Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Running HP inks through an Epson printer  (Read 8962 times)
MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 623


« Reply #40 on: July 16, 2013, 08:17:52 PM »
ReplyReply


Silver gelatin prints never performed that well. They needed toning to completion with sepia, selenium or gold, or a split-tone combination of the three (a 1:19 'archival' bath in selenium doesn't do the trick - try 1:5, where you get a colour shift even in the highlights, for proper protective toning) in order to hold up.

Also, I'd consider the holy grail of longevity to be the carbon print, not the platinum print, due to platinum's destructive effect on the paper base. Platinum images will last forever. The catalytic effect of platinum, however, will form acids from atmospheric gases that will destroy the paper - many century-old platinum prints are in perfect condition, with no fading, but the papers they are printed on (and, in albums, the papers, they are in contact with) have become brittle or turned orange due to this catalytic effect. This isn't helped by the fact that, due to the acidic nature of the printing process, a platinum print cannot be made on buffered paper (although the acid can be washed out and the buffer re-established once the print has been made).

I suspect the holy grail of image longevity is in photo ceramic technology, the kind being used to produce images that are affixed to gravestones. But, of course, the weak link with a photo ceramic image is the brittleness of the substrate. Drop it, and like a porcelain vase, it can shatter. There's never any universally perfect answer, just an application-specific answer which best serves a specific need.

As for Silver gelatin prints, the not-so-great test results I'm seeing on modern silver halide papers are being impacted essentially by the amount of OBAs. Prior to the 1950s, silver gelatin prints didn't contain OBAs, so the modern stuff in test recently at Aardenburg is simply reflecting modern tastes for "brighter white" media that will lose their pristine cool-white appearance over time more quickly than the silver particles will fade or discolor provided that temperature and humidity levels keep the gelatin binder below its glass transition temperature (Tg). Hence, the universal weak link with classical silver gelatin black & white prints on traditional fiber base paper (i.e., not the RC papers) is prolonged exposure to high humidity. Gold, Selenium, and other toners help protect against silver ion migration (oxidation-reduction reactions) under high humidity circumstances which looks typically like blue-black or silvery mirroring tarnish effects on the image surface, but high humidity still wreaks havoc with any gelatin coated or gelatin-sized papers because it invites mold and mildew, sticking of the print surface to other papers, glass, plastic album sleeves, etc., in contact with the gelatin, and high humidity where gelatin goes above Tg is also a nice invitation to insects for a free lunch.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com



« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 08:21:51 PM by MHMG » Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #41 on: July 16, 2013, 09:56:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Desktop printers with droplet sizes down to 1.5 picoliter but with the same inkset do not show better gamut than their wide format brothers.

Point taken - makes sense, now that I think about it.

Quote
I did not write that the extra grey inks will harm fade resistance. In color mode you have to create good black generation to get rid of CMYetc composite mixes that could harm fade resistance of a print, that fact does not change with more grey inks.

I thought that's what you were implying. Or did you just mean that any colours along the black/grey inks' 'gradient', from black to white, needed to be kept free of other, non-black colour pigments in the RIP (with a separate black-and-white RIP only utilising the black and grey inks) in order to avoid colour shifts?

It should be possible to do this in Versaworks, Imageprint or other RIP software, shouldn't it??

Quote
Maybe there is a misunderstanding. I do not write the replies to advocate the use of a HP Z3200 printer or any other brand printer but I try to explain that your Super Customised Solution asks for a lot of skill to get all what you want: fade resistance, wide gamut, highest image quality.

I guess my question is, 'is it possible', rather than 'is it easy'. If it's chemically and physically possible to mix all the most fade-resistant black and colour inks together - and Paul Roark's experience seems to suggest that it is - then the fade resistant part is covered, at least for the inks. Permanence of the paper is another issue entirely, but using uncoated, buffered 100% cotton paper should go a long way towards long-lasting prints, while pre-heating the ink and paper for faster evaporation, and using inkjet-appropriate paper sizing, should help alleviate some of the issues with printing on uncoated media.

