Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!  (Read 7134 times)

cengell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« on: October 18, 2016, 10:12:30 PM »

Hello all, I wanted to let others know that Jon cone has his new Piezography-Pro inks, and now I will be able to print at 3 different tones for Warm or Cool or Warm each for Shadow or Highlights or Midtones, so I ordered for my Epson 3800/3880 and looking forward doing a review soon if anyone is interested?

http://shop.inkjetmall.com/Shop-By-Ink/Piezography-Pro/

Christopher
« Last Edit: October 19, 2016, 12:24:16 AM by cengell »
Logged

aaronchan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 473
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2016, 03:32:57 AM »

The Piezography Pro ink is the best solution for B&W printers.
I have personally seen the print out last week while I was having a meeting with Jon and Walker.
They actually told me actually I was the very first one who had seen the result.
The capability of having warm, neutral and cool tone the same time is amazing.
The black, it's something you have never seen before. I had been printing with all 3 major OEM inks and some old piezography ink and have never seen a black that feels like it sucks in all the light.
But, you can still see the details of it instead of just a mush of black ink.
The new Gloss optimizer allows you to print everything in one pass, instead of what we used to do.
Which create a very good looking of having a unified glossiness on the paper.

I'm considering to acquire a used 7900/9900, setup with this ink and for my personal use.

I can say, this is the best B&W result on the market right now.

Aaron

unesco

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2016, 09:09:09 AM »

I was very happy when I first read about Piezography Pro inks however, after deeper analysis of description I have some doubts (please shed some light if you have additional info).

For a decade Jon Cone tried to convince (often successful) that 7 shades of gray are better than Epson's 3 shades because 7>3 + all consequences coming from that fact as well as because Piezography is carbon (BTW, Epson's grays are also carbon as far as I know). Those additional shades give us more tonal resolution in both dark and light tones. There is no metamerism because of neutral nature of the inks.

Now, Pro series is going to nearly cancel above mentioned advantages. I am just wondering if it is going to be a better approach for monochrome printing than K7 or just another line offered in parallel to current series.

From all the marketing noise I have read, it looks like, Pro is going to be the best solution ever made. But it only has 4 shades and 4<7 (as for my 3880) and additionally two tints what might have some consequences, e.g. visible metamerism, especially when neutral print is a target.

Definitely, gloss layer put in a single pass will be a serious advantage over K7. The same for the workflow software (but now one has to pay 150$ per year for this ~SaaS), multiple toning is also advantage. All I am thinking about now is if the final quality is going to be better than K7 (even deeper black is not convincing for me since the visible difference between L*=3 vs L*=2 is negligible)?

I am also wondering how much inks make the show compared to RIP approach. To be honest, I was able to make nearly comparable prints using QTR and Epson K3 inks. Now, substituting my 3880 with P800 also matt becomes amazing with QTR. many people report that e.g. ImagePrint B&W prints with Epson OEM inks are of the highest B&W standards.
Furthermore, I have printed last week some matt landscapes using ABW and P800 + Hot Press papers and I am surprised with quality (although I hated ABW in 3880).

Of course, I really appreciate Piezography outcomes and I am wondering to convert my 3880 to K7 Selenium line but just have some doubts about motivation behind marketing noise and wonder if Pro is really worth compared to K7 as well as to QTR with OEM ink (what about Canon Pro-1000 with native gloss optimiser). Any help appreciated.
Logged

Paul Roark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 283
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2016, 12:06:56 PM »

You might enjoy comparing the http://piezography.com/ image showing their new (what I call "variable tone") inkset to where MIS Associates (www.inksupply.com) was a decade ago -- https://www.inksupply.com/bwpage.cfm .  The "variable tone" B&W inkset approach is one that works very well.

I'm a big fan of carbon based, dedicated B&W inksets in general.  To my knowledge, none of the OEM inksets have 100% carbon gray inks.  They are blends or carbon with some color to make them more neutral.  Some, possible all, are very good, but once you add color pigs to carbon, the lightfastness and color stability goes down.  "Carbon is king" (to steal an old phrase) when it comes to lightfastness and lack of color artifacts, but it is also warm -- thus the need to add some color for a neutral print.

