Digital BW, The Print

I just wish I had been able to see the prints noted in several of these 
posts--yours and several others (I've looked at the online images that have 
been linked).  I understand totally about the photographer and his input 
being the most crucial, but after saying that---I keep wondering about OEM 
(I'm waiting for a 3800, have a 2200 and 1280) vs., for instance, the 
Piezography's K7 split tone set for the 2200 or Paul Roark's UT-7 or Clayton 
Jones' approach using ABW with K3 inks.

Think I will just continue to follow along, try the 3800 'as is' and then 
consider what more I"ll do.  I have said previously, that I've 
procrastinated for years about using a b/w dedicated printer (conversion of 
my 1280) and working with QTR for monos in the 2200, so its not that I have 
to rush to make a decision, but the threads concerning the prints in 
NY/workflows, inks and printers by many and the results (though I missed the 
initial information about that and need to go back and do a search for the 
criteria) have gotten me to thinking about how I'm going to continue 
printing monos in the future.

Diane
-----------
Diane B. Fields
picnic@...
photo site  http://www.pbase.com/picnic

----- Original Message ----- 

<snip>

>>But I next had to check off another item on the list: inks. I dug around
until I found a copy of the same image printed on an Epson k3 printer, with 
OEM
inks, and (again) a PrintFIX PRO2.0   profile. So the main difference here 
was
instead of a number of tinted gray inks interacting to form the tones here, 
it
was predominantly one light gray for highlights and one dark gray for 
shadows,
with supporting roles for the color inks as toners. I rather expected that
the relatively fragile illusion of 3d would be clearly present in the 
monochrome
inks image, and missing in the OEM inks image; but, to my suprise both 
images
held the illusion in the same areas (subject, and backlit stemware to one
side) and did not hold it in the same areas (back wall and knife rack). So, 
at
least in this case, the "thinness" of OEM neutral printing did not effect 
the 3d
illusion, or show (to my eye, at 24 inch examination distance) any real
difference in detail, smoothness, or color noise. Gosh, you guys almost had 
me
convinced. <G>

You really need to purchase samples to see what _you_ like, and then
consider the hardware/software/training needed.  As you can see, there are
people equally excited today about BO printing and K7, for an example of
extremes.
And don’t be upset when something new seems exciting, right after you make
your investment in money and time.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Diane
Fields
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 11:33 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Comparing prints for that "3 dimensional quality"?

I just wish I had been able to see the prints noted in several of these
posts--yours and several others (I've looked at the online images that have
been linked). I understand totally about the photographer and his input
being the most crucial, but after saying that---I keep wondering about OEM
(I'm waiting for a 3800, have a 2200 and 1280) vs., for instance, the
Piezography's K7 split tone set for the 2200 or Paul Roark's UT-7 or Clayton
Jones' approach using ABW with K3 inks.

Think I will just continue to follow along, try the 3800 'as is' and then
consider what more I"ll do. I have said previously, that I've
procrastinated for years about using a b/w dedicated printer (conversion of
my 1280) and working with QTR for monos in the 2200, so its not that I have
to rush to make a decision, but the threads concerning the prints in
NY/workflows, inks and printers by many and the results (though I missed the
initial information about that and need to go back and do a search for the
criteria) have gotten me to thinking about how I'm going to continue
printing monos in the future.

Diane


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

Diane,

I recognize your struggle. This is what I will do: I have my 2100 now 
running with UT3D & QTR. I'll by a 3800 at a certain point and run it 
with the OEM inks to begin with and will try the Y-replacement by 
Paul as well. In a direct comparison between the 2100 and 3800 I'll 
decide whether to convert the 3800 to B&W only, which is my highest 
priority (and revert the 2100 back to color). 

Joost


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields" 
<picnic@...> wrote:
>
> I just wish I had been able to see the prints noted in several of 
these 
> posts--yours and several others (I've looked at the online images 
that have 
> been linked).  I understand totally about the photographer and his 
input 
> being the most crucial, but after saying that---I keep wondering 
about OEM 
> (I'm waiting for a 3800, have a 2200 and 1280) vs., for instance, 
the 
> Piezography's K7 split tone set for the 2200 or Paul Roark's UT-7 
or Clayton 
> Jones' approach using ABW with K3 inks.
> 
> Think I will just continue to follow along, try the 3800 'as is' 
and then 
> consider what more I"ll do.  I have said previously, that I've 
> procrastinated for years about using a b/w dedicated printer 
(conversion of 
> my 1280) and working with QTR for monos in the 2200, so its not 
that I have 
> to rush to make a decision, but the threads concerning the prints 
in 
> NY/workflows, inks and printers by many and the results (though I 
missed the 
> initial information about that and need to go back and do a search 
for the 
> criteria) have gotten me to thinking about how I'm going to 
continue 
> printing monos in the future.
> 
> Diane
> -----------
> Diane B. Fields
> picnic@...
> photo site  http://www.pbase.com/picnic
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >>But I next had to check off another item on the list: inks. I dug 
around
> until I found a copy of the same image printed on an Epson k3 
printer, with 
> OEM
> inks, and (again) a PrintFIX PRO2.0   profile. So the main 
difference here 
> was
> instead of a number of tinted gray inks interacting to form the 
tones here, 
> it
> was predominantly one light gray for highlights and one dark gray 
for 
> shadows,
> with supporting roles for the color inks as toners. I rather 
expected that
> the relatively fragile illusion of 3d would be clearly present in 
the 
> monochrome
> inks image, and missing in the OEM inks image; but, to my suprise 
both 
> images
> held the illusion in the same areas (subject, and backlit stemware 
to one
> side) and did not hold it in the same areas (back wall and knife 
rack). So, 
> at
> least in this case, the "thinness" of OEM neutral printing did not 
effect 
> the 3d
> illusion, or show (to my eye, at 24 inch examination distance) any 
real
> difference in detail, smoothness, or color noise. Gosh, you guys 
almost had 

> me
> convinced. <G>
>

John,   I do understand exactly what you are saying, but there is a 'but' 
there LOL  There isn't really a choice about hardware (speaking ONLY of 
printers)---there is no alternative at this point (and it seems at least for 
up to a year if that) that suits my criteria (larger format, small 
footprint, medium carts--reasonable price for a non volume printer).  I was 
ready to upgrade and had decided on the 2400--and then the HP9180 came out 
and I had that to consider for same size--and then the 3800 which has all 
that the 2400 has and a bit more--there are times I have both the need and 
the wish to use larger media (which I've sent out to ultrachrome large 
format printers in the past).  As far as software, there is only so far I'm 
willing to go-- I won't (or most likely won't) buy a  RIP that exceeds QTR 
price (and I own that license).  So LOL--what I have to work with (plus my 
skills in PS and good camera bodies and lenses and my photography skills) 
will be 3 Epson printers for now (though the 1280 has been moved to probably 
oblivion)---and I'm going to start there (altho' I've printed monos for 
years--shouldn't really say 'start from' but reevaluate how I'm 
printing--whether there IS a need for a dedicated b/w print set).  I know 
that BO isn't for me as I tone all my prints, so that is what I'm referring 
to---if I would find more value in a multi grey set as opposed to working in 
another way.   I haven't gotten excited about the 'new' in the past---I've 
lived with the 2200 for several years with QTR and just reached the point of 
upgrading---so while I have samples OO from the various printers, I have 
pretty much decided that this is the best way to go for late 2006 as far as 
a printer choice.

