High Quality Digital Photographic Printing at Home
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Saturday, March 20, 2004
Friday, March 19, 2004
InkJetArt tips on Hahnemuhle Photorag handling, mounting prints, etc.
Framing tools and info site Framing4Yourself.com
Spraying prints and Out-Gassing advice by Blair Arts Editions
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
I have recalibrated my monitor, and I now have a serious problem. I am pretty certain I did not have it before, but I am only about 95% sure. The problem is that the images look consistent via Internet Explorer and BreezeBrowser (by which I mean that I can't tell the difference between an image I uploaded to pbase as viewed via Internet Explorer, and one on my machine when viewed via BreezeBrowser), but different from what I see in Photoshop. Not hugely different, but somewhat different. I tested this on several images, and it is consistently so. Also, I have very carefully gone over Photoshop Color Management menu, including advanced options, and made sure everything was set as I believe it should be set. Further, I made sure the images have sRGB embedded profile, which is my working Photoshop profile. Alas, none of this helped. I just received the latest version of Real World Photoshop CS, and decided to reread color management section, on the off-chance I am doing something wrong. For now, at least for my quadtone and photo paper experiments, I don't really suffer terribly badly from thus strangely-miscalibrated visual system, but this definitely needs to be fixed before I return to any serious Photoshop work.
I printed Natalia V on a 4"x6" Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308 (I got 200 sheets of this wonderful paper in this tiny size for proofs), and was totally blown away -- dynamic range is incredible -- the blacks have to be seen to be believed! Now I am a total convert to matte, and understand what the fuss on all the groups about Photo Rag 308 is all about.
Received Cathy's profile for Epson Premium Luster I have ordered a while back. Cathy is a real pleasure to deal with! I should have used faster shipping method to get the targets to her faster. The good news is that the color prints are a little more neutral, and the B&W prints are a LOT more neutral (than with the Epson-supplied profiles). The bad news is that the B&W prints are still not ideally neutral, which is pretty noticeseable on a 21 step and 100 step gray scales I printed, but less noticeable on the actual prints. It becomes almost completely unnoticeable if the print is not ideally neutral (the original pixel info, I mean) but toned, and is pretty much a non-issue when printing duo, tri, and quadtones (which I am getting into lately). The profile works about equally well for Epson Premium Luster (for which it was made), Epson Premium Semi-Gloss, and Epson Premium Glossy papers. It is completely unusable with Epson Enhanced Matte (quite naturally).
I resolved to ignore the slight non-neutrality of the profile on B&W stuff (it is totally unnoticeable on color photographs) since in the near future I will be experimenting with quadtones for B&W, and different papers, in preparation for Epson 4000. When it arrives (judging by the current back-log, it is likely going to take months, may be even as long as 1/2 a year), I should be ready with a choice of paper, some experience printing quadtones, and, hopefully, lots of experience anticipating what a print will look like corresponding to the image on a calibrated monitor.
I dropped out of Yahoo Piezography3000 group, since I became determined to learn how to print B&W with Epson Ultrachrome inks, not to mention that I am experimenting with Quadtones (Duotones with 4 colors, not the inks) and I need full-color printer for that.
I subscribed to two Yahoo groups:
EPSON_Printers is the largest Epson printers user group on the net.
EpsonWideFormat is the group for Epson wide printers, of which the 4000 I am waiting to get is about the smallest one
Quadtones Kreb's Quadtone curves and workflow in EPSON_Printers files area
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Luminous Landscape Duotone tutorial, besides being a good introduction to duotones, has a set of curves for selenium-toning-emulating quadtone. I tried it out, and like the results.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
I just checked, and the Epson UltraSmooth Fine Art Paper recommended very much by several sources, including Luminous Landscape, and MIS inks creator Paul Roark, only comes in rolls minimum 17" wide. This means it is usable with Epson 4000, but not with 2200.
Photo.net Digital Darkroom forum.
A Photo.net post recommending Epson Premium Luster -like but cheaper paper InkjetArt Micro Ceramic Luster.
TODO: Follow instructions in this post on Photo.net Digital Darkroom forum to recalibrate the monitor with the spyder.
