Digital BW, The Print

I've been doing darkroom printing for 20 years and am stumbling
into the digital age (I searched archives here as well as I could 
for these topics but could never get Search engine to survey 
more than a few hundred files [out of 65,000] at a time). . .

1) I just got a new Epson 4000, intending to do BO printing 
(based on satisfaction I experienced with 2200 BO prints; 
not "darkroom-like," but I like the look, esp. for larger 
prints). 

I have not yet installed inks in the 4000 (or even plugged it in!).

Since I only intend to do BO, is it possible to fool the 4000 
into thinking it's a 1-color printer so that I never have to 
load the other 7 carts? (I'm guessing not, but it would save 
plenty of money and hassle if it were.) If it's silly to even 
consider such a notion, please forgive my naivete.

2) Does anybody mix their own inks, or is that a recipe for disaster? 

I ask because the Eboni ink (which I'd planned to use for BO)
looks a smidge neutral/cool to my taste and the Epson black 
(which I used on the 2200) can easily look too warm. (In the 
darkroom I often sought something *slightly* warm; not full 
Ilford "Warmtone," but not neutral either.) I was planning on 
getting refillable carts at MIS and wondered whether there's 
a way to warm up the Eboni a little (I don't think I can buy 
the Epson Black by the bottle).

I know paper affects tonality: I was planning on at least 
for now using Epson UltraSmooth FineArt (mostly because 
I have a bunch of it that I bought for the 2200).

If you think I won't be happy without going the full-ink/
custom-profile/purchased-RIP route, just tell me so.

Thanks for any insights.      

-John-

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwmaven" <jtdomenici@a...> 
wrote:
...
> Since I only intend to do BO, is it possible to fool the 4000 
> into thinking it's a 1-color printer so that I never have to 
> load the other 7 carts?...

I suppose it's possible to bet some empty carts from MIS or someone, and a chip resetter, 
but I don't think it's a good idea. In fact, I think it would be a good idea to print something 
with those inks every week or so just to run ink through the lines and heads. Also, 
utilizing those inks for your question below will be a good idea.


> 2) Does anybody mix their own inks, or is that a recipe for disaster? 
> 
> I ask because the Eboni ink (which I'd planned to use for BO)
> looks a smidge neutral/cool to my taste and the Epson black 
> (which I used on the 2200) can easily look too warm.

People do mix, but you'll be going around in circles getting it just right, mixing, loading 
carts, initiating the printer, printing tests. THen if you don't quite like yet, purging the 
printer and starting over.
I think you are much better off spending the $50 on QTR and using your color inks to fine 
tune your hue. You can still use the MIS K ink if you like. In fact you could use any of the 
MIS inksets that provide selectable hue I suppose. But if you are new to QTR I'd use a set 
that other QTR users already have and "profiles/curves" are available at present. THat way 
you can begin printing right away instead of haveing to learn it.

This way you can do something very much like BO but a bit of the other inks to nail your 
hue. EVen with the out of the box Epson inks.

Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwmaven" 
<jtdomenici@a...> 
> wrote:
> ...
> > Since I only intend to do BO, is it possible to fool the 4000 
> > into thinking it's a 1-color printer so that I never have to 
> > load the other 7 carts?...
> 
> I suppose it's possible to bet some empty carts from MIS or 
someone, and a chip resetter, 
> but I don't think it's a good idea. In fact, I think it would be a 
good idea to print something 
> with those inks every week or so just to run ink through the lines 
and heads. Also, 
> utilizing those inks for your question below will be a good idea.
> 
> 
> > 2) Does anybody mix their own inks, or is that a recipe for 
disaster? 
> > 
> > I ask because the Eboni ink (which I'd planned to use for BO)
> > looks a smidge neutral/cool to my taste and the Epson black 
> > (which I used on the 2200) can easily look too warm.
> 
> People do mix, but you'll be going around in circles getting it 
just right, mixing, loading 
> carts, initiating the printer, printing tests. THen if you don't 
quite like yet, purging the 
> printer and starting over.
> I think you are much better off spending the $50 on QTR and using 
your color inks to fine 
> tune your hue. You can still use the MIS K ink if you like. In fact 
you could use any of the 
> MIS inksets that provide selectable hue I suppose. But if you are 
new to QTR I'd use a set 
> that other QTR users already have and "profiles/curves" are 
available at present. THat way 
> you can begin printing right away instead of haveing to learn it.
> 
> This way you can do something very much like BO but a bit of the 
other inks to nail your 
> hue. EVen with the out of the box Epson inks.
> 
> Tyler

Not much more to add to this except for one thing... If you do find 
that you aren't using certain colors (like full magenta and full 
cyan, or the other way around) you could install cleaning carts in 
those positions, cleaning fluid is much cheaper than ink. It might 
also help to keep the capping station cleaner, which might help 
prevent the other heads from clogging (theory, haven't tried it). You 
will still need a chip reset tool unless you buy a bottle ink system 
with the auto reset chips.

