--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <paul.roark@...>
wrote:
>
> "Terry" <TerryGls@> wrote:
>
> > Paul, if I understand, looking at the 100% QTR Ink Separation Page for Epson
Ultra Premium Luster printed with my R1800 at 2880, uni-directional my "max
visual PK black" is at the 60% ink limit.
> >
> > So, are you suggesting I use 60% for my PK Ink Limit?...then for Black Boost
65 or 70%?
>
> If the actual dmax is at 70 but the slope of the curve is very low between 60
and 70 -- that is, they are barely separated -- then I'd use 60 as the K limit
and put 70 in the black boost box.  (Note that there may be other factors like
pizza wheel issues, but I'm not considering that at the moment.)


Paul, You mention "actual Dmax" … I think I'm understanding part of your point
except in one area of "visual PK max black" or "actual Dmax."  My 100% Ink Sep
Page print out for the PK ink shows actual densitometer readings as follows:
60%-2.05, 65%-2.11, 70%-2.2, 75%-2.28, 80%-2.34, 85%-2.4, 90%-2.40, 95%-2.51,
and 100%-2.53.

As mentioned before the 60% square visually looks as black as the 65%, 70% all
the way to 100%..

So, if I follow your point and set the PK Ink Limit to 60% and Black Boost to
70%, my measured density will be 2.2 but not near the 2.53 Dmax black possible
"in theory."


>
> One thing I've noticed when I use the boost is that when the relative
densities are based on the lower K limit, here 60, the resulting partitioning
gives a more linear pre-linearization curve.
>
> In general, I also tend not to set the limits of the midtones all >the way to
their max density either.

>I use a loupe to see when the bleed starts to become an issue, and I >also
don't want there to be too much ink particularly on glossy >papers.


What do you mean by "bleed" and what are you looking for with the loupe?

Thanks, Terry


   Frankly, my glossy printing is now black only with HP PK on a 1400.  Drier
glossy printing results in fewer pizza wheel issues and reflective artifacts,
though the HP PK prints do still show some bronzing.
>
>
>
> > I've been linearizing using ChartThrob ...
>
> I've never used it.  So, my comments relate only to QTR.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

OK. This is not a troll.
If the HP ink works so well, then why not just use an HP printer (say,
a 9180) and print with the black only option?
Would you get the same results on glossy stock?

I think I'm going to have to spend some time studying your site...

BTW - you mentioned bronzing in a prior message. I see it on the 9180
glossy prints, but I've been able to tone it down quite successfully
after the fact, by applying Hahnemuhle Protective Spray.

Thank you, Paul.



On Nov 27, 2009, at 4:09 PM, pr_roark wrote:

> Dave <cowcreekroad@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >... Am I reading correctly? Are you using HP ink in an Epson
> > printer?
>
> You're reading it correctly. You can even mix full dilute inksets
> from the HP PK and generic base. See
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf
>
> When I first published this I wasn't sure if I was going to get a
> nasty threatening letter from HP or what. It turned out the other
> way around. When you think of it, I was using their inks -- where
> the profit is -- in their competitor's machines. So, their reaction
> was to put me on the HP mailing list.
>
> But, at any rate, I'm very happy with my black only Epson 1400 HP PK
> prints. Needless to say, while my 1400 does not microband with the
> HP PK in the C position, I may just be lucky. There is always a risk
> of microbanding when only one ink position is used.
>
> The full 1400 inkset I use is described at
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eb1400.pdf
>
> I experimented with a number of variations before settling on this
> one. It gives me my 100% carbon matte, cooler matte if I want it,
> neutral glossy, and a simple Epson driver workflow for quick matte
> prints, though I usually use QTR for my serious printing. It's clog
> free and can be very inexpensive. Note that when one uses black only
> printing or dilutes with a generic base, even the OEM ink prices are
> no big deal when it's purchased in wide format carts. The dilute
> inks are where the money goes.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>



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

Dave <cowcreekroad@...> wrote:
>
>
>... Am I reading correctly? Are you using HP ink in an Epson
> printer?

You're reading it correctly.  You can even mix full dilute inksets from the HP
PK and generic base.  See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf

When I first published this I wasn't sure if I was going to get a nasty
threatening letter from HP or what.  It turned out the other way around.  When
you think of it, I was using their inks -- where the profit is -- in their
competitor's machines.  So, their reaction was to put me on the HP mailing list.

