fivetonsflax Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Hi everyone. I've just set up an Epson 1280 with the UT2 B&W inkset. I read a recommendation somewhere to proof on Epson Enhanced Matte and make final prints on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag. So I picked up a package of each. I've made a few prints on EEM, and they look OK, but they don't blow me away. It's hard to say what is missing. I'm printing from Photoshop using the Roark workflow. I did get borderless printing working, which is nice. I'm going to try the Hahnemuhle papers and see if I like the results better. I am also considering trying the Quadtone RIP. Any other suggestions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_yeatts Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Ben, could you be more specific as to why the prints don't 'blow you away'? I'm using the same setup for B&W and print exclusively on Epson Enhanced Matte paper. The only thing I've noticed is a tendency toward lower contrast, but it's easy enough to correct in your imaging application. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fivetonsflax Posted July 5, 2005 Author Share Posted July 5, 2005 That may be it. The images seem to lack punch to me. I will follow up further this evening when I can post with a print in front of me. Thanks, Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fivetonsflax Posted July 5, 2005 Author Share Posted July 5, 2005 What do you do about the contrast? Is there a particular technique you've found that makes the prints look more like the on-screen proofs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobmichaels Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I've found the printed paper will never have the punch of what you see on the screen. The print is reflected light. It just like a color slide always looking better than any print. I find that EEM and HPR look very similar. So much so that it's hard to justify the HPR price except for archivalness. I used to print with the UT2 inkset. In fact I've used almost all the MIS b&w inksets. I made really good prints with all of them but always come back to prefering Eboni Black Only. But that's a personal choice and others make a different one. But, I think the key to great looking b&w prints is what you do in Photoshop. Setting the endpoints in the levels layer is pretty standard. But the shape of the contrast curve is the key. I find that it almost always has to be S shaped for my taste. The contrast curve needs to be tweaked to just have that right amount of punch you need in the shadows, in the highlights, and in the midtones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_sokal___dallas__tx Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Bob, can you post your curve? Or do you individualize each print? I still never solved my Eboni banding problem. Nozzle check is good, I have no banding when printing in "color" with the UT2 and Eboni, but have terrible banding with BO. Like you, I love BO and wish like hel* I could get it to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobmichaels Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Paul: every image requires a different curve. Think of it as the equivalent of the masters of olden days dodging and burning sections of each individual print. But for us it's much easier to look at the end result on the screen while we tweak the curves. But do work with an S shaped curve that addresses the needs of the shadows and highlights individualy and separate from the midtones. Some prints just seem to work with an overall curve adjustment while others need that special work on either end of the curve (or sometimes both) to really come alive and match the vision of the photographer. To me this is what makes digital b&w printing so rewarding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fivetonsflax Posted July 11, 2005 Author Share Posted July 11, 2005 I tried some different S-curves. That seems to help, to some extent. I'm also going to try some pearl or semi-gloss paper. Thanks, everyone; I'll keep reporting back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiyen Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 If the issue is just the deepness of the blacks...you will need to go to a pearl or even glossy to get them richer. Matte paper won't ever have as high of a dmax as glossier papers. allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fivetonsflax Posted July 11, 2005 Author Share Posted July 11, 2005 Thanks, Allan. For some reason, I was under the opposite impression. I was planning to pick up some semi-gloss papers today to check it out, though. What's the difference between semi-gloss and pearl? I have Eboni ink in the black position, so my choices of glossy paper are limited. But it looks like there are some decent papers that are supported with this ink, so I'm not worried about that. If I find that I'm really a glossy fan, maybe my next black cart will be Photo Black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiyen Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I use the UT2 in my 1280 as well, just fyi, with the Eboni ink. I use it quite a bit with Ilford Smooth Pearl, and the dmax is noticeably better. The prints really have some snap to them. But then they aren't archival so... I actually don't know the difference between semi-gloss and pearl. I prefer Pearl to glossy since it doesn't have the high reflectance which can cause some issues with various viewing angles. allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fivetonsflax Posted July 11, 2005 Author Share Posted July 11, 2005 Do you have a non-matte archival paper you like with that setup? I don't care if I make non-archival prints right now, since I'm still trying to figure out how to get good results. But it'd be nice to have the option later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiyen Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I don't think there are _any_ non-matte archival papers, at all. If you go to the photo black, that ink, itself, is not archival (I think). The nice thing is that the Eboni ink works on some glossy papers by itself - no need to switch. I think Hahnemule PR has the _highest_ dmax of any of the matte papers. allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fivetonsflax Posted July 11, 2005 Author Share Posted July 11, 2005 By "highest D-max" do you mean best (darkest) or worst (lightest)? I think a high D-max means a darker black, but your emphasis gives me pause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiyen Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Oh yeah, sorry. Higher dmax == deeper blacks. Keep in mind that it's a pretty slim margin. Epson Enhanced Matte is like...1.6, PR is 1.65, something like that. Small advantages from one to the other. allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fivetonsflax Posted July 11, 2005 Author Share Posted July 11, 2005 ... Oh crumb. In a hurry today, I bought Ilford Classic Pearl paper instead of Smooth Pearl paper. I wonder if I can make this work? Here's another issue. The MIS web page says that for Ilford Smooth Pearl, I should use 'Media Type: "Photo Quality Glossy Film."'. But in the print dialog box, under "print settings", that media type is grayed out! Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiyen Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 I'm 99% certain that you cannot use pigment inks like the UT2 set on the Classic Pearl. Sorry. Can you return it? Do you have the latest 1280 driver from Epson? They updated it maybe 4 months ago. I will look up how I have it set up at home. Perhaps you have to set it to custom? allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fivetonsflax Posted July 12, 2005 Author Share Posted July 12, 2005 I'm using whichever driver version came on CD with the printer. I'll go online and see if I can find a newer one. Thanks. I don't think I can return the paper, since I opened it already. No big deal. I'm having work done on my apartment, so I laugh scornfully at the waste of a mere $14. Well, not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiyen Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 I just installed the new driver, for the heck of it, on my laptop. I can select Glossy Film in the driver. Good luck with this, by the way. I am really happy with my UT2 setup. allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fivetonsflax Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 The problem was that I was trying to print borderless. Apparently that's not supported with that type of paper. Once I switched to non-borderless printing, the media option I wanted became un-grayed. The prints look pretty good. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fivetonsflax Posted July 14, 2005 Author Share Posted July 14, 2005 A guy working at Adorama said that pearl and semi-gloss both refer to something between matte and glossy. If one is closer to matte than the other, he didn't know about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now