TODO: Read more of the Photo.net calibration posts
TODO: Look at other interesting Older Questions groups of Photo.net Digital Darkroom forum.
I have investigated Ultra Image recommended by Tom at K&S, and it appears to be a set of Photoshop actions (not even a plug-in), including interpolation. I am sticking with QImage...
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Paul Roark made a very informative posting (Item #7) regarding using MIS Ultra Tone 2 inks in Epson 2200 on glossy papers.
In a separate post, Paul Roark recommended Epson UltraSmooth (only available in rolls, which is OK if I get 4000), said that Photorag has better Dmax but flakes more (pre-print brushing recommended), and strongly advised against Crane Museo and other Crane papers Epson markets.
I visited Keeble and Shuchat digital department today and talked with Tom, an extremely knowledgeable guy. Tom is the chief guy at K&S as far as digital printing is concerned, and has 30 years of experience with photography. While I found some of the points he made to differ from what I know so far, many of them (especially his Photoshop approach) are explained by his entirely different (from mine) approach to image editing overall. Thus, I chose to ignore these differences, instead of letting them bias me against his advice in other areas. Here, in no particular order, are the numerous very interesting points he made:
1. A much better way to tone B&W in Photoshop, instead of Solid Color Adjustment Layer I have been using all this time, is to use Hue/Saturation Adjustment Layer, with Colorize option. Tom demonstrated it to me, and the Colorize option (that I have always neglected when using Hue/Saturation) is very powerful and easy to use.
2. All the gorgeous 8x10 B&W prints that are sitting in their light booth were made on Epson 1280 using Lyson Small Gamut ink. It took Tom a couple months to "dial in" this inkset (using images and gray wedges, etc.), but he is now very happy with the results.
3. He showed me side-by-side B&W prints made on Epson 2200 (no RIP, but hand-dialed) with the Lyson Small Gamut ink print, and the three very noticeable differenes were:
a) 2200 print was cold, while Lyson was warm (but of course 2200 could be made warm as well, so this is not a significant difference, and I am documenting it just in case it might be the partial cause of the other two);
b) 2200 print's blacks were less dense (more gray) than those of Lyson. This made the apparent Dmax of the Epson 2200 print to be visibly inferior to that of Lyson;
c) Lyson print had a 3-dimensional feel to it (not in the sense that the inks were thicker, but the print had a percieved depth), whereas 2200 print had a flat feel to it. Since this one is totally unscientific, I am not sure how much Tom's words influenced my judgement, or how apparent the flatness of 2200 print would have been had it not had the Lyson print side-by-side with it.
4. Tom thinks Photocal & Spyder is poor color management solution because Spyder is inconsistent, and Photocal is weak software. He recommended Monaco and Eye One solutions instead (the colorimeter-based, reasonably inexpensive ones, not the really expensive one).
5. R800 has been optimized for glossy printing, 2200 (and likely 4000) has been optimized for matte printing. Thus, matte print-outs are the weak spot in R800, whereas glossy and semi-glossy prints are the weakspot of 2200 (and likely 4000). My own judgement of the prints in the store and my prints at home was in agreement with the above. My (R800) matte prints look inferior to 2200 matte prints, and my (R800) glossy, luster, and semi-gloss prints look superior to 2200 prints.
6. Tom never used BO (Black Only) printing method, because he believes (and I am not sure whether he is right) that the resolution is limited to 360 dpi.
7. Tom does not like to use adjustment layers in Photoshop, preferring history brush instead. At first, this really undermined his credibility in my eyes, but then I realized that his process typically consists of about 10 minute playing with an image to produce a print. He works very fast, and has tremendous experience and terrific judgement, so he rarely needs to go back and change something. When he does, he can use history brush.
8. Tom uses UltraImage software for interpolation (done in 10% increments) and sharpening.
9. Tom does not use a RIP now, but used to use it, and belives superior results can be obtained when using a RIP than by what he did with 2200. While I see how a RIP can produce better illusion of depth, I don't see how it can make the Epson Matte Black look darker on paper, when it is already being laid down at 100% density.