But, at any rate, I'm very happy with my black only Epson 1400 HP PK prints. 
Needless to say, while my 1400 does not microband with the HP PK in the C
position, I may just be lucky.  There is always a risk of microbanding when only
one ink position is used.

The full 1400 inkset I use is described at
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eb1400.pdf

I experimented with a number of variations before settling on this one.  It
gives me my 100% carbon matte, cooler matte if I want it, neutral glossy, and a
simple Epson driver workflow for quick matte prints, though I usually use QTR
for my serious printing.  It's clog free and can be very inexpensive.  Note that
when one uses black only printing or dilutes with a generic base, even the OEM
ink prices are no big deal when it's purchased in wide format carts.  The dilute
inks are where the money goes.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

On Nov 27, 2009, at 2:55 PM, pr_roark wrote:

> Frankly, my glossy printing is now black only with HP PK on a 1400.
> Drier glossy printing results in fewer pizza wheel issues and
> reflective artifacts, though the HP PK prints do still show some
> bronzing.


Sorry to bust in, but I've been following this thread with great
interest. I haven't yet experimented with third party inks - I've been
doing my B&W printing with an HP B9180, and getting good results
printing as color (I'm partial to a faux-selenium toned Agfa Portriga
look).

I'm curious. Am I reading correctly? Are you using HP ink in an Epson
printer?

Thanks,
Dave

http://davereichertphoto.com/

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

"Terry" <TerryGls@...> wrote:

> Paul, if I understand, looking at the 100% QTR Ink Separation Page for Epson
Ultra Premium Luster printed with my R1800 at 2880, uni-directional my "max
visual PK black" is at the 60% ink limit.
>
> So, are you suggesting I use 60% for my PK Ink Limit?...then for Black Boost
65 or 70%?

If the actual dmax is at 70 but the slope of the curve is very low between 60
and 70 -- that is, they are barely separated -- then I'd use 60 as the K limit
and put 70 in the black boost box.  (Note that there may be other factors like
pizza wheel issues, but I'm not considering that at the moment.)

One thing I've noticed when I use the boost is that when the relative densities
are based on the lower K limit, here 60, the resulting partitioning gives a more
linear pre-linearization curve.

In general, I also tend not to set the limits of the midtones all the way to
their max density either.  I use a loupe to see when the bleed starts to become
an issue, and I also don't want there to be too much ink particularly on glossy
papers.  Frankly, my glossy printing is now black only with HP PK on a 1400. 
Drier glossy printing results in fewer pizza wheel issues and reflective
artifacts, though the HP PK prints do still show some bronzing.



> I've been linearizing using ChartThrob ...

I've never used it.  So, my comments relate only to QTR.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul, if I understand, looking at the 100% QTR Ink Separation Page for Epson
Ultra Premium Luster printed with my R1800 at 2880, uni-directional my "max
visual PK black" is at the 60% ink limit.

So, are you suggesting I use 60% for my PK Ink Limit?...then for Black Boost 65
or 70%?

I've been linearizing using ChartThrob & scanner and placing the generated
Photoshop .ACV curve in the GRAY CURVE TAB's "Curve Section."  Previous to
generating the ChartThrob PS curve I've played with the Shadow, Highlight and
Gamma settings to "shape" the ink curve.  The resulting .ACV curve is a very
mild adjustment to this "shaped" ink curve.

BTW – Using GG 2.2 and 16bit files.

Comments appreciated.

Terry


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <paul.roark@...>
wrote:
>
>  "Terry" <TerryGls@> wrote:
> >
> > ... if you choose to set your Black % much above the visual
> > looking "max black" don't you "hurt" your shadow detail when
> > you linearize the steps?
>
> I don't think so.  QTR will not linearize if there is not some increase in
density above some minimum.  In fact, QTR works better when it has an abundance
of deep shadow information.  So, a somewhat compressed toe -- similar to the
final gray gamma 2.2 curve -- is helpful to avoid interpolation errors in the
deep shadows.
>
> By the way, I recommend you put your K ink limit at the visual max and use the
Black Boost (I'm assuming we're talking QTR here) to set the final measured dmax
if that is what you want to do.  This results in a better pre-linearized ramp,
and, in general, the better the ramp going into the linearization step, the
better the the final result.
>
> > ... the blacks at 95%, 90%, etc visually look the same ...
>
> Coming from the old days of 8 bit files, I used to object avoid using the Gray
Gamma 2.2 space because it compresses the deep shadows (what we old darkroom
people call the "toe" of the curve).  With the limited 8 bit gray steps we used
to have, I thought this was just a waste of those precious 256 steps.
>
> However, with 16 bit files now the norm, I'm a big fan of Gray Gamma 2.2 and
the compressed shadows.  It's a reserve of information that sometimes becomes
valuable.  Not only does it often save the day if you need more detail in an
area, but it also relates to why I switched to glossy paper for my gallery
brochures.
>
> While I find matte paper prints look the same as glossy prints under glass in
the gallery, when people take my brochures out into the sun, the "excess"
information in those shadows becomes visible, whereas the old matte brochures
would just show gray down there.  So, a very high dmax and gray gamma 2.2 makes
a real nice combo when a print may go from standard indoor lighting into direct
sun.  That seemingly excess dmax and "wasted" toe info may not be totally
useless.  With direct sun, you can really see into those deep glossy shadows.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

