Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 11/11/06 9:27:23 PM, tyler@... writes:


> these are sections about .8" high, one from the 9800 UCK3 w/ RGB
> driver and custom profile on HPR, the other a straight quad on the
> 9600, also HPR. Both at 1440, drum scanned at 2000 dpi and downsized
> to 1000dpi for posting here. 4000 dpi would have described the dots
> better and the difference would have been greater.
> The difference is obvious. Clearly there is photographic information
> in the file that the RGB driver operating normally is incapable of
> describing on paper. Not only resolution details, but levels of gray
> and tonal subtleties simply non-existent in one and not the other
> 

This is microscopic analysis, Tyler. You are looking at a .8 inch section of 
an image about 8 inches high on screen. When you back these samples off to .8 
inches high all of that has gone away. What suprised me at the Black and White 
Print meeting in Brooklyn was the opposite of what you describe (and frankly 
the opposite of what I expected as well): that at normal viewing distances 
(lets be reasonable and say 18 inches and above) even the K3 dithering didn't 
show as coarser, thinner, or weaker, than any of the specialty systems prints up 
there. What it might have lacked in microscopic detail, it more than made up 
for in reasonable tonalities and linearity. What you are describing has more 
impact on 2 inch wallet photos than two foot art photos. 

As for the dithering on Canons and HPs: the Canon dither and dot size is more 
coarse under a loupe than the existing K3s (such as your 9800); but actually 
produces better visual results from viewing distances. The HP may be finer 
under a loupe (not something I spend a lot of time verifying) but also improves 
on the 9800 dither. And the new 3800 from Epson similarly improves on the 9800 
dither, putting all three competitors on about even footing in that 
department, and one notch above what the K3 sample you offer looks like. So this means 
the Canon iPF models would look worse than your 9800 sample in microscopic 
analysis, but better than your 9800 sample to the eye from viewing distances. The 
relation between microscopic and viewing distance results does not have a very 
high correlation.

Now that I'm showing PrintFIX PRO 2.0 black and white prints in show booths, 
people are looking at those, and taking them as premium examples of gallery 
quality black and white , not some intermediate solution short of proprietary 
black and white with a dedicated printer. There was lots of B&W output on the 
show floor at PhotoPlus, and I was never told by anyone that the stuff we had on 
display was a poor second; rather the opposite: that it was the most 
outstanding stuff at the show. Numerous top photography and color management experts 
came into the booth, looked at the gallery prints, at the images coming out of 
the printers, and said they were sold, and that they wanted to review it, use 
it, sell it, train users on it, or otherwise jump on board. So what you are 
seeing, Tyler, is simply not affecting the vast majority of the photographic 
field, who are very enthused about the idea of ICC-based control, preview, 
adjustment, and printing, of their black and white images, and very happy with the 
results as well.

So while I appreciate the distinction you are making, its just not something 
that end users are seeing when they look at prints. When I got involved in B&
W, my criteria was that I wanted to produce low metamerism, long-life black and 
white, with OEM systems, but I wanted to control the linearity, neutrality, 
and other factors so that I could achieve dead neutral, extremely linear, 
creamy smooth results, and adjust them as I saw fit from there. Now that I'm 
getting that, the convenience, simplicity, and control it offers make it even more 
powerful than I expected, and the results are more exciting then I expected as 
well.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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

CDTobie@... wrote:
> So while I appreciate the distinction you are making, its just not something that end users are seeing when they look at prints. When I got involved in B&W, my criteria was that I wanted to produce low metamerism, long-life black and white, with OEM systems, but I wanted to control the linearity, neutrality, and other factors so that I could achieve dead neutral, extremely linear, creamy smooth results, and adjust them as I saw fit from there. Now that I'm getting that, the convenience, simplicity, and control it offers make it even more powerful than I expected, and the results are more exciting then I expected as well.
>
> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Division
> DataColor Inc.
> CDTobie@...
> www.colorvision.com
With all due respect, you have a horse in this race while Tyler and most 
of the rest of us do not. In order for you to sell your product (which 
you have been doing a lot lately) you have to convince them of the 
quality of prints from your system. But constantly talking it up won't 
improve the quality.