Particularly if one is familiar with QTR, the "variable tone" approach is very easy and flexible, and with some inks (like the MK carbons diluted with the generic dilution base) can lower ink costs by two orders of magnitude compared to the small cart, desktop OEM prices. 

I started the "variable tone" inkset pursuit with the original Piezo B&W setup.  I added a light blue (cyan + magenta) toner to pull the warm inkset cooler. 

I started with a single, separate light blue toner, then tried a number of inksets with the color pigments blended into just some of the carbon inks, and now I'm back to using just a single position for the light blue toner.  There are arguments on all sides of all the various approaches.  It comes down to what works best for you.

See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Color-Toner-Approach-for-Carbon-Variable-Tone-inksets.pdf for an explanation of my current toner approach.  It turns out that the same toner mix would work for both matte and glossy carbons.  So, there can be a rather "universal" toner for carbon inksets (and MIS has picked up on that). 

Note that if I want to print only matte paper, I won't use a glossy compatible inkset because the same coatings/binders that stick the pigments to the slick glossy paper also stick them to the heads.  On the other hand, as long as a printer is used every week, clogging is not an issue with any modern inkset I've used.  When I'm gone for a couple of weeks, however, I do notice the difference.  The matte only (generic base) inks are way more likely to give a perfect nozzle check upon returning.

Although I started with Pieizo inks, I soon began to to buy MIS carbons and experiment with lots of different approaches over the years.  MIS would pick up some of my formulations, which I published as open source inkset mixes (with profiles for the papers I was interested in).  Some of these were similar to Jon's new inkset, including the one MIS marketed as "UT14," aimed at the Epson 1400.  I have not used it since soon after the 1400 family was introduced, but it has had a good following -- that is, lots of people found the approach worked well for them and continued to use it over the years.

After using many approaches to "variable tone" B&W, I'm back to my original approach -- all carbon except for a single light blue toner.  This keeps all the print tones using all the ink positions, unless one is printing 100% carbon warm.  Then there is no toner.  The approach is also very Epson driver compatible, which allows printers that are not supported by QTR to use them.  With the toner in the yellow position, the Photoshop curves can control it (though QTR is always what I recommend if the printer has support).  An ICC "color managed" (Lab L only) workflow is very feasible with the approaches I use, however.  The single toner approach is simple and works for me.

The open source approach I use is not for everyone.  Piezo is going to have a much more turnkey system.  I do not work for MIS/inksupply.com (including no royalties, etc.) and do not make profiles for vast numbers of papers for all of the printers for which this approach works.  I simply publish/document what I do in PDFs.  My B&W pages -- http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/ and many non-linked PDFs -- are, in effect, my cloud storage of what I do.  I need and use Google searches to even find my own information.  It's simply a resource for open source types, not, from my perspective, a commercial venture.  I have allowed MIS to use my name on one of their pages if and only if they include there only the inputs I use, or, with the latest MIS light blue toner, have tested and found to be plug-compatible with the Canon-based blue toner I use. 

(I use the Canon Cyan and Blue pigments with either the generic base [c6b as described in http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf] or the glossy base that MIS markets as its "amber" base.  The Canon OEM color pigments give me the most lightfast solution I've found.  The issue with neutralized carbon prints is that the color pigments fade differentially, usually causing a tone shift toward the cyan -- over many years of display.  As a practical matter, the third party color toners are stable enough for the vast majority of uses.)

Once the OEMs came out with the K3 inksets, life for the third party B&W companies became, from what I can see, more difficult.  I hope we B&W types will always have two independent competitors/suppliers to push the envelope and keep the B&W market competitive.  While what I use is carried by MIS (I actually buy from STS, their main wholesale supplier), when it comes to things that affect the health of the dedicated B&W market, I'm a fan of both companies.  B&W has always been a niche where the enthusiast could and can still experiment with unique and different approaches.  These independent B&W carbon ink suppliers help keep that true.