"Terry" <TerryGls@...> wrote:
>
> ... if you choose to set your Black % much above the visual
> looking "max black" don't you "hurt" your shadow detail when
> you linearize the steps?

I don't think so.  QTR will not linearize if there is not some increase in
density above some minimum.  In fact, QTR works better when it has an abundance
of deep shadow information.  So, a somewhat compressed toe -- similar to the
final gray gamma 2.2 curve -- is helpful to avoid interpolation errors in the
deep shadows.

By the way, I recommend you put your K ink limit at the visual max and use the
Black Boost (I'm assuming we're talking QTR here) to set the final measured dmax
if that is what you want to do.  This results in a better pre-linearized ramp,
and, in general, the better the ramp going into the linearization step, the
better the the final result.

> ... the blacks at 95%, 90%, etc visually look the same ...

Coming from the old days of 8 bit files, I used to object avoid using the Gray
Gamma 2.2 space because it compresses the deep shadows (what we old darkroom
people call the "toe" of the curve).  With the limited 8 bit gray steps we used
to have, I thought this was just a waste of those precious 256 steps.

However, with 16 bit files now the norm, I'm a big fan of Gray Gamma 2.2 and the
compressed shadows.  It's a reserve of information that sometimes becomes
valuable.  Not only does it often save the day if you need more detail in an
area, but it also relates to why I switched to glossy paper for my gallery
brochures.

While I find matte paper prints look the same as glossy prints under glass in
the gallery, when people take my brochures out into the sun, the "excess"
information in those shadows becomes visible, whereas the old matte brochures
would just show gray down there.  So, a very high dmax and gray gamma 2.2 makes
a real nice combo when a print may go from standard indoor lighting into direct
sun.  That seemingly excess dmax and "wasted" toe info may not be totally
useless.  With direct sun, you can really see into those deep glossy shadows.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Excuse the post unless you are happy to know about the following Black Friday
specials at InkjetMall:

20% off on complete bottle sets of Piezography inks.

20% off on complete bottle and refill cart sets of ConeColor

20% off on Type5 papers

http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/sc.23/.f

best regards,

Jon Cone
Piezography

Thanks Paul for a good point...also if you choose to set your Black % much above
the visual looking "max black" don't you "hurt" your shadow detail when you
linearize the steps? ... or another way of describing is you lineraize OK with
the densitometer reading but visually the blacks at 95%, 90%, etc visually look
the same as the 100% black which was chosen from say a 70 or 80% reading on the
ink sepration page. (I'm thinking of luster/satin type papers but the concept
applies to matte, also)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <paul.roark@...>
wrote:
>
>
> >... since the 60% PK ink looks the same as the 100%,
> > why do we need the 2.5+ Dmax?
>
>
> Another factor to consider is the chance of "pizza wheel" marks.  I've found
that more ink on a glossy paper can lead to a higher chance of these annoying
marks.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Kip,
I designed an ink for the 1400 printer called Piezography Special Edition K6
influenced considerably by the triple split toning I did on the Ashes and Snow
prints for Gregory Colbert's Nomadic Museum. The QTR download comes with a
number of built-in K6 curves I produced for the ink set. They cover all the
popular papers. The starter kit is sold at InkjetMall and includes everything
you need. You just need to give it really good quality images - select the paper
profile from QTR - and we do all the work for you.

