Digital BW, The Print

Is anyone using the Phatte Black workflow with Image Print? It seems
to be sacrificing the great thing about K3 which is the light light
black, but I just don't know. It could be useful.

John

Ironic.  For awhile I pondered how to hack the firmware in my 4000 so  
I could use the k3 inks and install the kkk in one of the K  
positions.  IP does the opposite and hacks a 4800 into a 4000 so they  
can use two Ks.

Carl

On Dec 12, 2005, at 9:34 PM, john dean wrote:

> Is anyone using the Phatte Black workflow with Image Print? It seems
> to be sacrificing the great thing about K3 which is the light light
> black, but I just don't know. It could be useful.
>
> John

Carl,
If you ever do,let me know!  I'll bet theres quite a few 4000 owners 
that would buy your firmware, and would need new profiles due to the 
head differences... 
Any s/w guys up to the challenge? 
SteveB  



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
<scho@m...> wrote:
>
> Ironic.  For awhile I pondered how to hack the firmware in my 4000 
so  
> I could use the k3 inks and install the kkk in one of the K  
> positions.  IP does the opposite and hacks a 4800 into a 4000 so 
they  
> can use two Ks.
> 
> Carl
> 
> On Dec 12, 2005, at 9:34 PM, john dean wrote:
> 
> > Is anyone using the Phatte Black workflow with Image Print? It 
seems
> > to be sacrificing the great thing about K3 which is the light 
light

> > black, but I just don't know. It could be useful.
> >
> > John
>

I heard John Pannozzo (THE ImagePrint guy) give a talk. He mentioned
he foresaw no advantage to Epson's addition of a 3rd black, and that
what they were already doing with two was state of the art and
essentially unbeatable.
At this same event, quadtone prints ran away with the print competition.
But give him the benefit of the doubt, it would probably be worth
seeing before judging.
It seems to me they are developing the product to give users as many
options with one printer as possible, color, B&W, matte and gloss.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:

>
> Is anyone using the Phatte Black workflow with Image Print? It seems
> to be sacrificing the great thing about K3 which is the light light
> black, but I just don't know. It could be useful.
> 
> John
>

Why bother with a firmware hack that might destroy your printer? 
I've got MIS K3 inks in my R1800, run by QTR. I'm getting good 
results, though this POS printer microbands enough to be almost 
useless. But a 4000 is a different story, it should do much better. 
In fact Carl, I'm a bit surprised you haven't done it yet, you seem 
to have run just about every other ink scheme anyone's ever come up 
with, and quite succesfully. Are we getting a bit burned out with 
endless experimenting? I know I am. Makes me really appreciate 
Paul's ongoing efforts all these years.

Steve KLarafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "steveabrink" 
<steveabrink@y...> wrote:
>
> Carl,
> If you ever do,let me know!  I'll bet theres quite a few 4000 
owners 
> that would buy your firmware, and would need new profiles due to 
the 
> head differences... 
> Any s/w guys up to the challenge? 
> SteveB  
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl 
Schofield 
> <scho@m...> wrote:
> >
> > Ironic.  For awhile I pondered how to hack the firmware in my 
4000 

> so  
> > I could use the k3 inks and install the kkk in one of the K  
> > positions.  IP does the opposite and hacks a 4800 into a 4000 so 
> they  
> > can use two Ks.
> > 
> > Carl
> > 
> > On Dec 12, 2005, at 9:34 PM, john dean wrote:
> > 
> > > Is anyone using the Phatte Black workflow with Image Print? It 
> seems
> > > to be sacrificing the great thing about K3 which is the light 
> light
> > > black, but I just don't know. It could be useful.
> > >
> > > John
> >
>

Tyler,

We both know this is fiction, especially you. Two can be nice with a
rip, yes, unbeatable of course not.
The real seduction of the Phatte black is allowing one to jump back
and forth between glossy and rag, which is something a lot of us would
like to do, and I want to do it, but not at the sacrafice of the
ultimate high values. I don't know, I change my opinions about this
issue every week. I won't decide right now.  I just found out at best
it will be mid February before I could get a 9800 anyway. I'd rather
play around with K6 for awhile.

I just wondered if someone was sold on this Phatte Black concept. So
far besides the Image Print people, I haven't heard anyone talking it
up really.