What Tyler describes is visible, and from "normal viewing distances" in 
my experience. More importantly, my experience with watching people in 
galleries is that this "normal viewing distances" argument is vaguely 
ridiculous. People walk right up to photographs and look at them from 
inches away. They want to see just how detailed it is. At least that's 
what they tell me when I ask them.

There are plenty of people out there who think that four grays aren't 
enough to get optimum smoothness from their prints. They've moved on to 
six and seven grays. These people aren't going to be satisfied with one 
or two or even three grays. They certainly aren't going to be satisfied 
with the blending of color dots to produce tonal levels not available 
from the grays alone.

Many times over the last five years (has it only been five years?) I've 
listened to marketing pitches that claim company X or company Y can make 
"museum quality" B&W prints from color inksets. While they have been 
good, they haven't yet been excellent. The majority of the market may 
well be satisfied with good. What I'm waiting for is excellent, and that 
evaluation has to first come from people I trust, who have a 
demonstrated track record of making outstanding B&W inkjet prints, and 
who don't stand to profit from their evaluation.

When people like Tyler tell me that a product is worth pursuing, I'll 
look into it.
-- 
Bruce Watson
/www.AchromaticArts.com
/

In a message dated 11/12/06 2:27:32 PM, bwyg@... writes:


> With all due respect, you have a horse in this race while Tyler and most
> of the rest of us do not.
> 
Anyone who has invested in a RIP, specialty inks, learning to make them work, 
teaching seminars about it etc, has a horse in this race, even if its a horse 
of a different color. <G> Those who have an interest in being able to sell or 
produce gallery quality black and white, as a category above and beyond what 
the typical printer owner can do has a horse in this race as well. We all have 
differing interests and angles, and I expect there to be more smoke before it 
ever settles. After all, we can expect even better dithering, and less 
colored ink in the next generation of OEM drivers, perhaps even another level of 
gray; and I see no sign that development on the specialty systems will cease 
either. Thats what makes this such an interesting area, the horses keep changing, 
so the races are truely interesting.

Black and white was a fractured field even before Epson introduced two-gray 
printers with AWB options in the driver. Its more fractured now, and I see no 
sign of the specialty systems disappearing any time soon (though it is sad to 
not see a Cone Piezo booth at PhotoPlus!), so I assume this all leans towards 
more options, more exposure for serious B&W, and more interest in the field in 
general. I certainly hope that leads to more opportunities for the full range 
of B&W options.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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

Hello David,

>...we can expect even better dithering, and less colored ink in the 
>next generation of OEM drivers, perhaps even another level of gray...
>...I assume this all leans towards more options, more exposure for 
>serious B&W, and more interest in the field in general. I certainly 
>hope that leads to more opportunities for the full range of B&W 
>options.

You have touched on something that has flitted through my thoughts
several times over the past few months.  Specifically, whether Epson
(or C. or HP), assuming BW interest grows and they smell $, might
produce a dedicated BW ink set for the K3 printers with an appropriate
ABW-type driver for it.  Imagine an 8-ink set like this with an
additional gray

MK - matte
PK - glossy
LK
LLK
LLLK
LC 
LM
SEPIA TONER (or Glop?)

Or maybe warm/cool versions of the grays like UT-R2... or something.

Not to get bogged down in specifics, just am wondering if anyone
thinks this might happen.  After all, there was an entire industry of
BW darkroom products and services for many years.  Unless Scotty
beamed them up all those BW folks are still out there with a steady
stream of them crossing over.  Seems reasonable that this amount of
interest might be enough for the makers to support dedicated inks and
drivers for their existing printers.  How difficult would that be?  I
don't know how Epson views the BW-oriented response to K3, but just
from our viewpoint in this forum it has had a huge impact.  If they
see it as significant, and with their desire to hobble the 3rd party
ink market, they might go for it.  What do you think?