http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/it.A/id.3205/.f

it includes a 4oz bottle set CIS. You will be very happy with the output and how
plug and play it is. You can go over to the Piezography Users list to ask
opinions of its users there if you like. The print quality is amazing with K6 -
the paper feed is challenging as it is with all of the desktop Epsons.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/piezography3000/

best regards,

Jon Cone
Piezography

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "cbabing3@..."
<cbabing3@...> wrote:
>
> One of my C88+ printers is starting to act up, as is typical after a few
thousand prints.  When they were available refurbed from Epson for $50 delivered
I just replaced 'em without much thought (got that much color ink in the box,
which I used in another printer) but now that they're $85 plus shipping I think
a bit harder.  I've been using C88 printers (and C84s before that) for many
years, with a MIS CIS and EZ inks for my B&W work, which is mostly photo books
for family at Christmas (8x8 prints bound in mat board covers - 850 total prints
last year of about 100 different images, plus 100 Christmas cards.)
>
> I'm wondering if the $200 price on the 1400 that will be available this
weekend in some stores (and appears to be available direct from Epson) would
make it worth stepping up to the bigger printer?  I do NOT need wide carriage,
and am not sure I need 6 colors, but would sure like to get more reliability and
longevity out of a printer.  Also, if it's any faster than a C88, that would be
nice when producing hundreds of prints in a short period of time.  Finally, I
realize that I'd need different inks, and would have a learning curve to go
through, which might not be the best thing with a deadline 30 days away.
>
> All of which may argue against switching right now.  But if the learning curve
isn't too bad, and if there is a real speed increase, I'd be prepared to make
the investment of time and money.
>
> May I have some thoughts from those with 1400 experience, especially if you
have any C88 experience to compare?
>
> Many thank in advance.
>
> Cheers,
> Kip
>

Correction: the Ecover Rinse was purchased at Vitamin Cottage, while the
Glycerol was from Walmart; sorry for any confusion. The ratios I use are:
65% distilled water
25% glycerol
10% Ecover
this mix forms the base to mix w/the Eboni ink for the different dilutions, as
per Mr. Roark's instructions.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "troutfly24"
<troutfly24@...> wrote:
>
>
> The 1400 in my opinion is the best 13" printer Epson has produced, and at $200
is a bargain.
>
> The 1400 doesn't clog at all, and produces really fine prints. But you have to
do your homework to get an ideal curve set, like any other printer.  (Look up
"chartthrob" a free script, to get a really ideal curve before running qtr if
you have a pc and photoshop.)
>
> I'm running 3 diff. densities of the MIS eboni black ink in the K-Y-M slots,
(with water in the other carts), along with QTR, following Paul Roark's
instructions on mixing your own ink densities w/the MIS carbon black ink.
>
> Couldn't be happier with this printer, but it takes a learning curve on your
part, but it's worth it...buying a pint of Eboni from MIS, a gallon of distilled
water, and a $2 pint of Ecover surfacant at Walmart, makes your ink cost
trivial.
>

troutfly24 schreef:
> The 1400 in my opinion is the best 13" printer Epson has produced, and at $200
is a bargain.

It always surprises me that the lowest EU price for the 1400 is way
above that, right now 334.- Euro which is the equivalent of 500 $.
Even if VAT isn't counted you still have a price of 420 $

Compared with a Canon iPF5100 (another category, I know) that you can
get for 1300 Euro including VAT versus 1925 $ in the US which is
representing the $ rate more or less.

--
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst


Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

The 1400 in my opinion is the best 13" printer Epson has produced, and at $200
is a bargain.

The 1400 doesn't clog at all, and produces really fine prints. But you have to
do your homework to get an ideal curve set, like any other printer.  (Look up
"chartthrob" a free script, to get a really ideal curve before running qtr if
you have a pc and photoshop.)

I'm running 3 diff. densities of the MIS eboni black ink in the K-Y-M slots,
(with water in the other carts), along with QTR, following Paul Roark's
instructions on mixing your own ink densities w/the MIS carbon black ink.

Couldn't be happier with this printer, but it takes a learning curve on your
part, but it's worth it...buying a pint of Eboni from MIS, a gallon of distilled
water, and a $2 pint of Ecover surfacant at Walmart, makes your ink cost
trivial.

"cbabing3@..." <cbabing3@...> wrote:

> One of my C88+ printers is starting to act up, ...
>
> I'm wondering if the $200 price on the 1400 ...
> would make it worth stepping up to the bigger printer?
> I do NOT need wide carriage, ...

