Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 1400/1430 w. 1 black for B&W?

Expand Messages
  • Louis de Stoutz
    Will see what I can do. I need to know the dimensions of Homer s print though in order to do a comparable one. The test image I have is a jpg of 3508 x 2480 x
    Message 1 of 16 , Jun 1, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Will see what I can do. I need to know the dimensions of Homer's print
      though in order to do a comparable one. The test image I have is a jpg
      of 3508 x 2480 x 8 BPP with an original size of A4 at 300 ppi. Is that
      the one to print?

      On 01/06/2013 04:48, Michael wrote:
      > Louis, any chance you still have this setup and could make a print from the same file that Homer did? That would be very interesting. And thanks to Homer for testing this out.
    • remononaz1
      Your dimensions are correct for the test image. The scanned image was two test images scanned at the same time and the scan measures 6120x8423. HOmer
      Message 2 of 16 , Jun 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Your dimensions are correct for the test image. The scanned image was two test images scanned at the same time and the scan measures 6120x8423.

        HOmer

        --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Louis de Stoutz <loudest@...> wrote:
        >
        > Will see what I can do. I need to know the dimensions of Homer's print
        > though in order to do a comparable one. The test image I have is a jpg
        > of 3508 x 2480 x 8 BPP with an original size of A4 at 300 ppi. Is that
        > the one to print?
        >
        > On 01/06/2013 04:48, Michael wrote:
        > > Louis, any chance you still have this setup and could make a print from the same file that Homer did? That would be very interesting. And thanks to Homer for testing this out.
        >
      • Louis de Stoutz
        Thanks Homer. What was the physical size of the test image when you printed it (in cm or inches)?
        Message 3 of 16 , Jun 2, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks Homer. What was the physical size of the test image when you
          printed it (in cm or inches)?

          On 02/06/2013 03:39, remononaz1 wrote:
          > Your dimensions are correct for the test image. The scanned image was two test images scanned at the same time and the scan measures 6120x8423.
        • remononaz1
          The sheet size was 5.5x8.5. The image on it was a little smaller. Homer
          Message 4 of 16 , Jun 2, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            The sheet size was 5.5x8.5. The image on it was a little smaller.


            Homer

            --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Louis de Stoutz <loudest@...> wrote:
            >
            > Thanks Homer. What was the physical size of the test image when you
            > printed it (in cm or inches)?
            >
            > On 02/06/2013 03:39, remononaz1 wrote:
            > > Your dimensions are correct for the test image. The scanned image was two test images scanned at the same time and the scan measures 6120x8423.
            >
          • Louis de Stoutz
            ... Hi! At last I can post the promised test picture. My printer and my scanner are about 1000 miles apart, and I happened to have to travel in the right
            Message 5 of 16 , Jun 10, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              On 01/06/2013 03:48, Michael wrote:
              > Louis, any chance you still have this setup and could make a print
              > from the same file that Homer did? That would be very interesting.
              > And thanks to Homer for testing this out.


              Hi!

              At last I can post the promised test picture. My printer and my scanner
              are about 1000 miles apart, and I happened to have to travel in the
              right direction two days ago, so here it is...

              Looking at the scan though showed me things I hadn't noticed when I
              quickly looked with bare eyes at the print: there are those strange
              white lines that look like scratches (or misfiring nozzles?). You see
              them best in the upper one of the two opposed wedges in the upper middle
              of the image (behind the text "Black and White test print") and in the
              little foggy landscape, the funny thing being that the lower wedge is
              perfectly clean (to do with relation between gradient direction and
              print direction???). It doesn't seem to me to be micro-banding, which on
              the other hand is visible in the middle part of the step wedge on the
              left. If anyone has an idea about those white lines, your comment will
              be very welcome...

              But let's get to the essentials. This was to be compared to Homer's test
              prints (http://sdrv.ms/14cmWes). Thus I tried as much as very limited
              time permitted to replicate the conditions and especially the dimensions
              of Homer's prints. (Sorry, I missed one point: it seems I printed
              perpendicularly to how Homer did, but this isn't too important, it just
              changes the direction of the micro-banding.)

              - The picture on my print measures roughly 12.5" x 17.5".
              - It was printed on a 1400 with OEM Claria using only 1 black ink (BO).
              - As driver I used QTR with a self-made curve.
              - Settings were at "Photo paper", 2880dpi, Uni-directional, ordered.
              - I used my beloved Harman Gloss Baryta paper, which not only looks, but
              even smells like traditional silver-gelatine photo-paper.
              - For the scan, I "cheated" a bit, scanning at 4800 bpi, applying subtle
              capture-sharpening in PS and then reducing the image to roughly the
              dimensions of Homer's scan (3x smaller, bicubic sharper). I did this to
              make sure one could appreciate the substantially finer dot pattern of
              QTR. Of course, if you looked at the original scan, you would be
              surprised how much more there is to be seen.

              But here is the picture:
              https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_kh_TJL6q5INzdibWxONU1aTmM&usp=sharing

              In summary: a very satisfying B&W setup for anybody who wants to be able
              to do color with the same printer without changing inks, and who doesn't
              mind a tiny bit of micro-banding (not really visible to the eye, even
              with reading glasses). But, as Paul mentioned several times, not quite
              good enough for artwork that is to be sold. There, the carbon-6 setup on
              the same 1400 seems hard to beat. This is on matte paper though and thus
              a totally different story. (It reconciled me with matte printing though,
              which I used to hate in darkroom times. It has the depth of the old
              heliogravure on matte paper photo books, which I always admired and
              longed to reproduce. Thank you, Paul, for showing us the way!)

              Louis
            • Louis de Stoutz
              P.S: when you click on the picture and select 100% size, it is unsharp and you have to wait quite a while for it to finish downloading and become sharp.
              Message 6 of 16 , Jun 10, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                P.S: when you click on the picture and select 100% size, it is unsharp
                and you have to wait quite a while for it to finish downloading and
                become sharp. Alternatively, you can download it to your computer and
                watch it with the software of your choice.

                On 10/06/2013 16:08, Louis de Stoutz wrote:
                > But here is the picture:
                > https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_kh_TJL6q5INzdibWxONU1aTmM&usp=sharing
              • remononaz1
                Louis: I would agree - your print is very good for being a single black ink monotone. I m impressed with the good gradient you got in the dot at the top of
                Message 7 of 16 , Jun 11, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Louis:

                  I would agree - your print is very good for being a single black ink monotone. I'm impressed with the good gradient you got in the 'dot' at the top of the image. Yours is very even and that is difficult to do. As for the microbanding, I suspect you can't even see it in the print unless you really pixel peep. You may find that doing a head alignment eliminates it.

                  My take-away on this is that for people who only want to make the occasional black and white print, and don't want to invest in the cost and learning curve of the various multi-ink options, this is a good method to use. Not perfect, but surprisingly good.

                  Homer Shannon
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.