Having been subbed to this list off and on for years, I know that there will 
always be something interesting happening and I'll continue to follow 
it--and decide what I can use from the information.  I do just wish, though, 
that I could have seen the prints in person---then be able to evaluate on my 
own--it gets more difficult imagining them (as I was trying to do with 
David's post this morning which was what prompted me to post myself).  Your 
post, like most on this list, is helpful and keeps one on track *smile*.

Best,
Diane





<<You really need to purchase samples to see what _you_ like, and then
consider the hardware/software/training needed.  As you can see, there are
people equally excited today about BO printing and K7, for an example of
extremes.
And don't be upset when something new seems exciting, right after you make
your investment in money and time.

Best regards,
<<John Moody

I'll say this at the risk of being acused of promoting a product, only
because no one else seems to suggest it.
If you are truly interested in a dedicated mono printer and the K6/7s,
you can get a used 7000, 7600, or 4000 for very reasonable prices, QTR
for 50$, the inkset and be up and going with extraordinary high
quality and good print size for far less money and no hassle...
This of course, after deciding you want that kind of setup.
I had the chance to get a used 7600 for $500 and passed it up, stupid...
Tyler.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten"
<j.h.j.h@...> wrote:

>
> Diane,
> 
> I recognize your struggle. This is what I will do: I have my 2100 now 
> running with UT3D & QTR. I'll by a 3800 at a certain point and run it 
> with the OEM inks to begin with and will try the Y-replacement by 
> Paul as well. In a direct comparison between the 2100 and 3800 I'll 
> decide whether to convert the 3800 to B&W only, which is my highest 
> priority (and revert the 2100 back to color). 
> 
> Joost
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields" 
> <picnic@> wrote:
> >
> > I just wish I had been able to see the prints noted in several of 
> these 
> > posts--yours and several others (I've looked at the online images 
> that have 
> > been linked).  I understand totally about the photographer and his 
> input 
> > being the most crucial, but after saying that---I keep wondering 
> about OEM 
> > (I'm waiting for a 3800, have a 2200 and 1280) vs., for instance, 
> the 
> > Piezography's K7 split tone set for the 2200 or Paul Roark's UT-7 
> or Clayton 
> > Jones' approach using ABW with K3 inks.
> > 
> > Think I will just continue to follow along, try the 3800 'as is' 
> and then 
> > consider what more I"ll do.  I have said previously, that I've 
> > procrastinated for years about using a b/w dedicated printer 
> (conversion of 
> > my 1280) and working with QTR for monos in the 2200, so its not 
> that I have 
> > to rush to make a decision, but the threads concerning the prints 
> in 
> > NY/workflows, inks and printers by many and the results (though I 
> missed the 
> > initial information about that and need to go back and do a search 
> for the 
> > criteria) have gotten me to thinking about how I'm going to 
> continue 
> > printing monos in the future.
> > 
> > Diane
> > -----------
> > Diane B. Fields
> > picnic@
> > photo site  http://www.pbase.com/picnic
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > >>But I next had to check off another item on the list: inks. I dug 
> around
> > until I found a copy of the same image printed on an Epson k3 
> printer, with 
> > OEM
> > inks, and (again) a PrintFIX PRO2.0   profile. So the main 
> difference here 
> > was
> > instead of a number of tinted gray inks interacting to form the 
> tones here, 
> > it
> > was predominantly one light gray for highlights and one dark gray 
> for 
> > shadows,
> > with supporting roles for the color inks as toners. I rather 
> expected that
> > the relatively fragile illusion of 3d would be clearly present in 
> the 
> > monochrome
> > inks image, and missing in the OEM inks image; but, to my suprise 
> both 
> > images
> > held the illusion in the same areas (subject, and backlit stemware 
> to one
> > side) and did not hold it in the same areas (back wall and knife 
> rack). So, 
> > at
> > least in this case, the "thinness" of OEM neutral printing did not 
> effect 
> > the 3d
> > illusion, or show (to my eye, at 24 inch examination distance) any 
> real
> > difference in detail, smoothness, or color noise. Gosh, you guys 
> almost had 
> > me
> > convinced. <G>
> >
>

Tyler,

I've been suggesting just that here for the last few months. It's a no
brainer and Roy did a wonderful job with QTR support. When I see all
these people fighting color casts of this and that and all the other
clogging and related issues I just cringe, because this K6/K7 method
is so easy and so trouble free and so smooth and beautiful. So much so
that I've got three old 7000 for them, one of which I got for free
that is like new. And, they are about to have the  pressurized carts
filled for my 10K so that will give me an even larger size with real
speed and an extra printer for split toning. Of course you can always
buy the ink in bulk too and fill your own MIS or Lyson or Media Street
refillable carts.

John



K6/7s,

> you can get a used 7000, 7600, or 4000 for very reasonable prices, QTR
> for 50$, the inkset and be up and going with extraordinary high
> quality and good print size for far less money and no hassle...
> This of course, after deciding you want that kind of setup.
> I had the chance to get a used 7600 for $500 and passed it up, stupid...
> Tyler.

Its a sensible thing to do if you have the room and the need for the high 
volume printer.  Its been suggested before--well, actually to buy a 4800 
with rebates, etc.---but it won't work for me.

I wanted to say congratulations, Tyler, for your inclusion in the special 
edition of  Black and White mag.  Beautiful image.

Best, Diane

<<<<I'll say this at the risk of being acused of promoting a product, only
because no one else seems to suggest it.
If you are truly interested in a dedicated mono printer and the K6/7s,
you can get a used 7000, 7600, or 4000 for very reasonable prices, QTR
for 50$, the inkset and be up and going with extraordinary high
quality and good print size for far less money and no hassle...
This of course, after deciding you want that kind of setup.
I had the chance to get a used 7600 for $500 and passed it up, stupid...
Tyler.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten"
<j.h.j.h@...> wrote:

>
> Diane,
>
> I recognize your struggle. This is what I will do: I have my 2100 now
> running with UT3D & QTR. I'll by a 3800 at a certain point and run it
> with the OEM inks to begin with and will try the Y-replacement by
> Paul as well. In a direct comparison between the 2100 and 3800 I'll
> decide whether to convert the 3800 to B&W only, which is my highest
> priority (and revert the 2100 back to color).
>
> Joost

Yes, congratulations, I saw it last night! It is a very fine image of
an amazing coastline.

John


> 
> I wanted to say congratulations, Tyler, for your inclusion in the
special 
> edition of  Black and White mag.  Beautiful image.

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

snip...
 
> When I see all
> these people fighting color casts of this and that and all the other
> clogging and related issues I just cringe, because this K6/K7 method
> is so easy and so trouble free and so smooth and beautiful. 
> 
> John

I just wanted to echo this statement. The K7s have been my ink of
choice  in a 2200 for over a year and I've been very happy with them.
They're easy to use  and trouble free... no clogs and no spectro
required. The best part, though, is they're simply gorgeous. I'm
spending my time now shooting, editing and printing photography rather
than babysitting a sick printer or endlessly tweaking linearizations,
etc. With a printing process this transparent I can better see the
strong and weak links in my photographic chain, and as such, focus my
attention on improving my craft as a photographer which is liberating.
I would compare it to making critical audio judgements of music played
through consumer level speakers vs. pro studio monitors. I'll take the
pro studio monitors any day. And likewise the K7s.