Good luck to the Piezo group with their new inkset.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
Logged

Ferp

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2016, 07:42:03 PM »

Unesco's questions about 3 vs 4 (or 5) vs 7 (or 6) are valid.  I take it that Aaron only saw prints created by IJM rather being able to print his own images. We won't have answers until regular users report their own experiences in their own printers with their own images.  We need a volunteer.
Logged

aaronchan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 473
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2016, 04:51:02 AM »

Unesco's questions about 3 vs 4 (or 5) vs 7 (or 6) are valid.  I take it that Aaron only saw prints created by IJM rather being able to print his own images. We won't have answers until regular users report their own experiences in their own printers with their own images.  We need a volunteer.

You are correct.
But a little more information.
The way they create natural print is the blend both tone to create the natural tone.
But let's say for shade 1 of cool and warm, they are not created equally.
They are kind of in a separate shades with some overlapping.
So instead of 2 inks in 1 shade, I would say something to 2 inks in that covers shade 1-1.5
with 8-9 inks, you still have something like 5-6 shades of ink.
Again, I have not personally tested the ink yet, this is what they have told me during our discussion of this new inkset.

aaron

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2016, 12:42:59 PM »

I haven't tested them yet either. What I'm going to do, and what I would suggest you guys do is pick out a great file from your archive, make the absolute best possible print you can make from it on the surface paper you like to use, with the workflow you have, and then have them make a print for you with the new dual quad set on a comparable media. 

About 12 years ago a number of us from around the country had a "print off" in NY where we all made prints from the same file, pinned them up and compared them. A few of us were using the just released Piezo K7 neutral and sepia set out of QTR or Studio Print rips, and some of them used Epson inks with QTR, some the just released HPZ monochrome, etc. These were all on H. photo rag.

The K7 inks had better highlight rendition but it wasn't that much better, the HP the best dmax by far, but overall, in my opinion, and the opinion of most of the people there if not all of us was, the best prints of that view camera drum scan file were done with a "dual quad" piezotone configuration printed out of Studio Print. That system designed by Jon back 17 years ago or so, was taken to full potential by Walker Blackwell and Tyler Boley at that time. These were done with the old Epson 9600 printers, the quad blend and studio print, carefully linearized by them. Also because of the way Studio Print laid down the inks, they are also the sharpest by far, even on matte media there was a big difference. Better than anything you see oem today even.

This workflow is basis of the new Piezo dual quad inkset that allows you to "blend" warm and cool hues in an infinite way. However, the new QTR workflow is vastly simplified so that anyone can do this now. Walker and Jon worked together to offer this. How many people will be able to devote a separate  printer for this kind of effort, I just don't know, but I hope they do. They would probably offer a dual 6 or 7 channel set if there were that many available slots. But I don't see that is necessary and it gets to the point where you have to buy too many inks to make it practical. And Aaron is right, depending on the print color dialed in, you may be using 5-6-7 inks at one time anyway as I understand it.

 I use the K7 Carbon in a 9890 for my personal work. I don't know if I"m going to leave that for the new set or not. That would be hard to do as I am addicted to it, bigly. Two really big advantages of the new set is gloss capability ( the k7 inks on Platine have never been acceptable to me ) and the ability to make digital negatives, even huge ones, for myself and my clients, with the same exact inkset that I would use for warm,neutral, and cool prints.. This will be with one printer and one inkset. Not bad at all !

What is significantly different with this new dual quad set from what the pioneers did years ago, it seems to me, are three things.:

1.  much better dither in the new printers. 2. better black inks for both matte and glossy media 3. professional functionality and super smooth surface of the new inks on the great new semi-gloss media we have now such as Platine, etc with the gloss enhancer in the same pass.  4 Ability to do the kind of subtle spit toning that Tyler and Walker labored over with endless tests back 15 years ago, ( and Tyler still does ) is now accessible to everyone with little or no technical knowledge, students, anyone. With the supplied curves they probably don't even have to own a spectro, though I would advised doing your own linearization for unsupported media since they have simplified that dramatically as well, as TBW did for the Canon platform.

The big issue facing us all going forward is having printers available to use that will accept the third party ink carts, especially with Epson printers its a never ending battle.  The more advanced the bw underground gets, the more serious Epson gets about locking them out. This is also true of the software. QTR should have been supported by Epson a decade ago but now it's going to be harder than it has ever been to utilize with all future printers.

