Digital BW, The Print

I'd like to ask that anyone who has a 4000 print a B&W image with a "normal" 
range of tonal values and check for neutrality and metamerism.  I ask this b/c I 
have a 4000 and have printed one B&W image that to me looks neutral and 
(more surprisingly) seems to show little to no color shifting when viewed in 
different light.  The print was a grayscale RGB file (converted using the 
Convert to B&W Pro plug-in) on Epson Enhanced Matte, printed at 1440dpi, 
using "printer color management" in the Photoshop driver and "color controls" 
in the Epson driver.  However, the image I printed was not really 
representative of a normal B&W, in my opinion -- it's a backlit image of a tree 
against the sky, so it had lots of stark blacks and white whites, with just a bit of 
midtone values and gradation in the sky.  So, I'll be printing another image as 
a better test (like something with a wide range of tonal values -- a landscape 
of street shot).  I'd like others to post their experiences w. B&W on the 4000 as 
well -- I find it hard to believe that B&W has been significantly improved 
unless there were serious tweaks to the driver that I don't know about, and am 
assuming, as I mentioned above, that the nature of this particular image is 
why there was little metamerism.  (Or perhaps Enhanced Matte shows less 
color shifting for some reason?  I'll try the next print on a different paper).

It is definitely a new driver.

My prints are not at all bad considering they are just using the 
epson driver with no corrections. They don't seem to shift much at 
all by light source, but they tend to be much colder than I 
like...colder certainly than what I consider to be dead neutral.

I have ordered the Image Print raster only software and will just 
wait for that rather than try to recreate the wheel myself.

what a great printer, though...16x20s as quick as 8x10s used to be<g>.

Tom O'Connell


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
<chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> I'd like to ask that anyone who has a 4000 print a B&W image with 
a "normal" 
> range of tonal values and check for neutrality and metamerism.  I 
ask this b/c I 
> have a 4000 and have printed one B&W image that to me looks neutral 
and 
> (more surprisingly) seems to show little to no color shifting when 
viewed in 
> different light.  The print was a grayscale RGB file (converted 
using the 
> Convert to B&W Pro plug-in) on Epson Enhanced Matte, printed at 
1440dpi, 
> using "printer color management" in the Photoshop driver and "color 
controls" 
> in the Epson driver.  However, the image I printed was not really 
> representative of a normal B&W, in my opinion -- it's a backlit 
image of a tree 
> against the sky, so it had lots of stark blacks and white whites, 
with just a bit of 
> midtone values and gradation in the sky.  So, I'll be printing 
another image as 
> a better test (like something with a wide range of tonal values -- 
a landscape 
> of street shot).  I'd like others to post their experiences w. B&W 
on the 4000 as 
> well -- I find it hard to believe that B&W has been significantly 
improved 
> unless there were serious tweaks to the driver that I don't know 
about, and am 
> assuming, as I mentioned above, that the nature of this particular 
image is 
> why there was little metamerism.  (Or perhaps Enhanced Matte shows 
less 
> color shifting for some reason?  I'll try the next print on a 
different paper).

As a follow-up: last night I printed a more "representative" image from a 1Ds 
file converted to grayscale, printed on Epson Premium Luster, again using 
"printer color management" and "color controls."  I found the print to be 
different in hue from the print mentioned im my initial post.  However, looking 
at them side by side (and next to a silver print), the print on Luster actually 
looks more "neutral" than the one on Enhanced Matte.  The Enhanced Matte 
one looks almost (lightly) selenium toned, while the one on Luster looks (in 
terms of hue) closer to the untoned silver print (on Ilford multigrade fiber 
Luster paper).  It's hard to explain, but both the 4000 print on Luster and the 
silver print have grays that are "grayer" to my eye, while the 4000 print on 
Ehnaced Matte tends toward the slight purplish tone of a lightly selenium 
toned silver print.  By way of comparison, a grayscale print on the 2200 using 
the Epson driver in my perception tends much more strongly toward purple or 
green than either of these prints from the 4000.  I have not yet been able to 
make any serious conclusions on metamerism on this print, as it's yet another 
seriously overcast day here...

If someone with a color measurement tool thingy would like me to mail them 
the prints from the 4000 for some objective data, I'd be happy to.  Next up for 
me is to compare both of these prints from the 4000 to prints of the same 
images on my 2200 using ImagePrint.