10. Tom typically makes no proof prints -- with his color-managed workflow, images come out looking exactly as he expects them to come out. Of course, with Lyson it took 2 months of dialing it in, and with Epson it took much less, but still some.
Reading Epson 2200 reviews, I noticed that people had a choice via the Epson driver of the resolution to use (1440 vs. 2880). However, I don't recall any place in either QImage or the drive for the Epson R800 I have to choose the resolution. I do recall however that QImage reports 720x270 as the resolution next to the preview image in the right upper corner. Does this mean I am printing at suboptimal resolution? Need to investigate.
I just found Illford Inkjet Papers Homepage and read Illford Smooth Pearl Fact Sheet (bottom of Smooth Pearl page). Being a microceramic paper, it is extremely sensitive to air and light exposure, and thus is unacceptable for my purposes, since the plan was to use it unprotected by glass. Matte paper works the best under glass. That's too bad, and is yet another example of how the most beautiful things in life are often very short lived...
Monday, March 08, 2004
Worked on printing Stairway to Heaven tonight. This was one of the earlier images I have edited back when Lasso was the only way I knew how to select in Photoshop. I had to redo all the masks (they were horrible), which noticeably cleaned up all the different area borders (sky/city and water/land). Then I started to print.
First print was too dark, but my R800 lightness compensation curve (47 mapped to 62) helped. I noticed, however, that the image looked a bit noisy (it originated as film and so it had grain). I tried to clean it up with Noise Ninja, to no avail. Then I tried Neat Image, and it improved things significantly. Awesome -- looks like it's a good thing I bought both Neat image and Noise Ninja, as the latter does a better job cleaning high-ISO noise, whereas the former (while also respectable in this area) does a better noise cleaning weird kinds of noise.
I printed Stairway to Heaven on Epson Premium Gloss, and Epson Enhanced Matte, and Illford Smooth Pearl. I most preferred it on Illford Smooth Pearl. Epson Enhanced Matte, as usual, was flatter (grayer blacks), not to mention that the sheet got bent in wicked ways (thicker matte paper is needed), and Premium Gloss was too reflective. Overall, I am very happy with this print.
Considering Epson Pro 4000, able to print 71" wide. It takes Epson 220 ml ink bottles, which cost around $90 (I saw one site on www.pricegrabber.com as low as $80). That makes it roughly 40 cents/ml. On the other hand, Epson 2200 ink cartridges have about 16 ml of ink, and sell for around $11, and therefore the cost per ml for Epson 2200 is 69 cents/ml. However, since it's very difficult (and Epson makes this even tougher, on purpose) to switch out the cartridge when it is close to the end, and yet to waste very little ink, I'd estimate that the actual cost of ink for 2200 would be around 80 cents/ml. Therefore, roughly, it is twice as expensive (ink-wise) to run Epson 2200 than it is to run Epson 4000, in terms of ink cost/ml. Unfortunately, continuous inking systems are reported to have problems (otherwise they could be used to adopt 220 ml ink bottles to Canon 2200).
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Noise Ninja did in fact do a little bit better job than Neat Image in cleaning one Canon 10D ISO 1600 photograph (Sveta I).
I spent a lot of time trying to make a good print of Sveta I. I am quite perplexed by the fact that the noise and undesirable artefacts that is quite acceptable in the version viewed on the computer screen become quite objectionable (I'd go as far as to say unacceptable) when printed out. At 5"x7", it is still tolerable, but 8"x10" is unacceptable. In the end, I played a lot with selective blurring, and even making all the shadows (where the noise was most apparent) noticeably darker, but to no avail. I am starting to realize that prints, esp. >= 8"x10" demand higher quality (noiselessness, sharpness, etc.) material than web gallery display. This could likely mean that my ISO 1600 and 3200 images made with D60 and 10D are not going to work for prints >= 5"x7". Looks like my decision to upgrade to 1D Mk. II is even more valid than I thought.
Ordered a Photo Paper Sample Package from mcgpaper.com.
