Two Pass Printing ?

In View Camera Magazine ( www.viewcamera.com ) Craig Blacklock

explains "double-pass quadtone printing." Beautiful prints of nudes

and nature.

 

I wonder if it will work on common 2200 and similar printers using OEM

pigments?

 

I've started playing with the idea...using test photos, my 2200 places

dots well within 1mm of where they belong on 9" test prints...maybe

far more accurately than that...no halos showing out-of-register....

 

...for example a low contrast green pass and a very high contrast

black pass from a B&W negative I've made an accurately registered

two-color silkscreen-style image ...incredibly precise considering

it's a totally unmodified printer...

 

If this can be managed with subtlety in a common desktop printer like

2200, using Photoshop on conventional images it should increase Dmax

tremendously and make these printers much more impressive.

 

Has anybody made this work?

I'm unable to enter the article you mentioned. What is it realy about? 4c separated duotone printing? What's the real benefit above one pass printing with a inkjet? Can't these devices be forced to squeeze out more ink during a first or single pass? Does it matter how wet a sheet is after one pass? I'm wondering. (I have never used no modern photo inkjet yet.)

According to my experience your method shouldn't gain predictable results. Sometimes we let junk sheets run several times through a 4c offsetpress while we are setting the color. It's amazing how one sheet looks different from the next one; one's rather blue the next reddish... O.K. with our conventional screen it might be more extreme than with a inkjet, but the problem should be the same. But do whatever pleases your eye.

Jochen, the printing application (software,

RIP", printing engine) can only lay down a certain amount of black in one pass. More black would be nice, especially on matte paper.

 

A second pass would selectively lay down additional black, after the first pass emphasized midtones, perhaps in a different-toned gray...

 

I'm suggestiong literal duotones which, to my understanding, are not possible in one pass.

 

Maybe it will soon be possible to lay down a layer of pure clear gloss, as is so effective in lithography.

 

Your lithography orientation is very much to the point, but I suspect you practice a vanishing art, much like darkroom work.

I see a little bit clearer now. But I'd still suggest hacking the RIP, to let the printer head move let's say 3 times over each line. - I don't know how to do it, but it seems necessary, because leting the paper pass a 2nd time seems more risky.

 

Clearcoating homeprinters would be nice, but from my working experience clear coat is a big mess and I can't imagine how a homeprinter could stay clean.

 

Duotones are as far as I know done with 2c presses during one pass. With 7c inkjets they should be printable in one pass too, if custom ink is available.

 

Might there be another printer with higher pigmented black? The black used for 4c offset for example is rather gray compared to a ideal one or 4c seperated b&w pictures.

Hey john. I was surprised nobody bit at your question in the Yahoo forum but I figured I'd give it a quick try since I had yesterday's step wedge laying around, and I've never heard of it before.

 

First of all Dmax is usually not limited by the printer driver but by the ink limit of the paper. When I tried it, double-pass printing simply saturated the paper beyond the ink limit to create unpleasant reflections off of black areas. Doesn't matter if it's matte or glossy, the paper can only take so much up to the ink limit. My system is calibrated such that one application of black does not produce these unpleasant reflections. But two applications did.

 

Now, I could recalibrate, but I would have no better Dmax, because I looked and I can find no part of the double-pass image that is blacker than the single-pass image. And that makes sense, because single-pass is already able to saturate the paper beyond the ink limit.

 

To make matters worse, I got inconsistant results with horizontal alignment (vertical was pretty good). So in conclusion I see no benefit to double-pass printing.

Oops. See what happens when you share a computer with your girlfriend. (sorry Anna).

Nice trys. Keep it up! I think there are three potentials in two-pass:

 

1. Clear coat. We know the new Epsons do that selectively, we know a clear "glop" is available. We don't know (I don't know) if the "glop" can be applied evenly over a rectangle...for example over a printed image on matte paper. Might be nice.

 

2. Genuine duotone. A real black over a tone such as selenium or sepia. Maybe even a real gold tone.

 

3. Dmax... While some papers do soak up everything possible in one pass, some don't. Evidently the blackest black is still Epson's OEM pigment (not Eboni), but maybe two passes would help Eboni, or maybe Eboni could usefully be applied over Epson OEM.

 

It seems to me, from reading zillions of posts, that nobody feels free to play with profiles...profiles seem restricted to non-visual thinking...very rigid.

 

Multi pass printing is a conceptually different approach...if it could be mastered (big "if") it would offer unique potential because it would bring silkscreen / lithography printers to a table that's now occupied almost entirely by geeks :-)

When I got my R800 I tried using the gloss optimizer on prints made with my 2200 with Septone inks on glossy paper, and the results were OK, but not as good as coating them in laquer or varnish.<p>

 

Here are some D-Max figures, as measured by a Macbeth TR924:<p>

 

R800/Epson ink print, Epson Premium Glossy, gloss optimizer: 2.14<p>

R800/Epson ink print, Epson Premium Glossy, McDonald Sureguard Clear Gloss spray: 2.36<p>

 

2200/Septone ink print, Ilford Galerie Smooth Gloss paper: 1.81<p>

2200/Septone ink print, Ilford Galerie Smooth Gloss paper, McDonald Sureguard Clear Gloss spray: 2.32<p>

 

D-Min for all the above: 0.07<p>

 

I've been 'quite pleased' by the Septone results: they are a very close match with - maybe even an improvement on - most untoned silver gelatin prints in terms of density range. I haven't continued to use the MacDonald Sureguard because of the smell of it, so I'm now using Golden water-based polymer varnish.<p>

 

Best, Helen

explains "double-pass quadtone printing."

 

Has anybody made this work?

Old thread but worth replying, found it while searching for something different but key word related. Double pass printing sure takes your average printing to a new level but it's not easily doable on common Inkjets.

 

As mentioned above you can use specialized RIP software to modify how your printer behaves but there are limitations. You then would be able to control how much ink is used on the paper surface and how, this means not only total ink, but also the mix (the separation), using diff methods to generate blacks (that's basically black ink generation and UCR). But... you will rarely have a chance to control the waiting time (drying time), anyway some rip Sofware allow you this, and some printers also allow you this to some extent (specially Canon). AND... some canon printers can be "hacked" using modding software like iPTool to increase the drying time beyond what the default software allows you to do.

 

The previous has great impact on printing, really, because let's say you can only achieve a maximum total ink of 200 with software... then increasing dry time significantly, would perhaps allow you to reach 220 total ink. That's depending your printer and software.

 

Now true double pass... That's not possible unless you reinsert your page and that sucks (registration issues), but it's possible on flatbed printers. You can buy some neat models on the market or build your own, in that case you can check for tutorials using printers combined with arduino controls over the motors and flatbed. There is a russian guy who has a great tutorial on this using an Epson printer + arduino, double pass is possible for him on DTG (direct to garment).

 

I have played with all the mentioned above and got great results. The main difference between scenario #1 and #2 (flatbed) is... #1 you can put your paper there, print and forget, while flatbed printing means you can only print one page a the time, double pass, remove, place another, etc. That's really slow but really (and I mean really) increases the quality of your printing. I've been using 3 passes while printing high resolution images on wood, treated wood, and other treated materials (including paper). The amount of ink you can put there once the previous pass already dried is great. Sometimes you need to print differently (not the same print on every pass) and perform separations to get there, but yes, it's doable.

 

It would be easy to think the printer COULD reload the paper (turn in reverse) and begin printing again for a double pass, but the physics of such movements and parts are not as precise as using encoders (DTG) printing as mentioned above.

Dye-sub printers do multiple passes for each print. However the printer does not release the paper between passes, and registration is maintained using knurled steel rollers. The Epson 2200 and other inkjet printers pull the paper between pairs of rubber rollers and eject it on each pass. I suspect it would be difficult to maintain registration better than 1 mm, reloading it each pass, and possibly much worse.

 

The 2200 (and other inkjet printers) determine the amount of ink applied according to the general class of paper selected in the driver, e.g., Matte Photo Paper. Even so, the paper is nearly saturated when the "Fine Printing" option is selected, because the advance between passes is cut in half, with considerable overlap. The ink and paper must be perfectly matched in order to minimize the amount of surface showing once the ink is absorbed.

 

Matte paper is ideal for low-key images and pictorial subject matter. If you want deep, saturated blacks, it's better to use semi-gloss or glossy paper.

Can't explain why, but I recently did two passes on a soft Hahnemule paper. Doing it intentionally would suggest long drying times unless you want a damp dishrag. Might work better if printing on film rather than paper.

 

Having abandoned 3 Epson printers, starting with 2200, I'm a Canon Pro10/OEM devotee.

What looks like a film coating on paper is actually a micro-porous ceramic gel, which absorbs ink leaving the surface relatively dry. If you rub it with a finger (not recommended before printing), they feel somewhat sticky and may actually squeak in the process. Glossy photographic print paper, on the other hand, feels nearly as smooth as glass. There are films you can print using an inkjet, but they have very little capacity for ink, essentially overhead projector quality.

What looks like a film coating on paper is actually a micro-porous ceramic gel, which absorbs ink leaving the surface relatively dry. If you rub it with a finger (not recommended before printing), they feel somewhat sticky and may actually squeak in the process. Glossy photographic print paper, on the other hand, feels nearly as smooth as glass. There are films you can print using an inkjet, but they have very little capacity for ink, essentially overhead projector quality.

 

The point of printing on film is to create negatives for contact printing. Working that way it's easy to precisely pin register multiple negatives (as with dye transfer).

The point of printing on film is to create negatives for contact printing. Working that way it's easy to precisely pin register multiple negatives (as with dye transfer).

If you say so. However the key point of this thread was how to get deeper blacks with an inkjet on art paper.

 

I would be surprised if the Dmax of printing on transparency film exceeds 1.0. Pin Registration sounds scientific, but any reference points would have to be in the image, not the film. Photographic prints from inkjet negatives is something you do because it's fun, not because it's effective.

Pin registration isn't "scientific" ,,,it's just craft...it can be done with proper pin registration pins or even a good quality paper punch.

 

The "reference points" can be in the image, same as when masking. Easier with larger negs (like inkjet negs).

 

Dmax relates to what effect one is after when contact printing single or multiple registered negatives (e.g. with differing contrasts/densities).

 

One punches the paper with the same punch used on the film.

 

Pin registration is still sometimes used by remaining Cibachrome fanatics to adjust contrast and to do certain graphic treatments with 35mm slide film for audio visual presentations (which I've done).

 

Pin registration is a standard and well known procedure for photo silkscreen as well: Photo silkscreen prints are of course photographs, just as dye transfer prints are.

 

Large format photographers INCREASINGLY use inkjet negatives as contact negatives to make various kinds of TRADITIONAL alt process prints.

Printing on an inkjet or laserjet is not precise enough for pixel-accurate registration and multiple layers. Typical consistency is on the order of +/- 1 mm. You could punch holes provided they somehow aligned with the particular image. Printing registration marks at the same time as the image would provide an accurate reference. The next question is how would you center the hole punch with sufficient accuracy on those registration marks?

 

For engraving offset plates, you would use special frames, with micrometer adjustments, and a microscope.

 

If you had a large-format negative, why would you need to make an inkjet copy of it for printing?

Printing on an inkjet or laserjet is not precise enough for pixel-accurate registration and multiple layers. Typical consistency is on the order of +/- 1 mm. You could punch holes provided they somehow aligned with the particular image. Printing registration marks at the same time as the image would provide an accurate reference. The next question is how would you center the hole punch with sufficient accuracy on those registration marks?

 

For engraving offset plates, you would use special frames, with micrometer adjustments, and a microscope.

 

If you had a large-format negative, why would you need to make an inkjet copy of it for printing?

 

Sounds like you're unaware of a wide variety of common practices by highly skilled set of large format photographers. In fact I suspect Weston would understand.

 

As to your last question : because some large format photographers shoot chrome and have no interest in color darkroom, yet want to make prints (or shoot b&w and want to make gum bichromate prints or carbon prints etc etc etc). Other photo forums pursue this in depth, and Google is our friend.

As to your last question : because some large format photographers shoot chrome and have no interest in color darkroom, yet want to make prints (or shoot b&w and want to make gum bichromate prints or carbon prints etc etc etc). Other photo forums pursue this in depth, and Google is our friend.

Pin registration for color separation or multiple layer printing, in the simplistic manner you describe, makes placement reproducible but not necessarily accurate. In equally simplistic terms, without accuracy, contact prints would come out looking like an old 3D movie without the glasses.

 

When printing from Photoshop or layout software, you will find options regarding "Printing Marks," which include registration marks - small circles with an internal cross, in at least two separate locations. These are used to align color separation negatives, whether on photographic film or printed with an inkjet. Location of the image relative to the edge of the paper/film is not to be trusted. The tricky part is how to align these marks with a paper punch accurately enough to avoid the "3D Movie" effect (unless you let it go and call in "art").

 

Bichromate and carbon prints are generally made using successive applications. For a single "negative", a pair of punched holes anywhere would allow reproducible placement. Then the tricky part becomes making sure the paper doesn't shrink or distort with repeated wetting and drying.

Pin registration for color separation or multiple layer printing, in the simplistic manner you describe, makes placement reproducible but not necessarily accurate. In equally simplistic terms, without accuracy, contact prints would come out looking like an old 3D movie without the glasses.

 

When printing from Photoshop or layout software, you will find options regarding "Printing Marks," which include registration marks - small circles with an internal cross, in at least two separate locations. These are used to align color separation negatives, whether on photographic film or printed with an inkjet. Location of the image relative to the edge of the paper/film is not to be trusted. The tricky part is how to align these marks with a paper punch accurately enough to avoid the "3D Movie" effect (unless you let it go and call in "art").

 

Bichromate and carbon prints are generally made using successive applications. For a single "negative", a pair of punched holes anywhere would allow reproducible placement. Then the tricky part becomes making sure the paper doesn't shrink or distort with repeated wetting and drying.

 

Adequately high precision was never a problem with dye transfer and certainly isn't with masking.

 

Angst about pixels is an untreatable anti-photographic malady.

Adequately high precision was never a problem with dye transfer and certainly isn't with masking.

Does slap-dab work qualify as art? Who needs brushes when you can throw paint cans at the canvas?

I don't think there's any reason to respond further to poorly informed and badly intended blather. Bye.

I double, triple and quad print lots of designs with inkjet. Just not superimposed. Very hard to do it like a dye transfer pin-registered print.

 

'Order Women Like Pizza' is triple printed...and candid!

 

I double, triple and quad print lots of designs with inkjet. Just not superimposed. Very hard to do it like a dye transfer pin-registered print.

 

'Order Women Like Pizza' is triple printed...and candid!

 

[ATTACH=full]1332380[/ATTACH]

 

True, perfect registration isn't likely/possible in one pass, but I've seen lots of nicely aligned alt prints from multiple inkjet contact negs.

Take a close look at a color image in a magazine or even newsprint. Those neat little rosettes don't happen by accident, especially not with four separate plates at 900 feet/sec. they're set up by people who really know the craft of registration. Sorry to have stirred up such emotion with the term "pixel-accurate," but for digital printing, that is the ultimate unit of measure. Perhaps "dot-accurate" would be less inflammatory, and apply to offset printing as well.

This is a photo forum.