Nothing is easier or cheaper than the C88+ and the "EZ" ink approach.

I use the 1400 for its size, Eboni/Carbon-6 fine art, and HP PK black only
glossy (which requires a 1.5 picoliter drop size that the C88+ lacks).

For my family members I buy C88+ printers and use home-brew EZ variants.

Both of these printers are great values, in my view.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I've had an opportunity to test a couple proposed 7800 carbon ink setups on an
Epson 2400.  Because both the 2400 and 7800 are Epson K3 printers, I'm going to
assume the setup that works best on the 2400 will also work well on the 7800. 
So, this is what I'll load onto my 7800.  I'll use the C6c base, but I've noted
the MIS Eboni-6 equivalent in parentheses.  Eb6 and C6 print essentially the
same.

K = 100% Eboni;

LK & C = 30% Eboni (Eb6-C);

LLK & M = 13.5% Eboni (Eb-"EZ");

(See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/C88-C13-5.pdf -- 13.5% Eboni is made by
mixing 2 bottles of Eb6 inks: LC-9%, and M-18%.)

LC & LM = 6% Eboni (Eb6-LM);

Y = 2% Eboni (Eb6-Y).
(2% Eboni is a stable suspension.)
(The LM and LC 6% inks in the 7800 setup above make smooth highlights even
without the 2% inks.  As such, Y can be a dilute HP PK if more neutral printing
is wanted.)

Though I'll mostly use QTR for my printing, this inkset prints well with the
Epson driver also.  I think this is important to support a variety of
applications and file types.

This Eb/Carbon-6 inkset arrangement will support my wide format tube refreshing
modification if and where needed.  Because of the use of the middle dilutions in
two channels, I sometimes refer to this as the C6 "Dual" inkset.

I'll summarize my 7800 Eboni/Carbon-6 workflow in a PDF and post it at
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/7800-Carbon-6.pdf

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

One of my C88+ printers is starting to act up, as is typical after a few
thousand prints.  When they were available refurbed from Epson for $50 delivered
I just replaced 'em without much thought (got that much color ink in the box,
which I used in another printer) but now that they're $85 plus shipping I think
a bit harder.  I've been using C88 printers (and C84s before that) for many
years, with a MIS CIS and EZ inks for my B&W work, which is mostly photo books
for family at Christmas (8x8 prints bound in mat board covers - 850 total prints
last year of about 100 different images, plus 100 Christmas cards.)

I'm wondering if the $200 price on the 1400 that will be available this weekend
in some stores (and appears to be available direct from Epson) would make it
worth stepping up to the bigger printer?  I do NOT need wide carriage, and am
not sure I need 6 colors, but would sure like to get more reliability and
longevity out of a printer.  Also, if it's any faster than a C88, that would be
nice when producing hundreds of prints in a short period of time.  Finally, I
realize that I'd need different inks, and would have a learning curve to go
through, which might not be the best thing with a deadline 30 days away.

All of which may argue against switching right now.  But if the learning curve
isn't too bad, and if there is a real speed increase, I'd be prepared to make
the investment of time and money.

May I have some thoughts from those with 1400 experience, especially if you have
any C88 experience to compare?

Many thank in advance.

Cheers,
Kip

I've used InkJetCarts for all my 1280, R1800 and CX9400 color and B&W inks for
about two years.  They sell Image Specialist inks and maybe some others.  Ross
Hardy, the owner is very open about his sources and extremely helpful getting
you set up.  They are highly recommended by me, especially considering what one
place sells for $18.00 (4 oz bottles of R1800 ink) they sell for $12.00.

As far as I know, the only two sources of reliable inks for Epson other than
Epson are Image Specialist and John Cone.  Assuming that is what your a getting,
it becomes a question of price and service.

Bob

>... since the 60% PK ink looks the same as the 100%,
> why do we need the 2.5+ Dmax?


Another factor to consider is the chance of "pizza wheel" marks.  I've found
that more ink on a glossy paper can lead to a higher chance of these annoying
marks.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Because CS4 dropped the "No Color Management" option for grayscale printing, I
was curious how the remaining options with the most likely settings compared to
what I use in CS2.  So, using a 1400 with Eb14 inkset, I printed a series of
21-step test files and graphed their Lab L values.

The file was un-tagged.  The PS Color Settings include gray working space Gray
Gamma 2.2 and rgb working space Adobe RGB (1998).  The printer driver settings
were my matte standard Color Controls with gamma 2.2.

I posted the results at
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/CS2-CS4-Printing.pdf

The bottom line is that what I found was a change in printing densities as the
printer warmed up and almost no differences in how CS2 and CS4 print with the
settings I was using.

The CS2 prints were with
(1) a grayscale file and "No Color Management" set in the print preview and
(2) an rgb file with "No Color Management" set.

The CS4 prints were
(3) grayscale file with "Photoshop Manages Colors," "Working Gray – Gray Gamma
2.2," and "Perceptual" BCP,
(4) grayscale file with "Printer Manages Colors" and "Perceptual," and
(5) an rgb file with "No Color Management."

So, maybe this is an argument in favor of leaving printers turned on.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Yes, I'm printing the Ink Sep Page at 100%.  The Dmax (2.5+) for the PK ink at
100% with the Luster type papers is consistent with what Epson and others on
this site & the Quadtone Yahoo site report.

My R800 / R1800 ink, 1.5pl and the 2880 dpi may be helping to increase the the
Dmax.  As mentioned I build my profile curves in QTR at 60% ink density and
since my printer only has the one black I add 2% of each of the CMYR and 5%Blue.

Thanks for your comments...I hope this explains...again since the 60% PK ink
looks the same as the 100%, why do we need the 2.5+ Dmax?

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen"
<e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> If you're building density all the way up to 100% that is something I
> haven't done either. However, one issue with Epson printers/drivers is that
> they do tend to block up. Perhaps they have lowered the density in this set.
> Shilesh is asking the right question here.
>
>
>
> What type of densitometer are you using?
>
>
>
> Eric Neilsen
>
> Eric Neilsen Photography
>
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
>
> Dallas, TX 75226
>
>
>
> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
>
> skype me with ejprinter
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> shileshjani
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:55 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Maximum Usable Black vs. Dmax - What's the Big
> Deal?
>
>
>
>
>
> Terry,
>
> Your readings that 100% patch has highest measured density is unusual. I
> don't have any experience with your inkset, so that may be it. Another quick
> check worth considering. Are you printing the QTR calibration chart at 100%
> ink limits?
>
> Shilesh
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

> So I have a questions.  1.  Does Premier Spray or other
> sprays equalize gloss differential?

Yes, with the paper and printing mechanism I employ. I use
clear gloss coating on an acid free ultra smooth Monadnock
Astrolite cover paper, print with a Wasatch SoftRIP, and
coat with Lacquer Mat Diamond gloss spray. The result is a
semigloss with some surface texture. I have yet to find an
ultra smooth (uncoated) paper that stays smooth after the
inkaid treatment.

Lacquer Mat works better than PrintShield in this case
probably because it has higher solids content. With
PrintShield you may have to apply more coats. You'll get
much deeper black after the protective coating treatment.

The lacquer spray while it removes the gloss differential
does not increase the print's glossiness. You can use
the Lacquer Mat Pearl (lustre) spray as a final coat for
even less gloss. The Lacquer Mat spray doesn't smell as
bad as the Sureguard Pro-Tecta-Coat photographic spray but
surely cannot beat PrintShield.

Note that you cannot use a water-based coating on the
satin or gloss inkaid coating.

> What does impress about my first inkaid test is that there
> is a presence...kind of like the image is in the
> paper...not on the surface.... My initial test of Inkaid
> is worth exploring.  There is a wonderful presence....
> better than I typically see in commercially coated
> papers.

Yes. This is also how I feel about this inkaid coating.
There's almost a 3 dimentional feel to it. Also it dries much
faster than commercially coated swellable polymer papers. And
Epson UltraChrome also dries as fast as dye in the inkaid stuff.

Please keep sharing your inkaid experiment.

--nick

I am thinking of switching to InkJetCarts for re-fillible carts and inks
(both color and B & W inks) for my Epson 4880.  I have heard that 3rd party
inks tend to clog the nozzles on Epson printers.  Does anyone have
experience with the InkJetCarts inks for the 4800/4880?

Many thanks!



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

If you're building density all the way up to 100% that is something I
haven't done either. However, one issue with Epson printers/drivers is that
they do tend to block up. Perhaps they have lowered the density in this set.
Shilesh is asking the right question here.



What type of densitometer are you using?



Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226



www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter



   _____

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
shileshjani
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:55 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Maximum Usable Black vs. Dmax - What's the Big
Deal?