Will

Well John, you're a bit aheadof me <G>. Anxious to see the Selenium and Warm versions 
of these inks, we'll see.
Hope the 10k goes well.
Tyler

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

>
> Tyler,
> 
> I've been suggesting just that here for the last few months. It's a no
> brainer and Roy did a wonderful job with QTR support. When I see all
> these people fighting color casts of this and that and all the other
> clogging and related issues I just cringe, because this K6/K7 method
> is so easy and so trouble free and so smooth and beautiful. So much so
> that I've got three old 7000 for them, one of which I got for free
> that is like new. And, they are about to have the  pressurized carts
> filled for my 10K so that will give me an even larger size with real
> speed and an extra printer for split toning. Of course you can always
> buy the ink in bulk too and fill your own MIS or Lyson or Media Street
> refillable carts.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> K6/7s,
> > you can get a used 7000, 7600, or 4000 for very reasonable prices, QTR
> > for 50$, the inkset and be up and going with extraordinary high
> > quality and good print size for far less money and no hassle...
> > This of course, after deciding you want that kind of setup.
> > I had the chance to get a used 7600 for $500 and passed it up, stupid...
> > Tyler.
>

John, Tyler,

I get your point. But a question: not having a large format printer 
myself, I understand that changing cartridges is not something you 
want to do on a regular basis (I don't care on my desktop 2100). That 
means you have to choose between a K7 set in a certain tone (warm, 
neutral whatsoever) or a mixed K3 or K4 set(e.g. K, warm LK, LLK and 
LLLK, cool LK, LLK and LLLK) to allow for different tones per image 
or variable split tone curves. That's what I have with UT3D set + QTR.

Given that choice: what would you choose and why?

Another, perhaps related, question: isn't there a big difference 
between the variable size dot 7600 and the older fixed size dot 
models? 

Combining the two points above, the better choice would seem the me a 
dual tone K3/K4 set with variable dot printer like the 7600. Am I 
correct? 

Joost



 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> Tyler,
> 
> I've been suggesting just that here for the last few months. It's a 
no
> brainer and Roy did a wonderful job with QTR support. When I see all
> these people fighting color casts of this and that and all the other
> clogging and related issues I just cringe, because this K6/K7 method
> is so easy and so trouble free and so smooth and beautiful. So much 
so
> that I've got three old 7000 for them, one of which I got for free
> that is like new. And, they are about to have the  pressurized carts
> filled for my 10K so that will give me an even larger size with real
> speed and an extra printer for split toning. Of course you can 
always
> buy the ink in bulk too and fill your own MIS or Lyson or Media 
Street
> refillable carts.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> K6/7s,
> > you can get a used 7000, 7600, or 4000 for very reasonable 
prices, QTR
> > for 50$, the inkset and be up and going with extraordinary high
> > quality and good print size for far less money and no hassle...
> > This of course, after deciding you want that kind of setup.
> > I had the chance to get a used 7600 for $500 and passed it up, 
stupid...
> > Tyler.
>

Joost,

Really I'm not trying to promote these inks. I certainly don't have a
dog in this fight other than the fact that I want them to continue
offering them for years to come for my own sake. All I can say is
after years of struggle and time I have something that works
flawlessly for me everyday and I never have to worry about some
strange color appearing somewhere in the values that I didn't see
under daylight or whatever.

Fact is, the uniqueness of this approach is that you can change out
the various hue sets easily or even after Ultracrhome wihout having to
flush lines or anything regardless of printer size. You can easily
remove any size cart and replace it with another hue set, all you need
to do is print out a grey scale that contains all the values. If you
are using desktop printers it is a simple head cleaning or two. 

Now as to how many channels one should use and how to set them up that
is a personal thing and I'm sure people will be mixing them in all
kinds of strange configurations. People like Tyler have shown us that
even with 4 or 5 partitions you can create amazing blends,variations,
and splits, so 6 or 7 just adds to that capability.

As for me being ahead of Tyler. That will be the day. He's the 3D Man.


John

  




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten"
<j.h.j.h@...> wrote:

>
> John, Tyler,
> 
> I get your point. But a question: not having a large format printer 
> myself, I understand that changing cartridges is not something you 
> want to do on a regular basis (I don't care on my desktop 2100). That 
> means you have to choose between a K7 set in a certain tone (warm, 
> neutral whatsoever) or a mixed K3 or K4 set(e.g. K, warm LK, LLK and 
> LLLK, cool LK, LLK and LLLK) to allow for different tones per image 
> or variable split tone curves. That's what I have with UT3D set + QTR.
> 
> Given that choice: what would you choose and why?
> 
> Another, perhaps related, question: isn't there a big difference 
> between the variable size dot 7600 and the older fixed size dot 
> models? 
> 
> Combining the two points above, the better choice would seem the me a 
> dual tone K3/K4 set with variable dot printer like the 7600. Am I 
> correct? 
> 
> Joost
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
> <deanwork2003@> wrote:
> >
> > Tyler,
> > 
> > I've been suggesting just that here for the last few months. It's a 
> no
> > brainer and Roy did a wonderful job with QTR support. When I see all
> > these people fighting color casts of this and that and all the other
> > clogging and related issues I just cringe, because this K6/K7 method
> > is so easy and so trouble free and so smooth and beautiful. So much 
> so
> > that I've got three old 7000 for them, one of which I got for free
> > that is like new. And, they are about to have the  pressurized carts
> > filled for my 10K so that will give me an even larger size with real
> > speed and an extra printer for split toning. Of course you can 
> always
> > buy the ink in bulk too and fill your own MIS or Lyson or Media 
> Street
> > refillable carts.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > K6/7s,
> > > you can get a used 7000, 7600, or 4000 for very reasonable 
> prices, QTR
> > > for 50$, the inkset and be up and going with extraordinary high
> > > quality and good print size for far less money and no hassle...
> > > This of course, after deciding you want that kind of setup.
> > > I had the chance to get a used 7600 for $500 and passed it up, 
> stupid...
> > > Tyler.
> >
>

Oh, when we laid out K6/K7 prints to compare the approaches, there
seemed to be no difference in the output quality that related to the
type of printer the image was output on with the K6/7 inks. So, old 6
channel machines appeared tonally the same as newer higher resolution
and variable dot machines. But that was just one image but it was
output on a lot of different printers and rips at both 1440 and 2880.
My 10K does have variable dot output and has very good heads on it  so
I am curious if there will be any difference there. Personally I doubt
it, but I'm no techno wizard about these kinds of things.

John





Another, perhaps related, question: isn't there a big difference 

> between the variable size dot 7600 and the older fixed size dot 
> models? 
> 
> Combining the two points above, the better choice would seem the me a 
> dual tone K3/K4 set with variable dot printer like the 7600. Am I 
> correct? 
> 
> Joost

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten"
<j.h.j.h@...> wrote:
>
> John, Tyler,
>
> I get your point. But a question: not having a large format printer
> myself, I understand that changing cartridges is not something you
> want to do on a regular basis (I don't care on my desktop 2100).

You lose some ink that needs to be purged from the line, yes. Is that
what you mean?

> That
> means you have to choose between a K7 set in a certain tone (warm,
> neutral whatsoever) or a mixed K3 or K4 set(e.g. K, warm LK, LLK and
> LLLK, cool LK, LLK and LLLK) to allow for different tones per image
> or variable split tone curves. That's what I have with UT3D set +
> QTR.

Yes you are right, though I'm not familiar with the MIS sets, so not
aware of every possible option. So I assume having variable hues
options at your fingertips is important to you? I guess an obvious
question is- why are you changing inksets at this point if they do
what you want?

> Given that choice: what would you choose and why?

