Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Black & White => Topic started by: patjoja on January 26, 2018, 11:47:34 pm
-
Topic:
What is your favorite printer for B&W? Canon, Epson, HP? Which models and why?
What are your favorite papers?
Patrick
-
The Epson piezo heads can pump a high viscosity ink than the thermal heads of the others. Thus, the Epson printers allow a wide range of custom and third party inks, with the black and white inks being the most important. (OEM color is usually the best color; not so for B&W.)
There are so many papers, it's hard to say one is objectively superior to others.
I, personally, like matte paper, matted and displayed under acrylic in the traditional manner. That said, most of my recent work has been on canvas or satin paper and not displayed under glass. This is mostly due to the large sizes I've been printing recently. (The un-glazed prints have multiple coats of Print Shield on them for at least some protection.)
One major advantage to matte under glass/acrylic with a traditional over-mat is that you can tape hang it. That is much easier and, in my view better, than trying to dry mount or use adhesives to mount a glossy print. Without professional equipment getting a glossy or satin print to be properly mounted and stay flat can be a problem. Matte under glass is easy for any home printer/photographer to do and have professional looking results.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
I would bet that in the hands of a skilled person, that B&W prints on the same paper from those three printers using OEM inks would be essentially identical. And if they weren't, I might find one to be "best" and you'd find another to be "best". Mark Segal is our resident printing guru, having tested most of the new printers released in recent years for LULA. He would be an excellent person to answer your question. Most of us here use one brand of printer. So for us, ours is AOK.
And I don't think there are "best" papers. There certainly are different papers. And there certainly are "good" papers. Best depends on your image, but more importantly, your taste.
Brad
-
I had personally owned all 3 major brands printer
and i found hp does produce the best b&w print with oem ink compare to the others.
the smoothness, the black and the neutrality
but personally, i'm using piezography pro ink with my epson printers
it is just another level when it comes to b&w printing
aaron
-
I had personally owned all 3 major brands printer
and i found hp does produce the best b&w print with oem ink compare to the others.
the smoothness, the black and the neutrality
but personally, i'm using piezography pro ink with my epson printers
it is just another level when it comes to b&w printing
aaron
I've heard a lot about the piezography inks on this forum, and am intrigued by all the positive comments. Where are best places to get inks and carts and information about the process?
Regarding your comments on HP, what makes the HP printers better than the rest? Do they have more colors?
Patrick
-
I've heard a lot about the piezography inks on this forum, and am intrigued by all the positive comments. Where are best places to get inks and carts and information about the process?
Regarding your comments on HP, what makes the HP printers better than the rest? Do they have more colors?
Patrick
For good background info on inks for B&W printing, go to Paul Roark's website (link in his post, above) and scroll down to Black & White Print and Printing Information and click on the link there.
-
For good background info on inks for B&W printing, go to Paul Roark's website (link in his post, above) and scroll down to Black & White Print and Printing Information and click on the link there.
Thanks Eric,
I've spent some time looking at Paul's site and also THIS THREAD (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=114117.0) which provides a lot of good information.
It seems like this could be an expensive way to go vs OEM printers and ink. I'm not saying "no" to it, but would like to explore the options. I have several printers:
1) Canon iPF 6450 Used weekly
2) Canon Pro-1 Used weekly
3) Epson 3880 Not used in 2 years.
I could probably convert the Epson 3880 to a dedicated B&W printer. My concerns are that I haven't used the printer for the last two years (it's about 3 years old), and I'm worried I may have to replace the print head. I confess I haven't fiddled with it yet, so my bad. Perhaps it just needs a good head cleaning and new ink.
The question I have to decide is whether it's worth pursuing. The pro inks are quite expensive and I'd hate to purchase them and not have the printer work.
Thoughts?
Patrick
-
What is the accepted way to measure printer performance, especially regarding black and white gradations (linearization)?
There must be some objective way to evaluate printers other than just eyeballing an image. Is there a test chart or something like that available?
Thanks,
Patrick
-
Patrick, nobody looks at a print and says, wow that got a 99.5% B&W print rating I must buy it.
Time to reflect on your priorities,
-
What is the accepted way to measure printer performance, especially regarding black and white gradations (linearization)?
There must be some objective way to evaluate printers other than just eyeballing an image. Is there a test chart or something like that available?
Thanks,
Patrick
Keith Cooper has created a very useful test image: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/test-image-for-black-and-white-printing/
Alan
-
Keith Cooper has created a very useful test image: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/test-image-for-black-and-white-printing/
Alan
Thanks Alan,
In fact, that's the site I stumbled upon that led me to ask the question. I printed the test image out on my Canon Pro-1 last night and I actually think it looks pretty good. However, I may need a magnifying glass or loupe to see the graduations better.
Does anyone have any suggestions on what might be a good printers loupe?
Patrick
-
In fact, that's the site on stumbled upon that led me to ask the question. I printed the test image out on my Canon Pro-1 last night and I actually think it looks pretty good. However, I may need a magnifying glass or loupe to see the graduations better.
Does anyone have any suggestions on what might be a good printers loupe?
the best way to test smoothness is so called bull-eye test, you can find it QTR application download archive and in may other places. it shows you linearity problems, loupe is not needed, radial manner helps to see the issues
is you have a scanner, anything that has 1200 dpi or more would be a good match for you as well
no experience on optical lopes, however
-
Read just about any of the printer or paper reviews here on LULA by Mark Segal. He measures test patches, both color and B&W for comparison to known values of his synthetic test image. But as I've said in an earlier post, and a couple others have said, what matters is how they LOOK. Machines might measure differences, but if your eyes can't then aren't they artistically identical?
Brad
-
Read just about any of the printer or paper reviews here on LULA by Mark Segal. He measures test patches, both color and B&W for comparison to known values of his synthetic test image. But as I've said in an earlier post, and a couple others have said, what matters is how they LOOK. Machines might measure differences, but if your eyes can't then aren't they artistically identical?
Brad
Thank you, Brad. I did see, and note, your post above. I've been printing a while, but consider myself a 'newbie' in that I'm completely self taught. I will admit that I'm somewhat intimidated by the level of expertise on these forums, and I'm trying to feel my way around. I agree that how the print looks should be the final arbitrator, but there's always this thing in the back of my head that questions whether or not I'm 'doing it right'. I appreciate the confidence boost!
Patrick
-
the best way to test smoothness is so called bull-eye test, you can find it QTR application download archive and in may other places. it shows you linearity problems, loupe is not needed, radial manner helps to see the issues
is you have a scanner, anything that has 1200 dpi or more would be a good match for you as well
no experience on optical lopes, however
Thanks unesco. I think the many test plots on the Northern Lights website will be sufficient to show me how well my printers are working. I don't have QTR, and probably won't since I'm not using Epson printers. There are a couple of bulls-eye test images available on the Northern Lights website.
Regards,
Patrick
-
Eric at Freestyle was boasting about using a Canon printer with his custom profiles last year at PhotoLA and made me a print of my standard test image. I can honestly say that I shocked when I saw visible printer dots in what should have been smooth highlights and midtones without any magnification. He didn't print using whatever the Canon equivalent if the Epson ABW, so I can't comment on that, but to some degree they are not "about the same". Most people know I am all in on QTR and developed my own tools to improve on the curve creation side of things, but I've done some experiments looking at how K3 compared to K5 and up.