The wide gamut and image quality parts would be about choosing the right inks, out of all the fade-resistant ones, and developing a good-quality RIP, as well as ICC profiles for the RIP/printer/paper combination. There's no reason an inkset including the entire range of HP colour inks, plus a lineup of black/grey inks, would have any less gamut than the Vivera inks alone. I would expect this would require a lot of experimentation and test prints, but by no means would be impossible. Failing that, I could always commission an expert to develop a RIP for the custom inkset... some businesses specialise in producing RIPs and ICC profiles for customers.

That said, I don't expect it to be easy - merely possible.

Quote
Compromises are made in OEM solutions and compromises are accepted by users with any of the OEM choices, we simply get not all in one package. Sometimes a wider gamut is aimed at and less fade resistance accepted as the penalty.

The price of living in a society where immediate and short-term flashiness is everything, with no consideration for the long term.

Acid-washed denim and parachute pants, anyone?

Quote
Yes, the Zs are compromised on paper thickness and loading sheets is not their forte either. Your SCS does not include an integrated spectrometer for calibration and profiling like on the Zs but I guess it will after this message.

I use non-integrated spectrophotometers and densitometers for this, and other purposes, anyway - shouldn't be too hard to enter them into RIP software to come up with curves for each ink. It may be worthwhile printing out a standard-sized test image on each paper and sending it to a specialist company to develop a custom ICC printer profile for each paper using the printer, though.
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #42 on: July 16, 2013, 10:20:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I suspect the holy grail of image longevity is in photo ceramic technology, the kind being used to produce images that are affixed to gravestones. But, of course, the weak link with a photo ceramic image is the brittleness of the substrate. Drop it, and like a porcelain vase, it can shatter. There's never any universally perfect answer, just an application-specific answer which best serves a specific need.

I'm personally banking on differentially-sized inert nanoparticles. You can print them on anything, put them into aqueous, solvent or UV inks, and they're completely chemically and UV inert. Brittle substrates will never make for good image longevity, no matter how permanent the inks are. We're already using this principle to produce anodised titanium sheet in different colours, among other things, and the different nanoparticle sizes is what gives toned chlorobromide papers quite a different colour to pure bromide papers treated with the same toner.

Quote
As for Silver gelatin prints, the not-so-great test results I'm seeing on modern silver halide papers are being impacted essentially by the amount of OBAs. Prior to the 1950s, silver gelatin prints didn't contain OBAs, so the modern stuff in test recently at Aardenburg is simply reflecting modern tastes for "brighter white" media that will lose their pristine cool-white appearance over time more quickly than the silver particles will fade or discolor provided that temperature and humidity levels keep the gelatin binder below its glass transition temperature (Tg). Hence, the universal weak link with classical silver gelatin black & white prints on traditional fiber base paper (i.e., not the RC papers) is prolonged exposure to high humidity. Gold, Selenium, and other toners help protect against silver ion migration (oxidation-reduction reactions) under high humidity circumstances which looks typically like blue-black or silvery mirroring tarnish effects on the image surface, but high humidity still wreaks havoc with any gelatin coated or gelatin-sized papers because it invites mold and mildew, sticking of the print surface to other papers, glass, plastic album sleeves, etc., in contact with the gelatin, and high humidity where gelatin goes above Tg is also a nice invitation to insects for a free lunch.

I never really understood the use of OBAs on silver halide papers. They usually already have a baryta layer to improve whiteness, and, these days, some people specifically choose silver prints because of their 'known' archival qualities. Yet, they continue to fill them with OBAs (which burn out, unlike baryta, and which also do absolutely nothing behind UV-protective glazing, again unlike baryta) and make them out of RC-coated papers which crack and peel within 40 years!