John


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

>
> I heard John Pannozzo (THE ImagePrint guy) give a talk. He mentioned
> he foresaw no advantage to Epson's addition of a 3rd black, and that
> what they were already doing with two was state of the art and
> essentially unbeatable.
> At this same event, quadtone prints ran away with the print competition.
> But give him the benefit of the doubt, it would probably be worth
> seeing before judging.
> It seems to me they are developing the product to give users as many
> options with one printer as possible, color, B&W, matte and gloss.
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
> <deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Is anyone using the Phatte Black workflow with Image Print? It seems
> > to be sacrificing the great thing about K3 which is the light light
> > black, but I just don't know. It could be useful.
> > 
> > John
> >
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
>
> I heard John Pannozzo (THE ImagePrint guy) give a talk. He mentioned
> he foresaw no advantage to Epson's addition of a 3rd black, and that
> what they were already doing with two was state of the art and
> essentially unbeatable.
> At this same event, quadtone prints ran away with the print 
competition.
> But give him the benefit of the doubt, it would probably be worth
> seeing before judging.
> It seems to me they are developing the product to give users as many
> options with one printer as possible, color, B&W, matte and gloss.
> Tyler
> 

That may be true, but I still think it was done backwards. I know 
that if I had one more black in my 9500 I could produce outstanding 
black and white (as well as better color), but I would also want the 
additional black to be much lighter than Epson's old light black (now 
I call it medium black).

I will also say (again) that this different black setup can be 
accomplished with many good RIPs. Tyler, maybe you could comment on 
how easy it would be to do this with StudioPrint? I can say that with 
the Evolution RIP that I use, this is a simple thing to accomplish. 
With the Evolution RIP, you can put any color into any slot (if the 
chips match) and tell the RIP which slot to connect to which color 
channel. They call it head mapping. I know StudioPrint can do 
something similar, but I'm not well versed with that application.

It may seem like I'm overly against ImagePrint, which is not entirely 
true. IP has it's uses, among them that it is "preconfigured" so that 
there is no messing around. This is good for less technical persons, 
or someone that just doesn't want to be bothered with setting the 
thing up. I feel more control is needed, so I choose a different 
method. Anyone playing with QTR in a serious manner has seen that you 
can build a setup for matte and a setup for glossy so that you don't 
have to change out carts, this IP feature is nothing more than that 
same thing.

And perhaps Epson will finally decide they've milked the process enough 
the next time around, and give us what we need!

Steve Karafyllakis

> It seems to me they are developing the product to give users as many
> options with one printer as possible, color, B&W, matte and gloss.
> Tyler
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@y...> 
wrote:
>
> Tyler,
> 
> We both know this is fiction..

ok, yeah, well...
I was trying to be nice. I know, dumb.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" <dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
...
> I will also say (again) that this different black setup can be 
> accomplished with many good RIPs. Tyler, maybe you could comment on 
> how easy it would be to do this with StudioPrint?

Right, shouldn't be a problem at all. All tanks are assignable, like your RIP as well.

You know, if we were willing to spend a lot more on our hardware, we could have lot's more 
tanks and do all kinds of nifty things with these RIPs, and no stinkin' chipped carts.

Or, you know, several more Epsons.
Tyler

It is my observation that people “sold” on IP generally are people who have
not tried anything but the Epson driver.  Without ink limiting and
linearization, it’s difficult to even consider it a “rip”, but that’s a
different issue.
If someone has seriously trialed various RIPs, using a spectro, as well as
explored the capabilities of the epson driver, and then, selected IP, they
aren’t talking it up.  There is evidence of the opposite.
As others implied, IP is good for someone wishing to use 3rd party papers in
a “push-button” workflow.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of john dean
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:51 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Phatte Black

Tyler,

We both know this is fiction, especially you. Two can be nice with a
rip, yes, unbeatable of course not.
The real seduction of the Phatte black is allowing one to jump back
and forth between glossy and rag, which is something a lot of us would
like to do, and I want to do it, but not at the sacrafice of the
ultimate high values. I don't know, I change my opinions about this
issue every week. I won't decide right now.  I just found out at best
it will be mid February before I could get a 9800 anyway. I'd rather
play around with K6 for awhile.

I just wondered if someone was sold on this Phatte Black concept. So
far besides the Image Print people, I haven't heard anyone talking it
up really.

John





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

Total agreement!  I'd even go further than that.  IP uses a "one size 
fits all" approach that hard codes ink limits and linearization to 
the inkset, so you get one choice, period.  If that works for your 
paper, great.  If not, too bad.  Since papers can vary quite a bit 
from one to the other, this approach is destined to give mediocre 
results on many papers.