Ordered from Digital Arts Supplies which was recommended in the book "Mastering Digital Printing: The Photographer's and Artist's Guide to High-Quality Digital Output" by Harald Johnson, which I just finished reading:
2 x Hahnemuhle 4x6's: Photo Rag 308 - 4x6- 100 Cards (it's on 1/2 off sale)
2 x Japanese Paper Multipack
1 x Multipack: A Bit of (Almost) Everything 2004
1 x Vellum Natural Multipack
Bought Noise Ninja Professional on review of Michael Reichmann and other positive references.
Saturday, March 06, 2004
Luminous Landscape Forums
Luminous Landscape Digital Printing Forum
Luminous Landscape Forum Print Matting discussion
Friday, March 05, 2004
Additional recommendations:
1) Use IProof Systems PowerRip -- their 2200 profiles are good, and B&W produced on 2200 are great.
2) Do not use black point compensation, either with RIP or with any printing method.
3) It is very difficult to get 2200 to print neutral B&W without a separate RIP
4) It's not too tough to make mattes yourself -- you just need the appropriate tool. Recommended: Logan Intermediate Matte Cutter 450.
5) You don't need special calibrated light -- metamerism is a small problem with Ultrachrome. Consider making the prints a bit warm, and proof them under warm light -- that way they will look a bit warm under daylight, which is usually preferred.
I talked with a gentleman in Keeble & Shuchat, Palo Alto (by phone, so I did not get their name) and here is what I found out:
1) The gorgeous B&W prints they have in the store were not made using Epson 2200 as I originally thought. They were made on Epson 1280 using Lyson Small Gamut inks.
2) Tom (who is usually there daily after 1:30pm, and who actually printed all of the B&W ones) used to use Epson 2200 natively to print B&W, but then switched to Lyson inks. At this point, it's not clear why (Tom was out sick)
3) Other choices for B&W include having a custom made profile (but it has to be REALLY good) (Go Cathy!!!), and using a RIP. However, RIPs are very expensive, and none are likely to support Epson R800. I'd go and buy 2200 right now, but it is likely Epson will announce a replacement for it soon, not to mention that it has problems with Bronzing.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Following instructions from the two threads, I have installed the Japanese driver for PX-G900. The driver interface is markedly different, though the actual functionality is very close (those not identical). For instance, Japanese version offer Microweave choice, which the US does not. Not to mention the Black option (the whole point of this excercise), not present in the US version. Curiously, the different choices, including Grayscale and Sepia are available in the same menu as in the US version, which leads me to believe that Grayscale is printed using all colors, and that you do indeed need to select Black to print BO. The trouble is, R800 lays down ink droplets so tiny that I can not see them at all.
All attempts to print using different settings and papers using this driver results in images tinted green in low midtones to shadows. I have obtained much more neutral tones yesterday when printing using Grayscale.
Possible explanations:
1) Epson black ink has a green tone (but why only in the shadows?)
2) The Japanese drives is buggy, and "Black" setting does not actually force black-only ink
3) The color inks slowly seep through the system somehow
4) I am a moron and screwed up the settings somehow
Discussion on downloading a Japanese driver to enable BO printing on Epson R800
DPReview thread on the same issue
So, apparently, what I did yesterday (i.e., Choosing Grayscale print) is not the same as BO, and supposedly color inks are used as well.
Time to try the above BO trick
After reading the 4 BO articles mentioned a couple entries back, and too impatient to wait for Cathy's profile, as well as very eager to compare BO with Cathy's results, I made the following settings changes:
1) In QImage, I turned off Printer ICC
2) In Epson Printer driver, I changed (in Advanced Section):
Color Management: PhotoEnhance
Tone: Monochrome
Effect: None
Low..High slider: Left in middle position
Digital Camera Correction: left it OFF
High Speed: Off
Gloss left on Auto
Experiments:
Note: All experiments except #3 were done on Epson Premium Glossy paper in 5"x7" size. Alarmed by the fact that I have spent over 1/2 the ink that came with the printer already, I went out and got a load of replacement ink, as well as some 4x6 adn 5x7 paper for proofing, plus some more 8x10 paper. The bill came to $250. I now see what they meant by "the cost of printer is irrelevant -- the bulk of the printing cost is in the consumables". A secondary but hugely positive side-effect of printing on small paper size (besides tremendous costs savings) is the drastic printing speed increase.