Despite whatever the carbon content of the inks are, the visual influence of the additional gray inks is NOT something to disregard. The prints do look and feel different. Now, are most average viewers going to see that? In some cases, yes, but as artists and printmakers I don't think we should not push for excellence because we discount the ability for people to experience it. We should push for excellence in our work and then educate the people who are interested into becoming real connoisseurs of fine printing.
-
Eric at Freestyle was boasting about using a Canon printer with his custom profiles last year at PhotoLA and made me a print of my standard test image. I can honestly say that I shocked when I saw visible printer dots in what should have been smooth highlights and midtones without any magnification. He didn't print using whatever the Canon equivalent if the Epson ABW, so I can't comment on that, but to some degree they are not "about the same". Most people know I am all in on QTR and developed my own tools to improve on the curve creation side of things, but I've done some experiments looking at how K3 compared to K5 and up.
Despite whatever the carbon content of the inks are, the visual influence of the additional gray inks is NOT something to disregard. The prints do look and feel different. Now, are most average viewers going to see that? In some cases, yes, but as artists and printmakers I don't think we should not push for excellence because we discount the ability for people to experience it. We should push for excellence in our work and then educate the people who are interested into becoming real connoisseurs of fine printing.
Which canon printer was it?
Patrick
-
Pretty sure it was the prograf2000. I remember it being a big (and ugly) 24” job.
-
Pretty sure it was the prograf2000. I remember it being a big (and ugly) 24” job.
Okay...thanks. I know where you are coming from now...
Please don't take offense, but comments like this confuse the h... out of me. Almost every review I've read give the Canon printers an equal to slight advantage over Epson and no where has anyone ever mentioned printer dots in the highlights (that sounds like a very grievous error). I have two Canon printers and I have done a lot of printing with them, and I've never noticed such a thing, but it could be that I just don't know what to look for.
Perhaps there was something wrong with his printer?
Patrick
-
I am getting a bunch of thing together for a post comparing prints made with different printers and methods. I have the one he made for me in a plastic sleeve and will scan it and show what I mean. The dots appeared to be from the dithering of the color inks to make a different gray levels. Like I said, it was with the color driver so I can’t compare to QTR or ABW, but an Epson print with my ICC custom profile adding show the same problem. The printer they used was their demo model so I doubt it would have been unique to that particular one. Eric didn’t seem to have a problem with it but he also has a vested interest in selling Canons. If I thought it was better I’d consider jumping ship.
-
Patrick, nobody looks at a print and says, wow that got a 99.5% B&W print rating I must buy it.
Time to reflect on your priorities,
Sorry, I don't understand your comment. Are you saying its difficult to give objective data for print quality? Or that buying a printer should not be based on how good the prints are?
Just wondering....
Patrick
-
Sorry, I don't understand your comment. Are you saying its difficult to give objective data for print quality? Or that buying a printer should not be based on how good the prints are?
Just wondering....
Patrick
I would say that there are some objective measurements that would indicate that there are no differences between one printer and other—things like reflected density, gray neutrality, etc. However, art and print making isn't based solely on objective measurements. The density and color from each step in the grayscale from an Epson K3 printer might be exactly the same as an Epson 100% Carbon ink printer. But, there is really something richer and deeper in prints made with more dilutions of gray inks—can it be quantified and "measured"? Maybe not with a densitometer, but even normal people can usually see the difference (without being told how many or what inks were used)—they might not be able to articulate what that difference is, but they still see it.
-
I came across this ARTICLE (https://imagescience.com.au/knowledge/achieving-high-quality-black-and-white-inkjet-prints) that has really helped me have a better understanding of some of the nuances and choices available for high quality B&W printing. Thought I'd share it.
Patrick
-
All I know is that I've tried to improve upon Epson's ABW print function and have not been able to. I customized my own ABW ICC profile using QTR and Colormunki. I tried Eric Chan's ABW ICC profiles. I've even mucked around with the Epson driver's color density and tonality sliders. But the canned Epson ABW engine is as good as it gets. And regarding ConeColor piezography, I don't know anyone who uses it locally where I can go see for myself how good it looks, so I've decided to be satisfied with what I have now, which is Epson ABW on Epson EEF.
-
All I know is that I've tried to improve upon Epson's ABW print function and have not been able to. I customized my own ABW ICC profile using QTR and Colormunki. I tried Eric Chan's ABW ICC profiles. I've even mucked around with the Epson driver's color density and tonality sliders. But the canned Epson ABW engine is as good as it gets. And regarding ConeColor piezography, I don't know anyone who uses it locally where I can go see for myself how good it looks, so I've decided to be satisfied with what I have now, which is Epson ABW on Epson EEF.
texshooter,
What were you seeing in your ABW prints that you didn't like? What are you trying to improve on? Color cast, tonality graduations, etc? I'd like to be able to train my eye to recognize these issues.
Thanks,
Patrick
-
texshooter,
What were you seeing in your ABW prints that you didn't like? What are you trying to improve on? Color cast, tonality graduations, etc? I'd like to be able to train my eye to recognize these issues.
Thanks,
Patrick
It's not that I disliked anything about ABW. It's just that when so many people on LULU discuss making custom QTR .icc profiles or .acv gray curves or using specialized inks (and believe me the discussions can get rocket science-y), one gets insecure about li'l ol' ABW on a li'l ol' 3800 printer. I think to myself, What do they see that I'm not seeing. Perhaps I didn't do it right, but did my best to follow the instructions, and the results were, well, mehh. I'd like to see some prints with the specialized inks, though. Maybe there's something actually there to see.
As far as what I tried to improve on. Mostly shadows that are not blocked up, highlights that are not blocked up, blacks that are pure black, grays that have no color cast to them, smooth gradients, etc. I use Keith Cooper's latest B&W test image here. (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/test-image-for-black-and-white-printing/) He outlines some technical qualities of a B&W print that will help you evaluate how well your printing methods are serving you.
-
It's not that I disliked anything about ABW. It's just that when so many people on LULU discuss making custom QTR .icc profiles or .acv gray curves or using specialized inks (and believe me the discussions can get rocket science-y), one gets insecure about li'l ol' ABW on a li'l ol' 3800 printer. I think to myself, What do they see that I'm not seeing. Perhaps I didn't do it right, but did my best to follow the instructions, and the results were, well, mehh. I'd like to see some prints with the specialized inks, though. Maybe there's something actually there to see.
As far as what I tried to improve on. Mostly shadows that are not blocked up, highlights that are not blocked up, blacks that are pure black, grays that have no color cast to them, smooth gradients, etc. I use Keith Cooper's latest B&W test image here. (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/test-image-for-black-and-white-printing/) He outlines some technical qualities of a B&W print that will help you evaluate how well your printing methods are serving you.
texshooter,
Thanks so much for your response. Now I do not feel so befuddled. :-) I printed out one of Keith's test images (the Grayscale Linearization one with the 4 large circles and large bar on the bottom), and after examining it closely I can not for the life of me see anything that is wrong with it. Perhaps the last two blacks are a little too close in tone with no differentiation, but I don't really know how much there should be. Like you, I think I'm mostly just going to live with it as I have no intention of spending several thousands of dollars trying to fix something I can't see. I think I'll focus on my photography and try to make pictures that people find interesting.