What's your take on styrene-acrylate sizers for paper as compared to gelatin-sized papers? The styrene-acrylate sizers seem to enhance Dmax and saturation and are obviously less susceptible to microbial attack (although antimicrobial substances can be added to gelatin). On the other hand, what do we know about the durability of styrene-acrylate sizers? Gelatin and starch sizing has been around a long time (although starch sizing is eminently unsuitable for inkjet work). How long as styrene-acrylate sizer been around for, and do papers sized in this manner show any signs of increased deterioration compared to traditional papers? Adding 15% calcium chloride to the tub sizer, too, seems to have a large effect in enhancing saturation and Dmax with inkjet prints, without also increasing dot gain.
Logged
artobest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 261


WWW
« Reply #43 on: July 17, 2013, 11:22:24 AM »
ReplyReply



The Piezography inksets seem to blow away the HP inkset in black-and-white, though, and the HP inkset is already pretty much the best 'standard' inkset out there for black-and-white printing.

The Cone inks are beautiful, yes, but I think 'blow away' is too strong. They certainly blow away the Epson inksets, with their composite-grey approach, but the grey-only HP Vivera inks come much closer - in my opinion. I have compared the results from all three systems.
Logged

shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #44 on: July 17, 2013, 11:34:05 AM »
ReplyReply

The Cone inks are beautiful, yes, but I think 'blow away' is too strong. They certainly blow away the Epson inksets, with their composite-grey approach, but the grey-only HP Vivera inks come much closer - in my opinion. I have compared the results from all three systems.

You don't need the whole Piezography system to blow away Epson's black-and-white inkset. All you need is a single ink - the blackest - an Epson printer capable of 1.5 picolitre drops and a decent RIP.

The HP black-and-white system is certainly much better than that of any other OEM manufacturer out there, but it's still not quite there with Cone tonality-wise. Also, take the two prints, mount them side-by-side in a north-facing room in Australia or a south-facing room in Mexico (so that the prints get blasted by sunlight), put two smokers in the house, and see which one will look better after a few decades...
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #45 on: July 18, 2013, 04:56:04 AM »
ReplyReply

By the way, light magenta and light cyan inks tend to be weak links in any inkset, since they are essentially watered-down versions of full-strength inks. How much would I be losing, gamut- and tonality-wise, if I were to remove these inks from the HP inkset, and built a custom inkset using the remaining inks, running them through a 1440dpi, 3 picolitre print head, using small drops of full-strength ink to represent 'light' colours instead? Is the HP 'light' cyan a true LC 'light cyan' anyway, given that HP photo printers don't actually use a cyan ink, or is it a full-strength cyan ink which just happens to be light in colour?
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2865


« Reply #46 on: July 18, 2013, 05:31:25 AM »
ReplyReply

By the way, light magenta and light cyan inks tend to be weak links in any inkset, since they are essentially watered-down versions of full-strength inks. How much would I be losing, gamut- and tonality-wise, if I were to remove these inks from the HP inkset, and built a custom inkset using the remaining inks, running them through a 1440dpi, 3 picolitre print head, using small drops of full-strength ink to represent 'light' colours instead? Is the HP 'light' cyan a true LC 'light cyan' anyway, given that HP photo printers don't actually use a cyan ink, or is it a full-strength cyan ink which just happens to be light in colour?

Gamut wise you will be losing on the light colors, subtractive mixing decreases, more white paper appears. 3.5 picoliter head does not diminish dotsize enough on full strength hue inks. In the HP Z3200 there is no Cyan used, only the Light Cyan, where normal Cyan ink is used it probably does it with mixes of the Light Cyan, Green and Blue ink. You will find a normal Cyan/Light Cyan set in the Z2100, Z5200, Z6100, Z6200 though the last has an odd Chromium Red ink to replace yet another normal ink if I recall it correctly. The Light Cyan cartridge of the Z2100 is the same one used in the Z3200. BTW, the B9180 etc desktop models used the same Z2100 inks + heads but had a better dithering/weaving that gave improved image quality while the droplet size was the same. On A3+ size the extra time of processing is less of an issue I guess.

Is there a chance we get to know your true identity?

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
July 2013, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #47 on: July 18, 2013, 06:31:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Gamut wise you will be losing on the light colors, subtractive mixing decreases, more white paper appears. 3.5 picoliter head does not diminish dotsize enough on full strength hue inks.

