vertical banding issues

[owen_dawson]

<p>Ok so i've read, it seems, most every post on vertical banding with epson 2400.<br>

It's not really an issue with images that don't have sky and or smooth water, probably because the image is to busy and it's not noticeable. <br>

I just finished printing 8 images for an upcoming photo exhibit and I have two images that are giving me a fit with the banding. I have printed these images in the past with no issues, so i know it's not the image. <br>

that being said here are the fixes i've tried.</p>

<p>1. replacing ink cartridges<br>

2. set LR sharpening to low<br>

3. change media<br>

4. change operating systems Mac to PC<br>

5. clean heads<br>

6. align heads<br>

7. tried different print resolutions<br>

If you have any other suggestions NOT listed that have worked for your banding issues, feel free to leave a comment.<br>

thank you.</p>

<p> </p>

[howard_m]

<p>can you post an image of the offending prints?</p>

[owen_dawson]

<p>Not sure if the link is working?<img src="http://www.owendawsonphotography.com/crop059.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Do you print in 8 or 16 bit colour?</p>

[owen_dawson]

<p>usually my final print is jpg 8bit from nef</p>

[owen_dawson]

Everything i've read on the 8bit vs 16bit printing says there's zero difference in the two, so i don't think thats the issue although i will print

a test to see.

[peterbcarter]

<p>Owen, you have been reading the wrong material. One of the biggest problems with 8 bit colour is the limited size of your palette. This would explain you stepping between fine graduated tones.</p>

<p>Drive space is cheap. Keep your images in 16 bit tiffs until you are *required* to do otherwise.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Peter - but what bit depth does the actually printer use, surely that is the question? If the printer is only an 8 bit printer and Owen has converted his original file as full 16 or whatever bits to his printer ready file at 8 bits, can he do any more? Does his printer driver convert higher bit files into 8 bits anyway?</p>

<p>Owen let us know if this was the problem!</p>

[howard_m]

<p>I think there are 2 conversations in play here. First is 'are you printing directly from a 8bit jpg you created by exporting it from LIghtroom' or are you printing out of Lightroom directly. 2nd is 'if you're printing in Lightroom, are you clicking on the 16bit button on the Printing module'?</p>

<p>The 16bit 'button' doesn't do anything in reality. However, if you are somehow printing from a 8bit jpg directly, that would account for (what appears to be) the posterization. 8bit jpgs just aren't enough data to do really subtle shading.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>One of the big problems is degradation of your palette. When ever you go from one colour space to another, a translation is made and you can loose information. Once it is gone...it's gone. Use the largest colour space you can, and stick with it. Find out what all your post programs can handle and pick the largest colour space you can. Set that for all the defaults.</p>

<p>Howard brought up lightroom, and I will point something out. Go into the print module and scroll down (right) until you see color management. You can select 'managed by printer' or an actual printer profile. I have two printers. The colour laser I use just for testing and I let the printer manage it. I will not likely cause any posterization, but I will also lose control of everything else. But when I use my ink jet, I use a profile (for a specific paper) to get the job done. There are two options (intent) 1: Perceptual and 2: Relative. These are settings that give hints on how to convert the image palette to the printer palette. They are what you think, and your case I would choose relative to give the smoothest transitions.</p>

<p>Note that I use lightroom 4. It may be a little different in 5. What ever program you use, you should have similar options.</p>

<p>So.....</p>

<p>The biggest evil is converting pallets. You loose something every time.<br>

The second evil is limiting your palette size. Colours will get substituted and may not be good choices.</p>

<p>The job of the palette is to hold all of the possible colours the image contains. ProPhoto is one of the larger ones and sRGB is tiny, made for printing on ink jet printers and most monitors. Obviously bigger means less loss of perceived detail.</p>

<p>The picture data makes reference to the palette for every colour used. If the image is 8 bits (jpg) there can only be 256 possible different colours; that's all. 16 bit jumps you up to 65536.</p>

<p>So, a graduated tone (like the sky) didn't stand much of a chance to have a smooth graduation as a jpeg.</p>

<p>A good read: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml</p>

[cjk]

<p>Peter, </p>

<p>while I agree with your post above (except for "pallets" being evil, except obviously if they fall on your head :), just one clarification: 8-bits jpgs actually use <strong>8 bits for each color</strong> (RGB), resulting in 256x256x256 possible color combinations in a image (about 16.8M).<br>

(A long, long, long time ago, GIF files were limited to 256 colors... I am not sure if that's still the case or not, but that's not really relevant for this discussion)<br>

And I do agree that 16 bits are the way to go for smooth color gradations. </p>

 

[peterbcarter]

<blockquote>

<p>except for "pallets" being evil</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That would be <em>converting </em>palettes.... ;)</p>

<p>And you may be right about jpg files.... as the colour space is optional. I believe all modern editors embed a colour space by default. I know with the web this is desirable, as well is using a vendor to send your print jobs (usually providing their own). The big thing with palettes is it goes beyond rgb for colour possibilities.</p>

 

[ted_kahn]

<p>I imagine you've already checked this, but in case you haven't -- you should print a nozzle check pattern and examine it closely to make sure it's perfect. Even a small dropout in one color can cause banding.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Personally, on further thought I suspect this is a printer issue. Posterization you could easily tell, banding is probably just your nozzles. You probably wouldn't notice it on other shots unless you have areas of similar colors with little detail.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Owen mentioned:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"7. tried different print resolutions"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've been experimenting with tricks to minimize banding with my various printers, including older Epson R200 and HP Photosmart 475 portable. Both of those older inkjets tended to show banding at the default DPI (including via PictBridge direct from the cameras). From Lightroom 4.4, I've gotten the best results at 480 DPI for these older inkjets.</p>

<p>Also, with Epson printers, using the super microweave setting helps minimize banding, although it creates another problem - prints are darker. Other folks have mentioned this over the years about the super microweave setting with Epsons. So it's a tradeoff. I mostly use my home inkjets for 4x6 prints for snapshots to give away to family and friends, so I don't need the ultimate in resolution. The standard 480 DPI works well enough.<br /> <br /> Oddly, increasing the DPI in Lightroom to 720 as recommended by some sites had the opposite effect for me - the banding returned. There are probably logical reasons for certain DPI settings working better than others.<br /> <br /> Another factor: matching the paper and ink to the printer. Mixing paper brands and inks tends to introduce variables. I haven't tried any of the premium non-Epson/HP papers. A few times I've tried Epson premium glossy in the HP printer and saw more banding, while the HP premium glossy seems to work well in both the HP and Epsons.</p>

[owen_dawson]

<p>after cleaning heads multiple times and going through IMO every conceivable options to remedy this issue, it seems now that things are getting worse.<br>

the last test print is not only banding but the start of the band pattern is much more noticeable see photo. <br>

I'm convinced its a printer issue. this printer has paid for itself many times over. I just put an order in for the 3880. </p>

<div></div>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Owen<br>

Did you align the print head? What I am seeing on your last print is what the printers at work do on an occasion.<br>

We run a print head alignment and that usually takes care of the problem.</p>

[owen_dawson]

<p>Just spend a few hours printing on the new 3880. no issues......</p>

<p> </p>