Assuming you want to stick with some kind of variable hue option, my
only experience is with the OEM inks and a color approach, and a dual
quad (warm/cool) shared K approach in a 7 ink printer.
I guess it's pretty clear what my personal preference is at this
point, but think all approaches need to be considered based on
particular personal needs (jeez, sounds like selecting a spouse).
With the desktop printers, popping different hued K7 carts out just
seems totally cool. Seems to me anything you might want is at your
fingertips along with great photographic image structure. I may just
find a used 2200 or 1800 soon and begin playing with that when all the
sets are available.
I'm afraid I can't make any comments about viable MIS solutions, I'm
sure there are some totaly valid.

> Another, perhaps related, question: isn't there a big difference
> between the variable size dot 7600 and the older fixed size dot
> models?

That I can't answer from direct experience. One friend complained he
couldn't meet his 7000 dmax with the smaller dot 7600. At that time
variable dot was not an option for him with multiple blacks. On the
other hand he liked the slightly smoother highlights.
Since extraordinary control of variable dots in each ink separately is
now available in the software I use, the best of both worlds is
available, but a major, I mean major, task to sort out and set up for
multiple K setups. I don't recommend it to anyone...
How QTR and IJC may deal with this could be entirely different, and
those users would have to reply. It could very possibly be a snap and
behind the scenes. I do know that the more Ks you add, the harder it
is to linearize variable dot setups.
Again it depends on the nature of your source data, your files, and
your particular needs. To many these differences are simply
irrelevant. Also, when you get up to and over 4 Ks, dot size relevance
diminishes cconsiderably and the lighter inks and coverage take care
of that in their own way.
>
> Combining the two points above, the better choice would seem the me a
> dual tone K3/K4 set with variable dot printer like the 7600. Am I
> correct?

Obviously it would be a nice setup, and similar to my experience. But
I can only  comment on the dual K4 and OEM approaches. Also, many
expect more K4 hue extremes, and with the inks sets I use, it's more
like the difference between warm and cold darkroom papers than actual
toning. So if the other setups get more color that you may want,
that's a consideration as well.

How's that for no help at all???!!
Tyler

To many these differences are simply
irrelevant. Also, when you get up to and over 4 Ks, dot size relevance
diminishes cconsiderably and the lighter inks and coverage take care
of that in their own way.



Yea, that's what is happening. Dots in the highlights become something
you just don't think about anymore and for me that's worth having more
than four channels right there.

john

Excuse me for interjecting some comments here.

John Dean wrote:

> ... When I see all these people fighting color casts of this and that ...

I'm not sure what color casts John is talking about, but I wanted to be sure
it was not interpreted incorrectly.  I made quite a bit of noise about tone
shifts in large format printers a while ago.  This happens when they go
un-used for a while.  Since I am an intermittent user of my 7500 B&W setup,
it was a nuisance for me.  After objectively comparing the blended B&W
inkset I was using with a non-blended one, I switch to what is, in effect, a
4K, open-source, non-blended ink approach on my 7500, where the 5th and 6th
inks are LM and a 50% dilution of LC. I published the readings comparing my
blended with non-blended ink arrangements at
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf (see pp. 4-5).

I do not think my experience with blended inksets is unique.  For example,
on the Piezo forum Tyler has noted: " ... large format users that use 220
cartridges have learned to shake the carts every 2 weeks or so, and make
sure something gets printed at least weekly so the ink in the lines won't
settle.  You'll find many posts about it on this list if you search ..."
(Sept. 2005)  

Jon Cone noted just last month, "... if you do stop in a large format
printer for several weeks - you will want to do some shaking to the carts
and KK cleanings to get the ink feeding tubes cleared."  (10-23-06)



>...and all the other clogging ...

I sure don't hear much about clogging these days with respect to any inkset.
Clogging issues essentially disappeared with the newest inks and as the 1280
usage decreased.


Joost asked: 

> ...isn't there a big difference between the variable size 
> dot 7600 and the older fixed size dot models? 

Yes there is with all the inksets I've used.  With the 4K+cm setup in my
7500 there is a very fine-grained image structure that is rather even from
the lightest tones to deep shadows. I have not used the K7 inkset, however,
and I'd assume that with the older machines that many inks might make a
difference.  With the 2200 there are no visible dots.  At display image
sizes, the 7500 dot structure is so fine as to be irrelevant.

There are choices out there, but tone shifts and clogging do not, from what
I can tell, correlate with which vendor one chooses.  It used to be that
Epson would insinuate that all third party inks are inferior due to clogging
and whatnot.  That may have been true in the past, but I don't think it is
today.  The vendors used most frequently on this list -- MIS and Piezo --
both sell good, third-generation inks that can hold their own in comparison
to the major OEM products.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

-There are choices out there, but tone shifts and clogging do not,
from what
I can tell, correlate with which vendor one chooses. It used to be that
Epson would insinuate that all third party inks are inferior due to
clogging
and whatnot. That may have been true in the past, but I don't think it is
today. The vendors used most frequently on this list -- MIS and Piezo --
both sell good, third-generation inks that can hold their own in
comparison
to the major OEM products.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

---------

As for  color tone shifts and clogging I was primarily refering to
Epson OEM inks when used with or without a rip for black and white.
Roy's QTR and other rips allow huge improvements with Ultrachrome inks
when used for monochrome but, in my experience whenever color inks are
used within a workflow there is the potential for trouble. That may be
why HP is including a total quad set within their 12 channel Z3100
printers. My comments about complaints on this list was in reference
to the endless talk over the past year about struggling to get rid of
this color cast or that color cast in this or that channel or realm of
the tonal scale. It does seem to be a real issue with a lot of people.
All pigment carts need to be shaken regularly for providing an even
consistency of the particle and the base, even K7, but that is not
because there are any color changes going on with PiezoTone now. The
color is always totally consistent across the tonal range in all
values, always. PiezoTone does far more than hold its own in reagard
to OEM inksets, it surpasses them for the purpose they were designed
to serve.

I've got to get back to work. I have 7 more prints before finishing my
280 print portfolio of 16x20's. And, by the way every singe print of
the 20 editions has the exact same neutral color and they were done
over a period of two months.

John

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
...
> All pigment carts need to be shaken regularly for providing an even
> consistency of the particle and the base...

including Epson, the 9800 OEM here gets the same shake treatment,
about 2 minutes every couple of weeks is just maintanance, not a problem.


Tyler

Tyler,

How often do you align your heads on the 96 and 98 ?


John




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
> <deanwork2003@> wrote:
> ...
> > All pigment carts need to be shaken regularly for providing an even
> > consistency of the particle and the base...
> 
> including Epson, the 9800 OEM here gets the same shake treatment,
> about 2 minutes every couple of weeks is just maintanance, not a
problem.

> 
> 
> Tyler
>

A note on my personal experience with older printers, QTR and K6 inks.

I got on the K7 bandwagon early on with a 2200 and was very, very pleased with the 
results. I located a used 7000 a little bit later and bought it to use with QTR and the K6 
set. After changing out the heads and doing a full alignment I set to printing and was 
surprised by the fact that I could see dots quite clearly on my test image in certain parts of 
the greyscale. I've used another 7000 for years with StudioPrint so I was surprised that the 
quality of the print with the K6 inks was not as fine as that which I have been getting from 
Piezotones with only 4 positions. I was using the curves supplied with QTR, the ones made 
by Jon's studio, so the it shouldn't have been my incompetence in making curves that 
caused the problems.