We need a Tesla device for inkjet, color and bw. Someone will do it. Hope it doesn't take too long, and I'm still young enough to enjoy it.  Yes, there are a lot of bridges to cross and  complications to adapt to by doing a run around of the big three for finessed, experimental ink bw, but eventually it will happen. The sooner the better. It would be a different world if we could use Jon's or Paul's inks in a machine that did not try to reject them. I just hate having to buy a used Epson printer and pray that one of the nozzles doesn't go out when I'm in the middle of a big job. I did that for soooooooo many years. But I'll do what has to be done.

john






You are correct.
But a little more information.
The way they create natural print is the blend both tone to create the natural tone.
But let's say for shade 1 of cool and warm, they are not created equally.
They are kind of in a separate shades with some overlapping.
So instead of 2 inks in 1 shade, I would say something to 2 inks in that covers shade 1-1.5
with 8-9 inks, you still have something like 5-6 shades of ink.
Again, I have not personally tested the ink yet, this is what they have told me during our discussion of this new inkset.

aaron
« Last Edit: October 23, 2016, 02:42:25 PM by deanwork »
Logged

Ferp

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2016, 07:01:26 PM »

John, thanks for your reply, which being even-handed and balanced and not-an-advert was particularly helpful.  As I read your report of the print-off back in the distant past, it struck me as a testimonial for Studioprint, rather than quadtone per se.  But that piece of software is expensive, difficult to learn and as I understand it Epson now refuses to allow them to support alternative inks in recent printers. 

I guess the question is how close can QTR get in modern printers with modern dither patterns and Piezography Pro?  After all, using QTR with OEM inks is only one less shade of black and you can tone with the colour inks.  unesco's point stands that until the performance of Pro is tested, IJM have undercut a lot of their past marketing.

A modern print-off with OEM vs Piezo Pro vs K7 would be interesting.  As would seeing whether the choice or matte or gloss changes this comparison.  Getting a comparison print made would shed some light, but I think that committing and testing it yourself would the only way to really understand what is possible.  I'm still hoping for a volunteer.

We all share your concerns about the future of independent ink makers.
Logged

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2016, 09:15:08 PM »

Hey  man,

Back in the day with the printers and quad inks available at that time, which is what I was describing, Studio Print linearized by the end user, who knew what he was doing, for me was the gold standard but the learning curve was quite high and the software expensive. However, that was a long time ago in the digital age. After Ergo Soft gave Piezography the cold shoulder, due to the pressure from Epson ( a much bigger concern for them than our little monochrome world ) Jon got in touch with Roy, the developer of QTR, and they worked out a great driver for the K7 inks. Roy also supported Paul's various mis inksets, and the Epson ultrachome sets.

 At that time I was using both Studio Print and QTR with a few printers and in regard to K7 there was very little difference in the outcome of the two drivers. K7 had such subtle overlaps that it was kind of a no-briainer. I fell in love with that.  As a matter of fact my submission to that print off was out of QTR I believe, where I made my own curves with an I1. A bunch of us were doing that on various printers and they all looked close.  The printers were not as close in tolerances as they are now so generic curves were not great to say the least. You needed to do your own profiling for your specific printer.

Where the Studio Print workflow really showed it's capability was with the old dual quad inkset.  Not only could you partition each channel independently, but you could control exactly how much ink was laid down along with a specific dither that worked the best for your printer and paper, thus the greater sharpness due to the amount of ink laid down from each channel. You could choose your own black ink to put in there. You could also mix your own hues in the ink carts themselves, allowing you to find custom mixes to suit your own quirky needs in that regard. That is what these guys were doing with the 9600s and it was beautiful, and still is. My use with the quads was limited to specific hue sets like carbon quad, selenium quad, etc. I used SP for that also but moved to K7 shortly after so I was never an expert with the quads back then, but Walker was and Jon and Tyler were.

