >      -avoids colored inks fading before black ink
>> >      -choice of warm, neutral, cool toning
>> >      -an expensive RIP not needed
>> >      -would end up spending money on a separate printer for color
>> > 
>> > Option 2: Ultrachromes/ImagePrint on Epson 7-color printer
>> >      -high quality results with no metamerism (due to the use of more
>> >          colors)
>> >      -colored inks could conceivably fade before the black ink
>> >      -some, limited, control over toning
>> >      -high cost of RIP, increasing considerably for WF models (but
>> >          the RIP would also be extremely useful for color printing)
>> >      -could print B&W on the same printer, which could save quite a
>> >          lot if we're talking WF (though the increased cost of a WF
>> >          RIP would eat up a god chunk of that)
>> > 
>> > So, is that a good estimation?  Am I wrong anywhere?  Are there other
>> > advantages or drawbacks to either choice?
>> > 
>> > Also, there's the upcoming Epson 4000 that will supposed have drivers
>> > that will handle B&W better.  (Will this mean new drivers for the
>> > 2200/7600/9600 that also do better?)  Plus, having Photo Black and
>> > Matte Black available as a software change makes it all the more
>> > viable as a printer for both color and B&W.  (Though I'm unsure if
>> > I'd be willing to pay that much more than the 2200 for a few extra
>> > inches.  At that point, why not just spend a bit more and go with the
>> > 7600 and get an impressive size increase, I think, maybe.)
>> > 
>> > Mike
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>  
>  ADVERTISEMENT
>  
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182
> :HM/A=1754016/R=0/SIG=11pv1u2ju/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=30529&me
> dia=atkins>  
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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

I'm running XP PRO. 
 
Tom Baker
 

Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:
Tom

I can�t recall which OS you are using but if you use a Mac then for B&W you
should definitely test QTR with the OEM inks.

Steve

From: "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:03 +0100
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Ultra Tones & Dedicated B&W vs ImagePrint &
7-Color

Tom,

Now that I have got the IP Demo working with my 2200, I find that the B&W
works fine - better than I can do with a good custom profile. However, the
color prints I have made are nowhere near as accurate as those I have made
with a custom profile (ProfilerPro/Colormouse/Artisan). So for me the
question is are the B&W prints worth the money for IP, the color prints
clearly aren't. IP's canned profiles presumably don't take into account the
printer variations we get with the cheaper printers.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Baker" <tbaker1328@...>


> I think that's a pretty fair assesment.  I elected the 'pay someone else
to do the work' approach.  I have a 9600 with Imageprint.  I don't regret it
at all.  If there is a perception that 'money is no object', then this a
good way to go.  (Actually, in my case, there was a difference of opinion in
the household on the 'money is no object' question, but the print quality
has helped smooth that over.)
>
> The ink/paper costs due to experimention have been very small.  When I
download a profile from Colorbyte (at no additional cost over the RIP
price), it is spot on, and I can use it immediately.  This due in part to
Colorbyte's quality, and the fact that there is almost no variation between
individual printers in the 9600 and 7600 line.  I was under the impression
that was also the case with the 2200, but some posts on here indicate that
might not be the case.  So, if you're thinking about the 2200, you might
want to independently verify that issue.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705019
182:HM/A=1732163/R=0/SIG=11n0nglqg/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=305
10&media=zone>  

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

Hi Daniel,

To be honest, I really don't know what my IP produced B&W prints look like under the multitude of different light sources out there. But, I can tell you that in indirect natural light (my living room) or incandescent roomlight my B&W prints look fine; no color cast.

The Epson driver printing B&W will most definitely introduce some form of color cast...in my experience, anyway.

Alan Huntley

> 
> From: "Daniel Staver" <daniel@...>
> Date: 2003/10/23 Thu AM 10:47:30 EDT
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Ultra Tones & Dedicated B&W vs ImagePrint & 7-Color
> 
> > BTW, IP doesn't use the yellow ink for B&W which, reportedly, 
> > eliminates metamerism
> 
> I see this repeated all the time, but I really wonder whether it's
> true... The Epson driver also uses a very large amount of cyan and
> magenta to produce BW, and those inks clearly display strong metamerism
> on color pictures - A have a picture with a deep blue sky in front of me
> now, and under the fluorescent light on my desk it's very purple, while
> under a normal lightbulb it's much closer to cyan - Big difference. This
> reflects the metamerism I see in BW pictures printed with the Epson
> driver.
> 
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>

Lexjet offers a 30-day return, too.