I think you are totally wasting your time and the printers capability by trying to print out of 
one channel. It just seems silly and retrograde to me.  I've done it for years with the 10K 
which has a  superior heads and it is very limiting, If you would just do as Tyler suggested 
and buy QTR for Ultracrome you will be MUCH happier. I produce totally neutral and totally 
metamerism free prints every week this way. Not Piezzotone, but very very good.  If you 
are looking for an Iflord Ilfobrome hue try Ultrachrome with Matte black and a curve 
setting of - Warm - 60/ Cool -40, or for a more neutral result - Cool -70 Warm- 30. This 
is with Innova or Hahnemuhle Rag. The Innova FibaPrint paper works very well with similar 
settings.

John

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting" <dfaprinting@y...> 
wrote:
...
> ... you could install cleaning carts in 
> those positions, cleaning fluid is much cheaper than ink. It might 
> also help to keep the capping station cleaner, which might help 
> prevent the other heads from clogging (theory, haven't tried it).

very interesting idea.

Also, it's worth mentioning IJC/OPM in these same discussions with QTR.

Tyler

P.S. As someone who does mix inksets for 9600 carts, I just want to stress again how 
tiresome this kind of testing can be. Lot's of ink waste as well. At least I'm not testing mixes 
at this point, when I was it was with a 3000, what a pain. For the 4000, add the chipped carts 
and less straightforward purging to the process.

Tyler wrote:
"I think you are much better off spending the $50 on QTR and using 
your color inks to fine tune your hue. You can still use the MIS K 
ink if you like."

I just now got around to downloading and playing around with 
Quadtone RIP on my 2200.  How things have changed since I last 
RIPped...  This baby is not just a RIP, it is a work of art.  Or if 
not that then at least a labor of love.  Nice smooth dither pattern 
(pretty much perfect at the 2880 setting) and more curve/separation 
options than anyone could possibly ask for.  But still quite useable 
by novices with the provided curves, even on paper they weren't 
exactly designed for.  That is probably no news to most of you here -
 but I haven't been ripping since around the time Adobe Pressready 
died so I'm impressed. My compliments to the chef!  Just for fun I 
made a quick curve in QTR using only the magenta and cyan inks (no 
black) since I wanted to see what an all blue print would look 
like.  Pretty straightforward, got me a blue print curve set (hmm 
one wonders what an all blue print would look like on that 1800 with 
that nice true blue ink!).  Guess I've got to get back into this 
printing stuff!

Only issue I see with QTR is that you can only icc profile/softproof 
in Photoshop for the exact paper settings *and* tint curve settings 
you use in QTR (which is where all the chanel separations occur). If 
you tweak the tint in Photoshop you get no interactive color changes 
in the print (density changes only since QTR converts any RGB file 
to greyscale before applying the separations).  That is pretty much 
standard for this sort of B&W RIP so no problem there, just a 
comparative issue.  For comparison, the other (non-QTR) choice is to 
create the channel separations in Photoshop and print from 
multichannel mode using a RIP that prints each channel as it is 
defined in Photoshop.  That gives you the interactive ability to see 
the effects of each curve tweak on the color/tone as you make them. 
But that is a more complicated and expensive way to go about it (it 
might still be my favorite way - I need to try one of those new RIPs 
that do that well for the 6/7/ or 8 color inksets). Although with 
the more recent 3 black/gray printers the only curves you'd use 
would be for tinting/toning not the more severe gray-value quadtone 
partitioning so that should not be the rocket science it once was on 
the 3000.

Or, in other words comparing the two types of RIPs, you can make 
lots of softproof icc profiles for using with a grayscale RIP like 
QTR, one for each paper-type/tint setup, and then you can see in 
Photoshop (but not change) what each set of selections gives you in 
the print. Or you can use a non-grayscale multi-channel RIP with one 
profile for each paper type and then get any number of interactive 
tint variations with that one profile by tweaking in Photoshop. 
Guess it depends on how much time you want to spend tweaking curves 
and seeing what happens to the image vs printing a nice gray image 
though an established tint curve...   :-)

And back to the topic of mixing inks -- like Tyler, I tried that a 
lot back in my old 3000 days. You can get some nice effects but I 
think the current set of Epson printers and all the inks and RIPs 
now available sort of make that all moot. Easier to mix color in the 
driver rather than the bottle.  Also, you may want to question if 
mixing inks could cause interactions between the colors of the inks 
(this used to be a problem even *after* printing with unmixed inks 
when the inks would blend on the paper then become less stable - not 
sure if that is still an issue with current inks).  