As a control I downloaded a test version of StudioPrint to try out with the K6 inks and sure 
enough the results were much, much better. I've bought a v12 StudioPrint and am happily 
printing with that now. Not a cheap solution by any means, but the quality is worth the 
cost.

My test image includes a gradient so it's very easy to see dots when they show up in some 
section of the grey ramp. I may have been more picky than most, but I just wasn't happy 
with the results of the 7000 with QTR. I've subsequently tried out QTR with my other 7000 
(running Piezotones) and the noticeable dots are there as well. I've even tried QTR with an 
ancient Epson 3000 and get similarly disappointing results, but with Cone's old plug-in 
module I can get very smooth prints from even this old machine. Maybe it's me, perhaps I 
just don't get QTR somehow, but with the older printers I haven't found the results to 
measure up to the standard set by StudioPrint. The results with the 2200 and QTR are 
quite stunning and just as fine, or finer, than the 7000 with the more expensive rip. How 
this translates into 7600-9600-10000 Epsons I can't say since I have no experience there.

Hope this helps someone.

Mark Stracke

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> > 

>Another, perhaps related, question: isn't there a big difference 
> between the variable size dot 7600 and the older fixed size dot 
> models? 



> > > you can get a used 7000, 7600, or 4000 for very reasonable 
> prices, QTR
> > > for 50$, the inkset and be up and going with extraordinary high
> > > quality and good print size for far less money and no hassle...
> > > This of course, after deciding you want that kind of setup.
> > > I had the chance to get a used 7600 for $500 and passed it up, 
> stupid...
> > > Tyler.
> >
>

I have to admitt hardly ever. When I see banding then I do it, but it
never seems off much at all.
Banding seems to come more from nozzle performance for me. Even a
check might show a clean pattern, then a nozzle clean and the banding
will be gone.
Biggest problem has been very poor OEM 9800 nozzle performance,
extremely poor.
Tyler


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

>
> Tyler,
> 
> How often do you align your heads on the 96 and 98 ?
> 
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
> <tyler@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
> > <deanwork2003@> wrote:
> > ...
> > > All pigment carts need to be shaken regularly for providing an even
> > > consistency of the particle and the base...
> > 
> > including Epson, the 9800 OEM here gets the same shake treatment,
> > about 2 minutes every couple of weeks is just maintanance, not a
> problem.
> > 
> > 
> > Tyler
> >
>

I was using the curves supplied with QTR, the ones made 
> by Jon's studio, so the it shouldn't have been my incompetence in
making curves that 
> caused the problems.

-------------------------

That was very interesting Mark and I appreciate the feed back. I
haven't talked to anyone doing exactly this, though I know a lot of
people must be.

It isn't a problem with your incompetence because you sound 
experienced. I believe the problem is the variation in the older
printers. The supplied curves with the 7000 were ok, but not great for
me. Everything was a bit flat with them. I was just about to set it up
with Studio Print too. However, I talked to Roy and then my 7000 was
linearized using icc create and custom curves for MY machine and a few
papers. When I did this it was a totally different output. This should
be done with any printers but these 7000's just vary so much that this
is totally mandatory. I belive Jon found that out with the 1280's too
which is why they started that IQuad thing making people custom curves.

Surely you are making custom linearizations and reading all the
patches with Studio Print? If so that is what the difference is I'm
sure. The newer printers like the 2200 and the 9600 are very close but
not perfect. They should be custom linearized too. The 10K's are very
different from unit to unit. It's funny though. Some people have
better luck with different rips on different machines. Bill Kennedy
started working with K7 on a 2200 early on and he said he had much
better results with the Bauhaus rip. Whatever works is is whatever
works I guess.

John

I had some really interesting feedback from an artist (also a friend) that I
make limited edition prints for. First as background, I had really wrested
with which inkset to use for b&w work. I was using Epson K2 inks and had
reached the point of having good warm and cool curves for my Innova papers
(Soft Texture Art in particular). However, I wanted to go beyond 2 mono inks
and decided to pick up a set of split tone K7.

My friend does pencil work, and it will take him months to complete a
drawing. He's a perfectionist and his work is outstanding. I sent him sample
prints made using both K2 and K7 inks. My target was to make the prints look
like the original drawings, which are warm toned and have a softness to
them. The K2 toning was good. Due to the level of highlights in the image,
the split tone K7 version had much more of a neutral tonality. However, he
choose the K7 version due to the smoothness. The difference was very
noticeable on this image.

I realize that K2 to K7 is a big jump, so the increased smoothness is no
suprise. What was interesting though, as we compared his image (K2 to K7)
and some of my photos (also K2 to K7), is that he commented on how some of
the K7 versions had a 3D look (his words) to portions of the image. He said
the K2 prints were "flat" (all of them). This reminded me about what David
Tobie said re seeing this in both K3 and UT-3D prints. K2, on the other
hand, is just not there in the same way.

My other point to this post is to offer some suggestions regarding toning
options while using K7 inks. With 7 shades, using a common black, you can
create 2 ink sets in one (4 neutral and 4 sepia) using QTR or other RIP.
They can then be mixed for tones between neutral and sepia. If you stagger
them (Black, Neutral 2, Sepia 3, Neutral 4, Sepia 5, Neutral 6, Sepia 7 or
vice-versa) you have the inks you need for these 2 sets but can still run
all 7 for max smoothness (assuming you like the tone of this mix). You can
also create a custom mix using 5 or 6 of these in various combinations. Yes,
it means some profiling work, but the flexibility is there. The approach is
of course very different than what one would do with the MIS UT-7 or UT-3D
inks, and the tonal range is more limited. To lay it out in more detail,
here is part of a post that Jon Cone made on the Piezography list. . . .

==========
Jon Cone wrote (Piezography list). . . .

I use shades 1,2,4,6 as the Neutral four inks as a quad-tone set.
StudioPrint can easily linearize these 4 shades. You could use the
Sepia K7 shades 3,5,7 or the PiezoTone CarbonSepia set for a slightly
richer look.

Alternatively, if you think you might like neutral highest
highlights...  Run Neutral 3,5,7  Sepia, 2,4,6
With this set you can linearize as:

1,Sep2,Sep4,Sep6,Neu7 (neutral lightest highlights)
or
1,Sep2,Sep4,Sep6
or
1,Neu3,Neu5,Neu7
or
1,Sep2,Neu3,Neu5,Neu7 (slight warmth in shadows)
or
1,Sep2,(Neu3-Sep4 distributed),Neu5,Neu7 (nice split-tone)
or
1,(Sep2-Neu3 distributed),(Sep4-Neu5 distributed),(Sep6-Neu7
distributed) (a warm neutral blend)

All of the above requires StudioPrint and to take your time and make
none of it spare....   :)
=============

Terry.

Biggest problem has been very poor OEM 9800 nozzle performance,
> extremely poor.
> Tyler

------
I align all mine once a month, and unless I'm running tons of media
through it mine always look close also.

I have come to the conclusion that all this cottony media that we love
is something these Epson heads just hate. I don't run into that with
the gloss fiber papers. Lately I've been really brushing my Hahnemuhle
paper by laying the roll out on a table and going over it about three
times weith a big brush. That helps but if you have a big batch of
fairly large prints to do you have to do a nozzle check after each 80"
or so to be safe. About half the time I  have to do a head cleaning
and that is a nusance to put it mildly.

john

Maybe we should be asking for paper cleaners to be designed into the
printers?
Another approach for roll paper might be including a dust-free barrier paper
like some do for their sheet products; the coated surface is probably
picking up dust from contact with the back side.  All that would be needed
is a take-up spool, or possible let the barrier unroll onto the floor as the
roll feeds.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of john dean
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:33 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Comparing prints for that "3 dimensional quality"?