Kind Regards,
Patrick
-
But the canned Epson ABW engine is as good as it gets.
Certainly not my experience. But if you like what you're getting and haven't been able to improve on it then that's good. It's a trap to spend all your time seeking a mythical printing golden fleece, rather than taking and printing images. Only do that when there's a specific way in which you want to improve your prints. That said, I can't help but wonder whether your good fortune is paper-specific.
-
Certainly not my experience. But if you like what you're getting and haven't been able to improve on it then that's good. It's a trap to spend all your time seeking a mythical printing golden fleece, rather than taking and printing images. Only do that when there's a specific way in which you want to improve your prints. That said, I can't help but wonder whether your good fortune is paper-specific.
I only use Epson Exhibition Fiber for my B&W printing, so that might mean something.
Although I don't use any ICC profiles in tandem with the Epson ABW driver, I do use one (from Eric Chan) to softproof with. I tried printing with ABW ICC profiles, but could not achieve better results with them than without them. But when I softproof with Chan's ICC, my display does match the printer better. Why the disconnect, I dont know. I suspect it has something to do with silent conversions. When you let PS manage color with the ICC profile at the same time you let the ABW printer driver manage color, something gets short circuited, perhaps. I also know that a single ICC profile actually contains two separate lookup tables: one for softproofing and one for printing. Luckily, the soft proofing table works.
-
I have the same question as the OP, but looking through this thread, didn't see any specific printer recommendations.
Which Printer and Ink-set combination (available new rather than used) is generally considered the best for (i) 24" and (ii) 17"?
Thanks
-
The Epson piezo heads can pump a high viscosity ink than the thermal heads of the others. Thus, the Epson printers allow a wide range of custom and third party inks, with the black and white inks being the most important. (OEM color is usually the best color; not so for B&W.)
There are so many papers, it's hard to say one is objectively superior to others.
I, personally, like matte paper, matted and displayed under acrylic in the traditional manner. That said, most of my recent work has been on canvas or satin paper and not displayed under glass. This is mostly due to the large sizes I've been printing recently. (The un-glazed prints have multiple coats of Print Shield on them for at least some protection.)
One major advantage to matte under glass/acrylic with a traditional over-mat is that you can tape hang it. That is much easier and, in my view better, than trying to dry mount or use adhesives to mount a glossy print. Without professional equipment getting a glossy or satin print to be properly mounted and stay flat can be a problem. Matte under glass is easy for any home printer/photographer to do and have professional looking results.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
I visited you website, Paul. Lovely, inspiring work!
Since re-reading your comment about your Epson piezo print head comment, I decided I needed to understand more fully how the different print heads work, ie piezo, thermal, and 'bubble', so I've spent a couple of evenings reading about the technologies. I think I understand now why it's possible to use different inks with the piezo heads, and not the thermal heads.
Thanks for pointing me to do research in that direction.
Regards,
Patrick
-
Inkjetmall offers sample prints using their Piezography inks on various papers.
So, I just ordered several prints from them on Canson Platine and Canson Rag Photographie. I will then compare those prints to prints from my Canon Pro-1 on the same papers. It should be interesting to see the differences, if any.
Patrick
-
Inkjetmall offers sample prints using their Piezography inks on various papers.
So, I just ordered several prints from them on Canson Platine and Canson Rag Photographie. I will then compare those prints to prints from my Canon Pro-1 on the same papers. It should be interesting to see the differences, if any.
Patrick
you will be surprised, but probably not in the way you are expecting now :-)
-
you will be surprised, but probably not in the way you are expecting now :-)
Hmmm...wonder what that surprise will be? You have piqued my interest. :-)
Patrick
-
Inkjetmall offers sample prints using their Piezography inks on various papers.
So, I just ordered several prints from them on Canson Platine and Canson Rag Photographie. I will then compare those prints to prints from my Canon Pro-1 on the same papers. It should be interesting to see the differences, if any.
Patrick
Great idea. I think I'll do the same. Is this the page you went to to order?
https://cone-editions.com/sample-proofs/ (https://cone-editions.com/sample-proofs/)
Do you know what resolution they need your image to have (e.g., 360ppi or 300ppi)? And does the B&W image for upload need to be in a certain working space (e.g., gray gamma 2.2)?
-
Great idea. I think I'll do the same. Is this the page you went to to order?
https://cone-editions.com/sample-proofs/ (https://cone-editions.com/sample-proofs/)
Do you know what resolution they need your image to have (e.g., 360ppi or 300ppi)? And does the B&W image for upload need to be in a certain working space (e.g., gray gamma 2.2)?
Yes, that's the order page. I sent them a 1.2mb 300 ppi jpeg which they said was just fine for the 8.5x11 sample prints.
Patrick
-
Hmmm...wonder what that surprise will be? You have piqued my interest. :-)
Patrick
Okay...I got the prints back from Cone Editions. I had them printed on my most used papers, Canson Rag Photographie and Platine. Almost all of my color work is on Platine. I truly love that paper. However, for black and white, I'm really loving the purity of smooth matte paper.
I ran comparisons prints of my test image on my Epson 3880 using the ABW mode. I quickly tossed both the Platine versions out as I don't think I want to print BW on Platine. There are just too many reflections in BW for my taste.
I then compared the Piezo and ABW prints on the C Rag Photographie paper. The Piezo prints were indeed nicer, darker blacks and better detail. There was a subtle but undeniable better quality difference. My wife has a good eye and I asked her to pick her favorite, and she also picked the Piezo prints.
Darn....gonna cost me money.
But, after talking about it for awhile, we both agreed that if we weren't comparing the prints side by side, even the ABW prints look very nice. So, at some point I may want to spend $1000 in inks and carts to upgrade, but for now I can't justify it. If my BW work starts to sell and I'm using more ink, that will be one of the first things I'll add to my process. I'm sure it will be worth it.
Patrick
-
So, at some point I may want to spend $1000 in inks and carts to upgrade, but for now I can't justify it.
Hi Patrick,
I think I'm in the same boat as you. I have just purchased an Epson P600 (arrives tomorrow!) for the sole purpose of trying Piezography inks. I'm still a little unsure about upfront costs - I know for sure I need cartridges (~$100) and Ink (~$300). So at least ~$400 in total.
I'm not concerned about the ink expense as whichever method I choose I would need ink (and I believe the Piezography inks are cheaper than Epson). What other additional costs besides ink and refillable cartridges are you aware of?
- Are ICC profiles for printer/paper/ink readily available (and if so from where) or do you need to make or purchase your own? Having used both custom and canned color profiles in the past, I have been satisfied with the canned ones, so if available I would use these initially.
- Anything else needs to be purchased - e.g. Inkjet Mall has 'Piezography Professional Edition Software' at $150 - is this required or helpful?
I know you're new to this too, but it sounds like you've looked into it more than I have been able to do so far, so hoping you know the answer to these!