At any rate, if someone is going to blend up their own inks in the 
bottle, as a suggestion, I'll mention here an experiment that I did 
that had some very promising results: Mix equal parts of 
cyan/magenta, yellow/magenta, and cyan/yellow to get a red, blue, 
green inkset (that inkset is for a four-ink printer one would have 
to adapt it for a six ink printer).  Since red blue and green inks 
made this way can't combine to give anything other than *less* 
saturated blends on paper you get an inkset that lends itself to 
grayscale (or, at most, redscale, greenscale, or bluescale). In 
other words, when you print with, say, blue and red with this inkset 
you move as much toward neutral gray as toward purple.  The inkset 
can be icc profiled with some profiling software and your 
RGB "grayscale" images in Photoshop will be softproofable so you can 
see what changing the relative amounts of each RGB channel will do 
to the outcome.  Of course you would need a CMYK profile and RIP to 
see exactly what the K channel does but for most uses the RGB driver 
with an RGB profile works quite well with RGB inks.  Also, on the 
older 4 color printers, it does *not* give you those nice smooth dot-
less highlights you get with real quadtone inks and quadtone rip 
systems.  But on the more recent small-dot light-gray ink printers 
RGB might be an nice inkset that reduces color crossovers in the 
neutral grays.  Might work quite well in Quadtone RIP also..

Dan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Culbertson" 
<danculb@b...> wrote:
> At any rate, if someone is going to blend up their own inks in the 
> bottle, as a suggestion, I'll mention here an experiment that I did 
> that had some very promising results: Mix equal parts of 
> cyan/magenta, yellow/magenta, and cyan/yellow to get a red, blue, 
> green inkset 

Might be easier to just buy red, green, and blue inks now. Most of the 
third party manufacturers have those colors for many of the more 
popular ink formulations. Which reminds me of something... wouldn't it 
be nice to have a 12 channel printer? 4 black, CcMmYRGB, or 3 black 
plus the others and an orange, or maybe GLOP just for fun.

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

"Might be easier to just buy red, green, and blue inks now. Most of 
the third party manufacturers have those colors for many of the more 
popular ink formulations. Which reminds me of something... wouldn't 
it be nice to have a 12 channel printer? 4 black, CcMmYRGB, or 3 
black plus the others and an orange, or maybe GLOP just for fun."


Yeah - 12 heads. Or 3 blacks and 9 colors with a good varnish 
sprayer head too! I can dig it! Or how about metalic silver and gold 
channels?  Talk about emulating a "silver" print! Common Epson, why 
are you dragging your feet?  Let's get with the picture. We want 12 
heads now!  Or maybe 16... 
 
On a more serious note:
Didn't know they made RGB colors commercially now.  For my RGB ink 
printer the commercially available RGB inks would probably work okay 
but I assume they are formulated from individual pigments or dyes 
not blends so they should be more saturated to start with. Sounds 
like a great experiment for that old 3000 that is sitting there 
currently even less usefull than a doorstop. Or the poor neglected 
900 that lost its black head to one too many vodka flushes. That 
will have to wait a tad though - already too many other experiments 
on the ledger.

But the "virtue" (if I may call it that) of my home-mixed RGB inks 
was that they were already a mix of two inks and with the addition 
of any third ink went toward neutral gray.  As subtractive colors 
the commercial RGB inks would probably tend to do the same thing but 
their virtue would probably be more saturation when used as single 
colors (i.e. a pure red ramp would have a more saturated red at the 
100% end).  But I'm not sure how balanced they are.  Since the CMY 
inks I used to make the RGB inks were already balanced to make 
neutral with equal amounts of each ink, when you used more than one 
of the blended RGB versions they went toward neutral post haste 
(since that meant there were three of the original inks in the 
mix).  My original intent for this inkset was for a sort of low-
gamut inkset.  Not sure it was all that great an idea but it did 
seem to work well enough at the time. And it was just such a nice 
contrarian idea since so many folks at the time were poo-pooing the 
idea of any ink colors other than CMY.   I canned the experiment 
when I found out that Epson inks, when the droplets mixed on paper, 
were not as chemically stable as when they did not mix (hence paper 
that isolated the droplets reduced fading).  Figured that would only 
be worse if they were mixed in the bottle.  The commercial RGB inks 
may just resurect the idea for me.

For another of my ancient Epson printer experiments for the 
historically minded: running a color print through two 3000s 
sequentially, one with CMYK inks and the other with diluted (light) 
versions of those inks.  Hence an 8-color 3000 print. Almost 
worked... The driver (PressReady) wasn't an issue. Separating the 
channels in Photoshop wasn't an issue. The issue was - can you 
say "registration problems?"  Now you can buy the 8 headed Epson 
monster all in one printer!  12 heads can't be far away... But Epson 
will probably only provide it with a regular RGB driver and no 
individual channel control.  Great printers - so-so drivers. Glad 
there are some software gurus out there who like Epson printers. :-)

Dan

Dan, here is a "new" solution some people are pursuing-
You need a RIP that will let you have a multi part K, just as you have
multi part C and M, and now that we have the K3 inks, the RIP needs to
be able to have multi part colors in more than two parts.
I know StudioPrint does it, not sure of the others.
So, you have, in the newest Epsons, a 3 part k as well as your colors.
All you need (along with your spiffy RIP) is a really good max K gen
CMYK profile. All neutrals will automatically be replaced with your
nicely partitioned K inks, and very minimal color inks will be used,
only for neutralizing hue, or tinting if you like. Your hue will show
nicely in soft proof, and your entire workflow can be RGB letting the
RIP convert on the fly.
I know it already works for the standard UCs, with only a 2 part K,
and am waiting for the x800s to come out, and StudioPrint support, to
do it with 3 parts.
Obviously high quality profiles are vital.
In the meantime, I also know it works with a 4 part K because...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting"
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
> ... wouldn't it 
> be nice to have a 12 channel printer? 4 black, CcMmYRGB, or 3 black 
> plus the others and an orange, or maybe GLOP just for fun.