I have come to the conclusion that all this cottony media that we love
is something these Epson heads just hate.


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

They sort of are.... notice brush like entrance into 7xxx and 9xxx  
printers.

Has this subject drifted a bit in this thread??

Mark

On Nov 26, 2006, at 5:54 AM, John Moody wrote:

> Maybe we should be asking for paper cleaners to be designed into the
> printers?



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

Mark, I too tried QTR with my 7000 and Sepia set of Piezo tone  inks. I was
so unimpressed with the results compared top my IP prints, I just stop
"playing" and got back to printing. It does seem that Studio Print and the
K7/K6 set is a better set up for the older machines.  

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Stracke
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:41 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Comparing prints for that "3 dimensional quality"?

 


A note on my personal experience with older printers, QTR and K6 inks.

I got on the K7 bandwagon early on with a 2200 and was very, very pleased
with the 
results. I located a used 7000 a little bit later and bought it to use with
QTR and the K6 
set. After changing out the heads and doing a full alignment I set to
printing and was 
surprised by the fact that I could see dots quite clearly on my test image
in certain parts of 
the greyscale. I've used another 7000 for years with StudioPrint so I was
surprised that the 
quality of the print with the K6 inks was not as fine as that which I have
been getting from 
Piezotones with only 4 positions. I was using the curves supplied with QTR,
the ones made 
by Jon's studio, so the it shouldn't have been my incompetence in making
curves that 
caused the problems.

As a control I downloaded a test version of StudioPrint to try out with the
K6 inks and sure 
enough the results were much, much better. I've bought a v12 StudioPrint and
am happily 
printing with that now. Not a cheap solution by any means, but the quality
is worth the 
cost.

My test image includes a gradient so it's very easy to see dots when they
show up in some 
section of the grey ramp. I may have been more picky than most, but I just
wasn't happy 
with the results of the 7000 with QTR. I've subsequently tried out QTR with
my other 7000 
(running Piezotones) and the noticeable dots are there as well. I've even
tried QTR with an 
ancient Epson 3000 and get similarly disappointing results, but with Cone's
old plug-in 
module I can get very smooth prints from even this old machine. Maybe it's
me, perhaps I 
just don't get QTR somehow, but with the older printers I haven't found the
results to 
measure up to the standard set by StudioPrint. The results with the 2200 and
QTR are 
quite stunning and just as fine, or finer, than the 7000 with the more
expensive rip. How 
this translates into 7600-9600-10000 Epsons I can't say since I have no
experience there.

Hope this helps someone.

Mark Stracke

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> > 
>Another, perhaps related, question: isn't there a big difference 
> between the variable size dot 7600 and the older fixed size dot 
> models? 

> > > you can get a used 7000, 7600, or 4000 for very reasonable 
> prices, QTR
> > > for 50$, the inkset and be up and going with extraordinary high
> > > quality and good print size for far less money and no hassle...
> > > This of course, after deciding you want that kind of setup.
> > > I had the chance to get a used 7600 for $500 and passed it up, 
> stupid...
> > > Tyler.
> >
>

 



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@...> 
wrote:
>
> I don't think there SHOULD be any difference at all if your
> linearization was well done and your specific paper curves produced.
> But like I said, these machines vary considerably from unit to unit.
> 
> From what I have heard the Cone people had better results with QTR
> than Studio Print with these inks. I'll try SP though but I have to
> buy a damn pc, might as well, I need it for QIMage anyway.
> 


I didn't mean to begin a contentious discussion when I offered my experience with older 
printers and QTR vs. StudioPrint. But on my machines I have found it far easier to get top 
quality results with StudioPrint than with QTR. In apples to apples comparisions (same 
printer, same inks, same paper, same image- different rips) I have found StudioPrint to 
produce better results that I could see. Not surprising given the huge price difference!

As Eric experienced, I was spending lots of time fooling around trying to determine ink 
limits that worked and getting disappointing results. With StudioPrint I get very fine results 
by using the defaults and linearizing from there. And if I have the time and tolerance for 
the process I can make use of Tyler's informative posts and fiddle with underprinting, 
variable dot sizes, blended inksets and all the rest.

And, if you don't want to buy a PC, you can get a newer Intel Mac and put Windows on that 
and run StudioPrint with Bootcamp. It's not a cheap alternative, but you can have a new 
Mac and run your Windows software too. I got a refurbed mini to run my printer and it 
works just fine via bootcamp.

But as you point out John, there are many ways to achieve a fine result, so go with the 
process that suits your working style, budget and technical needs. Just sharing my 
experiences.

Mark Stracke

I'd be surprised that there's visible differences in the various RIPs with K6
inks.   With so many shades of gray, if you have good profiles any of the RIPs
ought to be great.

I wonder if there's some mixup of quad piezotones vs. hex K6's inks.
I've used the K6s on my 7500 (the source of the K6 profiles, btw) and there
aren't any visible dots to the naked eye and barely anything with a strong loupe.

Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen" 
<e.neilsen2@...> wrote:

>
> Mark, I too tried QTR with my 7000 and Sepia set of Piezo tone  inks. I was
> so unimpressed with the results compared top my IP prints, I just stop
> "playing" and got back to printing. It does seem that Studio Print and the
> K7/K6 set is a better set up for the older machines.  
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street
> 
> Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
> http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
> 
> http://ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
> Skype ejprinter
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark
> Stracke
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:41 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Comparing prints for that "3 dimensional quality"?
> 
>  
> 
> 
> A note on my personal experience with older printers, QTR and K6 inks.
> 
> I got on the K7 bandwagon early on with a 2200 and was very, very pleased
> with the 
> results. I located a used 7000 a little bit later and bought it to use with
> QTR and the K6 
> set. After changing out the heads and doing a full alignment I set to
> printing and was 
> surprised by the fact that I could see dots quite clearly on my test image
> in certain parts of 
> the greyscale. I've used another 7000 for years with StudioPrint so I was
> surprised that the 
> quality of the print with the K6 inks was not as fine as that which I have
> been getting from 
> Piezotones with only 4 positions. I was using the curves supplied with QTR,
> the ones made 
> by Jon's studio, so the it shouldn't have been my incompetence in making
> curves that 
> caused the problems.
> 
> As a control I downloaded a test version of StudioPrint to try out with the
> K6 inks and sure 
> enough the results were much, much better. I've bought a v12 StudioPrint and
> am happily 
> printing with that now. Not a cheap solution by any means, but the quality
> is worth the 
> cost.
> 
> My test image includes a gradient so it's very easy to see dots when they
> show up in some 
> section of the grey ramp. I may have been more picky than most, but I just
> wasn't happy 
> with the results of the 7000 with QTR. I've subsequently tried out QTR with
> my other 7000 
> (running Piezotones) and the noticeable dots are there as well. I've even
> tried QTR with an 
> ancient Epson 3000 and get similarly disappointing results, but with Cone's
> old plug-in 
> module I can get very smooth prints from even this old machine. Maybe it's
> me, perhaps I 
> just don't get QTR somehow, but with the older printers I haven't found the
> results to 
> measure up to the standard set by StudioPrint. The results with the 2200 and
> QTR are 
> quite stunning and just as fine, or finer, than the 7000 with the more
> expensive rip. How 
> this translates into 7600-9600-10000 Epsons I can't say since I have no
> experience there.
> 
> Hope this helps someone.
> 
> Mark Stracke
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@> > 
> >Another, perhaps related, question: isn't there a big difference 
> > between the variable size dot 7600 and the older fixed size dot 
> > models? 
> 
> > > > you can get a used 7000, 7600, or 4000 for very reasonable 
> > prices, QTR
> > > > for 50$, the inkset and be up and going with extraordinary high
> > > > quality and good print size for far less money and no hassle...
> > > > This of course, after deciding you want that kind of setup.
> > > > I had the chance to get a used 7600 for $500 and passed it up, 
> > stupid...
> > > > Tyler.
> > >
> >
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Agree re clogging but I still feel there are big issues with small format
(A3 and below) cartridges.  It¹d be nice to see some investment here.