For that reason, the Epson driver usually gives better Dmax, 
saturation and color gamut than IP, because at least you have a 
choice of paper settings, ink density slider, etc., which allow your 
to change the amount of ink hitting the sheet  I have no problem 
regularly blowing IP off the map with the Epson driver and custom 
profiles.  

IP is simple, easy, and has some nice layout capabilities, and 
gives "pleasing" color out of the box, but falls short of its 
claims.  My copy is never used any more.  I tried to make it sing for 
a year, but it's tone deaf.

Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody" 
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
>
> It is my observation that people "sold" on IP generally are people 
who have
> not tried anything but the Epson driver.  Without ink limiting and
> linearization, it's difficult to even consider it a "rip", but 
that's a
> different issue.
> If someone has seriously trialed various RIPs, using a spectro, as 
well as
> explored the capabilities of the epson driver, and then, selected 
IP, they
> aren't talking it up.  There is evidence of the opposite.
> As others implied, IP is good for someone wishing to use 3rd party 
papers in
> a "push-button" workflow.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of 
john dean
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 10:51 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Phatte Black
> 
> Tyler,
> 
> We both know this is fiction, especially you. Two can be nice with a
> rip, yes, unbeatable of course not.
> The real seduction of the Phatte black is allowing one to jump back
> and forth between glossy and rag, which is something a lot of us 
would
> like to do, and I want to do it, but not at the sacrafice of the
> ultimate high values. I don't know, I change my opinions about this
> issue every week. I won't decide right now.  I just found out at 
best
> it will be mid February before I could get a 9800 anyway. I'd rather
> play around with K6 for awhile.
> 
> I just wondered if someone was sold on this Phatte Black concept. So
> far besides the Image Print people, I haven't heard anyone talking 
it

> up really.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Sorry if I missed something but I have a question. Are you saying that if
you go into the "Ink Limit" dialogue in IP that it doesn't work or that it
refers to some else?

Wendel

> 
> Total agreement!  I'd even go further than that.  IP uses a "one size
> fits all" approach that hard codes ink limits and linearization to
> the inkset, so you get one choice, period.  If that works for your
> paper, great.  If not, too bad.  Since papers can vary quite a bit
> from one to the other, this approach is destined to give mediocre
> results on many papers.
> 
> For that reason, the Epson driver usually gives better Dmax,
> saturation and color gamut than IP, because at least you have a
> choice of paper settings, ink density slider, etc., which allow your
> to change the amount of ink hitting the sheet  I have no problem
> regularly blowing IP off the map with the Epson driver and custom
> profiles.  
> 
> IP is simple, easy, and has some nice layout capabilities, and
> gives "pleasing" color out of the box, but falls short of its
> claims.  My copy is never used any more.  I tried to make it sing for
> a year, but it's tone deaf.
> 
> Lou

Steve,

I gave up on the firmware hack idea and converted the 4000 to piezo  
inks (dual k7 and carbon sepia) for B&W matte printing using QTR.   
The 2400 does all of my color and B&W RC work with the MIS k4 inks  
and I'm really pleased with the semimatte prints.

Carl

On Dec 12, 2005, at 10:35 PM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:

> Why bother with a firmware hack that might destroy your printer?
> I've got MIS K3 inks in my R1800, run by QTR. I'm getting good
> results, though this POS printer microbands enough to be almost
> useless. But a 4000 is a different story, it should do much better.
> In fact Carl, I'm a bit surprised you haven't done it yet, you seem
> to have run just about every other ink scheme anyone's ever come up
> with, and quite succesfully. Are we getting a bit burned out with
> endless experimenting? I know I am. Makes me really appreciate
> Paul's ongoing efforts all these years.
>
> Steve KLarafyllakis
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "steveabrink"
> <steveabrink@y...> wrote:
>>
>> Carl,
>> If you ever do,let me know!  I'll bet theres quite a few 4000
> owners
>> that would buy your firmware, and would need new profiles due to
> the
>> head differences...
>> Any s/w guys up to the challenge?
>> SteveB
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl
> Schofield
>> <scho@m...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ironic.  For awhile I pondered how to hack the firmware in my
> 4000
>> so
>>> I could use the k3 inks and install the kkk in one of the K
>>> positions.  IP does the opposite and hacks a 4800 into a 4000 so
>> they
>>> can use two Ks.
>>>
>>> Carl
>>>
>>> On Dec 12, 2005, at 9:34 PM, john dean wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is anyone using the Phatte Black workflow with Image Print? It
>> seems
>>>> to be sacrificing the great thing about K3 which is the light
>> light
>>>> black, but I just don't know. It could be useful.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>

Wendell,

IP doesn't give you the built in tools for setting ink limits and 
linearization (like a 'real' full featured RIP does).  I've never had 
much success with the ink sliders in IP.  At the price, they should 
provide a full toolset, but they don't.  To me, it isn't worth the 
trouble.  I wasted a year and tons of paper and ink on it.  Fair 
results, but nothing to crow about.