...the Roland/ErgoSoft Davinci system is already out there and
working. It uses 4 Cone quads for K, and has CcMmYOG, er somethin'
like that, and uses the workflow above, and works well from all
reports. RGB workflow, CMYK profiles and RIP, 4 part max gen K, etc...
So some poor man's versions of that could be very close. Too bad
something like PressReady for current printers isn't out there for us.

Tyler
www.custom-digital.com

It is so nice to see how you guys are finally able to simplify the workflow and eliminate all 
the testing. 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> wrote:

> Dan, here is a "new" solution some people are pursuing-
> You need a RIP that will let you have a multi part K, just as you have
> multi part C and M, and now that we have the K3 inks, the RIP needs to
> be able to have multi part colors in more than two parts.
> I know StudioPrint does it, not sure of the others.
> So, you have, in the newest Epsons, a 3 part k as well as your colors.
> All you need (along with your spiffy RIP) is a really good max K gen
> CMYK profile. All neutrals will automatically be replaced with your
> nicely partitioned K inks, and very minimal color inks will be used,
> only for neutralizing hue, or tinting if you like. Your hue will show
> nicely in soft proof, and your entire workflow can be RGB letting the
> RIP convert on the fly.
> I know it already works for the standard UCs, with only a 2 part K,
> and am waiting for the x800s to come out, and StudioPrint support, to
> do it with 3 parts.
> Obviously high quality profiles are vital.
> In the meantime, I also know it works with a 4 part K because...
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting"
> <dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
> > ... wouldn't it 
> > be nice to have a 12 channel printer? 4 black, CcMmYRGB, or 3 black 
> > plus the others and an orange, or maybe GLOP just for fun.
> 
> ...the Roland/ErgoSoft Davinci system is already out there and
> working. It uses 4 Cone quads for K, and has CcMmYOG, er somethin'
> like that, and uses the workflow above, and works well from all
> reports. RGB workflow, CMYK profiles and RIP, 4 part max gen K, etc...
> So some poor man's versions of that could be very close. Too bad
> something like PressReady for current printers isn't out there for us.
> 
> Tyler
> www.custom-digital.com

Tyler wrote:
"Dan, here is a "new" solution some people are pursuing-
You need a RIP that will let you have a multi part K, just as you 
have multi part C and M, and now that we have the K3 inks, the RIP 
needs to be able to have multi part colors in more than two parts. I 
know StudioPrint does it, not sure of the others. So, you have, in 
the newest Epsons, a 3 part k as well as your colors."

Hi Tyler,

Not so "new" (you tongue-in-cheek ole devil you).  I had a free RIP 
for the Mac that did that for the Cc Mm inks a long while back.  But 
the newer printers do make it more palatable with those multiple 
Ks.  Looks like I'm going to have to investigate StudioPrint too.  
I'll probably also wait for the x800 printers and the 800 version of 
StudioPrint since that tritone K is what will surely wean me from 
the quadtone approach.  Though I may investigate it on the 2200 -- 
but with its measely 2 grays I will probably not be all that 
enamoured.

More Tyler:
"All you need (along with your spiffy RIP) is a really good max K 
gen CMYK profile. All neutrals will automatically be replaced with 
your nicely partitioned K inks, and very minimal color inks will be 
used, only for neutralizing hue, or tinting if you like. Your hue 
will show nicely in soft proof, and your entire workflow can be RGB 
letting the RIP convert on the fly. I know it already works for the 
standard UCs, with only a 2 part K, and am waiting for the x800s to 
come out, and StudioPrint support, to do it with 3 parts."

That sounds about right, let the RIP do the multitone partition and 
balance neutrals then let Photoshop (and the person opeating it) do 
the tinting/toning with real-time previewable tweaks to curves in RGB
(?) mode. Much simpler for the user.  But why would you want to use 
RGB mode and then convert to CMYK during flight?  Seems like a 
Photoshop grayscale to CMYK conversion with tweaking of the CMY ink 
curves directly would be more ideal (leaving the Kkk, Cc, Mm, 
partions to the RIP of course since who would want to mess with 
them).  When you use RGB mode then convert to CMYK on the fly you 
never actually see the curves for the individual inks (the color is 
just monitor color and the channels for that are, to me, rather 
abstract concepts in RGB).  I'd rather see and work with 
the "plates." (gad I'm old...)