-
It's not that I disliked anything about ABW. It's just that when so many people on LULU discuss making custom QTR .icc profiles or .acv gray curves or using specialized inks (and believe me the discussions can get rocket science-y), one gets insecure about li'l ol' ABW on a li'l ol' 3800 printer.
What's the old saying "If it ain't broke"? If there's nothing you dislike about the Epson ABW, I'd stick with it as there are some advantages to that mode.
Been to a big photo show where Epson's booth is filled with stunning B&W prints from shooters like Greg Gorman? He and I went down the ImagePrint path a good decade ago, before ABW existed and was the hot ticket for using color and B&W from Epson. But when ABW came out, Greg didn't see anything worthwhile on his output that didn't warrant the switch and to this day, he still prints all his work, in house, using the Epson driver.
Don't be insecure about this; you may be diving into a very deep rabbit hole. ;) [size=78%] [/size]
-
Hi Patrick,
I think I'm in the same boat as you. I have just purchased an Epson P600 (arrives tomorrow!) for the sole purpose of trying Piezography inks. I'm still a little unsure about upfront costs - I know for sure I need cartridges (~$100) and Ink (~$300). So at least ~$400 in total.
I'm not concerned about the ink expense as whichever method I choose I would need ink (and I believe the Piezography inks are cheaper than Epson). What other additional costs besides ink and refillable cartridges are you aware of?
- Are ICC profiles for printer/paper/ink readily available (and if so from where) or do you need to make or purchase your own? Having used both custom and canned color profiles in the past, I have been satisfied with the canned ones, so if available I would use these initially.
- Anything else needs to be purchased - e.g. Inkjet Mall has 'Piezography Professional Edition Software' at $150 - is this required or helpful?
I know you're new to this too, but it sounds like you've looked into it more than I have been able to do so far, so hoping you know the answer to these!
Hi Jasper,
Yes, we're kind of tracking the same groove here. :-)
From the Inkjetmall website:
110ml K7 Inkset (cheapest set)...$448.84
Set of Reusable Ink Carts with syringes...$184.84
PiezoFlush kit with refillable carts...$199.65 (a necessity if you don't print at least weekly)
Total: $833.63.
The 110ml K7 inkset is good for a one-time fill. It makes more sense to me to get the 220ml set which would get me through 2 cart fillings. Those are $678.84. That would be over a grand.
Patrick
-
To use flush to hibernate a printer, you need to flush the ink lines. That's a lot of ink or flush each time that you do it, and you may need to do two to get the ink back fully after having flush in. It's doable but at a cost. That's why I went for a printer with on-head carts which is another set of challenges.
-
Can anyone answer my previously posted questions?
- Are ICC profiles for printer/paper/ink readily available (and if so from where) or do you need to make or purchase your own? Having used both custom and canned color profiles in the past, I have been satisfied with the canned ones, so if available I would use these initially.
- Anything else needs to be purchased - e.g. Inkjet Mall has 'Piezography Professional Edition Software' at $150 - is this required or helpful?
-
Having used both custom and canned color profiles in the past, I have been satisfied with the canned ones, so if available I would use these initially.
Not all ICC profiles, canned profiles are created equally, even from the same company:
Not all ICC profiles are created equally
In this 23 minute video, I'll cover:
The basic anatomy of ICC Profiles
Why there are differences in profile quality and color rendering
How to evaluate an ICC output profile
Examples of good and not so good canned profiles and custom profiles on actual printed output.
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Not_All_Profiles_are_created_equally.mp4 (http://digitaldog.net/files/Not_All_Profiles_are_created_equally.mp4)
Low resolution (YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNdR_tIFMME&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNdR_tIFMME&feature=youtu.be)
-
Not all ICC profiles, canned profiles are created equally, even from the same company
I know not all ICC profiles are created equally, however that wasn't my question. I was asking whether profiles are available for Piezography inks on various printers/papers, and if so from where (e.g. url). It is unclear from your response whether or not they are available or whether I would need to create (or purchase) my own.
-
If you are using Peizography, you will be printing with QTR. QTR uses curves, not ICC profiles. InkjetMall provides curves for their inks and papers.
-
I know not all ICC profiles are created equally, however that wasn't my question. I was asking whether profiles are available for Piezography inks on various printers/papers, and if so from where (e.g. url). It is unclear from your response whether or not they are available or whether I would need to create (or purchase) my own.
If you can make them, using good hardware and software make them! If you can't, and had you viewed the video, you'd see a major printer company providing two groups of ICC profiles, one set very good, one set not so good. That proves that your question cannot be answered without similar specific testing. So the answer as of now is, maybe and it depends. Because not all ICC profiles are created equally.
-
If you can make them, using good hardware and software make them! If you can't, and had you viewed the video, you'd see a major printer company providing two groups of ICC profiles, one set very good, one set not so good. That proves that your question cannot be answered without similar specific testing. So the answer as of now is, maybe and it depends. Because not all ICC profiles are created equally.
Thanks Jeff. Just looked up QTR. Am I right is stating that QTR includes the curve creator SW and I will be able to create my own paper/ink-specific curve using a flatbed scanner, without the need to purchase a densitometer/spectrophotometer? Would be good if I can use the scanner to see if I can get good results without having to purchase the spectrophotometer.
So far my shopping list is therefore (i) Printer (ii) Refillable Cartridges, (iii) Ink, (iv) QTR. Is that it or is anything else needed? Any idea what the purpose of the Inkjet Mall 'Piezography Professional Edition Software' is?
-
I've always had the spectro, and have never looked at doing it any other way. I can't imagine how you might do it but I would ask on the QTR forum on Yahoo groups. I see it as a mandatory piece of equipment. Inks and printers drift over time so you will need to measure and relinearise occasionally. Being a little off is a lot more obvious with B&W than colour.
You can build curves with QTR but I would suggest that you use Richard Boutwell's new curve creation software for K3.
If you are on a Mac, you will need PrintTool which is available on the QTR site.
I haven't looked at the IJM Professional stuff. I have all the tools that I need already.
-
Inks and printers drift over time so you will need to measure and relinearise occasionally.
I've never seen this after more than a decade and a half of measuring output from a lot of them (mostly Epson but you name a produce, I probably have measurement data). I built ICC profiles for Epson for Exhibition Fiber years ago* for the R2400, 4880,7880,9880 and 11880. I output 5000 patch targets to half a dozen printers of the same model with locations printing my targets spreed throughout the US. The average dE of the 5000 patches was never above 0.5! That's extremely tight colorimetric behavior!
Now maybe with the 3rd party inks you guys are discussing, you're seeing ink inconsistency and drifting. Which is why I'd never use em! :D
* http://www.pixelgenius.com/epson/
-
Now maybe with the 3rd party inks you guys are discussing, you're seeing ink inconsistency and drifting. Which is why I'd never use em! :D
* http://www.pixelgenius.com/epson/
Andrew,
It's part of the price that you pay for using 3rd part inks. They tend to settle.
-
Andrew,
It's part of the price that you pay for using 3rd part inks. They tend to settle.