(by the way, I image that I will ultimately give in and buy ImagePrint for the 
9600, as 9600 grayscale prints look the same to me as 2200 grayscale prints.  
I would get ImagePrint for the 9600, rather than the 4000, because then I'd 
have the ability to print larger neutral grayscale files.  But I would be limited to 
Matte papers, since I'm set up for matte black ink in the 9600 and don't like the 
idea of eating the cost of switching inks.  On the other hand, I can't think of a 
B&W print I've made recently that I would have preferred with a glossy/luster 
paper, particularly given the depth of blacks on Ultrasmooth)

> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
> <chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> > I'd like to ask that anyone who has a 4000 print a B&W image with 
> a "normal" 
> > range of tonal values and check for neutrality and metamerism.  I 
> ask this b/c I 
> > have a 4000 and have printed one B&W image that to me looks neutral 
> and 
> > (more surprisingly) seems to show little to no color shifting when 
> viewed in 
> > different light.  The print was a grayscale RGB file (converted 
> using the 
> > Convert to B&W Pro plug-in) on Epson Enhanced Matte, printed at 
> 1440dpi, 
> > using "printer color management" in the Photoshop driver and "color 
> controls" 
> > in the Epson driver.  However, the image I printed was not really 
> > representative of a normal B&W, in my opinion -- it's a backlit 
> image of a tree 
> > against the sky, so it had lots of stark blacks and white whites, 
> with just a bit of 
> > midtone values and gradation in the sky.  So, I'll be printing 
> another image as 
> > a better test (like something with a wide range of tonal values -- 
> a landscape 
> > of street shot).  I'd like others to post their experiences w. B&W 
> on the 4000 as 
> > well -- I find it hard to believe that B&W has been significantly 
> improved 
> > unless there were serious tweaks to the driver that I don't know 
> about, and am 
> > assuming, as I mentioned above, that the nature of this particular 
> image is 
> > why there was little metamerism.  (Or perhaps Enhanced Matte shows 
> less 
> > color shifting for some reason?  I'll try the next print on a 
> different paper).

You will never get a better print than from a head of an epson 5000 
or an epson 7000 or an epson 9000 or an epson 4000. If the machine 
is best alignet the output will be indistinguishable from any future 
hardware. You don´t believe??
Hope this helps!

-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
<chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> As a follow-up: last night I printed a more "representative" image 
from a 1Ds 
> file converted to grayscale, printed on Epson Premium Luster, 
again using 
> "printer color management" and "color controls."  I found the 
print to be 
> different in hue from the print mentioned im my initial post.  
However, looking 
> at them side by side (and next to a silver print), the print on 
Luster actually 
> looks more "neutral" than the one on Enhanced Matte.  The Enhanced 
Matte 
> one looks almost (lightly) selenium toned, while the one on Luster 
looks (in 
> terms of hue) closer to the untoned silver print (on Ilford 
multigrade fiber 
> Luster paper).  It's hard to explain, but both the 4000 print on 
Luster and the 
> silver print have grays that are "grayer" to my eye, while the 
4000 print on 
> Ehnaced Matte tends toward the slight purplish tone of a lightly 
selenium 
> toned silver print.  By way of comparison, a grayscale print on 
the 2200 using 
> the Epson driver in my perception tends much more strongly toward 
purple or 
> green than either of these prints from the 4000.  I have not yet 
been able to 
> make any serious conclusions on metamerism on this print, as it's 
yet another 
> seriously overcast day here...
> 
> If someone with a color measurement tool thingy would like me to 
mail them 
> the prints from the 4000 for some objective data, I'd be happy 
to.  Next up for 
> me is to compare both of these prints from the 4000 to prints of 
the same 
> images on my 2200 using ImagePrint.
> 
> (by the way, I image that I will ultimately give in and buy 
ImagePrint for the 
> 9600, as 9600 grayscale prints look the same to me as 2200 
grayscale prints.  
> I would get ImagePrint for the 9600, rather than the 4000, because 
then I'd 
> have the ability to print larger neutral grayscale files.  But I 
would be limited to 
> Matte papers, since I'm set up for matte black ink in the 9600 and 
don't like the 
> idea of eating the cost of switching inks.  On the other hand, I 
can't think of a 
> B&W print I've made recently that I would have preferred with a 
glossy/luster 
> paper, particularly given the depth of blacks on Ultrasmooth)
> 
> > 
> > --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
> > <chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> > > I'd like to ask that anyone who has a 4000 print a B&W image 
with 
> > a "normal" 
> > > range of tonal values and check for neutrality and 
metamerism.  I 
> > ask this b/c I 
> > > have a 4000 and have printed one B&W image that to me looks 
neutral 
> > and 
> > > (more surprisingly) seems to show little to no color shifting 
when 
> > viewed in 
> > > different light.  The print was a grayscale RGB file 
(converted 
> > using the 
> > > Convert to B&W Pro plug-in) on Epson Enhanced Matte, printed 
at 
> > 1440dpi, 
> > > using "printer color management" in the Photoshop driver 
and "color 
> > controls" 
> > > in the Epson driver.  However, the image I printed was not 
really 
> > > representative of a normal B&W, in my opinion -- it's a 
backlit 
> > image of a tree 
> > > against the sky, so it had lots of stark blacks and white 
whites, 
> > with just a bit of 
> > > midtone values and gradation in the sky.  So, I'll be printing 
> > another image as 
> > > a better test (like something with a wide range of tonal 
values -- 
> > a landscape 
> > > of street shot).  I'd like others to post their experiences w. 
B&W 
> > on the 4000 as 
> > > well -- I find it hard to believe that B&W has been 
significantly 
> > improved 
> > > unless there were serious tweaks to the driver that I don't 
know 
> > about, and am 
> > > assuming, as I mentioned above, that the nature of this 
particular 
> > image is 
> > > why there was little metamerism.  (Or perhaps Enhanced Matte 
shows 

> > less 
> > > color shifting for some reason?  I'll try the next print on a 
> > different paper).