Terry,

Your readings that 100% patch has highest measured density is unusual. I
don't have any experience with your inkset, so that may be it. Another quick
check worth considering. Are you printing the QTR calibration chart at 100%
ink limits?

Shilesh






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

Terry,

Your readings that 100% patch has highest measured density is unusual. I don't
have any experience with your inkset, so that may be it. Another quick check
worth considering. Are you printing the QTR calibration chart at 100% ink
limits?

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Terry" <TerryGls@...>
wrote:
>
> Thanks Eric,
>
> My 70% densitometer reading on the Harman Crystaljet is 2.34.  My readings for
Epson Ultra Premium Luster are 100% - 2.53, 70% - 2.2, and at 60% - 2.05.
>
> On the Epson Luster I'd say the the 60% ink square visually looks as dark as
the 100% ink square.  Basically the same as the Crystaljet paper.
>
> So if an ink density of around 2.1 or 2.2 is an "acceptable black" to the eye,
Why do we need to push for higher Dmax ink/papers (speaking of
luster/semi-gloss, etc papers)?
>
> Terry
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@>
wrote:
> >
> > Terry, When printing out to 100%, you are trying to determine just how much
> > ink can go down on a piece of paper. Since the dmax doesn't change with more
> > ink, you stop using the ink. Why, too much can allow bleeding that causes
> > images to lose sharpness.  What does your 70% read?  Different ink sets,
> > different amounts, different printers different ink amounts. The  curves
> > posted or starting points. we all have are own set of perfect numbers and
> > preferred looks and controls. >
> >
> > Eric Neilsen>
> > Eric Neilsen Photography>
> > 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9>
> > Dallas, TX 75226>
> >
> > www.ericneilsenphotography.com
> >
> > skype me with ejprinter>   _____
> >
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry
> > Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 12:40 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Maximum Usable Black vs. Dmax - What's the Big Deal?>
> >
> > As I understand when printing out the Ink Separation Page in QTR, the Photo
> > Black (PK) or Matte Black ink (MK) at 100% is the maximum black. Yet
> > visually, on most Luster/Pearl/Semi-glossy papers, the 55, 60, or 65% ink
> > square is as black looking as the 100%.
> >
> > For example, when I measure the 100% PK ink square on Harman Crystaljet
> > Luster RC paper, printed with Epson inks on my R800 / R1800 with my
> > densitometer I get 2.64. The 60% black measures 2.13 yet visually looks as
> > black as the 100%. The 60% is typically chosen to create the QTR profile yet
> > the maximum density achievable is never really used. This general
> > relationship is the same for all Luster/Pearl/Satin/Semi-gloss papers I've
> > tested.
> >
> > Yet for the inherent difference between Luster & Matte papers what is the
> > "big deal" about high Dmax and can you really use the 100% in creating a
> > profile?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

I have my first sample of inkaid.  I decided to try the semiGloss. I used at as
my first test paper Rising Stonehenge.

I am initially very enthused.  It receives Ebony just fine...I am using a test
profile for matte papers for commercial papers...nothing rubs off.  Excellent
basic test print.

Paper is what I would call semi-matte...slight gloss at an angle.  I have not
tested dmax, but is visually relatively high.

The biggest issue is that the paper texture gets a bit in the way, due to the
semi gloss.  This exaggerates the texture with light from an angle.

So I have a questions.  1.  Does Premier Spray or other sprays equalize gloss
differential?

---

What does impress about my first inkaid test is that there is a presence...kind
of like the image is in the paper...not on the surface.  But there is an
annoying reflection of texture.  I have seen this in two commercial
papers....Ink Press Warmtone Fibre...and Premier Platinum Rag.

---

My question is....does spraying help this bothersome surface differential?

My initial test of Inkaid is worth exploring.  There is a wonderful
presence....better than I typically see in commercially coated papers.

I look forward to hearing from you users who regularly spray your prints...I
have never sprayed an inkjet print.  Is this a way to take care of surface
differential issues???

Thanks

Phil

Thanks Eric,

My 70% densitometer reading on the Harman Crystaljet is 2.34.  My readings for
Epson Ultra Premium Luster are 100% - 2.53, 70% - 2.2, and at 60% - 2.05.

On the Epson Luster I'd say the the 60% ink square visually looks as dark as the
100% ink square.  Basically the same as the Crystaljet paper.