So the inks cost less but you're saying they are less consistent? I'm not auguring that is or isn't the case, I've never nor ever would put 3rd party inks in my printers (most of which, I've never paid for so it's not a warranty/price issue that keeps me away).
What I can and did provide was data on how consistent Epson printers are from unit to unit with a group of differing models. I also have plenty of trending colorimetric data for individual printers too. They don't drift. Again, stating that inks and printers drift over time simply isn't the case with Epson pro printers with their ink. If that's what you see from Epson's using non Epson inks, your comments are interesting but I’d be somewhat careful about lumping the printer hardware into that inconsistency; my measurement data shows the opposite using all Epson inks and hardware/
-
Like you, I have never used anything other than Epson inks for colour. What I was referring to was the use of 3rd party black insets, specifically Cone Piezography inks. On the subject of drift, I can not say categorically what causes it but I can say that linearity drifts over time. It may be the ink, the paper, the printer, humidity, temperature or whatever combination of them but linearity does shift. I measure with an i1Pro2 on an i1io2 in 2 pass spot mode on a 21x4 target, and then map it in Excel. It may not be much but I'm sufficiently anal to like straight line linearity.
-
Like you, I have never used anything other than Epson inks for colour. What I was referring to was the use of 3rd party black insets, specifically Cone Piezography inks. On the subject of drift, I can not say categorically what causes it but I can say that linearity drifts over time. It may be the ink, the paper, the printer, humidity, temperature or whatever combination of them but linearity does shift.
Well based on my work with a lot of printers, and specifically with Epson's, gotta be the 3rd party ink! When I built the profiles for Epson, humidity, temperature or whatever combination differed by design. Of course, same paper, same ink set. Very, very consistent between devices of the same model. And, since ICC Profiles, unlike cheese doesn't age or change, if using the same combo, there should be minimal drift and it should be visually insignificant. At least based on the sample, small is it may be, that I evaluated in order to build those profiles.
-
... Well based on my work with a lot of printers, and specifically with Epson's...
I'm curious Andrew, if you have data from three or more different Epsons and / Canons of the same model using the same media as to how they were calibrated when you measured them. Were they the same? L* medium gray for example. These measurements might be a good start when considering a printer for B&W.
-
I'm curious Andrew, if you have data from three or more different Epsons and / Canons of the same model using the same media as to how they were calibrated when you measured them. Were they the same? L* medium gray for example. These measurements might be a good start when considering a printer for B&W.
There's nothing to calibrate in terms of the series of printers from Epson who's profiles I built. All calibrated at factory, all brand spanking new. As for Lstar, for medium gray (with 5000 patches, I suspect one is close), again, the average dE over 5K patches was less than 0.5. I can try to dug up the measurement data and get a dE of as close to that value as I can find and compare two or three printers measurement values. But I suspect they will be invisible.
-
I quickly dug up one report for the 2880, you can see the max 10% dE is 1.14 and the old MeasureTool shows, if you look closely that the one worst patch, outlined in red is in the middle row or patches on the very far left. 10% of the worst are outlined in yellow. You seen the group of neutrals in the lower right corner only show three. I'd have to load up this software on an older Mac to hover those three neutrals to provide a dE of each but again, with the entire 10% of the worst patches being a mere 1.14, I'm going to suspect the grays outlined are pretty small.
-
...I'm sufficiently anal to like straight line linearity.
Hello Jeff,
When you arrive at a straight line, do you consider the tone to be absolutely neutral (true gray, possibly boring) or a rather a particular tone reminiscent of another era or flavor of B&W fiber paper?
-
I quickly dug up one report for the 2880, you can see the max 10% dE is 1.14...
So what is the time frame between these two measurement samples?
-
So what is the time frame between these two measurement samples?
At least several days as they were sent to me from around the US.
Oh and you guys can forget linearity IF you're using the Epson driver. Better than it was in the Epson 1200 days but not close to linear behavior. Despite many of us trying to convince Epson Japan otherwise and decades ago.
-
Oh and you guys can forget linearity IF you're using the Epson driver.
How about when using Epson's AWB option?
-
How about when using Epson's AWB option?
To be honest, I have no idea as I haven't measured anything out of Advanced B&W. It's not part of the print path for creating color profiles. I'd be pretty surprised IF it was linear or close to linear while printing color isn't. I'm under the impression it's more linear but close doesn't count does it? ;D And then there are differing gamma settings one can select there, again, under the hood, not sure how that affects linearly. But in color, you want linear output, you're not getting it with the Epson driver. I can ping someone at Epson who can give an honest answer, measure something, or perhaps Schewe knows and can speak of Advanced B&W.
-
Thanks Jeff. Just looked up QTR. Am I right is stating that QTR includes the curve creator SW and I will be able to create my own paper/ink-specific curve using a flatbed scanner, without the need to purchase a densitometer/spectrophotometer? Would be good if I can use the scanner to see if I can get good results without having to purchase the spectrophotometer.
I think some points of clarification are needed in this thread (and to get it back on topic):
Piezography inks (from InkjetMall) and QTR (from Roy Harrington) are separate products from different providers. If you implement a Piezography B&W system you will get your inks and curves from InkjetMall and you will use QTR as the print application (at least for now).
Regarding the curves (not ICCs) which are used with QTR to control how ink is laid down on the paper from each channel:
QTR does provide curves and curve creation tools for non-Piezography users who want to print with either OEM inks (e.g. K, LK, LLK) or other 3rd-party inks in their printers. These curves and tools are NOT used with Piezography.
InkjetMall/Piezography provides the curves if you plan to use Piezography inks with QTR. These curves are provided as part of the "Piezography Community Edition" download on their website here (https://piezography.com/).
You have the option of purchasing an additional product from InkjetMall called the "Piezography Professional Edition" (PPE) which is a collection of tools and documentation which allows you to go more advanced with the curves, including full linearization to your specific printer and to make curves for papers which are not included in Piezography's "supported papers" list. PPE requires a spectro if you want to get the full benefit of the tools.
If you are considering Piezography, the place to start is to download the Piezography Community Edition (link above) and READ THE MANUAL. While the Piezography system definitely has the capacity to produce exceptional B&W prints, it is NOT plug and play like ABW and requires some investment in learning about the inks, the QTR software, and how to properly convert and manage your Epson printer for Piezography.
-
Hello Jeff,
When you arrive at a straight line, do you consider the tone to be absolutely neutral (true gray, possibly boring) or a rather a particular tone reminiscent of another era or flavor of B&W fiber paper?
Hello Stephen,
Linearity is only measured on the L channel. All you are doing is getting a consistent change in luminosity from one patch to the next. Here's a measurement in Excel showing ideal and actual.
-
How about when using Epson's AWB option?
More info than you could possibly want on ABW: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104907.0
-
You have the option of purchasing an additional product from InkjetMall called the "Piezography Professional Edition" (PPE) which is a collection of tools and documentation which allows you to go more advanced with the curves, including full linearization to your specific printer and to make curves for papers which are not included in Piezography's "supported papers" list. PPE requires a spectro if you want to get the full benefit of the tools.
I've been reading other information on other threads and sites. Sounds like there are a number of different tools and methods available to create ones own curves (which I want to be able to do). With regards to 'measuring devices' I have seen tutorials for two options: (i) using high-quality scanner and (ii) using spectro.