Sure you have to dedicate a printer to b§W. Al other options are 
crazy.
YOu have to buy a second printer for color. OK? It´s very simple, 
isn´t it?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
<chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> As a follow-up: last night I printed a more "representative" image 
from a 1Ds 
> file converted to grayscale, printed on Epson Premium Luster, 
again using 
> "printer color management" and "color controls."  I found the 
print to be 
> different in hue from the print mentioned im my initial post.  
However, looking 
> at them side by side (and next to a silver print), the print on 
Luster actually 
> looks more "neutral" than the one on Enhanced Matte.  The Enhanced 
Matte 
> one looks almost (lightly) selenium toned, while the one on Luster 
looks (in 
> terms of hue) closer to the untoned silver print (on Ilford 
multigrade fiber 
> Luster paper).  It's hard to explain, but both the 4000 print on 
Luster and the 
> silver print have grays that are "grayer" to my eye, while the 
4000 print on 
> Ehnaced Matte tends toward the slight purplish tone of a lightly 
selenium 
> toned silver print.  By way of comparison, a grayscale print on 
the 2200 using 
> the Epson driver in my perception tends much more strongly toward 
purple or 
> green than either of these prints from the 4000.  I have not yet 
been able to 
> make any serious conclusions on metamerism on this print, as it's 
yet another 
> seriously overcast day here...
> 
> If someone with a color measurement tool thingy would like me to 
mail them 
> the prints from the 4000 for some objective data, I'd be happy 
to.  Next up for 
> me is to compare both of these prints from the 4000 to prints of 
the same 
> images on my 2200 using ImagePrint.
> 
> (by the way, I image that I will ultimately give in and buy 
ImagePrint for the 
> 9600, as 9600 grayscale prints look the same to me as 2200 
grayscale prints.  
> I would get ImagePrint for the 9600, rather than the 4000, because 
then I'd 
> have the ability to print larger neutral grayscale files.  But I 
would be limited to 
> Matte papers, since I'm set up for matte black ink in the 9600 and 
don't like the 
> idea of eating the cost of switching inks.  On the other hand, I 
can't think of a 
> B&W print I've made recently that I would have preferred with a 
glossy/luster 
> paper, particularly given the depth of blacks on Ultrasmooth)
> 
> > 
> > --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
> > <chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> > > I'd like to ask that anyone who has a 4000 print a B&W image 
with 
> > a "normal" 
> > > range of tonal values and check for neutrality and 
metamerism.  I 
> > ask this b/c I 
> > > have a 4000 and have printed one B&W image that to me looks 
neutral 
> > and 
> > > (more surprisingly) seems to show little to no color shifting 
when 
> > viewed in 
> > > different light.  The print was a grayscale RGB file 
(converted 
> > using the 
> > > Convert to B&W Pro plug-in) on Epson Enhanced Matte, printed 
at 
> > 1440dpi, 
> > > using "printer color management" in the Photoshop driver 
and "color 
> > controls" 
> > > in the Epson driver.  However, the image I printed was not 
really 
> > > representative of a normal B&W, in my opinion -- it's a 
backlit 
> > image of a tree 
> > > against the sky, so it had lots of stark blacks and white 
whites, 
> > with just a bit of 
> > > midtone values and gradation in the sky.  So, I'll be printing 
> > another image as 
> > > a better test (like something with a wide range of tonal 
values -- 
> > a landscape 
> > > of street shot).  I'd like others to post their experiences w. 
B&W 
> > on the 4000 as 
> > > well -- I find it hard to believe that B&W has been 
significantly 
> > improved 
> > > unless there were serious tweaks to the driver that I don't 
know 
> > about, and am 
> > > assuming, as I mentioned above, that the nature of this 
particular 
> > image is 
> > > why there was little metamerism.  (Or perhaps Enhanced Matte 
shows 

> > less 
> > > color shifting for some reason?  I'll try the next print on a 
> > different paper).

Alright this whole two-printers-is-the-only-option-movement is bugging me.
It is one thing to suggest that two 1280s is an economical solution for
many.  For those that can afford the money and space then yes. I agree that
in the grand scheme of things, and particularly those relating to high-end
photography equipment, it¹s not outrageous.  Two 2100s?  Hmmm... Not toooo
bad on space and again depending on your budget, maybe.  Two 4000s?
Hmmm...need a lot of space and quite a lot of money.  They each retail for
£1,757 so that¹s £3,514 (USD 6,466).  Two 7600s?  That will set you back
£5,863 (USD 10,788).  Two 9600s?  Well that¹s £10,563 (USD 19,436).  Or
maybe you really need two 2100s and two 9600s?  So the answer is not that
simple.  Fabulous advances in technology have brought the wonderful medium
of photography to a great number of people.  But a decision to buy another
or a new printer will always depend on an individual¹s circumstances.  For
some it is a business.  For others it is a hobby.  In either case it is an
investment that costs money.    There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of
excellent colour and B&W from a single printer and inkset or a single
printer and two ink sets.  So perhaps it¹s not always simple.  Or maybe I
should sell my Ferrari and buy a couple of 4000s, a couple of 9600s and a
22mp Leaf back for my Contax 645...I might even have a little left over for
ink.

From: "photographyworks" <photographyworks@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:27:31 -0000
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Epson 4000 B&W: neutrality and metamerism

Sure you have to dedicate a printer to b§W. Al other options are
crazy.
YOu have to buy a second printer for color. OK? It´s very simple,
isn´t it?




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

Steve: I'm one of those who believe two printers is the way to do both
b&w and color. My 1280 (b&w) and 890 (color) cost about $400 combined.
That's substantially less than one 2200, waaaay less than a 4000. 

It's when you've spend more for a printer than ink and paper, or more
for a camera and lenses than you do for film, that it becomes illogical. 

Bob Michaels

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Alright this whole two-printers-is-the-only-option-movement is
bugging me.
> It is one thing to suggest that two 1280s is an economical solution for
> many.  For those that can afford the money and space then yes. I
agree that
> in the grand scheme of things, and particularly those relating to
high-end
> photography equipment, it¹s not outrageous.  Two 2100s?  Hmmm... Not
toooo
> bad on space and again depending on your budget, maybe.  Two 4000s?
> Hmmm...need a lot of space and quite a lot of money.  They each
retail for
> £1,757 so that¹s £3,514 (USD 6,466).  Two 7600s?  That will set you back
> £5,863 (USD 10,788).  Two 9600s?  Well that¹s £10,563 (USD 19,436).  Or
> maybe you really need two 2100s and two 9600s?  So the answer is not
that
> simple.  Fabulous advances in technology have brought the wonderful
medium
> of photography to a great number of people.  But a decision to buy
another
> or a new printer will always depend on an individual¹s
circumstances.  For
> some it is a business.  For others it is a hobby.  In either case it
is an
> investment that costs money.    There is nothing wrong with the
pursuit of
> excellent colour and B&W from a single printer and inkset or a single
> printer and two ink sets.  So perhaps it¹s not always simple.  Or
maybe I
> should sell my Ferrari and buy a couple of 4000s, a couple of 9600s
and a
> 22mp Leaf back for my Contax 645...I might even have a little left
over for

> ink.
> 
> 
> From: "photographyworks" <photographyworks@y...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:27:31 -0000
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Epson 4000 B&W: neutrality and metamerism
> 
> Sure you have to dedicate a printer to b§W. Al other options are
> crazy.
> YOu have to buy a second printer for color. OK? It´s very simple,
> isn´t it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes and you can only print to a limited size.  Someone clearly buys a 4000,
7600 or 9600 for the size.  My post was in response to a blanket statement
that it is _simple_ and obvious that one must have two printers.  This was
within the context of someone offering to share their experience with their
new 4000.  I have a 2100 and have been more than happy with its output.  I
too would like the extra size that a 4000 provides. I have contemplated
purchasing a 4000 (by no means a cheap printer in the UK) in order to be
able to print A2 and maybe even dedicating my 2100 to B&W.  However, I fear
that will simply lead to frustration because I would be constrained in size
for B&W vs colour.  So I applaud the efforts of those that have spent their
time and energy helping us get very high quality B&W prints from a colour
ink set (and those who have made great efforts to lower the entry barrier
generally for those wanting to print digitally).  I love the B&W prints I
get using QTR and OEM inks on my 2100, for example.  Could they be improved
by using QTR and a quad ink set? Probably.  I would love to know by how
much.  But the decision to purchase another 2100 or much more likely a 4000
(and selling my 2100) will very much be driven by economics.  Blanket
statements that printers are cheap and that everyone doing both colour and
B&W must have too printers are simply naïve.  Statements which suggest that
people frustrated with trying to get good B&W from a colour ink set consider
two printers have merit -  if the individuals¹ concerned have budgets which
can afford the extra capital outlay.  Personally, if what I have been able
to achieve with QTR and my 2100 is anything to go by I would prefer to
satisfy my desire for larger prints with a single 4000 than two 2100s (or a
2100 and a 1280).

Cheers

Steve

From: "Bob Michaels" <bob@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:26:13 -0000
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Epson 4000 B&W: neutrality and metamerism

Steve: I'm one of those who believe two printers is the way to do both
b&w and color. My 1280 (b&w) and 890 (color) cost about $400 combined.
That's substantially less than one 2200, waaaay less than a 4000.