From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:25:44 -0800
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Comparing prints for that "3 dimensional quality"?

 
 
 

Excuse me for interjecting some comments here.

John Dean wrote:

> ... When I see all these people fighting color casts of this and that ...

I'm not sure what color casts John is talking about, but I wanted to be sure
it was not interpreted incorrectly.  I made quite a bit of noise about tone
shifts in large format printers a while ago.  This happens when they go
un-used for a while.  Since I am an intermittent user of my 7500 B&W setup,
it was a nuisance for me.  After objectively comparing the blended B&W
inkset I was using with a non-blended one, I switch to what is, in effect, a
4K, open-source, non-blended ink approach on my 7500, where the 5th and 6th
inks are LM and a 50% dilution of LC. I published the readings comparing my
blended with non-blended ink arrangements at
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf (see pp. 4-5).

I do not think my experience with blended inksets is unique.  For example,
on the Piezo forum Tyler has noted: " ... large format users that use 220
cartridges have learned to shake the carts every 2 weeks or so, and make
sure something gets printed at least weekly so the ink in the lines won't
settle.  You'll find many posts about it on this list if you search ..."
(Sept. 2005)  

Jon Cone noted just last month, "... if you do stop in a large format
printer for several weeks - you will want to do some shaking to the carts
and KK cleanings to get the ink feeding tubes cleared."  (10-23-06)

>...and all the other clogging ...

I sure don't hear much about clogging these days with respect to any inkset.
Clogging issues essentially disappeared with the newest inks and as the 1280
usage decreased.

Joost asked: 

> ...isn't there a big difference between the variable size
> dot 7600 and the older fixed size dot models?

Yes there is with all the inksets I've used.  With the 4K+cm setup in my
7500 there is a very fine-grained image structure that is rather even from
the lightest tones to deep shadows. I have not used the K7 inkset, however,
and I'd assume that with the older machines that many inks might make a
difference.  With the 2200 there are no visible dots.  At display image
sizes, the 7500 dot structure is so fine as to be irrelevant.

There are choices out there, but tone shifts and clogging do not, from what
I can tell, correlate with which vendor one chooses.  It used to be that
Epson would insinuate that all third party inks are inferior due to clogging
and whatnot.  That may have been true in the past, but I don't think it is
today.  The vendors used most frequently on this list -- MIS and Piezo --
both sell good, third-generation inks that can hold their own in comparison
to the major OEM products.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

 
   


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@...> 
wrote:
>
> Well I think that is right Roy, if you're seeing any dots at all
> through QTR  or any rip with K7 then something is seriously wrong.

In the words of Emily Litella, "Never mind".

Steve,


>... I still feel there are big issues with small format
> (A3 and below) cartridges. It¹d be nice to see some investment here.


I've had good luck with all but the 1280 carts.  With those, I think it
depends on whether the particular cart is well aligned to the printer
involved, but it's been a while since I had a 1280.  My suspicions were, the
last time I had one of those, that air was leaking in due to a poor seal
between the cart and printer.  That, of course, makes for perpetually bad
nozzle checks. 

Have you had bad luck with the 2200 and 2400 style carts?  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
<roy@...> wrote:
>
> 
> I'd be surprised that there's visible differences in the various
RIPs with K6
> inks....

Right, an extremely experienced and picky friend loaded k6 in a 7000
to test and results with QTR were fine. I'm wondering if there was
some initial problem since worked out. I did hear initially QTR was
working better than StudioPrint for K7s, but also since worked out.
Maybe Mark and Eric's experiences were early on?

You K6 guys can hardly lose when the QTR developer is also a user...
Tyler

I have found that they eventually leak all the ink into the printer (2100).

From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:05:54 -0800
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Comparing prints for that "3 dimensional quality"?

 
 
 

Steve,

>... I still feel there are big issues with small format
> (A3 and below) cartridges. It¹d be nice to see some investment here.

I've had good luck with all but the 1280 carts.  With those, I think it
depends on whether the particular cart is well aligned to the printer
involved, but it's been a while since I had a 1280.  My suspicions were, the
last time I had one of those, that air was leaking in due to a poor seal
between the cart and printer.  That, of course, makes for perpetually bad
nozzle checks. 

Have you had bad luck with the 2200 and 2400 style carts?

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

 


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

I’m using the MIS version of 2200 cart that has a sponge in half of it -
never had that problem.  Maybe I’m just lucky.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Kale
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:44 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Comparing prints for that "3 dimensional quality"?

 

I have found that they eventually leak all the ink into the printer (2100).

From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@verizon. <mailto:paul.roark%40verizon.net> net>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:05:54 -0800
To: <DigitalBlackandWhit <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.
com> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Comparing prints for that "3 dimensional quality"?

Steve,

>... I still feel there are big issues with small format
> (A3 and below) cartridges. It¹d be nice to see some investment here.

I've had good luck with all but the 1280 carts. With those, I think it
depends on whether the particular cart is well aligned to the printer
involved, but it's been a while since I had a 1280. My suspicions were, the
last time I had one of those, that air was leaking in due to a poor seal
between the cart and printer. That, of course, makes for perpetually bad
nozzle checks. 

Have you had bad luck with the 2200 and 2400 style carts?

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

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

 



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

Too approaches to the same problem.  I found with those carts that air
bubbles would accumulate below the foam and eventually impede ink flow
resulting in poor nozzle checks.  With these clear carts I am using now I
often have the opposite problem -  a very slow leak into the printer.

From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 15:00:39 -0800
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Comparing prints for that "3 dimensional quality"?

 
 
 

I’m using the MIS version of 2200 cart that has a sponge in half of it -
never had that problem.  Maybe I’m just lucky.

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>

_____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Steve
Kale
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:44 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Comparing prints for that "3 dimensional quality"?

I have found that they eventually leak all the ink into the printer (2100).

From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@verizon. <mailto:paul.roark%40verizon.net> net>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com <mailto:eThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:05:54 -0800
To: <DigitalBlackandWhit <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.
com> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com <mailto:eThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Comparing prints for that "3 dimensional quality"?

Steve,

>... I still feel there are big issues with small format
> (A3 and below) cartridges. It¹d be nice to see some investment here.

I've had good luck with all but the 1280 carts. With those, I think it
depends on whether the particular cart is well aligned to the printer
involved, but it's been a while since I had a 1280. My suspicions were, the
last time I had one of those, that air was leaking in due to a poor seal
between the cart and printer. That, of course, makes for perpetually bad
nozzle checks. 

Have you had bad luck with the 2200 and 2400 style carts?

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> I¡¯m using the MIS version of 2200 cart that has a sponge in half of
it -
> never had that problem.  Maybe I¡¯m just lucky.
> 
>  
> 

You could always make a machine to refill the Epson carts and be done
with it.

You Mac guys are sorted now that Apple has moved to Intel - just get a Intel
based Mac and then you can load up Boot Camp
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ and Windows XP and finally enjoy all
those PC apps on your Mac :)

Mike


On 26/11/06, john dean <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
>   I don't think there SHOULD be any difference at all if your
> linearization was well done and your specific paper curves produced.
> But like I said, these machines vary considerably from unit to unit.
>
> From what I have heard the Cone people had better results with QTR
> than Studio Print with these inks. I'll try SP though but I have to
> buy a damn pc, might as well, I need it for QIMage anyway.
>
> john
>
> It does seem that Studio Print and the
> > K7/K6 set is a better set up for the older machines.
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric Neilsen Photography
> >
> > 4101 Commerce Street
> >
> > Suite 9
> >
> > Dallas, TX 75226
> >
> > http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
> >
> > http://ericneilsenphotography.com
> >
> > Skype ejprinter
> >
> > _____
> >
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of Mark
> > Stracke
> > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 6:41 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Comparing prints for that "3 dimensional
> quality"?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > A note on my personal experience with older printers, QTR and K6 inks.
> >
> > I got on the K7 bandwagon early on with a 2200 and was very, very
> pleased
> > with the
> > results. I located a used 7000 a little bit later and bought it to
> use with
> > QTR and the K6
> > set. After changing out the heads and doing a full alignment I set to
> > printing and was
> > surprised by the fact that I could see dots quite clearly on my test
> image
> > in certain parts of
> > the greyscale. I've used another 7000 for years with StudioPrint so
> I was
> > surprised that the
> > quality of the print with the K6 inks was not as fine as that which
> I have
> > been getting from
> > Piezotones with only 4 positions. I was using the curves supplied
> with QTR,
> > the ones made
> > by Jon's studio, so the it shouldn't have been my incompetence in making
> > curves that
> > caused the problems.
> >
> > As a control I downloaded a test version of StudioPrint to try out
> with the
> > K6 inks and sure
> > enough the results were much, much better. I've bought a v12
> StudioPrint and
> > am happily
> > printing with that now. Not a cheap solution by any means, but the
> quality
> > is worth the
> > cost.
> >
> > My test image includes a gradient so it's very easy to see dots when
> they
> > show up in some
> > section of the grey ramp. I may have been more picky than most, but
> I just
> > wasn't happy
> > with the results of the 7000 with QTR. I've subsequently tried out
> QTR with
> > my other 7000
> > (running Piezotones) and the noticeable dots are there as well. I've
> even
> > tried QTR with an
> > ancient Epson 3000 and get similarly disappointing results, but with
> Cone's
> > old plug-in
> > module I can get very smooth prints from even this old machine.
> Maybe it's
> > me, perhaps I
> > just don't get QTR somehow, but with the older printers I haven't
> found the
> > results to
> > measure up to the standard set by StudioPrint. The results with the
> 2200 and
> > QTR are
> > quite stunning and just as fine, or finer, than the 7000 with the more
> > expensive rip. How
> > this translates into 7600-9600-10000 Epsons I can't say since I have no
> > experience there.
> >
> > Hope this helps someone.
> >
> > Mark Stracke
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
> > <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> > eThePrint@yahoogroups.com <eThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>, "Joost Horsten"
> <j.h.j.h@> >
> > >Another, perhaps related, question: isn't there a big difference
> > > between the variable size dot 7600 and the older fixed size dot
> > > models?
> >
> > > > > you can get a used 7000, 7600, or 4000 for very reasonable
> > > prices, QTR
> > > > > for 50$, the inkset and be up and going with extraordinary high
> > > > > quality and good print size for far less money and no hassle...
> > > > > This of course, after deciding you want that kind of setup.
> > > > > I had the chance to get a used 7600 for $500 and passed it up,
> > > stupid...
> > > > > Tyler.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
> 
>


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

>  Bill Kennedy started working with K7 on a 2200 early on and he  
> said he had much better results with the Bauhaus rip.

We just spent the last two weeks bringing up a 7600 with K7 split  
tones using BowHaus IJC/OPM.  The standard K7 Split-Tone Sepia  
shadows/Neutral highlights and also Neutral shadows/Sepia  
highlights.  Great RIP.  Great inks.

Scott King
K2 Press
Austin, Texas


On Nov 25, 2006, at 7:25 PM, john dean wrote:

>
> I was using the curves supplied with QTR, the ones made
> > by Jon's studio, so the it shouldn't have been my incompetence in
> making curves that
> > caused the problems.
>
> -------------------------
>
> That was very interesting Mark and I appreciate the feed back. I
> haven't talked to anyone doing exactly this, though I know a lot of
> people must be.
>
> It isn't a problem with your incompetence because you sound
> experienced. I believe the problem is the variation in the older
> printers. The supplied curves with the 7000 were ok, but not great for
> me. Everything was a bit flat with them. I was just about to set it up
> with Studio Print too. However, I talked to Roy and then my 7000 was
> linearized using icc create and custom curves for MY machine and a few
> papers. When I did this it was a totally different output. This should
> be done with any printers but these 7000's just vary so much that this
> is totally mandatory. I belive Jon found that out with the 1280's too
> which is why they started that IQuad thing making people custom  
> curves.
>
> Surely you are making custom linearizations and reading all the
> patches with Studio Print? If so that is what the difference is I'm
> sure. The newer printers like the 2200 and the 9600 are very close but
> not perfect. They should be custom linearized too. The 10K's are very
> different from unit to unit. It's funny though. Some people have
> better luck with different rips on different machines. Bill Kennedy
> started working with K7 on a 2200 early on and he said he had much
> better results with the Bauhaus rip. Whatever works is is whatever
> works I guess.
>
> John
>
>
> 



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

In a message dated 11/26/06 8:32:14 PM, drmrking@... writes:


> You Mac guys are sorted now that Apple has moved to Intel - just get a 
> Intel
> based Mac and then you can load up Boot Camp
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ and Windows XP and finally enjoy all
> those PC apps on your Mac :)
> 
Not really how Mac users tend to view it. Unless an app can be run from 
within OS X (even if its under Windows, via Parallels, say) its not going to have 
much appeal to most Mac users. I haven't had a chance to try Qimage under 
Parallels; that goes on the list of "stuff to catch up on once PrintFIX PRO 2.0 is 
released." Thats getting to be a fairly long list... <G> But given the nice 
synergy between PFP and Qimage, and the dirth of similar "RIPless RIPs" on the 
Mac, its certainly something we need to look into!

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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

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

> How's that for no help at all???!!

Tyler,

Thanks, another step forward. By now this discussion is going 
everywhere, spread over multiple threads and gets harder and harder 
to keep track who posted what and where.. 

In the meanwhile I have been experimenting with split tones (QTR & 
MIS UT-#D) and got some promising results. Certainly a path to follow 
further. In addition I paid some more attention to the internal 
contrast and more precise sharpening. I must say, the three combined 
had an astonishing effect on some of my prints!

Presently I'm considering to extend my MIS UT3D ink set in two very 
different directions: 1) go for an even wider gamut, by replacing the 
fairly useless (at  least if one uses a RIP) neutral LLK by a custom 
greenish toner and 2) go for a split-tone K4 set by adding warm and 
cool LLLK toners at the sacrifice of the same neutral LLK toner and 
the selenium toner. I've no access yet to someone using a K7 set to 
compare results, but the current smoothness I'm getting is already 
very good. I doubt that I want to give up the very flexible tone 
control I've got now over that of an even smoother, but less flexible 
ink set.

Joost