The scanner method requires a reflective target (Q-13). Has anyone used this method and compared with 'higher quality' methods? Does it produce a good profile (where a real print made with this method would compare favorably with one made from a spectro-curve)?
For the spectro method, would a SpyderPrint produce a good profile? Or is it necessary to spend the extra $ on an eye1 (which I would rather not do unless Spyder is unacceptable)?
-
I’ve been following this, it have been too busy to respond. Ive been making a lot of ABW QTR and Dedicated black and white tests but haven’t written up the results yet.
The scanner method is actually pretty good with the qtr stelwedge tool. It is limited to 21 steps so you might be a little constrained in what you can do. The Spyder is not a great device but it will get you by. If you want to do a lot of papers you’re going to want something that measures in scan mode and not have to push the button for each sample. A used i1 pro 1 is the best option there
About needing the PPE tools: unless you are planning on getting the PiezoPro inks, you might want to take a look at my tools instead (the PPE tools has something different for blending the toning curves that I don’t get into), but for editing and linearizing QTR curves, I think my tools are a good alternative (in not better in some ways).
Here’s a link: https://www.bwmastery.com/quadtoneprofiler/
The QuadLin tools will do everything the PPE does without the QTR-linearize-quad runaround and it allows you to make those kinds of advabced curves in 1 step rather than 2. My system also a little more affordable and not a yearly license (and you get a year of free support and upgrades). My QuadToneProfiler-Pro tools will even do more like allow you to make your own master curves for different kinds of ink sets if you ever want to go that route too.
-
Richard, I'm quite interested in your tool but am not an Excel user. Any chance of a version that works with Libre Office Calc?
Thanks!
guido
-
No, the open office suite doesn’t allow for the kinds of custom fucntions and interface stuff I built. I am working on a native macOS app that will replace the excel for Mac version though. That is still some time from being released though.
-
GETTING THIS THREAD BACK ON TOPIC!
I'm still asking the question: Which Printer for Black and White?
Right now the two choices are betweem Epson using ABW and Canon's BW mode.
From what I've been reading the New Epson printers using Ultrachrome HD k3 inks may produce better BW prints than the older Ultrachrome K3 inks. Also, Canon has come out with their new P1000 with Lucia Pro inks. They claim
"Deep Blacks
Detailed Graduations
With 11-color inks, including a newly formulated blue and magenta, plus the Chroma Optimizer ink, produce superior printouts on which dark blue areas are clearly defined to express your printed photography with the power of nuance.
Achieve a wider color gamut and richer details in darker shadowed areas for the finest details in nightscapes and sunsets. Also change media types from glossy to fine art paper seamlessly with a dedicated nozzle for Matte Black and Photo Black."
That sounds impressive, but is it true? Should I upgrade to a Canon Pro-1000 or an Epson P800? For this discussion, I'm not interested in QuadTone or other forms of torture...just the best that BW prints that can be had as is.
:-)
Thanks kindly,
Patrick
Patrick
-
GETTING THIS THREAD BACK ON TOPIC!
I'm still asking the question: Which Printer for Black and White?
Should I upgrade to a Canon Pro-1000 or an Epson P800? For this discussion, I'm not interested in QuadTone or other forms of torture...just the best that BW prints that can be had as is.
P800, so you can still have the option of using QTR when you discover the color driver and ABW doesn't do it for you.
-
P800, so you can still have the option of using QTR when you discover the color driver and ABW doesn't do it for you.
Or when it works splendidly as it does for so many of us! ::)
-
P800, so you can still have the option of using QTR when you discover the color driver and ABW doesn't do it for you.
When I said QTR was torture, I really meant it. :-) I've been attempting to learn it for the past two weeks and I think I'm finally giving up. I've yet to find a beginners guide to using it, even a simple overview of the process is lacking. The learning curve is too steep for me. I listened to your youtube article and everything you do is for the experienced printer....you may not realize how many rabbit trails you created I've had to track down. The "user guide" with QTR causes more questions than it answers and there are far too many steps required to calibrate the printer and papers.
I've literally printed several dozens of test prints, including using QTR with their standard neut on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag and the ABW print came out far better and more neutral.
I will not be using QTR, so I will not be choosing the Epson based solely on the possibility of using it. If the Epson P800 can produce better black and white prints with ABW then fine. However, from everything I'm reading the Canon Pro-1000 seems to be winning that battle.
Patrick
-
When I said QTR was torture, I really meant it. :-) I've been attempting to learn it for the past two weeks and I think I'm finally giving up. I've yet to find a beginners guide to using it, even a simple overview of the process is lacking. The learning curve is too steep for me. I listened to your youtube article and everything you do is for the experienced printer....you may not realize how many rabbit trails you created I've had to track down. The "user guide" with QTR causes more questions than it answers and there are far too many steps required to calibrate the printer and papers.
I've literally printed several dozens of test prints, including using QTR with their standard neut on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag and the ABW print came out far better and more neutral.
I will not be using QTR, so I will not be choosing the Epson based solely on the possibility of using it. If the Epson P800 can produce better black and white prints with ABW then fine. However, from everything I'm reading the Canon Pro-1000 seems to be winning that battle.
Patrick
Having said all that, on the previous generation of printers (of which I have both, Canon and Epson (Pro-1 and 3880)), in my test prints, the Epson came out a little bit better using ABW vs BW modes...just a touch more detail in the shadows and highlights.
Patrick
-
When I said QTR was torture, I really meant it. :-) I've been attempting to learn it for the past two weeks and I think I'm finally giving up. I've yet to find a beginners guide to using it, even a simple overview of the process is lacking. The learning curve is too steep for me. I listened to your youtube article and everything you do is for the experienced printer....you may not realize how many rabbit trails you created I've had to track down. The "user guide" with QTR causes more questions than it answers and there are far too many steps required to calibrate the printer and papers.
<snip>
Patrick
Amen! This echoes my exploration of QTR. From a wet darkroom photographer decades ago, I have just bought a reasonably serious printer, a P600 (in hindsight a P800 would have been better due to access to more roll papers and larger print options). I selected the P600 (P800) on the basis of better black and white, but this was from reading lots of (often opinionated) reviews rather than hands-on trials.
I think that there is a lot for me to learn in terms of nailing exposure (my main camera is a Canon 5DsR that has less exposure latitude than some Sonys and Nikon, but more than its web reputation), post-processing, playing with ABW options and paper selection before move to something as complex as QTR. I have not mentioned "subject", 'composition" and "timing" - those plus good ABW printing will sell prints or at least give me artistic satisfaction. I suspect it is geeks like us in this forum who look at the last few percent.
Frankly I would rather spend the time behind the camera than in front of a computer.
-
I have not mentioned "subject", 'composition" and "timing" - those plus good ABW printing will sell prints or at least give me artistic satisfaction. I suspect it is geeks like us in this forum who look at the last few percent.
Frankly I would rather spend the time behind the camera than in front of a computer.
Yes, I agree. Most people would be extremely hard pressed to see the difference.