It's when you've spend more for a printer than ink and paper, or more
for a camera and lenses than you do for film, that it becomes illogical.

Bob Michaels



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

Hi Steve,

I think you have a really good point.  With the older technology printers
the need for a dedicated B&W printer was very clear.   All the newer
7 ink UltraChrome printers come very close in output quality to the
quadtone B&W systems.   The 4000 promises to be as good or better
than the 21/2200 or the 76/9600.  The inks are the same and the specs
quote a slightly smaller dot size -- 3.5 picoliters instead of 4 pl.

I've got an old 7500 with a dedicated B&W quadtone and a friend
has a 7600 with UC's, both running with QuadToneRIP.  The results
are very comparable.  From a normal view distance they are really
indistinguishable.  Even very closeup or with a loupe the dots are just
visible with the difference being that the 7500 has bigger but lighter
dots and the 7600 has smaller but darker dots -- but the number and
spacing is the same.

Compared to a new-ish printer with dedicated inks such as 1270/1280
and UT2 inks or Piezo inks, I'd say the difference is about like a
16x20 print from a 4x5 Tri-X rather than from a 4x5 TMax-100.

So bottom line is unless you are extremely critical, we've come to a
point where you don't need a dedicated B&W.   Bigger prints make it
less and less of an issue.  So with a big, expensive printer you need
just one, but if you want smaller prints a dedicated small printer
may be more justified.

Finally, QuadToneRIP will support the 4000.  As soon as I get one
I'll have profiles for Epson UC inks up and running.

Roy


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@=
b...> 
wrote:
> Yes and you can only print to a limited size.  Someone clearly buys a 400=
0,
> 7600 or 9600 for the size.  My post was in response to a blanket statemen=
t
> that it is _simple_ and obvious that one must have two printers.  This wa=
s
> within the context of someone offering to share their experience with the=
ir
> new 4000.  I have a 2100 and have been more than happy with its output.  =
I
> too would like the extra size that a 4000 provides. I have contemplated
> purchasing a 4000 (by no means a cheap printer in the UK) in order to be
> able to print A2 and maybe even dedicating my 2100 to B&W.  However, I fe=
ar
> that will simply lead to frustration because I would be constrained in si=
ze
> for B&W vs colour.  So I applaud the efforts of those that have spent the=
ir
> time and energy helping us get very high quality B&W prints from a colour=

> ink set (and those who have made great efforts to lower the entry barrier=

> generally for those wanting to print digitally).  I love the B&W prints I=

> get using QTR and OEM inks on my 2100, for example.  Could they be improv=
ed
> by using QTR and a quad ink set? Probably.  I would love to know by how
> much.  But the decision to purchase another 2100 or much more likely a 40=
00
> (and selling my 2100) will very much be driven by economics.  Blanket
> statements that printers are cheap and that everyone doing both colour an=
d
> B&W must have too printers are simply naïve.  Statements which suggest th=
at
> people frustrated with trying to get good B&W from a colour ink set consi=
der
> two printers have merit -  if the individuals¹ concerned have budgets whi=
ch
> can afford the extra capital outlay.  Personally, if what I have been abl=
e
> to achieve with QTR and my 2100 is anything to go by I would prefer to
> satisfy my desire for larger prints with a single 4000 than two 2100s (or=
 a

> 2100 and a 1280).
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> From: "Bob Michaels" <bob@b...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:26:13 -0000
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Epson 4000 B&W: neutrality and metamerism
> 
> Steve: I'm one of those who believe two printers is the way to do both
> b&w and color. My 1280 (b&w) and 890 (color) cost about $400 combined.
> That's substantially less than one 2200, waaaay less than a 4000.
> 
> It's when you've spend more for a printer than ink and paper, or more
> for a camera and lenses than you do for film, that it becomes illogical.
> 
> Bob Michaels
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Roy:  2 questions about QuadTone RIP, given that I really haven't looked into 
it for over a year: (a) does it currently support the 9600?  I'm not clear on this 
b/c the dowload comes with Epson 2200 profiles and I don't see any for the 
9600, but I thought I recalled you saying that it does support the 9600. (b) 
does  (or could) QTR have page layout features currently?

The reason I ask is because I am more than happy w. color output for the 
4000 and the 9600 w. the Epson drivers and profiles and therefore don't need 
ImagePrint's color profiles.  Where I'm looking for a solution is for B&W.  If QTR 
supports a wide range of paper for the 9600, then I;ve got that problem solved 
and don't need ImagePrint.  But the (only) other feature of ImagePrint that I'm 
interested in is the page layout capability so that I can (1) lay out multiple 
images (color and B&W) on a 44 inch wide sheet of paper and (2) print longer 
than 90 inches.  (If anyone knows of a way to do this and still retain all my 
color management options, please let me know.  Is Adobe Illustrator a 
solution to the page layout and maximum length issues?  Does Illustrator let 
you pick your paper profiles like Photoshop does?)

(Qimage is not a solution for me for the page layout issues b/c I run a Mac and 
don't want to have to switch over to Virtual PC to print)

I came across this project yesterday:
http://www.colinux.org/

"Cooperative Linux is the first working free and open source method for
optimally running Linux on Microsoft Windows natively. More generally,
Cooperative Linux (short-named coLinux) is a port of the Linux kernel
that allows it to run cooperatively alongside another operating system
on a single machine. For instance, it allows one to freely run Linux on
Windows 2000/XP, without using a commercial PC virtualization software
such as VMware, in a way which is much more optimal than using any
general purpose PC virtualization software. In its current condition, it
allows us to run the KNOPPIX Japanese Edition on Windows (see
Screenshots)."

I wonder if it would be possible to somehow bundle this with a
preconfigured QTR/Linux distribution so all you would have to do is
intall it and have everything work.

When I have some spare time I'll look into it.

Roy: You mentioned that you were considering a port of QTR to Windows.
How's that going? Did you find out whether it's even possible?

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

Daniel Staver wrote:

> I came across this project yesterday:
> http://www.colinux.org/
> 
> "Cooperative Linux is the first working free and open source method for
> optimally running Linux on Microsoft Windows natively. More generally,
> Cooperative Linux (short-named coLinux) is a port of the Linux kernel
> that allows it to run cooperatively alongside another operating system
> on a single machine. For instance, it allows one to freely run Linux on
> Windows 2000/XP, without using a commercial PC virtualization software
> such as VMware, in a way which is much more optimal than using any
> general purpose PC virtualization software. In its current condition, it
> allows us to run the KNOPPIX Japanese Edition on Windows (see
> Screenshots)."
> 
> I wonder if it would be possible to somehow bundle this with a
> preconfigured QTR/Linux distribution so all you would have to do is
> intall it and have everything work.
> 
> When I have some spare time I'll look into it.
> 
> Roy: You mentioned that you were considering a port of QTR to Windows.
> How's that going? Did you find out whether it's even possible?
> 
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no

Checked it yesterday. In the FAQs there's something mentioned 
about 32 MB maximum memory reserved for Colinux to get no 
conflicts with Windows, I doubt it will then allow anything big 
to be printed. Maybe I interpreted that wrong but at that point I 
thought it isn't usable for QTR.

Ernst

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
<chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> Roy:  2 questions about QuadTone RIP, given that I really haven't looked into 
> it for over a year: (a) does it currently support the 9600?  I'm not clear on this 
> b/c the dowload comes with Epson 2200 profiles and I don't see any for the 
> 9600, but I thought I recalled you saying that it does support the 9600. (b) 
> does  (or could) QTR have page layout features currently?

Hi Chip,

I've recently put 76/9600 profiles on my website.  You should use the ones
that are in the profiles section rather than what's in the program download.
There are separate install scripts for the 7600 and the 9600, they setup the
printer, create profiles and install them all with a double-click.

These support the UltraChrome inks with Matte Black and three different
papers -- Enhanced Matte, UltraSmooth and Photo Rag.  They are probably
usable though not optimal with Photo Black but with reduced dMax.

QTR doesn't have any page layout features itself, but I've always printed
from Photoshop which has the Print Preview layout which gives you
control for one image.   What would you use for layout with color?

Try it out, and see if it does enough of what you want.  I'm not sure
off hand of a max print length, but of course the files are getting very
large.

Roy

> 
> The reason I ask is because I am more than happy w. color output for the 
> 4000 and the 9600 w. the Epson drivers and profiles and therefore don't need 
> ImagePrint's color profiles.  Where I'm looking for a solution is for B&W.  If QTR 
> supports a wide range of paper for the 9600, then I;ve got that problem solved 
> and don't need ImagePrint.  But the (only) other feature of ImagePrint that I'm 
> interested in is the page layout capability so that I can (1) lay out multiple 
> images (color and B&W) on a 44 inch wide sheet of paper and (2) print longer 
> than 90 inches.  (If anyone knows of a way to do this and still retain all my 
> color management options, please let me know.  Is Adobe Illustrator a 
> solution to the page layout and maximum length issues?  Does Illustrator let 
> you pick your paper profiles like Photoshop does?)
> 
> (Qimage is not a solution for me for the page layout issues b/c I run a Mac and 
> don't want to have to switch over to Virtual PC to print)

> Checked it yesterday. In the FAQs there's something mentioned 
> about 32 MB maximum memory reserved for Colinux to get no 
> conflicts with Windows, I doubt it will then allow anything big 
> to be printed. Maybe I interpreted that wrong but at that point I 
> thought it isn't usable for QTR.

I see there are some questions about that on their forums, but no
replies yet. One suggestion was to create a ram-disk in windows and
allocate that as virtual memory in linux, but I'm not sure if that's
even possible. In any case that would be somewhat counterproductive if
the ultimate goal was to create an easy to use distribution.

I agree that a 32mb limit would make the software unusable for a RIP
though... Guess we'll just have to wait until they find a way around the
problem.

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

Roy: thanks for your response.  One additional question: I should download 
and install the QTR program and THEN double click the installers for the 
7600/9600 that I just downloaded separately from your site?  Or should I first 
double click and install the programs located in the 7600/9600 downloads?  
In other words,  you said "There are separate install scripts for the 7600 and 
the 9600, they setup the printer, create profiles and install them all with a 
double-click."  Does that mean the only thing I need to do is doubleclick the 
install scripts in the profiles folder I just downloaded, or is installing the QTR 
program itself a separate step?  (and if so, what order do I do it in?)

-
> 
> Hi Chip,
> 
> I've recently put 76/9600 profiles on my website.  You should use the ones
> that are in the profiles section rather than what's in the program download.
> There are separate install scripts for the 7600 and the 9600, they setup the
> printer, create profiles and install them all with a double-click.
> 
> These support the UltraChrome inks with Matte Black and three different
> papers -- Enhanced Matte, UltraSmooth and Photo Rag.  They are probably
> usable though not optimal with Photo Black but with reduced dMax.
> 
> QTR doesn't have any page layout features itself, but I've always printed
> from Photoshop which has the Print Preview layout which gives you
> control for one image.   What would you use for layout with color?
> 
> Try it out, and see if it does enough of what you want.  I'm not sure
> off hand of a max print length, but of course the files are getting very
> large.
> 
> Roy
> 
> > 
> > The reason I ask is because I am more than happy w. color output for the 
> > 4000 and the 9600 w. the Epson drivers and profiles and therefore don't 
need 
> > ImagePrint's color profiles.  Where I'm looking for a solution is for B&W.  If 
QTR 
> > supports a wide range of paper for the 9600, then I;ve got that problem 
solved 
> > and don't need ImagePrint.  But the (only) other feature of ImagePrint that 
I'm 
> > interested in is the page layout capability so that I can (1) lay out multiple 
> > images (color and B&W) on a 44 inch wide sheet of paper and (2) print 
longer 
> > than 90 inches.  (If anyone knows of a way to do this and still retain all my 
> > color management options, please let me know.  Is Adobe Illustrator a 
> > solution to the page layout and maximum length issues?  Does Illustrator 
let 
> > you pick your paper profiles like Photoshop does?)
> > 
> > (Qimage is not a solution for me for the page layout issues b/c I run a Mac 
and 
> > don't want to have to switch over to Virtual PC to print)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
<chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> Roy: thanks for your response.  One additional question: I should download 
> and install the QTR program and THEN double click the installers for the 
> 7600/9600 that I just downloaded separately from your site? 

Chip,

The above is correct, download QTR with "beta9" in the name.  You'll
install it by double-clicking on QuadToneRIP-2.0.pkg.  
After that download 7600-UC from the website,  that'll give you a folder
with Install9600 in it.  Turn the printer on and plugged into USB port.
Now double click on Install9600.  After this Open Photoshop and
Print selecting "Quad9600" as the printer.  See ReadMe's about what
options to pick.

Roy


 Or should I first 

> double click and install the programs located in the 7600/9600 downloads?  
> In other words,  you said "There are separate install scripts for the 7600 and 
> the 9600, they setup the printer, create profiles and install them all with a 
> double-click."  Does that mean the only thing I need to do is doubleclick the 
> install scripts in the profiles folder I just downloaded, or is installing the QTR 
> program itself a separate step?  (and if so, what order do I do it in?)
> 
> -
> > 
> > Hi Chip,
> > 
> > I've recently put 76/9600 profiles on my website.  You should use the ones
> > that are in the profiles section rather than what's in the program download.
> > There are separate install scripts for the 7600 and the 9600, they setup the
> > printer, create profiles and install them all with a double-click.
> > 
> > These support the UltraChrome inks with Matte Black and three different
> > papers -- Enhanced Matte, UltraSmooth and Photo Rag.  They are probably
> > usable though not optimal with Photo Black but with reduced dMax.
> > 
> > QTR doesn't have any page layout features itself, but I've always printed
> > from Photoshop which has the Print Preview layout which gives you
> > control for one image.   What would you use for layout with color?
> > 
> > Try it out, and see if it does enough of what you want.  I'm not sure
> > off hand of a max print length, but of course the files are getting very
> > large.
> > 
> > Roy
> > 
> > > 
> > > The reason I ask is because I am more than happy w. color output for the 
> > > 4000 and the 9600 w. the Epson drivers and profiles and therefore don't 
> need 
> > > ImagePrint's color profiles.  Where I'm looking for a solution is for B&W.  If 
> QTR 
> > > supports a wide range of paper for the 9600, then I;ve got that problem 
> solved 
> > > and don't need ImagePrint.  But the (only) other feature of ImagePrint that 
> I'm 
> > > interested in is the page layout capability so that I can (1) lay out multiple 
> > > images (color and B&W) on a 44 inch wide sheet of paper and (2) print 
> longer 
> > > than 90 inches.  (If anyone knows of a way to do this and still retain all my 
> > > color management options, please let me know.  Is Adobe Illustrator a 
> > > solution to the page layout and maximum length issues?  Does Illustrator 
> let 
> > > you pick your paper profiles like Photoshop does?)
> > > 
> > > (Qimage is not a solution for me for the page layout issues b/c I run a Mac 
> and 
> > > don't want to have to switch over to Virtual PC to print)

Roy-

Another reason people might want more than one printer is speed...I 
can remember having 4 1160s all churning out a print at the same time.

But the 4000 is FAST...I really have trouble keeping up with it and 
it is very unlikely I will be using anything but that for 90% of my 
printing going forward.

I'm waiting for IP but have been playing with the Epson driver and 
some toning filters in the PhotoRetouche kit...very impressive...

Folks, you may not need a RIP with this printer ...I've only used 
Epson papers and HPR so far, but results with them are stunning.

Tom O'Connell



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" 
<roy@h...> wrote:
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> I think you have a really good point.  With the older technology 
printers

> the need for a dedicated B&W printer was very clear.   All the newer
> 7 ink UltraChrome printers come very close in output quality to the
> quadtone B&W systems.   The 4000 promises to be as good or better

Got it up and running -- thanks!


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" <
roy@h...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
> <chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> > Roy: thanks for your response.  One additional question: I should 
download 
> > and install the QTR program and THEN double click the installers for the 
> > 7600/9600 that I just downloaded separately from your site? 
> 
> Chip,
> 
> The above is correct, download QTR with "beta9" in the name.  You'll
> install it by double-clicking on QuadToneRIP-2.0.pkg.  
> After that download 7600-UC from the website,  that'll give you a folder
> with Install9600 in it.  Turn the printer on and plugged into USB port.
> Now double click on Install9600.  After this Open Photoshop and
> Print selecting "Quad9600" as the printer.  See ReadMe's about what
> options to pick.
> 
> Roy
> 
> 
>  Or should I first 
> > double click and install the programs located in the 7600/9600 
downloads?  
> > In other words,  you said "There are separate install scripts for the 7600 
and 
> > the 9600, they setup the printer, create profiles and install them all with a 
> > double-click."  Does that mean the only thing I need to do is doubleclick 
the 
> > install scripts in the profiles folder I just downloaded, or is installing the 
QTR 
> > program itself a separate step?  (and if so, what order do I do it in?)
> > 
> > -
> > > 
> > > Hi Chip,
> > > 
> > > I've recently put 76/9600 profiles on my website.  You should use the 
ones
> > > that are in the profiles section rather than what's in the program 
download.
> > > There are separate install scripts for the 7600 and the 9600, they setup 
the
> > > printer, create profiles and install them all with a double-click.
> > > 
> > > These support the UltraChrome inks with Matte Black and three different
> > > papers -- Enhanced Matte, UltraSmooth and Photo Rag.  They are 
probably
> > > usable though not optimal with Photo Black but with reduced dMax.
> > > 
> > > QTR doesn't have any page layout features itself, but I've always printed
> > > from Photoshop which has the Print Preview layout which gives you
> > > control for one image.   What would you use for layout with color?
> > > 
> > > Try it out, and see if it does enough of what you want.  I'm not sure
> > > off hand of a max print length, but of course the files are getting very
> > > large.
> > > 
> > > Roy
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The reason I ask is because I am more than happy w. color output for 
the 
> > > > 4000 and the 9600 w. the Epson drivers and profiles and therefore 
don't 
> > need 
> > > > ImagePrint's color profiles.  Where I'm looking for a solution is for B&W.  
If 
> > QTR 
> > > > supports a wide range of paper for the 9600, then I;ve got that problem 
> > solved 
> > > > and don't need ImagePrint.  But the (only) other feature of ImagePrint 
that 
> > I'm 
> > > > interested in is the page layout capability so that I can (1) lay out 
multiple 
> > > > images (color and B&W) on a 44 inch wide sheet of paper and (2) print 
> > longer 
> > > > than 90 inches.  (If anyone knows of a way to do this and still retain all 
my 
> > > > color management options, please let me know.  Is Adobe Illustrator a 
> > > > solution to the page layout and maximum length issues?  Does 
Illustrator 
> > let 
> > > > you pick your paper profiles like Photoshop does?)
> > > > 
> > > > (Qimage is not a solution for me for the page layout issues b/c I run a 
Mac 
> > and 
> > > > don't want to have to switch over to Virtual PC to print)

Tom,
What is your observation printing b@w with the 4000? 
Is the dmax as good as Epson claims?  I suspect you
can't print black only.  True?  We're all interested
in the metamerism effect.  What do you see?  Thanks!
Joe D.

=====
Drop by my site @ <www.davajon.com>

Apparently people have now found a workaround for the memory problem and
are running coLinux with up to 512mb memory without incident. I'm
seriously tempted to see if I can get a networked installation with QTR
up and running.

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