Tyler again:
" ...the Roland/ErgoSoft Davinci system is already out there and 
working."

Gasp-- but it isn't an *Epson* !!  

"Too bad something like PressReady for current printers isn't out 
there for us."

Yep - PressReady was a jewel for as long as it lasted.  Too many new 
printers released too fast probably is what killed it!  

Dan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> It is so nice to see how you guys are finally able to simplify the 
workflow and eliminate all 
> the testing. 


Not me -- I'll be testing something or other 'till I fall over dead. 
:-)

But what *is* nice is that Epson is finally making printers that do 
good grayscale with minimal "heroics."  

Dan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Danny 
Culbertson" <danculb@b...> wrote:
> 12 heads can't be far away... 

Roland, and maybe a Mimaki or two (older), and I believe there were 
using the same heads as the Epson 9500 (could be wrong), just had 
four sets. There was an early Colorspan that used 12 HP/Encad type 
heads that had hardware configuration for the colors, so you didn't 
need a horribly expensive RIP to drive it.

Now how many shades of black do we really need?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> > All you need (along with your spiffy RIP) is a really good max K 
gen
> CMYK profile. All neutrals will automatically be replaced with your
> nicely partitioned K inks, and very minimal color inks will be used,
> only for neutralizing hue, or tinting if you like. Your hue will 
show
> nicely in soft proof, and your entire workflow can be RGB letting 
the
> RIP convert on the fly.
> I know it already works for the standard UCs, with only a 2 part K,
> and am waiting for the x800s to come out, and StudioPrint support, 
to
> do it with 3 parts.
> Obviously high quality profiles are vital.
> In the meantime, I also know it works with a 4 part K because...
> 


Actually it works with 1 black, just gets a little grainy, and I was 
surprised at how small the percentage of GCR used still keeps the 
neutral portions neutral. Really great profiles may not be needed. 
Simply build a CMYK profile with Printopen and select GCR. Even at a 
GCR of 25 (%??) there is a huge amount of black in the neutral areas, 
and the black extends all the way to paper white (if the inks will go 
that far). You can do this right now with the current (and older) 
printers. As long as you have 6 channels, you are set to go (assuming 
that 3 black inks works for your images). If you have a 7 channel 
printer, you can now have 4 black inks. It will of course be a small 
gamut set, but should produce very good B/W, and as you said, toning 
in photoshop, and softproofing.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> It is so nice to see how you guys are finally able to simplify the 
workflow and eliminate all 
> the testing. 
> 


You know, it's funny, I've been suggesting this method for months, 
and no one thought it was worth doing back then....

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Danny
Culbertson" <danculb@b...> wrote:
...  
 
> That sounds about right, let the RIP do the multitone partition and 
> balance neutrals then let Photoshop (and the person opeating it) do 
> the tinting/toning with real-time previewable tweaks to curves in RGB
> (?) mode. Much simpler for the user.  But why would you want to use 
> RGB mode and then convert to CMYK during flight?

I might not, and you might not <G>.
But I think many people would apreciate an all RGB workflow.
Personally, I suspect you'd get smoother tints with nice smooth curves
applied directly to the apropriate ink. But profiles are getting much
better at these near neutrals than ever before. At a price of course.


> Tyler again:
> " ...the Roland/ErgoSoft Davinci system is already out there and 
> working."
> 
> Gasp-- but it isn't an *Epson* !!  

Well, Epson heads anyway. Personally, I could use a new house before
one of these, but one can dream.

Tyler

Yea, I was joking of course. There is no end to this testing and measuring and testing and 
measuring and comparing and testing some mo. With that DaVinci rip and the 12 channels 
you could test till doomsday and there would be something better right around the corner. 
I guess that is all part of discovering a new technology. Someday there is going to be a 
super software out there that will take one little black and do no telling what with it.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Culbertson" 
<danculb@b...> wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
> <deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> > It is so nice to see how you guys are finally able to simplify the 
> workflow and eliminate all 
> > the testing. 
> 
> 
> Not me -- I'll be testing something or other 'till I fall over dead. 
> :-)
> 
> But what *is* nice is that Epson is finally making printers that do 
> good grayscale with minimal "heroics."  
> 
> Dan

dfaprinting wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Danny
> Culbertson" <danculb@b...> wrote:
> > 12 heads can't be far away...
>
> Roland, and maybe a Mimaki or two (older), and I believe there were
> using the same heads as the Epson 9500 (could be wrong), just had
> four sets. There was an early Colorspan that used 12 HP/Encad type
> heads that had hardware configuration for the colors, so you didn't
> need a horribly expensive RIP to drive it.
>
> Now how many shades of black do we really need?


Well, think about it. For example, think how BO works. For black, you 
get full coverage (that is, the ink dots overlap) of the substrate. As 
the image tones get lighter, you get less coverage (the ink dots spread 
out) so the tone is a mix of the color of the substrate ("paper-white") 
and the black ink. As the tones continue to lighten, you get more 
spacing between the ink dots and thus more paper-white and less ink 
coverage. As some point the spacing between the ink dots becomes visible 
to the naked eye and the tone becomes "grainy." Finally you get to the 
point where there is little to no ink (white).

If you now try two inks, you get something different. The dark ink goes 
from full coverage to partial coverage, but not to zero coverage. The 
ink dots are closer together and there is less paper-white showing 
through. The ink dots are not spaced as far apart as with BO because at 
some point in the tonality, there is a cross over and the lighter ink 
takes over. The key here is, at this cross over point, is that for the 
same tone, the dark ink has less coverage and the lighter ink has more. 
That is, you see less paper-white showing through, and the average 
distance between ink dots becomes smaller because you are now using two 
inks..

As you go up in the number of inks you use, you successively increase 
the amount of ink coverage for any given tone, and decrease the amount 
of paper-white showing through, because you are decreasing the average 
distance between ink dots.

Two effects. First, your print becomes smoother due to the decrease in 
the distance between the ink dots. Second, the overall tone of the print 
becomes more consistent because there is greater ink coverage and less 
paper-white showing through.

So, how many shades of black do we really need? It's really a question 
of print quality - how smooth do you need your print, and how consistent 
in color?

All other things being equal, I suspect you can make an acceptable B&W 
print from three dilutions of black ink. I think that four inks will 
show an improvement over three. Many people have experimented with six 
or seven inks and found an improvement over quadtones. Indeed, Cone is 
starting to roll out a new heptone inkset. Where is the point of 
diminishing returns? I have no idea. Maybe someone will take one of 
these 12 channel Rolands and experiment for a while and find out...
--
Bruce Watson

Very good description,

In the future I belive we will have software configuartions that could create different 
optical smoothness of the dot patterns with a smaller number of inks, who knows, that 
would require a new head technology and a lot of r&d.  But for now it does appear that the 
more greys the better. Just having that ultra light channel in the Piezzotones or Ultratones 
for instance can work wonders with very delicate tonalities. Now Cone is betting his entire 
reputation and future on the fact that they believe the 7 channels of grey will outperform 
everything out there to the degree that there will be a decent market for it. I belive they 
are right, but certainy not a universtal market with the K3's coming out that will allow the 
fine tuning of print hue as well, something else that was never possible in the g. silver 
days. Cost is certainly going to be a significant factor as well.  People have complained for 
years that black and white inkjet imagery just isn't up to darkroom standards. I belive now 
we are going to surpas silver and platinum printing in many ways, not the least of which is 
the ability to control local tonality with curve layers and selective dodging and burning. I'm 
gonna start shoot black and white again. Too bad there isn't a really good glossy surface 
for carbon output. Now that would be nice.

John




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@s... wrote:

> dfaprinting wrote:
> 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Danny
> > Culbertson" <danculb@b...> wrote:
> > > 12 heads can't be far away...
> >
> > Roland, and maybe a Mimaki or two (older), and I believe there were
> > using the same heads as the Epson 9500 (could be wrong), just had
> > four sets. There was an early Colorspan that used 12 HP/Encad type
> > heads that had hardware configuration for the colors, so you didn't
> > need a horribly expensive RIP to drive it.
> >
> > Now how many shades of black do we really need?
> 
> 
> Well, think about it. For example, think how BO works. For black, you 
> get full coverage (that is, the ink dots overlap) of the substrate. As 
> the image tones get lighter, you get less coverage (the ink dots spread 
> out) so the tone is a mix of the color of the substrate ("paper-white") 
> and the black ink. As the tones continue to lighten, you get more 
> spacing between the ink dots and thus more paper-white and less ink 
> coverage. As some point the spacing between the ink dots becomes visible 
> to the naked eye and the tone becomes "grainy." Finally you get to the 
> point where there is little to no ink (white).
> 
> If you now try two inks, you get something different. The dark ink goes 
> from full coverage to partial coverage, but not to zero coverage. The 
> ink dots are closer together and there is less paper-white showing 
> through. The ink dots are not spaced as far apart as with BO because at 
> some point in the tonality, there is a cross over and the lighter ink 
> takes over. The key here is, at this cross over point, is that for the 
> same tone, the dark ink has less coverage and the lighter ink has more. 
> That is, you see less paper-white showing through, and the average 
> distance between ink dots becomes smaller because you are now using two 
> inks..
> 
> As you go up in the number of inks you use, you successively increase 
> the amount of ink coverage for any given tone, and decrease the amount 
> of paper-white showing through, because you are decreasing the average 
> distance between ink dots.
> 
> Two effects. First, your print becomes smoother due to the decrease in 
> the distance between the ink dots. Second, the overall tone of the print 
> becomes more consistent because there is greater ink coverage and less 
> paper-white showing through.
> 
> So, how many shades of black do we really need? It's really a question 
> of print quality - how smooth do you need your print, and how consistent 
> in color?
> 
> All other things being equal, I suspect you can make an acceptable B&W 
> print from three dilutions of black ink. I think that four inks will 
> show an improvement over three. Many people have experimented with six 
> or seven inks and found an improvement over quadtones. Indeed, Cone is 
> starting to roll out a new heptone inkset. Where is the point of 
> diminishing returns? I have no idea. Maybe someone will take one of 
> these 12 channel Rolands and experiment for a while and find out...
> --
> Bruce Watson

Tyler wrote:
"Dan, here is a "new" solution some people are pursuing-
You need a RIP that will let you have a multi part K, just as you
have multi part C and M, and now that we have the K3 inks, the RIP
needs to be able to have multi part colors in more than two parts. I
know StudioPrint does it, not sure of the others. So, you have, in
the newest Epsons, a 3 part k as well as your colors."

Hey Tyler - I can't find StudioPrint for the Stylus Photo 2200 (my 
current active printer).  Guess I won't be able to try it out just yet 
since using it on the old 3000 would be rather moot at this point (it 
still works from PressReady on the old Mac). So I think I need to try 
one of the other RIPs that support multipart ink controls.  What are 
the other good, but not overpriced, PC RIPs running around today?  
There a good list anywhere?

Dan

Dan, I think StudioPrint 2200 support is Epson screening only, which
does not give you direct channel control. For the 3000, support never
happened, they told me they were working on it, then the 4000 came
out, and I think I was the only human interested and they dropped it.
It's a newer product, even though ErgoSoft has been around a long
time, and right when it came out 3000s were sinking below the horizon.
Ernst may know many more about other RIPs, but the other main
contender is the Colorburst RIP. I know it'll do configurable
multi-part colors, but I don't know if it'll do more than two parts.
Untill the x800 printers are supported it'll be hard to know. The
other thing I don't know about Colorburst, whether or not you can
assign any ink "color" (that includes all the nomally available ink
colors and the light components as well) to any ink tank position like
you can in StudioPrint. I don't know if that's a deal killer, but with
goofy ink sets it can be a help. With a x800 and OEM inks it may not
matter.
You might also do a search on the old large format list, I think
someone compliled a list of RIPs within the last few months of
available RIPs.
Not overpriced?!?!?! I'll tell you, once you commit to one of these
puppies, you don't learn too much about the alteratives, too much
psycho buyer's remorse.
Tyler

Maybe someone else here would know--- In
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Culbertson"
<danculb@b...> wrote:

> Tyler wrote:
> "Dan, here is a "new" solution some people are pursuing-
> You need a RIP that will let you have a multi part K, just as you
> have multi part C and M, and now that we have the K3 inks, the RIP
> needs to be able to have multi part colors in more than two parts. I
> know StudioPrint does it, not sure of the others. So, you have, in
> the newest Epsons, a 3 part k as well as your colors."
> 
> Hey Tyler - I can't find StudioPrint for the Stylus Photo 2200 (my 
> current active printer).  Guess I won't be able to try it out just yet 
> since using it on the old 3000 would be rather moot at this point (it 
> still works from PressReady on the old Mac). So I think I need to try 
> one of the other RIPs that support multipart ink controls.  What are 
> the other good, but not overpriced, PC RIPs running around today?  
> There a good list anywhere?
> 
> Dan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Danny 
Culbertson" <danculb@b...> wrote:
> 
> Hey Tyler - I can't find StudioPrint for the Stylus Photo 2200 (my 
> current active printer).  Guess I won't be able to try it out just 
yet 
> since using it on the old 3000 would be rather moot at this point 
(it 
> still works from PressReady on the old Mac). So I think I need to 
try 
> one of the other RIPs that support multipart ink controls.  What 
are 
> the other good, but not overpriced, PC RIPs running around today?  
> There a good list anywhere?
> 
> Dan

You might try the Evolution RIP from Digifab ( 
http://www.digifab.com ), I'm pretty sure it supports the 2200, if 
not they may be willing to write a driver for it. About $500 for the 
17 inch wide or smaller, and is for PC only. Ask for Marty in the 
west coast office. There is a 14 day demo on the website. The thing 
you may want to check on is if the small printer version supports 
head mapping and custom channel mixing. This lets you put the inks in 
the printer in the order that you want, and then link channels 
together into one "color". You may need to call Steve at the New York 
office for some questions. Questions about linking multiple black 
inks shouldn't be unknown since I've already talked to Steve about 
this for my 9500. Output (paper) profiles are meant to be CMYK, but 
if you convert the image to your RGB profile, that should work too, 
you just won't have the GCR control that a CMYK profile will allow. I 
might be able to build some generic CMYK profiles with different GCR 
levels aimed at B/W prints.

One warning, the interface is not the easiest to learn, and the 
documentation is still lacking in a lot of areas.