That's what I'd expect. How much would I be losing? If it's not too much, it could potentially be justified, in the name of print longevity. Would I be correct in guessing that the main loss would be in tonal range of skintones? I wish they'd implement the 1.5 picolitre dot size on the larger heads - they can produce dots so fine that you can print a great greyscale image with just one black ink.

In a similar vein, do you know of any white aqueous inks with strong archival stability? Mixing white dots with magenta dots would essentially give you the colour of 'light magenta', without it actually being an understrength ink.

 In the HP Z3200 there is no Cyan used, only the Light Cyan, where normal Cyan ink is used it probably does it with mixes of the Light Cyan, Green and Blue ink. You will find a normal Cyan/Light Cyan set in the Z2100, Z5200, Z6100, Z6200 though the last has an odd Chromium Red ink to replace yet another normal ink if I recall it correctly. The Light Cyan cartridge of the Z2100 is the same one used in the Z3200. BTW, the B9180 etc desktop models used the same Z2100 inks + heads but had a better dithering/weaving that gave improved image quality while the droplet size was the same. [/quote]

Perhaps replacing the Light Cyan with normal Cyan would improve the permanence of the inkset, at the expense of a little gamut in the light cyans (but possibly an expansion of gamut in the mid- to dark cyans), given that there would then be more 'pure', fully-saturated colours to form an image from.

Do you know where I'd be able to buy Vivera inks in bottle/bulk form? If I'm putting them through Epson or Roland print heads, buying them in tiny amounts inready-to-print in cartridges containing a HP print head really doesn't make sense...

Quote
On A3+ size the extra time of processing is less of an issue I guess.

I guess that's the difference between commercial volume printing and fine-art printing... I'd be happy for a printer to keep working all night, spitting out 1.5-picolitre ink droplets in 16 colours, if it gave me an absolutely perfect print. Obviously this wouldn't work for high-volume printers, but I sell very low volumes of work at high value.

Quote
Is there a chance we get to know your true identity?

I'm no-one even remotely well-known! Photography isn't even my full-time job - just a tax-deductible hobby that takes me all over the world and pays for itself, plus a whole lot of expensive toys and travel, via sales and competition winnings.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2013, 09:05:08 AM by shadowblade » Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #48 on: July 18, 2013, 11:23:45 PM »
ReplyReply

On a more general note, I find it quite interesting that many of the very same people who put so much time and effort into manually manipulating a real-world scene into a perfect digital image, using custom camera settings, filters, curves, third-party lenses, Photoshop, plugins and other software, then put so little effort or thought into the process of turning that digital image back into a real-world print.

Printing a photo using default settings, using a printer with default inkset and drivers and choosing only the paper, is a bit like taking a photo in auto mode, allowing the camera to select shutter speed, aperture and white balance, selecting only whether you want 'portrait', 'landscape', 'vivid' or another default rendering, and saving that as your final image. You're relying on the software to render everything to a default setting - which, while adequate for many people, is usually less than optimal if you're particularly picky about the final result, and less than the best possible print of that image. Between customised RIPs, mixing inksets, individual inks and printers to get the results you want (be they in terms of gamut, longevity, gloss/texture or print surface), selecting from hundreds of available papers and even doing things like modifying the einvironment in which the print is made (temperature, humidity), you can customise the file-to-print stage of image generation just as much as you the scene-to-file stage.

Yet, this second stage is often neglected - why?
Logged
wattsies
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #49 on: July 19, 2013, 12:23:38 AM »
ReplyReply


Yet, this second stage is often neglected - why?

I think printing has become a rather niche practice given the advent of smart phones, the explosion of other mobile devices and the place technology occupies today in everyone's lives.

I personally believe the only reason to take a great photograph is to make a great print, but that takes a lot of time and effort and is an art in itself. Most people are just not interested, and the old days of taking your roll of. Flm up to the local Fuji or Kodak lab and going back in a few days to pick up your prints seem gone. Why bother, when you've already seen what it looks like on a screen?