Now with this new Pro set they have designed something comparable to what was done in a much more difficult and trial and error way  with Studio Print. I think you could still do it with SP but you would be on your own in regard to support, where using QTR it's all set up for you. Now the splits and blends are already worked out for you technically so you just set the sliders to the preconfigured numbers for the color you want and of course it is endlessly repeatable from batch to batch. This is similar to what TBW does with the Canon IPF printers, only in that case you only have black and two grays to work with for neutral work ( those inks are neutralized already ), and split toning is very complicated and not at intuitive, so I use Lightroom for that.

Since this set just came out I'm far from the guy to describe it's subtle uses. I haven't even seen the results but I do know where these guys were in their creative development and they wouldn't even be wasting their time unless it was a step forward for them. What interests me personally is it's adaptability to many kinds of media, especially gloss fiber that we could never do in a great, easy, and variable way in the past.

 I always had to do my multichannel splits and blends the old fashioned way by mixing inks together outside of the printer and putting them in the separate ink carts and then beginning to do tests on paper. And after that finding what images that blend would actually work well with ! I don't think anyone has the patience to do that anymore unless you just want to create one blend and stick with it. With Studio Print you create pre established "environments" within the software, that actually does the blending for you. That is the principle that is being done now with this  "Pro" inkset using QTR. Sharpness is not an issue as the new printers are printing even on matte very precisely at 2880 with a much superior dither and smaller variable dot placement than what we had in the past. Not to mention that the Canson paper coatings are sharper as well. I want to see what these inks look like on Platine. I'm curious about that.
What does the neutral look like on gloss media, etc.

john



Quote from: Ferp link=topic=114117.msg939897#msg939897 date=147 7263686
John, thanks for your reply, which being even-handed and balanced and not-an-advert was particularly helpful.  As I read your report of the print-off back in the distant past, it struck me as a testimonial for Studioprint, rather than quadtone per se.  But that piece of software is expensive, difficult to learn and as I understand it Epson now refuses to allow them to support alternative inks in recent printers. 

I guess the question is how close can QTR get in modern printers with modern dither patterns and Piezography Pro?  After all, using QTR with OEM inks is only one less shade of black and you can tone with the colour inks.  unesco's point stands that until the performance of Pro is tested, IJM have undercut a lot of their past marketing.

A modern print-off with OEM vs Piezo Pro vs K7 would be interesting.  As would seeing whether the choice or matte or gloss changes this comparison.  Getting a comparison print made would shed some light, but I think that committing and testing it yourself would the only way to really understand what is possible.  I'm still hoping for a volunteer.

We all share your concerns about the future of independent ink makers.
Logged

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2016, 09:20:32 PM »

Hey  man,

Back in the day with the printers and quad inks available at that time, which is what I was describing, Studio Print linearized by the end user, who knew what he was doing, for me was the gold standard but the learning curve was quite high and the software expensive. However, that was a long time ago in the digital age. After Ergo Soft gave Piezography the cold shoulder, due to the pressure from Epson ( a much bigger concern for them than our little monochrome world ) Jon got in touch with Roy, the developer of QTR, and they worked out a great driver for the K7 inks. Roy also supported Paul's various mis inksets, and the Epson ultrachome sets.

 At that time I was using both Studio Print and QTR with a few printers and in regard to K7 there was very little difference in the outcome of the two drivers. K7 had such subtle overlaps that it was kind of a no-briainer. I fell in love with that.  As a matter of fact my submission to that print off was out of QTR I believe, where I made my own curves with an I1. A bunch of us were doing that on various printers and they all looked close.  The printers were not as close in tolerances as they are now so generic curves were not great to say the least. You needed to do your own profiling for your specific printer.

Where the Studio Print workflow really showed it's capability was with the old dual quad inkset.  Not only could you partition each channel independently, but you could control exactly how much ink was laid down along with a specific dither that worked the best for your printer and paper, thus the greater sharpness due to the amount of ink laid down from each channel. You could choose your own black ink to put in there. You could also mix your own hues in the ink carts themselves, allowing you to find custom mixes to suit your own quirky needs in that regard. That is what these guys were doing with the 9600s and it was beautiful, and still is. My use with the quads was limited to specific hue sets like carbon quad, selenium quad, etc. I used SP for that also but moved to K7 shortly after so I was never an expert with the quads back then, but Walker was and Jon and Tyler were.