After that you might check Postershop from Onyx, the manuals read 
like it can do the types of mixing that you may want.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
snip
> You might also do a search on the old large format list, I think
> someone compliled a list of RIPs within the last few months of
> available RIPs.

Found it - Diana York posted her list of RIPs in June and it was 
added to by someone else.  This is the list below (for whom it may 
concern). I'm pretty sure there are a couple that are missing that 
I've heard of here and there.  dfaprinting suggested Evolution from 
Digifab and that isn't on the list.  Guess I'm going to have to look 
them all up - not that I can likely afford to buy any of them just 
now... (except QTR of course). Need to buy the new x800 printers 
(and a workroom to put them in) before I use up all my money on new 
RIPs. Maybe I need to compile my own list of RIPS with details like 
supported printers, cost, made in blue or red state, etc.  But 
surely someone has a web site with that already done? :-)

Dan

RIP List:

ORIS Colortuner
GMG Colorproof
Caldera
Colorgate
Onyx
Colorbyte/ImagePrint
Sundance
Wasatch
QuadToneRIP
BEST
Ergosoft
Colorburst
PosterJet
Futures

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Danny 
Culbertson" <danculb@b...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
> <tyler@t...> wrote:
> snip
> > You might also do a search on the old large format list, I think
> > someone compliled a list of RIPs within the last few months of
> > available RIPs.
> 
> Found it - Diana York posted her list of RIPs in June and it was 
> added to by someone else.  This is the list below (for whom it may 
> concern). I'm pretty sure there are a couple that are missing that 
> I've heard of here and there.  dfaprinting suggested Evolution from 
> Digifab and that isn't on the list.  Guess I'm going to have to 
look 
> them all up - not that I can likely afford to buy any of them just 
> now... (except QTR of course). Need to buy the new x800 printers 
> (and a workroom to put them in) before I use up all my money on new 
> RIPs. Maybe I need to compile my own list of RIPS with details like 
> supported printers, cost, made in blue or red state, etc.  But 
> surely someone has a web site with that already done? :-)
> 
> Dan
> 
> RIP List:
> 
> ORIS Colortuner
> GMG Colorproof
> Caldera
> Colorgate
> Onyx
> Colorbyte/ImagePrint
> Sundance
> Wasatch
> QuadToneRIP
> BEST
> Ergosoft
> Colorburst
> PosterJet
> Futures

Also missing is:
- Artist RIP from Koreasoft http://www.artistrip.com/english/
- IJC/OPM from Bowhaus http://www.bowhaus.com
- RTI-RIP ???
- Heidelberg still has something but I can't remember it's name
- I think Fuji still has something
- EFI still has a few hardware based RIPs, but I don't think they 
have any of these for inkjets.
- HP but I think only for their printers

And there is (at least) one other that I know exists, but isn't 
listed, and I can not remember its name or who makes it.

Don't forget that many do not yet support the newest printers.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Culbertson" <danculb@b...> 
wrote:
...
> RIPs. Maybe I need to compile my own list of RIPS with details like 
> supported printers, cost, made in blue or red state, etc.  But 
> surely someone has a web site with that already done? :-)

Afraid not, there was that one that a printer in Hawaii had up, but I think it's gone and/or way 
out of date.

I had a demo a few years back made by Cadlink.
http://www.cadlink.com/
Looked very good at the time and worked in OS9, don't know if it remained in developement. 
It was a "lite" version of the one they still show there called PhotoScript. I also had some 
communication from someone successfully using it with the Lyson quad sets. There was a lot 
of channel control, lite/dark crossover controls etc..
They were very nice folks and would probably be happy to answer questions.

Most of these companies are small and are a bit hard to find for us, the very people who need 
them.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
 
> Afraid not, there was that one that a printer in Hawaii had up, but 
I think it's gone and/or way 
> out of date.

Now you are just testing me you sly old dog.  That was Joseph Yates, 
Pacifica Island Art Cards. Printed nice color cards with a couple 
3000s long before there was coated fine art paper.  Haven't heard from 
him in ages!  The url for his Epson Resources page (with that 
wonderful RIPs list) *was* 
http://www.islandartcards.com/epson/epson.html (but sadly it seems 
dead and gone now).  Maybe that is still Joseph there at 
http://www.islandartcards.com/.  Love the near-scifi style and colors 
used by those tropical artists.  Probably wouldn't translate well to 
quadtones though. 

Can't stump me on Epson Esoterica! :-)

Dan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Danny
Culbertson" <danculb@b...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
> <tyler@t...> wrote:
>  
> > Afraid not, there was that one that a printer in Hawaii had up, but 
> I think it's gone and/or way 
> > out of date.
> 
> Now you are just testing me you sly old dog.  That was Joseph Yates, 
> Pacifica Island Art Cards...

You got me on that one, I really had forgotten his name. No wonder
they kept you at NASA for so long.
When you think about the people that were on that leben list, it was
pretty amazing for a while. That's where I met "everyone that matters".
Tyler