I'll compare my Epson custom profiles and prints to IP canned or 
custom profiles and prints any day.  No comparison.  On some papers, 
the results will be comparable, (if the paper happens to fall in the 
sweet spot of IP's preset ink limits), but on most papers I have 
tested, the Epson driver will win hands down.

Additionally, the driver understands BPC, and will print InDesign and 
Illustrator files directly, without the need to convert to PDF or 
postscript.  And the driver comes with the printer at no extra 
charge.  With IP, you have to pay a full license fee for every 
printer model you use with it.  Add another printer model, and you 
have to buy another full license.  

If you find you can get superior profiles using IP after asjusting 
their ink sliders, please share your results.  I'd be very surprised 
if you did, but I will be glad to be proven wrong.

Regards, Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Wendel White 
<wendel@b...> wrote:
>
> Sorry if I missed something but I have a question. Are you saying 
that if
> you go into the "Ink Limit" dialogue in IP that it doesn't work or 
that it
> refers to some else?
> 
> Wendel
> 
> > 
> > Total agreement!  I'd even go further than that.  IP uses a "one 
size
> > fits all" approach that hard codes ink limits and linearization to
> > the inkset, so you get one choice, period.  If that works for your
> > paper, great.  If not, too bad.  Since papers can vary quite a bit
> > from one to the other, this approach is destined to give mediocre
> > results on many papers.
> > 
> > For that reason, the Epson driver usually gives better Dmax,
> > saturation and color gamut than IP, because at least you have a
> > choice of paper settings, ink density slider, etc., which allow 
your
> > to change the amount of ink hitting the sheet  I have no problem
> > regularly blowing IP off the map with the Epson driver and custom
> > profiles.  
> > 
> > IP is simple, easy, and has some nice layout capabilities, and
> > gives "pleasing" color out of the box, but falls short of its
> > claims.  My copy is never used any more.  I tried to make it sing 
for

> > a year, but it's tone deaf.
> > 
> > Lou
>

Lou;

Thanks. I don't really fiddle with all that stuff like you guys. I was just
curious. 

Wendel

> Wendell,
> 
> IP doesn't give you the built in tools for setting ink limits and
> linearization (like a 'real' full featured RIP does).  I've never had
> much success with the ink sliders in IP.  At the price, they should
> provide a full toolset, but they don't.  To me, it isn't worth the
> trouble.  I wasted a year and tons of paper and ink on it.  Fair
> results, but nothing to crow about.
> 
> I'll compare my Epson custom profiles and prints to IP canned or
> custom profiles and prints any day.  No comparison.  On some papers,
> the results will be comparable, (if the paper happens to fall in the
> sweet spot of IP's preset ink limits), but on most papers I have
> tested, the Epson driver will win hands down.
> 
> Additionally, the driver understands BPC, and will print InDesign and
> Illustrator files directly, without the need to convert to PDF or
> postscript.  And the driver comes with the printer at no extra
> charge.  With IP, you have to pay a full license fee for every
> printer model you use with it.  Add another printer model, and you
> have to buy another full license.
> 
> If you find you can get superior profiles using IP after asjusting
> their ink sliders, please share your results.  I'd be very surprised
> if you did, but I will be glad to be proven wrong.
> 
> Regards, Lou
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Wendel White
> <wendel@b...> wrote:
>> 
>> Sorry if I missed something but I have a question. Are you saying
> that if
>> you go into the "Ink Limit" dialogue in IP that it doesn't work or
> that it
>> refers to some else?
>> 
>> Wendel
>>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
>
> Is anyone using the Phatte Black workflow with Image Print? It seems
> to be sacrificing the great thing about K3 which is the light light
> black, but I just don't know. It could be useful.

I'd have to hear an awful lot of testimonials from people I respect,
saying how great it was, before I'd look seriously at it.

In general, I ignore products with gangster, thug, rap slang names.
Maybe there are appropriate places to market such things, but it's got
far too much negative energy to find a place in my studio. I'd even
prefer "giclee" to "phatt", and you all know how I feel about "giclee".