1) I printed Tanya III (but pure B&W) tagged with Grayscale Gamma 1.8 profile and with sRGB profile, and the results were identical, and both terrific -- very neutral, contrasty, and ultra-sharp. Aside from as yet unexplained brightening of the hair in the corners (quickly fixed by a PS adjustment layer darkening the bright spots a bit), I am extatic with this print.
2) I printed Tanya III with same Epson R800 Semigloss profile I have used when printing in color set in QImage, and the result was an aweful gray contrast-less garbage. Thus, for BO, keep the QImage printer profile set to OFF.
3) I printed Tanya III with correct (Off) Printer ICC setting in QImage and with Enhanced Matte paper selected in Epson Printer Driver on Epson Enhanced Matte 8"x10" sheet. The result was very educational:
a) The print was a lot less contrasty than the Epson Premium Glossy ones by far. In fact, even without the more contrasty ones by the side, it looked very dull.
b) The sheet seems a lot less resilient (i.e., it distorts, seemingly on its own) than any of the glossy/semiglossy/luster ones I tried.
c) It immediately got scratched (well, more accurately, I immediately managed to clumsily scratch it), but still...
Overall result: My less than neutral view of Matte paper is quickly and surely turning into a strong dislike.
4) I printed the A 360 dpi version of Paul Roark's New & Improved 21-step Wedge from Yahoo Digital B&W Printing forum, and found that neither on my calibrated screen, nor in the print, I can see any difference between any of the 95%...100% black. Initially, I was quite disturbed by this, but then I realized that this is OK in my case, as I personally never really cared about the "deep shadow detail" that many seem to be after. Nevertheless, I have tried to apply a curve in PS to add enough shadows contrast so I can start to differentiate 95% from 96%, etc., and realized that even after adding enough points to bring the rest of the curve close to the original, the contrast decrease in the midtones caused by this was definitely not worth the increased shadow detail, IMHO.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Homepage of Yahoo Group DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
Note the Files section in particular -- contains numerous articles, test images, gray wedges, paper info, etc. VAST.
Piezo vs. ImagePrint B&W Printing shoot-out. Conclusion: It's pretty much a draw, which means ImagePrint wins, since it does not limit the toning, and does not require dedicated hardware/inks.
Michael Reichmann reviews ColorByte ImagePrint 5.5 RIP
I checked ColorByte website, and they have version 5.6 out, with 6.0 just behind the corner. Further, they have no profiles for R800 at all. The cheapest RIP they sell is called Lite, only works with 1 printer, is not Postscript compatible, and costs $500.
Bottom line is that for printer/ink/paper combinations for which ColorByte has profiles, terrific color and absolutely neutral gray scale are possible. However, if Cathy's profile fixes my neutrality problem, it is not clear what the advantage of a stand-alone RIP is over QImage (which has superb uprezzing, and works with third-party profiles). Put another way, ImagePrint seems like a last-resort step to me (well, actually last-resort would be a soft/hardware solution, e.g., Piezography), but I definitely want to exhaust the profiling route first. Michael did write, however, that ImagePrint profiles were better than those he had custom-made (which I find inexplicable, given that he was profiling his actual printer, whereas they can only proile a same-model printer). May be accurate profiling is very difficult, and it takes multi-tens-of-thousands-of-dollar equipment to get the best results? I will hopefully know very shortly. Go Cathy!
Two more important points:
1) Bronzing on glossy paper with 2200 is lower with ImagePrint than with the Epson driver (says Michael)
2) ColorByte does not have profiles for either Epson R800 (my printer), or Epson 4000 (expensive, but much more economical (due to ink bottle size) in terms of ink costs printer that can print up to 17" wide and costs $1700.
Mystery resolved -- Michael Reichmann prefers matte paper because he uses it for presentations and exhibitions, invariably putting it under glass. I guess (though am not sure about this) that a matte paper under glass gains perceived dynamic range compared to just plain matte paper, probably for the same (still unknown to me) reasons that glossy paper gains dynamic range over the matte paper of equivalent whiteness.