I'll keep printing, and trying to get better at. It's far more rewarding than the default position as you point out. But for most I think it is too much effort, because you have to have a passion for it at the end of the day.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5496


WWW
« Reply #50 on: July 19, 2013, 12:33:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Yet, this second stage is often neglected - why?

I think your conceit is showing through...if you consider that an image has three phases, capture, process and printing, I think it's you who are flailing about trying to achieve something at the final stage that is somehow different or non standard. If you capture a good image and process it correctly and end up with a really nice image, making even a reasonably good print results in a good print of a good image.

You can choose to make a really unique print of a crappy image but the results will be a crappy print. The question you have to ask yourself is what, exactly, are you trying to achieve? Do you want to run down a bunch of obscure rabbit holes because you like to run down obscure rabbit holes  or are you really trying to achieve something unique?

You're relatively new around here and seem hellbent on producing non-standard prints for some reason. Are you really compelled to put HP ink in an Epson to get a better print or are you simply playing around? Do you have a real reason for printing on papers that are not designed to accept inkjet inks or are you just playing around?

Don't get me wrong...I like (and admire) playing around...but it would behoove you to respect those people who can achieve a good capture, processed well and printed on a reasonably standard printer/paper combination without casting aspersions on their lack of ingenuity. Not everybody can actually get a good print of a well processed good image...can you? Care to share what it is you are trying to do with your images?
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #51 on: July 19, 2013, 12:57:09 AM »
ReplyReply

even doing things like modifying the einvironment in which the print is made (temperature, humidity)
You think you can see the difference between prints made at different temperatures or humidities on the same kit ?
I never read anyone who claims that before. Any examples you can cite ?
[/quote]Yet, this second stage is often neglected - why?[/quote]
Probably because prints straight out of modern printers are usually exceptionally good.
People usually seem to take some care over their choice of printer. Then they take further care over paper choice and the associated settings and colour management files needed. Going beyond that is only necessary if you want something particularly unusual and that's not what many people like.
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #52 on: July 19, 2013, 01:53:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I think your conceit is showing through...if you consider that an image has three phases, capture, process and printing, I think it's you who are flailing about trying to achieve something at the final stage that is somehow different or non standard. If you capture a good image and process it correctly and end up with a really nice image, making even a reasonably good print results in a good print of a good image.

That goes without saying. Anyone who is able to sell a photo as a piece of art for it's own sake (not, say, as a memento of a special occasion) or reach the final rounds of an art competition should be able to capture a good image and process it to show of its best aspects. If you can't do that, you're unlikely to sell or establish a good reputation. Therefore, competent capture and processing is simply a baseline. Whether one photo is 'better' or 'worse' than another one is largely up to taste. Presentation - that is, printing, mounting and finishing - is what really makes the piece stand out among the crowd of other good photos, and often means the difference between a viewer merely looking twice and thinking, 'nice photo' and them actually buying it. It was like this in the darkroom (where competent toning and development of a captured and processed image were what set a great photo apart from a good one) and it's the same in the digital darkroom, using inkjet printers. And anyone who can capture and process a good image can also use proper colour correction, plug in a printer with its standard inks, . Or send the file to a high-volume print lab, where they will do exactly the same thing. Since this is so easy and common, it becomes the baseline, a bit like the glossy 4x6" print in the film era - if you can take a decent photo and process it well, you can easily have it printed and end up with a good photo. To really stand out among the hundreds of other photographers who can also take a good shot, process it well and either print it using default settings or send it to a print lab, you need to make the print and presentation stand out as well.

Just as an example, Peter Lik's photos are nothing special in their own right. They're well-composed, competently captured and well-processed, but photos of a similar standard are dime-a-dozen on forums like this one. What makes them special, especially in his galleries, is the way they are printed and presented - between the lighting, printing and mounting, they are extremely striking images that, before everyone copied him, were fairly unique. Take the same photo, print it on an Epson or HP inkjet with default settings and standard paper and mat/mount it in a standard frame, and it no longer stands out among a wall of images by other photographers printed and mounted in the same way.