Once again...this thread has gone off track... :-(
Patrick
-
I was in the same boat as you - I wanted new printer solely for B+W. My previous printer was a HP Z3100 and the B+W prints from that were fine. I wasn't totally impressed with shadow detailed, but overall they were pretty good quality. Unfortunately it died!
I read quite a bit on the new line of printers, given well over ten years had passed since I purchased the Z3100. Initially I was going to go with another 24", but I wanted the option to go with a dedicated B+W printer, which basically narrowed it down to Epson. As the larger Epson P's are not yet supported for Piezo and the P800 can not convert to Piezo without purchasing an electronics board for it, I decided to go for the P600, which will convert easily. At a later date, I will get either a 17" or 24". I now have that printer and given that you HAVE to first install the standard Epson inkset (even if you ultimately want Piezo) I have decided I'll first of all try Epson ABW. If I feel that is lacking then I will change it over to Piezo.
If you have limited your options to P800 or Pro-1000 then from what I have read they are very close in terms of 'quality' of output (BW or color). So if I was you, I would buy the Epson and (like the previous poster recommended) you then have the option of QTR, Piezo or other third party inks at a later date if you are in any way dissatisfied.
-
Yes, I agree. Most people would be extremely hard pressed to see the difference.
Once again...this thread has gone off track... :-(
Patrick
If you want to make cracker jack digital black & white prints you have to pay your dues so to speak just like people had to in the traditional darkroom.
Why would you own an Epson 3880 for 3 years without using it? That tells me you want a low effort turn-key system that produces excellent results with little or no effort on your part. Well it ain't gonna happen.
The Epson ABW system can make excellent prints with the proper profiles like Eric Chan used to produce for the 3800 and 3880 or perhaps ones produced in house in your own studio. Seems like you would have known this already.
Using non oem B&W inks can produce even better results if you are willing to dedicate a printer to it. You can pickup a used Epson X8XX for a song and convert those into dedicated printers for much less money and operating costs than a new printer. I would advice you to steer away from Michigan Ink Supply, aka www.inksupply.com, as their service seems to have hit the skids in the past few years. Cone inks are quality products if you want to look there.
-
If you opt for an Epson printer with ABW option you can still use the QTR scripting tool to create ICC compatible profiles that will improve the use of the ABW print driver. All this requires is a capable spectro and either an i1 Pro or ColorMunki will work here and the QTR scripting tool. All that needs to be done is print out a B/W stepwedge (21 or 51 depending on what kind of granularity you want); read the patches and plop them into scripting tool. Keith Cooper has a very good write up of the process and it's very straight forward: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/black-and-white-print-linearisation-with-i1profiler-and-qtr/ . You will get improved performance from the ABW driver.
-
If you want to make cracker jack digital black & white prints you have to pay your dues so to speak just like people had to in the traditional darkroom.
Why would you own an Epson 3880 for 3 years without using it? That tells me you want a low effort turn-key system that produces excellent results with little or no effort on your part. Well it ain't gonna happen.
The Epson ABW system can make excellent prints with the proper profiles like Eric Chan used to produce for the 3800 and 3880 or perhaps ones produced in house in your own studio. Seems like you would have known this already.
Using non oem B&W inks can produce even better results if you are willing to dedicate a printer to it. You can pickup a used Epson X8XX for a song and convert those into dedicated printers for much less money and operating costs than a new printer. I would advice you to steer away from Michigan Ink Supply, aka www.inksupply.com, as their service seems to have hit the skids in the past few years. Cone inks are quality products if you want to look there.
I really don't know what to say to your comments. I've spent a great deal of time developing my color photography and printing skills. This year I decided to turn to black and white photography and printing, and so I am in the learning curve. As an artist, developing one's own techniques, style, and process is one of the most important aspects of their craft. In the end there are really only a very few people I need to please with my work...myself...my wife, and my God. So, if I choose not to use a certain technique, or to use a different technique then the 'accepted' one, so be it.
Regarding not using the Epson printer for several years, I used it exclusively for the first year I had it, but then I received a free printer (the Canon Pro-1) from B H Photo during a promotional when I bought some other photography gear. After using both for a while, I determined that I preferred the images I was getting from Canon Pro-1 over the 3880. I later bought a large format Canon iPF6450 printer for my larger work and the 3880 fell into complete disuse.
BTW, I'm happy to report that after sitting idle for well over a year, the 3880 is back up and running with no problems. It took a few cleanings and some usage, but it seems to be working fine now.
My main interest is in expressing myself through photography, not in how much dmax my photographs exhibit (not that I don't care about that because I do to an extent, but only as a creative expression). Because of that, I'm not adverse to letting the printer manufacturer provide me with equipment and hardware that are capable of producing excellent quality prints without me tinkering with their equipment. For goodness sakes, they have a whole legion of engineers, designers, and suppliers working on that process. Why can't I focus on what I want to focus on without having to fuss with that part of the process? (And that's not to say I don't fuss over it somewhat, because there is a geek part of me that does that anyway.)
Enough said. What I really want to know is whether the latest model printers, the Pro-1000's and P800's produce better prints than the previous Pro-1's and 3880's. The reason I'm asking here is because I don't want to go out and buy my own printer to find out. I've already spent enough money on this hobby.
Thank you.
Patrick
-
If you opt for an Epson printer with ABW option you can still use the QTR scripting tool to create ICC compatible profiles that will improve the use of the ABW print driver. All this requires is a capable spectro and either an i1 Pro or ColorMunki will work here and the QTR scripting tool. All that needs to be done is print out a B/W stepwedge (21 or 51 depending on what kind of granularity you want); read the patches and plop them into scripting tool. Keith Cooper has a very good write up of the process and it's very straight forward: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/black-and-white-print-linearisation-with-i1profiler-and-qtr/ . You will get improved performance from the ABW driver.
Thank you, Alan. Your comments are much appreciated. I've read a number of Keith's articles, but I don't think I've seen that one. I'll take a look at it.
Patrick
-
Thank you, Alan. Your comments are much appreciated. I've read a number of Keith's articles, but I don't think I've seen that one. I'll take a look at it.
Patrick
The link I posted was the most recent and there are several older ones that are linked in that article. Please note that the approach to using ABW 'profiles' only works with WinOS. Several years ago Apple changed their OS so that this approach no longer works. It was at this time that Eric Chan stopped making ABW profiles for customers. The advantage to this system is that you can softproof images prior to printing.
-
The link I posted was the most recent and there are several older ones that are linked in that article. Please note that the approach to using ABW 'profiles' only works with WinOS. Several years ago Apple changed their OS so that this approach no longer works. It was at this time that Eric Chan stopped making ABW profiles for customers. The advantage to this system is that you can softproof images prior to printing.
I'm using Windows 7, so no problem there. Softproofing would be a help. Two issues I saw with Keith's article (which was written in 2012, btw) is that he was using a i1Profiler and I'm not sure they are still available (at least I cannot find one anywhere...all the spectro's I could find were between $1500 to $4000, well outside my budget). The other thing is that the article does not mention the ColorMunki and only gives the procedure for the i1Profiler. So, I would need to figure out how to adapt the ColorMunki to the process, if it's even possible. I'll be honest...this is not the kind of stuff I want to invest my time in, and that's the point of my post above. Some people enjoy figuring this kind of stuff out. At 66 yo, I just want the stuff to work. :-)
As I'm thinking about it, I think the real issue is that I don't have a spectrometer / densitometer, other than the ColorMunki. Most of the QTR/calibration procedures I've seen require one at some point in time, but those are not in the budget. That means I need to do the best I can without one or use what I have. Any more money I invest in this hobby/business has to be used a lot...not used once and thrown into a corner.