This means that for the stuff I am planning to have framed, I need to choose between using matte+glass or semiglossy+no glass combination, and since I really hate glass, and since longevity is not really too big of an issue (much better printing techniques are becoming availalble all the time, plus it is likely that flat-screen monitor technology will soon replace framed photo art), I will likely go with semigloss/no glass option.
In either event, what's clear is that I am not insane, and that it is not just my delusion that glass-less matte paper has very low dynamic range.
Michael Reichmann describes Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper here, and explains that he prefers Epson Premium Semigloss (the latter is less shiny, and has smoother texture). I have tried both, and I also prefer Semigloss, though it's not a big deal. I have already ordered the profile for Premium Luster, and I have a feeling they are so similar I will be able to use the same profile for both. If not, it's just about $50 to have another profile made (Cathy charges $40, and you need to mail her 3 prints).
Michael Reichmann previews Epson Stylus Pro 4000 printer which he switched to. He mentions that there is still bronzing present. I read the PDF spec of 4000, and it is no surprise, since even though it uses 8-ink system, with 7 active at a time, it is a very different system from my R800, and there is no Gloss Optimizer. Very likely, this means that for me, the non-matte printed results would be unacceptable due to bronzing. It's fine for Michael, as he apparently print 95% of his stuff on matte paper, but I strongly prefer the higher dynamic range of Premium Luster and Semigloss, at least for color, and thus will have to wait for either 4000 replacement, or for 2200 replacement -- whichever will have the gloss optimizer -- to be able to print larger than 8"x10".
Luminous Landscape links to Gray Balancer (English) download and explanation for using substitute Kodak Gray cards
Printer Grayscale Test Wedges
Four Digital Printing Articles (possibly controvercial), explaining BO (Black Only?) printing method. Others say that BO is great for neutrality, but produces visible dot in highlights.
Epson Graybalancer Download (risky, may have a virus or a backdoor)
Photo.net discussion of Epson GrayBalancer and 2200 B&W Printing
"If you have a 2200 and want good neutral B&W prints, you have three choices: get a RIP like ImagePrint, try the BO method or get another printer like a 1160 or a 1280 and use quadtone/hextone inks. Trust me, I and many others have been down this road. There are hextone carts out for the 2200. However, you would loose you ability to print color. I'll admit that I have not tried the BO method. I have often read that it produces too many visible dots in the highlights. It is probably worth a try though. I tried and tried to get good B&W from my 2200. As I type this, there is a 2200 sitting to my right that produces stunning color prints with Ultrachrome ink and a 1280 to my left that produces stunning B&W prints with Ultratone ink. I sit happily between." (Kevin Hicks)
"I just opened the box on my new epson 2200 and began printing BO prints following Clayton Jones exact settings, (currently using matt blacck in the photo black slot), while waiting for the eboni black to arrive from MIS and on enahnced mat paper I am stunned and deligthed by the results of my large 12 x 18 prints. . .awesome . I can hardly wait to try the eboni on hanemuhl rag. The articles on claytons site mentioned in the post earlier ar thourough and comprehensive." (jerry diakiw)
"...Hahnemuhle Photo Rag. The PR is quite expensive but the sharpness, rich black and shadow detail are superlative. I use EEM to "proof" and then PR for the final prints which I sell. Give the BO method a try and holding the prints 10-12" from your face and the highlight dots are indistinguishable. Put the print under glass, hang it on a wall and people with who view it normally (and without smearing their noses on the glass) will never see any dots in the highlights but they will ooh and ahh over your beautiful prints." (Richard Sintchak)
My current problems:
Problem 1: despite the printer-supplied spectrophotometer-based ICC profile, I am getting a far-from-neutral gray wedge. This results in non-neutral B&W prints, which specifically, and very irritatingly, have a yellow tint in the lower highlights/upper midtones, and either cyan or green cast in the lower midtones/upper shadows (and that's just the stuff I can trivially see).
Solution: I have very high hopes Cathy's profile will fix this for me. If not, I will be a very disappointed dude, and will have to start going through custom-curve by-eye and by-trial-and-error creation process. This option is very unappealing to me. Go Cathy!!!
Problem 2: My prints are coming out darker than what I see on the monitor. By this, I mean that the midtones and shadows are darker -- I am perfectly happy with the highlights, they are bright enough (on Luster and Gloss paper, that is).
Temporary Solution: I came up with a temporary fix for this problem -- I made a PS curve (Overall map 62 to 47) to get the on-screen original (not proof preview) image to look as close to how the print was coming out, and then I just took the inverse of this curve (i.e., overall maps 47 to 62), called it "Epson R800 Darken Compensation", and am now using it on all images. Luckily, it seems orthogonal to color -- it just makes everything lighter, thus matching the screen much better. I called this fix temporary because I believe in profiled "scientific" approach, and find tweaks like this very distasteful, even if they work. I am hoping Cathy's profile will fix this problem for me as well. If it does not, however, it's much less of a problem than the first one, and I can make a custom lightening curve pretty fast and quite accurately by eye.
Problem 3: The Photoshop Ctrl-Y (Proof Preview Colors) looks totally different from the print. In fact, the print looks closer to the original Photoshop preview image than to the proof preview one (the latter is much duller and brighter). And, mind you, this is with Simulate: Paper White disabled. With it enabled, the preview looks even duller yet (less contrasty), and thus even further from the print.
Solution: I have no solution for this problem, and can't even think of one. Since my monitor is calibrated, and since I doubt there could be a bug in Phothoshop CS of this severity, I don't know what to think. Note, however, that this problem is not as severe as one might think, becase I am finding (except for the first two problems above) that the actual Photoshop image (not proof preview) is an excellent match for what is printed, and thus is a very good preview in and of itself. (Ideally, this is exactly how a printer would behave -- just produce a sheet of paper looking exactly as the image on your monitor.)
I have ordered a profile from Cathy Stratton's Cathy's Profiles for Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper on Epson R800 with OEM (Epson) inks, printed using QImage, and highest quality settings. I am hoping very much it will solve my problems with the gray wedge neutrality, and, possibly (though a lot less important) my darkening problem.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Luminous Landscape Epson 2200 Printing Techniques
Luminous Landscape B&W Printing with Epson 2200
Luminous Landscape Velvet Fine Art Paper Review
Note: It requires very careful treatment.
Alternative Opinion of Epson 2200 posted on Luminous Landscape
Important points learned from Luminous Landscape review of Epson 2200:
1. It is very slow (see Timing section). 13x19 at top res. takes 30 minutes.
2. There is essentially no metamerism (see Metamerism -- Not! section). UltraChrome inks = image looking almost the same under different lighting conditions.
3. It prints great B&W -- Michael dumped Piezography system (he used on Epson 1200, and which used to clog his heads badly).
Moral: I need to fix my neutrality problems (hopefully the profile I ordered will work), and then get the new wide Epson when it comes out,
since it will have the following 2 chief advantages over 2200:
1) Matte Black ink will not need to be swapped with the Photo Black (8 inks instead of 7)
2) It will likely be much faster (R800 is faster for same-size paper)
Piezography Information
Luminous Landscape review of Piezography
Yahoo Digital B&W Printing Group
Discussion indicating Epson 1280 is probably the top choice
Specific Recommendations for Piezography Inks and Papers
Post mentioning other choice (MIS Associates), reinforcing 1280, etc.
Extremely useful thread discussing MIS vs. Piezograpy (P=better) and much else
Peruse/sign up for these yahoo groups:
-DigitalBlackAndWhiteThePrint (more general quadtone group)
-piezography3000 (strictly piezography)
Monday, March 01, 2004
I will use this blog to document my progress in learning how to print exhibition-quality digital photographs at home. I am starting out with the following:
1) Calibrated SONY Multiscan G520 monitor (using ColorVision Spyder)
2) Reasonable Photoshop skill level
3) Epson R800 Pigment inkjet printer
4) Photoshop CS (used for editing but not for printing)
5) QImage 2004.136 (used only for printing -- no filters)
6) BreezeBrowser v. 2.8
7) Printer profiles supplied by Epson
8) Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper
9) Images in my gallery at Pbase