Quote
You can choose to make a really unique print of a crappy image but the results will be a crappy print. The question you have to ask yourself is what, exactly, are you trying to achieve? Do you want to run down a bunch of obscure rabbit holes because you like to run down obscure rabbit holes  or are you really trying to achieve something unique?

Hence, you have to find something that works out better than the 'standard', that makes it stand out as an artwork of some value, not merely a good photo. It needs to have some unique quality that would make a buyer, viewer or judge look at it again, among the hundreds of other well-captured and well-processed photos, printed using default settings on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta or Platine Rag and placed in a typical frame.

It's like mutations in biology. Most of them don't work and are regarded as defects, but, everyone once in a while, you come across something that really works (e.g. the unusual size of the human brain) and it tends to stick.

Quote
You're relatively new around here and seem hellbent on producing non-standard prints for some reason. Are you really compelled to put HP ink in an Epson to get a better print or are you simply playing around? Do you have a real reason for printing on papers that are not designed to accept inkjet inks or are you just playing around?

Been lurking for more than 12 years, actually - just never posted anything until recently.

I sell small volumes of work only, but each one I sell tends to sell for a lot. My clients tend to be institutions more so than individuals - major hotels (sometimes converted from centuries-old palaces) wanting something for their foyer, the curators of ancient temples, forts and other buildings, private estates and galleries. Essentially, they want unique artworks, not just a good, but stock-standard photo on regular photo paper - either an original painting, an original sculpture, or a photo printed and presented in such a way that the print shop down the street can't just turn out another fifteen of them that afternoon. Often, they'll want something of local significance. Given the age and longevity of some of these buildings and institutions, and the fact that they're institutions rather than individuals with a limited lifespan and no interested relatives, they also want print longevity - something that can last in their collection on display for a very long time, at least as permanent as their oil paintings and sculptures. For this reason, many of them won't buy colour photos (some have never heard of the term 'carbon print', otherwise they might change their mind) or anything on inkjet-coated paper, or any kind of glossy print.

Quote
Don't get me wrong...I like (and admire) playing around...but it would behoove you to respect those people who can achieve a good capture, processed well and printed on a reasonably standard printer/paper combination without casting aspersions on their lack of ingenuity. Not everybody can actually get a good print of a well processed good image...can you? Care to share what it is you are trying to do with your images?

I'm trying to develop a technique that will stand out amidst a wall of 'default' inkjet prints on standard paper (e.g. by printing on ultra-thick, deckled handmade paper, or even local products such as cactus silk or papyrus), produces an image quality that is at least comparable to matte inkjet paper while printing on these media (even if it may be slower, more expensive, less convenient or require some manual tasks - things which tend to turn off commercial bulk printers) and has proven long-term longevity. I'm looking at HP colour pigments and Cone or MIS pure-carbon blacks, because of their demonstrated longevity advantage over Epson and Epson-derived inks. I'm looking at Epson print heads because Epson printers can take a much greater variety of media than HP printers, including ultra-thick papers, and because many solvent printers, whose heating systems help the printing of uncoated media, use Epson heads. And I'm looking at printing on uncoated media because they have proven long-term longevity - at this stage, we don't even know what polyvinyl-alcohol-based microporous coatings will look like in 30 years, much less 100 years. Just look at what's happening to old prints on RC paper these days - no-one had predicted it when it was first released.

As well as that, I also just like experimenting to see how I can improve things.
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #53 on: July 19, 2013, 02:00:03 AM »
ReplyReply

You think you can see the difference between prints made at different temperatures or humidities on the same kit ?
I never read anyone who claims that before. Any examples you can cite ?

Yes.

Make a print on uncoated paper in a cold room, with high relative humidity (let's say, 13 degrees Celcius, 80% relative humidity - a fairly typical winter's day in Melbourne).

Now make the same print, on the same uncoated paper, on the same printer, in a heated, airconditioned room at 35 degrees Celcius and 30% relative humidity. You could push it even higher in a special 50-degree room, or by preheating the inks and paper.

The print made in the heated, drier environment will be a lot sharper, and show less dot gain, than the print made in the cold, humid environment. Faster evaporation makes that much of a difference. You can then adjust the profile for the heated, dry environment to put down a heavier ink load, resulting in more saturated colours and deeper blacks.