Now with this new Pro set they have designed something comparable to what was done in a much more difficult and trial and error way  with Studio Print. I think you could still do it with SP but you would be on your own in regard to support, where using QTR it's all set up for you. Now the splits and blends are already worked out for you technically so you just set the sliders to the preconfigured numbers for the color you want and of course it is endlessly repeatable from batch to batch. This is similar to what TBW does with the Canon IPF printers, only in that case you only have black and two grays to work with for neutral work ( those inks are neutralized already ), and split toning is very complicated and not at all intuitive, so I use Lightroom for that.

Since this set just came out I'm far from the guy to describe it's subtle uses. I haven't even seen the results but I do know where these guys were in their creative development and they wouldn't even be wasting their time unless it was a step forward for them. What interests me personally is it's adaptability to many kinds of media, especially gloss fiber that we could never do in a great, easy, and variable way in the past.

 I always had to do my multichannel splits and blends the old fashioned way by mixing inks together outside of the printer and putting them in the separate ink carts and then beginning to do tests on paper. And after that finding what images that blend would actually work well with ! I don't think anyone has the patience to do that anymore unless you just want to create one blend and stick with it. With Studio Print you create pre established "environments" within the software, that actually does the blending for you. That is the principle that is being done now with this  "Pro" inkset using QTR. Sharpness is not an issue as the new printers are printing even on matte very precisely at 2880 with a much superior dither and smaller variable dot placement than what we had in the past. Not to mention that the Canson paper coatings are sharper as well. I want to see what these inks look like on Platine. I'm curious about that.
What does the neutral look like on gloss media, etc.

john
Logged

datro

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 133
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2016, 02:48:16 PM »

I want to see what these inks look like on Platine. I'm curious about that.

john

Me too.

As a B&W printer I've been on the fence for a LONG time with regard to Piezography and have been especially following the ongoing recent discussions around the "past" (i.e. PiezoTone, K6, K7, etc.) vs. the new Piezography Pro inks and system.  With Piezography Pro, and especially the new Professional Edition toolset that will allow me to fine tune the curves to MY printer and new papers which I (or clients) might want to use in the future, I have finally jumped in with both feet.  The timing also works for me since I have an idle 7900 with one dead channel that is otherwise in perfect condition.  So I've ordered the K8 (Set 9) inks that will give me a dual quad system (cool set and warm set), full ability to print either matte or glossy, endless ways to do split toning, and single pass printing with the Gloss Optimizer (which was a concern for me with the previous Piezography systems since there were known paper sensing problems on some X900 printers when doing a second pass for the Optimizer).  My only concern going forward regards the future of QTR on the Windows platform.  Although there are some minor gremlins with QTRgui on Windows 10, it still prints just fine.  But I'd really like to see an updated QTRgui and improved interface and full functionality.

In any case, once I have the new PiezoPro inks installed and running after they ship next month, I plan to do a number of detailed B&W printing system comparisons and measurements, and I'm especially interested in how the new Pro inks will look on Platine as well as Harman by Hahnemuhle Gloss Baryta and the Canson matte papers (Edition Etching, Rag Photographique).  Since I also have a P9000 I'll have the ability to do a good comparison of ABW (with the improved black ink) on the P9000 and the new PiezoPro system.  But I won't be able to do a K7 vs. PiezoPro.  I'll have to leave that to John :-).

Dave
Logged

Ferp

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2016, 08:08:29 AM »

... and especially the new Professional Edition toolset that will allow me to fine tune the curves to MY printer and new papers which I (or clients) might want to use in the future,

You do realise that you can do this now fairly well using the QTR-Linearize-Quad program that Roy Harrington now includes in QTR?  IJM will undoubtedly say that the new toolset will be better, but the fact remains that it can be done today.

I value John's views and experience, but I do feel that he has slipped from even-handed mode back into advertorial.  We await first-hand independent reports.
Logged

datro

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 133
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2016, 10:48:12 AM »

Yes, you are right that it's possible to linearize QTR and make new curves when using OEM inks.  But the number of threads I see on this topic (e.g. on the QTR Yahoo group) suggests that it is not as straightforward as what I'm expecting with the new PiezoPro system.

For me the new PiezoPro system appears to offer enough incremental additional flexibility and "ease of use" to get me off the fence and jump in, not to mention what I am hoping will be the capability for very high quality B&W on both matte and glossy papers.  It's not that I perceive any technical challenges with QTR's existing workflow (I don't), but rather that with PiezoPro I expect to eventually spend less time on technical tinkering and more on making great B&W prints.  But as you point out, we'll have to wait and see how things develop once the system has been out there and we have real user data and feedback.

In any case, depending on time I may expand my comparison testing to include QTR/OEM inks (from my P9000) as well.  Hmm, looks like it's going to be busy next month :-)

Dave

Logged

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2016, 11:12:50 AM »

Hell yes we've done that for well over 10 years. I did it with the quads on the original Epson 700s and 10K ( remember them ) and the 9600 with Epson inks and QTR and right now with the Canon IPF and True Black and White which I love ( if only they had one more light gray).

The comparison now was with the new Epson quad set in the P10K and P20K printers which will be the competition for Piezography, Canon and everyone else looking at the highest end monochrome it seems to me. That is what is on my mind at the moment.

You can not use QTR with these new Epson large format printers and there is a good chance according to Roy that you will never be able to.

With Epson ABW as it is now you can't print out a grayscale target on any media, adjust the ink limits for that media and linearize it in a precise way. Jon, Paul Roark and all these guys have done this forever, Canon allows it with TBW, and Epson apparently still isn't serious  as far as software goes but they won't work with QTR either. Without the ability to linearize this system to YOUR printer and YOUR media, you are not even in the ball game in my opinion. Will Epson finally ever get there, who knows, I doubt it. I'm a believer in iconoclasts like Cone because without these people we would still be nowhere, and not even remotely approaching the bw I did in the early 70s in the darkroom. Come on.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2016, 11:17:40 AM by deanwork »
Logged

unesco

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2016, 08:32:42 AM »

Yes, you are right that it's possible to linearize QTR and make new curves when using OEM inks.  But the number of threads I see on this topic (e.g. on the QTR Yahoo group) suggests that it is not as straightforward as what I'm expecting with the new PiezoPro system
Most of the questions are reasoned by bad quality of QTR documentation and almost lack of clear description of the workflow using QTR, not the ink itself.
Logged

donbga

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 323
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2016, 10:29:11 AM »

Most of the questions are reasoned by bad quality of QTR documentation and almost lack of clear description of the workflow using QTR, not the ink itself.

Take a look at this PDF.

http://www.diallophotography.com/pdfs/QTRworkflow.pdf

Though I do agree, QTR is poorly documented. Richard Boutwell has promised a new comprehensive book on QTR for prints and digital negatives.

Logged

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2016, 12:32:59 PM »

Amadou did a great job in the section about linearization, which was the part that confused most people in Roy's original documentation  which was really non-intuitive to say the least But for $50.00 and fee support online what can one expect. It was fantastic for us to have at the time.

What is sad now though is that this great workflow will not be functional with the new Epson quad inks on the new printers where it would REALLY shine.

We still don't have anyone even giving a useful review of the capability of those printers with bw. The new ABW update may be good or not, I don't know anyone with any experience who knows.


john



Take a look at this PDF.

http://www.diallophotography.com/pdfs/QTRworkflow.pdf

Though I do agree, QTR is poorly documented. Richard Boutwell has promised a new comprehensive book on QTR for prints and digital negatives.
Logged

Paul Roark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 283
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2016, 03:33:00 PM »

...
You can not use QTR with these new Epson large format printers and there is a good chance according to Roy that you will never be able to.

With Epson ABW as it is now you can't print out a grayscale target on any media, adjust the ink limits for that media and linearize it in a precise way. Jon, Paul Roark and all these guys have done this forever,...

Without the ability to linearize this system to YOUR printer and YOUR media, you are not even in the ball game in my opinion. ...