Alan Huntley

> 
> From: Tom Baker <tbaker1328@...>
> Date: 2003/10/23 Thu AM 10:52:29 EDT
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Ultra Tones & Dedicated B&W vs ImagePrint & 7-Color
> 
> Bob  -
>  
> For me it was easy to decide.  I couldn't get the b&w that I wanted with the Epson drivers/profiles, or with the Atkinson profiles.  The next step was custom profiles, but I was still stuck with the Epson drivers.  So, I went to my local Epson WF dealer and they demo'd Imageprint on both b&w and color.  SOLD!.
>  
> But, this is very subjective.  Your personal tastes, bankroll, space, etc., all play into your decission.  On my machine the Imageprint b&w and color are excellent.
>  
> BTW, Colorbyte offers a 30 return policy.  I don't know if that applies only to purchases through them directly, or through 3rd part suppliers.  You could try it and see on your own machine.
>  
> Tom Baker
> 
> 
> Bob Frost <bobfrost@...> wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> Now that I have got the IP Demo working with my 2200, I find that the B&W
> works fine - better than I can do with a good custom profile. However, the
> color prints I have made are nowhere near as accurate as those I have made
> with a custom profile (ProfilerPro/Colormouse/Artisan). So for me the
> question is are the B&W prints worth the money for IP, the color prints
> clearly aren't. IP's canned profiles presumably don't take into account the
> printer variations we get with the cheaper printers.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tom Baker" <tbaker1328@...>
> 
> 
> > I think that's a pretty fair assesment.  I elected the 'pay someone else
> to do the work' approach.  I have a 9600 with Imageprint.  I don't regret it
> at all.  If there is a perception that 'money is no object', then this a
> good way to go.  (Actually, in my case, there was a difference of opinion in
> the household on the 'money is no object' question, but the print quality
> has helped smooth that over.)
> >
> > The ink/paper costs due to experimention have been very small.  When I
> download a profile from Colorbyte (at no additional cost over the RIP
> price), it is spot on, and I can use it immediately.  This due in part to
> Colorbyte's quality, and the fact that there is almost no variation between
> individual printers in the 9600 and 7600 line.  I was under the impression
> that was also the case with the 2200, but some posts on here indicate that
> might not be the case.  So, if you're thinking about the 2200, you might
> want to independently verify that issue.
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>

Tom

Sorry my comment should have been addressed to Mike (the person you were
responding to) - half asleep today!

:-)

Steve

> From: Tom Baker <tbaker1328@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 07:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Ultra Tones & Dedicated B&W vs ImagePrint & 7-Color
> 
> I'm running XP PRO.
> 
> Tom Baker
> 
> 
> Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:
> Tom
> 
> I can¹t recall which OS you are using but if you use a Mac then for B&W you
> should definitely test QTR with the OEM inks.
> 
> Steve
> 
>

I agree Daniel.  I recently made a QTR sepia profile using K, LK, LM,  
LC, and Y.  Although Y is used in this profile there is no metamerism  
in the prints.

Carl Schofield
www.schophoto.com

On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 10:47  AM, Daniel Staver wrote:

>> BTW, IP doesn't use the yellow ink for B&W which, reportedly,
>> eliminates metamerism
>
> I see this repeated all the time, but I really wonder whether it's
> true... The Epson driver also uses a very large amount of cyan and
> magenta to produce BW, and those inks clearly display strong metamerism
> on color pictures - A have a picture with a deep blue sky in front of  
> me
> now, and under the fluorescent light on my desk it's very purple, while
> under a normal lightbulb it's much closer to cyan - Big difference.  
> This
> reflects the metamerism I see in BW pictures printed with the Epson
> driver.
>
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ---------------------~-->
> Rent DVDs from home.
> Over 14,500 titles. Free Shipping
> & No Late Fees. Try Netflix for FREE!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/mk9osC/hP.FAA/3jkFAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls  
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish  
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting  
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to  
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject  
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the  
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to  
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

The finest B&W I have achieved digitally (or at all, because my 
darkroom skills were never the best :-)) was using Piezography Pro 
and my Epson 7000, but ImagePrint 5.6 and my 7600 comes very, very 
close.

ImagePrint 5.6 dipslays no visble metamerism in B&W prints.  the 
ability to tone prints is a big bonus. As a one-box printing 
solution, its hard to beat. 

In other words, IP 5.6 is capable of exhibition quality B&W prints 
using the standard Epson Ultrachrome inks.  At the moment, there 
simply is no equivalent quality solution that I am aware of from 
anyone else:  you'd have to use a full-blown dedicated B&W system to 
match it.

Quentin

Thanks, Mitch, for your input.  I appreciate your take on ImagePrint 
as I do want to consider that option fully also.

Yes, I am quite concerned about the waste involved in switching from 
Photo to Matte Black, although this would be far more of a problem 
with the 7600/9600 than with the 2200, where I think you waste about 
$1 worth of ink.  I had been thinking of starting off with a 13" 
printer and then working my way up to WF, but I'm not really sure.  
Perhaps it would be better for me to start wider and just get the big 
purchase out of the way.  We'll see.

And, yes, the 4000 is definitely an option, considering that 
switching blacks will just be a software change.  But part of me 
considers the 17" size neither here nor there.  It neither offers the 
options of starting off real cheaply, as with a 13" printer, and nor 
does it offer the option of producing the largest prints I'd like to 
do.  So, again, I'm not sure yet.

Plus, another consideration, for me, is that Epson is claiming far 
better black and white performance for the 4000.  Now, while I don't 
intend to endlessly speculate on what these changes will be over the 
next 3 months, I'm nonetheless concerned as to whether the 4000 will 
be released with better drivers that will eliminate metamerism in the 
same way a RIP does.  Obviously, a color & B&W solution that doesn't 
need a RIP would be both cost-effective and versatile.

Of course, a driver improvement that eliminated metamerism would, I 
assume, be an upgrade that could be applied to the 2200/7600/9600 as 
well.  If the 4000's drivers do perform much better, I can hardly 
imagine that owners of other Ultrachrome printers would be content to 
use drivers that as not as efficient, and I hardly think it would be 
wise for Epson to let owners of those other printers suffer from 
problems that have been eliminated in software.

Like I said, I don't intend to indulge in endless, idle speculation, 
but being able to purchase a 7600 with improved drivers would be much 
preferable to buying a 7600 plus having to spend $1500 for a RIP.  In 
fact, it might well be the difference between my getting a 7600 or 
not, so I can't help but wonder.

Well, at this point, the decisions are mine, including whether I care 
to wait until January and see what the 4000 brings.  As in life, 
there aren't any absolute choices, I suppose.  After everything sinks 
in, I'm sure I'll just make a choice that seems best for me.

Thank again for the input.

Mike


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mitch Alland 
<malland@x> wrote:
> For: Mike Botelho
> 
> > Also, there's the upcoming Epson 4000 that will supposed have 
drivers
> > that will handle B&W better. (Will this mean new drivers for the
> > 2200/7600/9600 that also do better?) Plus, having Photo Black and
> > Matte Black available as a software change makes it all the more
> > viable as a printer for both color and B&W. (Though I'm unsure if
> > I'd be willing to pay that much more than the 2200 for a few extra
> > inches. At that point, why not just spend a bit more and go with 
the
> > 7600 and get an impressive size increase, I think, maybe.)
> 
> I have a 7600 and am printing with ImagePrint. First, my take on 
> ImagePrint: I am very happy with it -- B&W is spot-on neutral 
without 
> metamerism, and the TintPicker allows for subtle "toning" of the 
print 
> if you want to make the prints, say, warmer or have a selenium-
toned 
> look. In my view the results are as good as B&W prints I previously 
> made using Piezography. For color prints, I have found the 
ImagePrint 
> paper profiles to be excellent obviating the need and cost and 
bother 
> of having custom profiles made -- at least this seems to be the 
case 
> for the 7600 and 9600 printers whose manufacturing tolerances, 
i.e., 
> variability between individual printers, seem to better than those 
of 
> the 2200. If you use a good number of different papers  -- 
apparently 
> ColorByte will profile any paper free that for which there is not 
> already a profile -- this means that you can save a lot of money 
that 
> you would have spent on custom profiles. The ColorByte color 
profiles 
> are a lot more accurate than the canned Epson profiles and a little 
> better in color, particularly in terms of shadow detail, than the 
free 
> Bill Atkinson profiles available for the 7600/9600 which themselves 
are 
> excellent. (The current version of ImagePrint has a "slider" that 
> allows you easily to control how much shadow detail or shadow 
> compression that you want).
> 
> As for the 7600, it is an excellent printer but the problem is that 
it 
> costs about $80 in wasted ink to change between Photo Black ink 
(used 
> for printing on glossy-type papers) and Matte Black ink (used for 
> printing on matte papers). For me this is a real problem. When I 
first 
> got my 7600, I started using Photo Black and Epson Semi-Matte paper 
(a 
> glossy-type paper) and eventually printed most of the prints for my 
> forthcoming exhibition using this ink and paper combination. When I 
> used up the Photo Black I switched to Matte Black and started 
printing 
> on EEM and Photo Rag. However, when I needed to complete the rest 
of my 
> exhibition prints I found that the matte color prints did not look 
as 
> good (in terms of "sharpness", saturation and depth of the blacks) 
as 
> the Photo Black/Semi-Matte paper combination; and this view was 
> confirmed by every one who saw the prints, which means that I need 
to 
> change back to Photo Black and Semi-Matte paper to complete the 
prints 
> for my exhibition. The trouble is that B&W prints with Photo Black 
and 
> Semi-Matte don't look very good and exhibit horrible "bronzing." 
This 
> problem is solved by the new 4000 printer which has both Photo 
Black 
> and Matte Black which allows you to change between glossy-type and 
> matte paper at will without any cost. The 2200 involves 
insignificant 
> ink waste in changing black inks but the small size of the ink 
> cartridges means that ink costs are very high. With the 4000 you 
can 
> use the same 220ml cartridges that the 7600/9600 use. 
(Incidentally, I 
> found that with the Ultrachrome inks both B&W and color prints 
looked 
> somewhat better on EEM than on Photo Rag.)
> 
>  From the above you can see that there is a great advantage in the 
4000 
> if you want to print both B&W  and color which, with the papers 
> currently available, means that you need to use both the Photo 
Black 
> and Matte Black, unless you like the way the color prints look on 
matte 
> paper, and some people do.
> 
> In my case, I already have the 7600 and I like to be able to make 
24x36 
> inch prints but the only hope on the horizon right now is that 
there 
> might be a new glossy-type paper which is not subject to bronzing 
for 
> B&W prints. There is one new paper, Oriental Graphica FB Glossy, 
that 
> may have such characteristics according to a July posting by Robert 
> Morrison, and I'll be interested to see what results people have 
with 

> this paper. In the meantime, does anyone have any solutions for 
> printing good B&W with Photo Black?
> 
> --Mitch/Paris

I'd like to thank everyone for all the advice.  At first, I started 
to reply to each and every response, but I've started to realize that 
I will simply be repeating myself over and over if I reply to 
everyone that's offered their vote on this subject.  Yet, the 
response here is so much more helpful than I've experienced 
elsewhere, I definitely wanted to acknowledge it.  So thanks again to 
all.

Also, one of the posts I just read reminded me of a question I'd 
thought of last evening...

Since the use of colored inks seems to be a source of problems when 
printing B&W with the Ultrachromes, why not just use the Light Black 
to provide the lighter tonalities instead?  I know that 'black only' 
printing results in noticable dots that some find objectionable and 
that the use of colored inks eliminates this, but wouldn't the use of 
the Light Black ink eliminate this also?  In fact, isn't that why the 
Ultrachrome printers have a Light Black cartridge?  So, I'm 
wondering, am I missing something here?  Does the inclusion of 
colored ink somehow produce smoother gradations than simply using the 
lighter tones produced by the Light Black ink?

Mike

I wasn't disagreeing with the fact that IP removes metamerism, just the
statement that yellow produces metamerism in the Epson driver.

I have some IP prints that I've aquired in the various print exchanges,
and they look great - no metamerism.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no 

> To be honest, I really don't know what my IP produced B&W 
> prints look like under the multitude of different light 
> sources out there. But, I can tell you that in indirect 
> natural light (my living room) or incandescent roomlight my 
> B&W prints look fine; no color cast.
> 
> The Epson driver printing B&W will most definitely introduce 
> some form of color cast...in my experience, anyway.

Carl

Please tell me more about the sepia profile and which inks you used.
I am about to get a 1290 to use on my Linux QTR box and I specifically want
to print sepia.

Thanks
Reinier van der Ryst

From: "Carl Schofield" <scho@...>


> I recently made a QTR sepia profile using K, LK, LM,
> LC, and Y.  Although Y is used in this profile there is no metamerism
> in the prints.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Botelho" 
<mfractl@h...> wrote:
> 
> I'd like to thank everyone for all the advice.  At first, I started 
> to reply to each and every response, but I've started to realize that 
> I will simply be repeating myself over and over if I reply to 
> everyone that's offered their vote on this subject.  Yet, the 
> response here is so much more helpful than I've experienced 
> elsewhere, I definitely wanted to acknowledge it.  So thanks again to 
> all.
> 
> Also, one of the posts I just read reminded me of a question I'd 
> thought of last evening...
> 
> Since the use of colored inks seems to be a source of problems when 
> printing B&W with the Ultrachromes, why not just use the Light Black 
> to provide the lighter tonalities instead?  I know that 'black only' 
> printing results in noticable dots that some find objectionable and 
> that the use of colored inks eliminates this, but wouldn't the use of 
> the Light Black ink eliminate this also?  In fact, isn't that why the 
> Ultrachrome printers have a Light Black cartridge?  So, I'm 
> wondering, am I missing something here?  Does the inclusion of 
> colored ink somehow produce smoother gradations than simply using the 
> lighter tones produced by the Light Black ink?
> 
> Mike

These are all good observations and questions.  The answers are very
intertwined and interdependent.

First and foremost is the Epson driver doesn't give you that option.
It allows Black-Only which is just the one dark black ink giving you
noticable dots, and it allows the full Color inks in which it decides the
mix of light-black and color inks -- the user and the profiles haven't
much control of ink usage.

Second is that the light-black ink is not neutral gray.  It's quite warm,
basically a brown rather than neutral.  The point is that a two ink print
will be very warm not neutral.  This can look nice but most people want
at least the option of neutral B&W.

So the point of all the mentioned RIPs -- ImagePrint, IJC/OPM and QuadToneRIP
is to start with the two-ink (black and light-black) grayscale print and
add a small but just enough light-cyan and light-magenta inks to 
neutralize the warm tone of the light-black.  The advantage is that it
uses a minimal amount of color inks and has minimal metamerism.  It's
also possible to vary the amount of light-cyan and light-magenta to
allow slight toning of the print -- warm to cool or selenium.

Finally, I think there's one more slight twist in the 2200 vs dedicated B&W.
Despite the name "light-black" it's really a pretty dark ink -- about the
same as the darkest gray of the quadtone inksets.  The printers have
such small drops of ink that for the most part, most people don't see or
don't care about these dots -- but the dedicated B&W inks have a lighter
gray that at least theoretically gives even smoother highlight grays.

Roy
www.harrington.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" 
<roy@h...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Botelho" 
> <mfractl@h...> wrote:
> > 
> > I'd like to thank everyone for all the advice.  At first, I 
started 
> > to reply to each and every response, but I've started to realize 
that 
> > I will simply be repeating myself over and over if I reply to 
> > everyone that's offered their vote on this subject.  Yet, the 
> > response here is so much more helpful than I've experienced 
> > elsewhere, I definitely wanted to acknowledge it.  So thanks 
again to 
> > all.
> > 
> > Also, one of the posts I just read reminded me of a question I'd 
> > thought of last evening...
> > 
> > Since the use of colored inks seems to be a source of problems 
when 
> > printing B&W with the Ultrachromes, why not just use the Light 
Black 
> > to provide the lighter tonalities instead?  I know that 'black 
only' 
> > printing results in noticable dots that some find objectionable 
and 
> > that the use of colored inks eliminates this, but wouldn't the 
use of 
> > the Light Black ink eliminate this also?  In fact, isn't that why 
the 
> > Ultrachrome printers have a Light Black cartridge?  So, I'm 
> > wondering, am I missing something here?  Does the inclusion of 
> > colored ink somehow produce smoother gradations than simply using 
the 
> > lighter tones produced by the Light Black ink?
> > 
> > Mike
> 
> These are all good observations and questions.  The answers are very
> intertwined and interdependent.
> 
> First and foremost is the Epson driver doesn't give you that option.
> It allows Black-Only which is just the one dark black ink giving you
> noticable dots, and it allows the full Color inks in which it 
decides the
> mix of light-black and color inks -- the user and the profiles 
haven't
> much control of ink usage.
> 
> Second is that the light-black ink is not neutral gray.  It's quite 
warm,
> basically a brown rather than neutral.  The point is that a two ink 
print
> will be very warm not neutral.  This can look nice but most people 
want
> at least the option of neutral B&W.
> 
> So the point of all the mentioned RIPs -- ImagePrint, IJC/OPM and 
QuadToneRIP
> is to start with the two-ink (black and light-black) grayscale 
print and
> add a small but just enough light-cyan and light-magenta inks to 
> neutralize the warm tone of the light-black.  The advantage is that 
it
> uses a minimal amount of color inks and has minimal metamerism.  
It's
> also possible to vary the amount of light-cyan and light-magenta to
> allow slight toning of the print -- warm to cool or selenium.
> 
> Finally, I think there's one more slight twist in the 2200 vs 
dedicated B&W.
> Despite the name "light-black" it's really a pretty dark ink -- 
about the
> same as the darkest gray of the quadtone inksets.  The printers have
> such small drops of ink that for the most part, most people don't 
see or
> don't care about these dots -- but the dedicated B&W inks have a 
lighter
> gray that at least theoretically gives even smoother highlight 
grays.
> 
> Roy
> www.harrington.com


Thanks, Roy.  That really clarifies my understanding of what's going 
on with the Epson drivers and with RIPs.  It also suggests to me that 
Epson could simply do things a bit differently with their drivers, 
which perhaps has something to do with the improved B&W claims in the 
4000 brochure.  I think I'm getting too enthusiastic about printing 
B&W to wait for new printers and drivers, though.  We'll see.

Mike

Hi,

I have a new curve for the 2100/2200 with Eboni Black and Ultratones. It
should be pretty close to neutral, maybe a little on the warm side. I'd
be grateful for any input on the quality of the curve.

You can download at this address:
http://download.petraflux.com/ultratone_2100_neutral.zip (577 bytes)

Print with 'Same as source' in the Photoshop print dialog, 'No color
adjustment' in the Epson driver. It should print well on EAM and Photo
Rag.

There's actually two versions included - One that's linearized to gamma
2.2, and a darker one that's linearized to 3.2 - I mostly made two
versions because I could, I generate the curves from text files with
that little script I made, so it's very easy and fast to create new
curves now.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

> From: Mike Botelho [mailto:mfractl@...]
>
> Since the use of colored inks seems to be a source of problems when
> printing B&W with the Ultrachromes, why not just use the Light Black
> to provide the lighter tonalities instead?  I know that 'black only'
> printing results in noticable dots that some find objectionable and
> that the use of colored inks eliminates this, but wouldn't the use of
> the Light Black ink eliminate this also?  In fact, isn't that why the
> Ultrachrome printers have a Light Black cartridge?  So, I'm
> wondering, am I missing something here?  Does the inclusion of
> colored ink somehow produce smoother gradations than simply using the
> lighter tones produced by the Light Black ink?

Unfortunately, the black-only mode doesn't use the light black. Dumb. That's
the sort of thing they could easily fix with a driver update. What I'd like
to see is a driver with a B&W setting that uses black and light black ink,
with a slider that lets you mix in a tiny amount of color to achieve a
certain tint, but not enough to cause metamerism.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul D. 
DeRocco" <pderocco@i...> wrote:
> > From: Mike Botelho [mailto:mfractl@h...]
> >
> > Since the use of colored inks seems to be a source of problems 
when
> > printing B&W with the Ultrachromes, why not just use the Light 
Black
> > to provide the lighter tonalities instead?  I know that 'black 
only'
> > printing results in noticable dots that some find objectionable 
and
> > that the use of colored inks eliminates this, but wouldn't the 
use of
> > the Light Black ink eliminate this also?  In fact, isn't that why 
the
> > Ultrachrome printers have a Light Black cartridge?  So, I'm
> > wondering, am I missing something here?  Does the inclusion of
> > colored ink somehow produce smoother gradations than simply using 
the
> > lighter tones produced by the Light Black ink?
> 
> Unfortunately, the black-only mode doesn't use the light black. 
Dumb. That's
> the sort of thing they could easily fix with a driver update. What 
I'd like
> to see is a driver with a B&W setting that uses black and light 
black ink,
> with a slider that lets you mix in a tiny amount of color to 
achieve a
> certain tint, but not enough to cause metamerism.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@i...


I was curious about that too, though I was told that the Light Black 
ink was not really light enough to provide optimal results this way.  
I had also thought that maybe the new drivers for the 4000 would do 
something like this, but Epson information that I've read says that 
both Photo Black and Matte Black printing uses all 7 inks.  So, if 
they are reducing/eliminating metamerism with new drivers, I assume 
its through a more balanced use of all colors.  Anway, I'm trying to 
focus on what's available to me now instead of worrying too much 
about what's going to be different in a few months.  But it does not 
seem as though the 2-black option you mentioned will be an option.  
(Though, if the Light Black ink isn't light enough to provide the 
same gradation as lighter colored inks, it still might allow an 
effect somewhere betweem black-only printing and the other methods, I 
suppose.  I don't know if that's desirable to anyone, or likely.  
Just thinking out loud.)

Mike

I forgot to give mention one thing... All my curves are based on various
blends, adjustments and tweaks of Paul Roark's 1290 curves. I would
never have been able to create any decent curves for the 2100 without
those curves as a starting point. Thanks!

This particular one is a cool curve (I forget which one) tweaked to give
a more uniform cool tone (it was color shifting quite badly) and then
blended in with 5-10% of the warm curve, after which I linearized and
combined everything into a single new curve.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

In a message dated 10/23/2003 11:08:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
ejohn182002@... writes:
the 2200 with a RIP such as
Imageprint ($400-500) or Open Print Maker (free for
Mac OS 9) or Quadtone RIP (free for Mac OS 10) will
provide acceptable results with the OEM 2200 inkset.
is there a free RIP for Windows XP?

k a y


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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Daniel, I'm eager to give it a try.  I'm waiting on my inks for my 2200, 
but I should have them next week.

I'll be sure to post feedback ASAP.  I'm assuming the workflow is just 
like any rip-less Roark workflow, which I've been eager to try.  Had too 
much trouble getting QTR working, but I think it's because I'm doing the 
ink calibration procedure all wrong.

Wasted a TON of ink on cleaning also.

Talk to you next week!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/mYEyu7srlnPHEE8RAsLMAJ4hA6fR2X2OrJeEponqfkr7D7zC7ACeLASJ
kukl43NEZHCiKTiP1NXFsag=
=XftW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

The package now includes both warm and neutral curves, two versions of
each:
http://download.petraflux.com/2100_ultratone_curves.zip (2.12kb)

Full instructions for use in the zip-file.

Cool curves are almost ready to go as well, but I still need a good warm
neutral curve to complete the package. I want to fix the problems
mentioned in Clayton's review.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

I just updated the zip-file below with two cool curves as well. They're
not very different from the 'Neutral' curves actually, only slightly
cooler.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Staver [mailto:daniel@...] 
> Sent: 26. oktober 2003 14:56
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: New 2200 ultratone curve
> 
> 
> The package now includes both warm and neutral curves, two versions of
> each:
> http://download.petraflux.com/2100_ultratone_curves.zip (2.12kb)
> 
> Full instructions for use in the zip-file.
> 
> Cool curves are almost ready to go as well, but I still need 
> a good warm neutral curve to complete the package. I want to 
> fix the problems mentioned in Clayton's review.
> 
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits 
> for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. 
> Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. 
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/ucIolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Mike,

Epson does not seem to recommend the 4000 as a photographer 
solution.  There has been some considerable discussion just recently 
regarding the 4000 having a slightly higher DMax than, say the 2200 
or 7600/9600, however, if you read more carefully, there is also 
some slight differences in the specs regarding color crossovers, 
metamerisms, and the quality of the entire black and white tonal 
range.  

Sounds like you are trying to strike a complicated balance weighing 
in b & w and color options, via native print drivers, custom 
workflows.... or RIPs.  It is easier for me because I only print B & 
W on EAM (EEM).  I have a common setup right now 1280, MIS FS 
quadtone inks, Piezo driver and a 1270 with MIS Variable tone using 
Roark workflow and customer curves.  My next move is the 7600 
without a doubt and likely to print UT .... I wish the 4000 would do 
the job, but I don't believe it will, at least not for black and 
white.  Love to here hands on experience from other group members.

Thanks for the nice analysis.

Regards,

James Sims
http://www.jamessims.com
http://www.lightroomphotography.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Botelho" 
<mfractl@h...> wrote:
> OK, based on absorbing lots of information in a very short amount 
of 
> time, I seem to have reached a choice between two options, using 
the 
> Ultra Tone inks on a dedicated B&W printer or using ImagePrint 
with 
> the Ultrachromes on a 7-color Epson printer.  Assuming that the 
> ImagePrint prints will also display no matamerism (correct me if 
I'm 
> wrong), here is how I've come to understand both options:
> 
> Option 1: Ultra Tones on a dedicated B&W printer:
>      -high quality results with no metamerism
>      -avoids colored inks fading before black ink
>      -choice of warm, neutral, cool toning
>      -an expensive RIP not needed
>      -would end up spending money on a separate printer for color
> 
> Option 2: Ultrachromes/ImagePrint on Epson 7-color printer
>      -high quality results with no metamerism (due to the use of 
more
>          colors)
>      -colored inks could conceivably fade before the black ink
>      -some, limited, control over toning
>      -high cost of RIP, increasing considerably for WF models (but
>          the RIP would also be extremely useful for color printing)
>      -could print B&W on the same printer, which could save quite a
>          lot if we're talking WF (though the increased cost of a WF
>          RIP would eat up a god chunk of that)
> 
> So, is that a good estimation?  Am I wrong anywhere?  Are there 
other 
> advantages or drawbacks to either choice?
> 
> Also, there's the upcoming Epson 4000 that will supposed have 
drivers 
> that will handle B&W better.  (Will this mean new drivers for the 
> 2200/7600/9600 that also do better?)  Plus, having Photo Black and 
> Matte Black available as a software change makes it all the more 
> viable as a printer for both color and B&W.  (Though I'm unsure if 
> I'd be willing to pay that much more than the 2200 for a few extra 
> inches.  At that point, why not just spend a bit more and go with 
the 

> 7600 and get an impressive size increase, I think, maybe.)
> 
> Mike

> From: James Sims [mailto:james@...]
> 
> Epson does not seem to recommend the 4000 as a photographer 
> solution.  There has been some considerable discussion just recently 
> regarding the 4000 having a slightly higher DMax than, say the 2200 
> or 7600/9600, however, if you read more carefully, there is also 
> some slight differences in the specs regarding color crossovers, 
> metamerisms, and the quality of the entire black and white tonal 
> range.  

But I thought it used the same ink.

-- 

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

it does, i'm not exactly sure what james is referring
to. the 4000 does come in a pro proofing model which
prints only cmyk to simulate a press run so maybe
that's what he's thinkin'. if the 4000 does in fact
print better b&w, then it does it with drivers and not
ink. that is it incorporates some sort of RIP-esque
feature, like Imageprint, QTR or OPM, to improve b&w
performance.

--- "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...> wrote:
> > From: James Sims
> [mailto:james@...]
> > 
> > Epson does not seem to recommend the 4000 as a
> photographer 
> > solution.  There has been some considerable
> discussion just recently 
> > regarding the 4000 having a slightly higher DMax
> than, say the 2200 
> > or 7600/9600, however, if you read more carefully,
> there is also 
> > some slight differences in the specs regarding
> color crossovers, 
> > metamerisms, and the quality of the entire black
> and white tonal 
> > range.  
> 
> But I thought it used the same ink.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@... 
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/

If you check out Epson's web site and compare the specifications and 
benefits pages on the 4000 and the 7600, you will see some subtle 
distinctions in how they characterize the suitability of these two 
printers for B & W printing.  I am assuming that Epson would not have 
gone to the trouble to make these distinctions if there was not a 
reason to do so.

Sincerely

James Sims

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, john eckenrode 
<ejohn182002@y...> wrote:

> it does, i'm not exactly sure what james is referring
> to. the 4000 does come in a pro proofing model which
> prints only cmyk to simulate a press run so maybe
> that's what he's thinkin'. if the 4000 does in fact
> print better b&w, then it does it with drivers and not
> ink. that is it incorporates some sort of RIP-esque
> feature, like Imageprint, QTR or OPM, to improve b&w
> performance.