Quote
Probably because prints straight out of modern printers are usually exceptionally good.
People usually seem to take some care over their choice of printer. Then they take further care over paper choice and the associated settings and colour management files needed. Going beyond that is only necessary if you want something particularly unusual and that's not what many people like.

Going beyond is what you have to do if you want to stand out among the crowd of other well-composed and well-processed photos printed at a commercial, high-volume print lab, or printed at home using a large-format printer and standard settings.
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2136


« Reply #54 on: July 19, 2013, 02:43:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I have been watching this thread for a while.
I do not have anything technical to contribute but I will be fascinated to see what the bottom line will be.
Good luck with your endevours.

Tony Jay
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #55 on: July 19, 2013, 05:00:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Just to be clear, I offer a standard edition on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl, as well as a metal edition (Imagewizards Aluminarte). I'm working on this for special editions and archival copies.

Anyway, first round of tests:

Printer - R3000 - set to fire 3.5 picolitre droplets only, as this is the minimum size for Epson large-format printers and Roland printers using Epson heads
Ink - MIS Eboni MK (darkest black ink only)

Papers - Canson Rag Photographique (control); Arches Watercolour Hot Press (test). Chosen because they are very similar papers from the same manufacturer, with the main difference being that the Hot Press is uncoated and gelatin-sized, while the Rag Photographic has an inkjet coating. Both are smooth matte papers (I couldn't use the Infinity Aquarelle, as it is a textured paper quite different from the Hot Press).
Target - A 10x10 block of shaded squares, from 100% black to 0% black, all produced by dithering (since the printer is only running one ink)

First phase - Dot gain (started tonight):

Control - Target printed on Canson Rag Photographique, at air temperature 15 degrees Celcius and 55% relative humidity.
Target 1 - Target printed on Arches Watercolour Hot Press, at air temperature 15 degrees Celcius and 55% relative humidity.
Target 2 - Target printed on Arches Watercolour Hot Press, at air temperature 50 degrees Celcius and 30% relative humidity (printer was placed inside a wooden crate and an electric heater was used to heat the air inside the crate to the desired temperature)

Dot gain and Dmax of test prints will be measured once the prints have had 24 hours to dry, to be compared with dot gain of control

Second phase - Dmax:

Profiles to be created to linearise the output for two test conditions (test prints at room temperature and at 50 degrees), based on the targets printed during the first test, aiming to maximise Dmax while allowing contrast to be seen between the darkest patches (i.e. not oversaturating the paper). Standard output (via ICC profile) for coated control paper.

Dmax to be measured on each test sample when thoroughly dry and compared with Dmax of control, as well as each other.

Third phase - Surface coatings and maximising Dmax:

Multiple pure-black targets to be created on Watercolour Hot Press, both at room temperature and in the 'oven', and allowed to dry thoroughly.

Several different sprays and surface coatings to be tested, to determine the deepest Dmax achievable.

I will post the results when I have some!
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2865


« Reply #56 on: July 19, 2013, 06:13:41 AM »
ReplyReply

2 picoliter:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=61067.0


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
July 2013, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.

Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #57 on: July 19, 2013, 06:24:30 AM »
ReplyReply


I know. But I'm running the tests at 3.5 picolitres, because the large-format printers I'm intending to run this on can't produce 2 picolitre droplets.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2865


« Reply #58 on: July 19, 2013, 06:31:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I know. But I'm running the tests at 3.5 picolitres, because the large-format printers I'm intending to run this on can't produce 2 picolitre droplets.

A RIP to drive the R3000 that you can pinpoint 3.5 picoliter droplet size?

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
July 2013, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #59 on: July 19, 2013, 11:30:16 PM »
ReplyReply

A RIP to drive the R3000 that you can pinpoint 3.5 picoliter droplet size?

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
July 2013, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots

This is a friend's spare printer, so I'm using Studioprint, which she has on her computer to run her main Epson 9900 printer.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad