Have You Bought The Epson P800

[websnail]

Just a random thought... but IF the key difference for the P600/800 is the black ink then would it not transpire that the physical printer matters very little unless their are technical reasons that require it.

My guess is that, custom profiling, judicious refilling from either a suitable compatible or large format HD ink carts would provide the same effect but on older, established printers, yes?

EDIT: Ah... on second thought... This issue of the "spurious waste cycles"... Might that indicate the inks are more prone to clogging/drying? Does beg an interesting question given that a lot of supposed development in Epson heads has involved increased improvement to reduce clogging.

Perhaps it'd be best to try these new HD inks out on an R2880 or similar to see if such clogging issues are likely/possible? without risking a machine with larger carts and an internal CIS system?

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

I don't know whether the Ultrachrome HD inks show other improvements over the K3 inks or not, whether these inks give a wider gamut, less bronzing etc, that was out of the scope of the above discussion of black levels. Regrettably the P800 is currently the biggest model using these new HD inks, aside from the P600, so bigger cartridges then those of 90ml are not available for draining yet, but one could assume that Epson will offer larger models with the HD ink in the future.
Lyson/Marrutt are just letting the customers see their announcement in their webshop that a Lyson comparable HD ink is coming soon - since 4 months....
I did a quick test with this HD photo black , it is much darker than a K3 compatible ink I currently use - a drop of Lmin from 12 to 7 on a particular paper I have in use, and that is directly visible on the printout. And a visible drop of the dark level is as well visible on matte papers so I may forget the use of a matte black altogether.

Clogging - I'm not affected by that effect too much, I just may print too frequently.

 

[Ian Barber]

Ian, how did you get your a & b values at zero out of the printer? I never see that from print-to-print as mine goes for a walk in the a & b values of maybe +/-0.1 at least. I never see "0" values that much. Munki on some B&W reading mode only?

Interesting question, I think I may have had a -100 saturation layer above the main layer.

I am going to re-spot the patches again to include the a & b values. By including the a & b values, will this allow us to work out just how neutral or not the ABW drive is ?

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

I have received a newsletter from InkjetMall which deals mainly with the P600/800 and may
highlight some of the already addressed issues:

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact...261ac&ch=bb903ce0-3c5f-11e5-a3f4-842b2b5261ac
(I hope the link works.)

 

[Ian Barber]

I have received a newsletter from InkjetMall which deals mainly with the P600/800 and may
highlight some of the already addressed issues:

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact...261ac&ch=bb903ce0-3c5f-11e5-a3f4-842b2b5261ac

Thanks for that, very interesting read, especially the comment about the 3880 will be a tough act to follow...

 

[Ian Barber]

Here are the updated results showing both L a b values.

Is it possible to plot a linear graph from this to see how linear or not the results are.

 

[RogerB]

Here are the updated results showing both L a b values.

Is it possible to plot a linear graph from this to see how linear or not the results are.

If you want to check the linearity you really need to print and measure a step wedge. The most common is a 21-step wedge that goes from L = 100 to L =0. I don't know much about the ColorMunki but you might find this article by Keith Cooper useful. He gives a 21-step file for the Munki and explains how to measure it and extract the data. It's at http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/bw_printing/bw_print_colormunki.html

When you look at the a* and b* values you need to take account of the values for paper white. Your white is a* = -1, b* = -2 so for your prints to appear neutral your absolute a* and b* vaules need to be slightly negative, at least in the lighter tones. I have yet to find a paper on which printed a* = b* = 0 looks neutral - it's always relative to the paper white.

I am a bit surprised to see your minimum vale of L is 9. Using ABW I would expect to see something around 4 or 5. It will be interesting to see how a 21-step measurement comes out.

 

[W. Fisher]

Interesting numbers now Ian. So it looks like you have a tint of green (a) and a tint of blue (b) in your three blacks.

More odd is that your numbers follow what I am seeing with the Epson Claria dye ink too in their black having a bit of a teal-green look as seen by either the i1 or ColorMunki Photo. They don't agree at times for whatever reasons: the i1 goes to three decimal points, and the Munki to two, but when they differ by two full points I wonder.. (Might be the i1 reading M0, M1, M-whatever too in spot mode, as well as software differences like ColorPort, i1Profiler, Munki's software too.). Dunno.

What bothered me with the Cone Selenium K7 Black is it had a bit of a yellowish tint on the paper I was using and not the cooler purplish color I was used to with old Kodak selenium. I'm wondering if this is a "perceptual black thing" while viewing is intentional by the ink makers as maybe a green/blue tint to the black is more pleasing to the eye than going to the warmer side? It takes a whole lot of yellow ink to counter the tint in the OEM opaque black ink, but it takes a toll in that the L value begins to rise too (appears lighter) and not appear as black as the green-blue tinted black. Dunno, but I'm getting the vibe that cooler is more pleasing in perceptual viewing land.

I've tried playing with some Canson XL (Uncoated, no OB agents, etc.) watercolor paper and the black will go to a L=26 on it, while on metallic paper it gets down to a L=3 number (A very dark black and ultra-glossy too) depending on the spectrometer used. Big difference in paper though. However, the tint on watercolor I can tune the tint to almost a a&B=0 (+/-.1) at the expense of a washed-out looking black, but not so on coated papers as their carrier seems to influence the density as well as the color/tint of the ink - and a lot! On the Red River Metallic their carrier seems to have a magenta coloring going on when the ink mixes in it. You can swab ink onto the paper and see the magenta form around the edges of the swab. How the wet ink and it mix into some bizarre tint that needs to be tuned in the profiles is another matter: i.e. Ink + Ink refraction ability (i.e. bronzing) + Paper Carrier chemical mix + Paper base color = I give up on what fooking color that mess is!

Will.

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

oh yes, isn't it an interesting game ? You leave out another variable when judging the blacks - the illumination conditions - a constant fixed simulated daylight condition at a fixed brightness - or incandescent light - or ever changing daylight - and how long are you looking/starring at the black patches - just shorty or for an extended period of time until your eyes - actually more your vision system - has adjusted to it and probably shifted the white balance - it's all the viewer's perception

 

[W. Fisher]

Yeah, I think it really comes down to perception somehow -- along with all of your findings too.

Sometimes I think we dwell too much on the "Math of Inkology" and the straightness of the linearization line and its numbers, etc. More black is better. More white is better. OBA is bad. OBA is good. This ink sucks. My printer sucks. Etc.

In the past I printed and mounted, what I thought then, was a nice forest scene and then lose in competition to someone who never profiles, could care less, shot it with their cheap cell camera (cough cough), and his crummy uncalibrated monitor and printer spits out more green and brown and his forest stuff which looked better to the judge.
Okay, it looked better than mine too.

Will.