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Clayton I suspect you allready know exactly who the people are who
will bring that about. They read your posts right on this group and
even respond directly. It's probably on the way, if not a done deal,
as we type. The OEMs will be, if they do it at all, followers not leaders.

Regards
Duane
 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:

>
> Hello David,
> 
> You have touched on something that has flitted through my thoughts
> several times over the past few months.  Specifically, whether Epson
> (or C. or HP), assuming BW interest grows and they smell $, might
> produce a dedicated BW ink set for the K3 printers with an appropriate
> ABW-type driver for it.  Imagine an 8-ink set like this with an
> additional gray
> 
> MK - matte
> PK - glossy
> LK
> LLK
> LLLK
> LC 
> LM
> SEPIA TONER (or Glop?)
> 
> Or maybe warm/cool versions of the grays like UT-R2... or something.
> 
> Not to get bogged down in specifics, just am wondering if anyone
> thinks this might happen.  After all, there was an entire industry of
> BW darkroom products and services for many years.  Unless Scotty
> beamed them up all those BW folks are still out there with a steady
> stream of them crossing over.  Seems reasonable that this amount of
> interest might be enough for the makers to support dedicated inks and
> drivers for their existing printers.  How difficult would that be?  I
> don't know how Epson views the BW-oriented response to K3, but just
> from our viewpoint in this forum it has had a huge impact.  If they
> see it as significant, and with their desire to hobble the 3rd party
> ink market, they might go for it.  What do you think?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Hello Duane,

>...The OEMs will be, if they do it at all, followers not leaders.

Yes, of course.  It's already being done.  That the OEMs would be
followers is a given, didn't think it had to be stated.  My question
was whether the big guys will do it.  David thinks not, but thinks
instead they will add another gray and perfect the drivers and leave
it at that.

BTW, I love your comment to Tyler about slithering being out of
character [g].  Well put.  


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

CDTobie@... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/12/06 2:27:32 PM, bwyg@... writes:
>
>
>   
>> With all due respect, you have a horse in this race while Tyler and most
>> of the rest of us do not.
>>
>>     
> Anyone who has invested in a RIP, specialty inks, learning to make them work, 
> teaching seminars about it etc, has a horse in this race...
>   
No.

I tried to be diplomatic, but that didn't work. Time to just lay it out 
I guess:

Tyler doesn't have a horse in this race. You do. And because you do, I 
don't trust what you have to say on the matter. I don't trust your 
claims about PrintFix any more than I trust Imacon's claims that their 
Flextight 848 scanner has a 4.8 Dmax.

When I say that you have a horse in this race, I mean that you get paid. 
Sales of PrintFix means money to your company, and thus to you. You have 
a vested interest. Your views are biased no matter how much you might 
try to avoid it.

You were involved in bringing this PrintFix thing to market. It's got 
part of you in it. Of course you think it's the greatest! Who could 
blame you? But since you had a part of bringing this thing to market, 
it's not possible for you to be objective about it. What you say when 
you shill for this thing is tainted because you have a vested interest 
in it.

The print for pay guys, of whom Tyler is but one, sell prints and 
printing services. Typically they have to pay for the products they use. 
Typically when they recommend a product, it's because they believe in it 
and use it, not because they are paid (directly or indirectly) to 
recommend it. I'm not saying that they are unbiased. I'm saying that 
they are a lot less biased because they aren't making money on sales of 
the products they recommend. They are making money on sales of prints. 
And that is a crucial difference.

The guys who are living and dying by the quality of their prints use 
tools that support them in making the best prints possible for their 
clients. That's why you seldom find them offering scanning on consumer 
flatbeds, or final prints on EEM, or B&W prints from color inksets.
-- 
Bruce Watson














//

>In a message from Bruce Watson:

> CDTobie@...
> www.colorvision.com
>With all due respect, you have a horse in this race while Tyler and most 
>of the rest of us do not. In order for you to sell your product (which 
>you have been doing a lot lately) you have to convince them of the 
>quality of prints from your system. But constantly talking it up won't 
>improve the quality.

Amen Brother.