So if an ink density of around 2.1 or 2.2 is an "acceptable black" to the eye,
Why do we need to push for higher Dmax ink/papers (speaking of
luster/semi-gloss, etc papers)?

Terry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "E.Neilsen"
<e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> Terry, When printing out to 100%, you are trying to determine just how much
> ink can go down on a piece of paper. Since the dmax doesn't change with more
> ink, you stop using the ink. Why, too much can allow bleeding that causes
> images to lose sharpness.  What does your 70% read?  Different ink sets,
> different amounts, different printers different ink amounts. The  curves
> posted or starting points. we all have are own set of perfect numbers and
> preferred looks and controls. >
>
> Eric Neilsen>
> Eric Neilsen Photography>
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9>
> Dallas, TX 75226>
>
> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
>
> skype me with ejprinter>   _____
>
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 12:40 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Maximum Usable Black vs. Dmax - What's the Big Deal?>
>
> As I understand when printing out the Ink Separation Page in QTR, the Photo
> Black (PK) or Matte Black ink (MK) at 100% is the maximum black. Yet
> visually, on most Luster/Pearl/Semi-glossy papers, the 55, 60, or 65% ink
> square is as black looking as the 100%.
>
> For example, when I measure the 100% PK ink square on Harman Crystaljet
> Luster RC paper, printed with Epson inks on my R800 / R1800 with my
> densitometer I get 2.64. The 60% black measures 2.13 yet visually looks as
> black as the 100%. The 60% is typically chosen to create the QTR profile yet
> the maximum density achievable is never really used. This general
> relationship is the same for all Luster/Pearl/Satin/Semi-gloss papers I've
> tested.
>
> Yet for the inherent difference between Luster & Matte papers what is the
> "big deal" about high Dmax and can you really use the 100% in creating a
> profile?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Terry, When printing out to 100%, you are trying to determine just how much
ink can go down on a piece of paper. Since the dmax doesn't change with more
ink, you stop using the ink. Why, too much can allow bleeding that causes
images to lose sharpness.  What does your 70% read?  Different ink sets,
different amounts, different printers different ink amounts. The  curves
posted or starting points. we all have are own set of perfect numbers and
preferred looks and controls.



Eric Neilsen

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226



www.ericneilsenphotography.com

skype me with ejprinter



   _____

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 12:40 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Maximum Usable Black vs. Dmax - What's the Big Deal?






As I understand when printing out the Ink Separation Page in QTR, the Photo
Black (PK) or Matte Black ink (MK) at 100% is the maximum black. Yet
visually, on most Luster/Pearl/Semi-glossy papers, the 55, 60, or 65% ink
square is as black looking as the 100%.

For example, when I measure the 100% PK ink square on Harman Crystaljet
Luster RC paper, printed with Epson inks on my R800 / R1800 with my
densitometer I get 2.64. The 60% black measures 2.13 yet visually looks as
black as the 100%. The 60% is typically chosen to create the QTR profile yet
the maximum density achievable is never really used. This general
relationship is the same for all Luster/Pearl/Satin/Semi-gloss papers I've
tested.

Yet for the inherent difference between Luster & Matte papers what is the
"big deal" about high Dmax and can you really use the 100% in creating a
profile?





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

As I understand when printing out the Ink Separation Page in QTR, the Photo
Black (PK) or Matte Black ink (MK) at 100% is the maximum black.  Yet visually,
on most Luster/Pearl/Semi-glossy papers, the 55, 60, or 65% ink square is as
black looking as the 100%.

For example, when I measure the 100% PK ink square on Harman Crystaljet Luster
RC paper, printed with Epson inks on my R800 / R1800 with my densitometer I get
2.64.  The 60% black measures 2.13 yet visually looks as black as the 100%.  The
60% is typically chosen to create the QTR profile yet the maximum density
achievable is never really used.  This general relationship is the same for all
Luster/Pearl/Satin/Semi-gloss papers I've tested.

Yet for the inherent difference between Luster & Matte papers what is the "big
deal" about high Dmax and can you really use the 100% in creating a profile?

And how about trimming your posts! There is not need to include the entire body
of the message you are replying to.

Don

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Debbi <corkie@...> wrote:
>
> Geeze guys I'm so sick of deleting this tired thread.
> Maybe you could change the subject line
> Debbi
>

By itself, no.
You need to add Sharpness and Clarity.


On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:34 PM, E.Neilsen wrote:

> So then, does the brightness slider make one smarter?



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