The other issue I'm seeing is that I'm not using a Mac for printing, and I have no plans of implementing one into my process. If I did, then I could use QTR with Print-Tool, etc. for instance. I'm coming to realize that if you're not using a Mac and Epson in this arena, you're screwed. So, I need to look for other alternatives, and perhaps be satisfied with what I can get outside of that step.
Regarding the spectro, I'm just not sure if gaining 2-3% of dmax is worth the investment, especially if I can gain that ground by going to a new, next generation printer.
And that's the question I keep asking...
Regards,
Patrick
-
I'll be honest...this is not the kind of stuff I want to invest my time in, and that's the point of my post above. Some people enjoy figuring this kind of stuff out. At 66 yo, I just want the stuff to work. :-)
At this point I honestly don't think it matters what printer you actually get, and I don't know why you bother to keep asking the same question. People who do this stuff pretty seriously have given you all the information you need, but if you aren't willing to put the extra effort to take advantage of whatever slight differences there are between the two then it really doesn't matter what you get.
-
At this point I honestly don't think it matters what printer you actually get, and I don't know why you bother to keep asking the same question. People who do this stuff pretty seriously have given you all the information you need, but if you aren't willing to put the extra effort to take advantage of whatever slight differences there are between the two then it really doesn't matter what you get.
Thanks for your insight Richard...I appreciate all the info you and others have shared on this thread. You have tried to steer me in a direction that I'm not unwilling to try, but probably unable to do for various reasons at this time.
Patrick
-
I'm using Windows 7, so no problem there. Softproofing would be a help. Two issues I saw with Keith's article (which was written in 2012, btw) is that he was using a i1Profiler and I'm not sure they are still available (at least I cannot find one anywhere...all the spectro's I could find were between $1500 to $4000, well outside my budget). The other thing is that the article does not mention the ColorMunki and only gives the procedure for the i1Profiler. So, I would need to figure out how to adapt the ColorMunki to the process, if it's even possible. I'll be honest...this is not the kind of stuff I want to invest my time in, and that's the point of my post above. Some people enjoy figuring this kind of stuff out. At 66 yo, I just want the stuff to work. :-)
Yes, you can use a ColorMunki. I use ArgyllCMS, which is free software, for doing all my profiling and it supports the ColorMunki. http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/better-black-and-white-profiling-with-the-colormunki/ is the link to the ColorMunki use. You are correct that this does involve a learning curve but it's not all that difficult once you have a way to read the B/W patch set. Mark Segal has reviewed a number of the new printers here on LuLa and has printed out B/W images without any special software implementations. In the end it's up to you and potential viewers as to what looks best.
-
Yes, you can use a ColorMunki. I use ArgyllCMS, which is free software, for doing all my profiling and it supports the ColorMunki. http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/better-black-and-white-profiling-with-the-colormunki/ is the link to the ColorMunki use. You are correct that this does involve a learning curve but it's not all that difficult once you have a way to read the B/W patch set. Mark Segal has reviewed a number of the new printers here on LuLa and has printed out B/W images without any special software implementations. In the end it's up to you and potential viewers as to what looks best.
Thanks again, Alan. I am very grateful to you. I will give that a try when I have a chance.
Patrick
-
As I'm thinking about it, I think the real issue is that I don't have a spectrometer / densitometer, other than the ColorMunki. Most of the QTR/calibration procedures I've seen require one at some point in time, but those are not in the budget. That means I need to do the best I can without one or use what I have. Any more money I invest in this hobby/business has to be used a lot...not used once and thrown into a corner.
The other issue I'm seeing is that I'm not using a Mac for printing, and I have no plans of implementing one into my process. If I did, then I could use QTR with Print-Tool, etc. for instance. I'm coming to realize that if you're not using a Mac and Epson in this arena, you're screwed. So, I need to look for other alternatives, and perhaps be satisfied with what I can get outside of that step.
Regarding the spectro, I'm just not sure if gaining 2-3% of dmax is worth the investment, especially if I can gain that ground by going to a new, next generation printer.
And that's the question I keep asking...
Regards,
Patrick
You don't need a Mac if you want to use QTR. And since you own a 3880 you can use QTR with Windows 7 which is what I do. You don't need to purchase a spectro if you have a flat bed scanner. And you don't need to use QTR if you utilize the ABW driver with the Epson 3880. Cone sells new enhanced black inks which you could use to get increased DMAX similar to what you have available on the new Epson printers.
Eric Chan's website should be on your list to investigate ABW printing and you can download free ICC profiles use with the ABW printer.
Richards Boutwell is a worth while investment. Photography and inkjet printing have always been financial black holes. Paul Roark's work may appeal to you more since he makes his work available for naught. But Richard's products aren't expensive, IMO.
-
Regarding the need for a spectro, be sure to check out QTR's "Step Wedge tool" -- http://www.quadtonerip.com/html/QTRdownload.html
A spectro is a very nice tool to have, but it occurred to me some years ago that most of us have scanners. So, I wondered, could they be used with a standard, commercial step wedge to calibrate our profiles? I came up with a rather crude procedure, and then Roy Harrington (QTR) refined and automated it in this software program.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Regarding the need for a spectro, be sure to check out QTR's "Step Wedge tool" -- http://www.quadtonerip.com/html/QTRdownload.html
A spectro is a very nice tool to have, but it occurred to me some years ago that most of us have scanners. So, I wondered, could they be used with a standard, commercial step wedge to calibrate our profiles? I came up with a rather crude procedure, and then Roy Harrington (QTR) refined and automated it in this software program.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
Paul - I just had a question for you regarding the use of this tool ...
During the initial run of the tool (on the calibrated target), the script asks for the "white", "middle gray" and "black" steps along with their LAB values. The target I have only identifies the density of each patch - i.e. I know the density values of these are 0.08. 0.75 and 2.04 respectively. How do I convert these values to LAB for entry into the tool?
Thanks!
-
Paul - I just had a question for you regarding the use of this tool ...
During the initial run of the tool (on the calibrated target), the script asks for the "white", "middle gray" and "black" steps along with their LAB values. The target I have only identifies the density of each patch - i.e. I know the density values of these are 0.08. 0.75 and 2.04 respectively. How do I convert these values to LAB for entry into the tool?
Thanks!
Sorry I missed this when it was relevant, but for those searching and finding this thread down the road, here is my response.
There are converters online.
On my Kodak Color Separation Guide ... (small) CAT 152 7654 I have notes as follows that may help: A = Lab L 95.5, M = 48.3, B = 16.1, 19 = 9.5. Read on a black desk the values (according to my note) are A = 94.6, M = 47.9, (no notes regarding B), 19 = 10.5.
It's been too long ago that I used this to say much more.
FWIW
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com