"Marketing" could be Epson's reason for empasizing different points.  Driver design/intent is a controllable aspect of a printer.  If they chose to have the driver(s) tweaked for tasks other than photography it would likely be that they intend to market the printer somewhat differently.  That does not preclude the 3rd party RIP makers from designing their own RIP's for the 4000 that are photographically oriented.  Whatever the various limits of the Ultrachrome inkset are, are fixed.  But, the drivers (and profiles) can work within those limits in many ways.  If the 4000 can use the Ultrachrome carts designed for the 7600 and 9600 we know there are no differences in the ink.  So, any differences have to be in the software/firmware.
 
Tom Baker

James Sims <james@...> wrote:
If you check out Epson's web site and compare the specifications and 
benefits pages on the 4000 and the 7600, you will see some subtle 
distinctions in how they characterize the suitability of these two 
printers for B & W printing.  I am assuming that Epson would not have 
gone to the trouble to make these distinctions if there was not a 
reason to do so.

Sincerely

James Sims

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, john eckenrode 
<ejohn182002@y...> wrote:
> it does, i'm not exactly sure what james is referring
> to. the 4000 does come in a pro proofing model which
> prints only cmyk to simulate a press run so maybe
> that's what he's thinkin'. if the 4000 does in fact
> print better b&w, then it does it with drivers and not
> ink. that is it incorporates some sort of RIP-esque
> feature, like Imageprint, QTR or OPM, to improve b&w
> performance.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

Hi there

I'm writing today to let you all know how my
experiment worked out.  I own an Epson Stylus Photo
900 (not the color 900) and although it is not
directly supported by either MIS or the curves Paul so
graciously provided, it uses the same cartridges as
the 1270/1280.  So I ordered a set of QVM cartridges
from MIS in the hopes that one of the curves would
work.  The rest of this email deals with my results.

The cartridges themselves were recognized just fine by
the printer, so that was a relief.  Next I prepped two
photos for printing, one a recent wedding photo, and
another a shot of a bush in the mist.  I wanted two
photos that were different enough from each other to
show how the curves would perform.

I tested two sets of curves so far, the 1270 PC curves
(1270pc.zip) and the 1280 PC curves (1280pc.zip).  In
general the 1270 curves produced output that is
lighter/more washed out, and less accurate to the
screen.  The 1280 curves produced better results all
around, however some of the mid-tone detail was lost:
shades close to each other in the middle of the tonal
range appeared closer together than in the 1270
curves, leading to a loss of detail.  In addition, the
1280 warm curve (vmp8w21.acv) produced blowouts at the
high end, where it looked like anything over a certain
value was given the same value.  

I hope you can understand what I've written, I'm
afraid I'm not up on the proper terminology of this
stuff.  I will continue to test different curves in
the hope of finding a set that works best for this
printer.  Thanks to Paul for creating these curves and
allowing them to be distributed for free.  

...Mike 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Mike,
There is nothing wrong with what you are doing but you might find it 
more revealing if you print one of the many step wedges available.

Jerome
http://www.jeromehawkins.com/



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, gendem 
<gendem@y...> wrote:

> Hi there
> 
> I'm writing today to let you all know how my
> experiment worked out.  I own an Epson Stylus Photo
> 900 (not the color 900) and although it is not
> directly supported by either MIS or the curves Paul so
> graciously provided, it uses the same cartridges as
> the 1270/1280.  So I ordered a set of QVM cartridges
> from MIS in the hopes that one of the curves would
> work.  The rest of this email deals with my results.
> 
> The cartridges themselves were recognized just fine by
> the printer, so that was a relief.  Next I prepped two
> photos for printing, one a recent wedding photo, and
> another a shot of a bush in the mist.  I wanted two
> photos that were different enough from each other to
> show how the curves would perform.
> 
> I tested two sets of curves so far, the 1270 PC curves
> (1270pc.zip) and the 1280 PC curves (1280pc.zip).  In
> general the 1270 curves produced output that is
> lighter/more washed out, and less accurate to the
> screen.  The 1280 curves produced better results all
> around, however some of the mid-tone detail was lost:
> shades close to each other in the middle of the tonal
> range appeared closer together than in the 1270
> curves, leading to a loss of detail.  In addition, the
> 1280 warm curve (vmp8w21.acv) produced blowouts at the
> high end, where it looked like anything over a certain
> value was given the same value.  
> 
> I hope you can understand what I've written, I'm
> afraid I'm not up on the proper terminology of this
> stuff.  I will continue to test different curves in
> the hope of finding a set that works best for this
> printer.  Thanks to Paul for creating these curves and
> allowing them to be distributed for free.  
> 
> ...Mike 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com