Being able to linearize my profiles using QTR tools was a major advance in the art for me. 

One of QTR's applets ("Create ICC-RGB") allows us to make grayscale ICCs.   The approach allows users to linearize the ABW workflow if one is a Windows 7 user with PS CC.  However, I don't think many use the approach.

The general "Create ICC-RGB" approach, more importantly from my perspective, allows me to use an ICC workflow with variable tone B&W inksets, if they are designed to be compatible.  While I prefer the QTR full rip approach, there is a workflow that allows linearization and utilizes the standard Epson driver (non-rip) printing approach.  This can cover printers even if there is no rip support.  I have done this with a number of printers.

QTR and other such rips, however, are more flexible and easier to profile.  And most should stick with a standardized system where profiles are make available.

FWIW

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
Logged

deanwork

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2016, 10:03:27 PM »

Yes, your right. There are a lot of ways to come at it. One of the ways I use is the with the HPZ using an srgb work space. The amount of color ink I have to add is so tiny to achieve a pure clean neutral that I prefer, but that is because the HP grays are really useful for great bw with no color channels at all. Just imagine what they could have done with a 5 or 6 gray sub-system, that you shift over to for high end bw. The ink carts are small and the heads are cheap and pop out at will. All they needed to do was to dilute a couple more light grays and put them in the red and blue channels. The hardware is already set up to linearize it with no extra equipment. It could be so damn easy. I wish I had the time to figure it out myself with Studio Print which supports the Z.

The one really great thing HP achieved, besides off the charts permanence, and easily disposable heads, is the ability run their on board "calibration" which is really a linearization that you can do in 15 minutes any time you want. it is SO damn easy, on any media at any time and totally automatic. I think that is really missing in Epson and Canon oem workflows, especially for bw where linearization is critical. Then you do the icc profiling after that either with the HP on board spectro or an I1 and X-Rite. But the complete separation between linearization and icc profiling is a really good idea. My Canon does allow you to do a linearization at any time but it is a printer linearization, not a media linearization. So, in that sense it is crude. Thankfully the True B W Bowhaus people offered the solution there and Canon allowed it. But with the HPZ you don't even have to have a spectro or know how to use one. Thats really a no brainer and those Barcelona guys really were something. I wish they had branched off into a "fine art printmaking" division. They  could have done done miracles within the last 9 years or so since the Z was released.




Being able to linearize my profiles using QTR tools was a major advance in the art for me.   

One of QTR's applets ("Create ICC-RGB") allows us to make grayscale ICCs.   The approach allows users to linearize the ABW workflow if one is a Windows 7 user with PS CC.  However, I don't think many use the approach.

The general "Create ICC-RGB" approach, more importantly from my perspective, allows me to use an ICC workflow with variable tone B&W inksets, if they are designed to be compatible.  While I prefer the QTR full rip approach, there is a workflow that allows linearization and utilizes the standard Epson driver (non-rip) printing approach.  This can cover printers even if there is no rip support.  I have done this with a number of printers.

QTR and other such rips, however, are more flexible and easier to profile.  And most should stick with a standardized system where profiles are make available.

FWIW

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 10:07:08 PM by deanwork »
Logged

Paul Roark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 283
Re: Jon Cone Piezography-Pro inks!
« Reply #19 on: October 28, 2016, 10:51:01 AM »

...[T]he HP grays are really useful for great bw with no color channels at all. Just imagine what they could have done with a 5 or 6 gray sub-system, ...

Yes, the HP PK diluted or HP OEM grays are the best, in my experience.  (I have not tested or seen tests of the newest Epson LK & LLK.)  The HP PK dilutes well with the generic base (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf at p. 5), as well as the MIS/www.Inksupply.com (STS Inks) gloss optimizer if one wants to cut the bronzing.  So, these types of inksets can be very effective for the DIY B&W types.  I've used them in a number of ink setups for Epson printers.  (HP inks work fine in Epson printers.)

That said, I still prefer a variable tone B&W inkset with lots of 100% carbon channels.  Adding yellow and magenta (via a rip) to the gray inks to make a warm print doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of longevity and simplicity.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up