Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

B&W printing from the Epson R1800 /800

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
August 11, 2005 6:31:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Has anyone sorted out the R800/1800 black and white printing so as to
get good B&W prints? Printing through Photoshop.

I have copied some old photo's and the prints are not very good as
compared to wet printing and sepia toning.

Any recommendations as to a work path.

Thanks

rm
August 11, 2005 10:22:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Rob wrote:
> Has anyone sorted out the R800/1800 black and white printing so as to
> get good B&W prints? Printing through Photoshop.
>
> I have copied some old photo's and the prints are not very good as
> compared to wet printing and sepia toning.
>
> Any recommendations as to a work path.
>
> Thanks
>
> rm

What did it look like on screen?
It is a big ask to get a B&W print off a printer that doesn't use
several black cartriges to be as good as a wet process print.
It's going to be pretty hard to get a 100% totally neutral grey in any
case, but calibrating your monitor and then ensuring that you use
profiles for the paper you are using would be the best starting place.
I've managed to get some pretty decent B&W prints, printed on Ilford
Galerie Smooth Pearl, which is a cleaner white than Epson premium
semi-gloss. (A profile for that paper / R1800 is downloadable from
Ilford). I haven't printed B&W in the darkroom for years now, but the
prints I've done look pretty darn good to me. Metamerism doesn't seem
to be a huge issue, tonal gradation is good and neutral. You
will waste a lot of ink and paper though if you don't get colour
calibration sorted first.
August 11, 2005 10:22:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

frederick wrote:

> Rob wrote:
>
>> Has anyone sorted out the R800/1800 black and white printing so as to
>> get good B&W prints? Printing through Photoshop.
>>
>> I have copied some old photo's and the prints are not very good as
>> compared to wet printing and sepia toning.
>>
>> Any recommendations as to a work path.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> rm
>
>
> What did it look like on screen?
> It is a big ask to get a B&W print off a printer that doesn't use
> several black cartriges to be as good as a wet process print.
> It's going to be pretty hard to get a 100% totally neutral grey in any
> case, but calibrating your monitor and then ensuring that you use
> profiles for the paper you are using would be the best starting place.
> I've managed to get some pretty decent B&W prints, printed on Ilford
> Galerie Smooth Pearl, which is a cleaner white than Epson premium
> semi-gloss. (A profile for that paper / R1800 is downloadable from
> Ilford). I haven't printed B&W in the darkroom for years now, but the
> prints I've done look pretty darn good to me. Metamerism doesn't seem
> to be a huge issue, tonal gradation is good and neutral. You
> will waste a lot of ink and paper though if you don't get colour
> calibration sorted first.
>

It looked Ok on the screen but the prints were muddy. That was using
Ilford Gloss and I have that profile - this has worked for colour
prints on Ilford Smooth Pearl paper.

What I've come up with now is - scan - desaturate - auto contrast - then
make sure the density looks OK as the photos vary.

Printing Epson Gloss - let PShop determine colour/working RGB Trinitron
2.2/Saturation/Black point compensation.

Best Photo / Photo Enhance on Epson Premium Gloss.

Ill go back and give the Ilford another go and see if it compares.
Ilford is my preferred paper for large prints just that I had some 6x4
Epson that I tried for test prints and it seemed to work better.

I think that I expected a wet type result off the inkjet and started
chasing my tail trying for the results with no positive direction.

rm
Related resources
August 11, 2005 10:22:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Rob" <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message
news:42fb0519$0$15502$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> frederick wrote:
>
>> Rob wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone sorted out the R800/1800 black and white printing so as to
>>> get good B&W prints? Printing through Photoshop.
>>>
>>> I have copied some old photo's and the prints are not very good as
>>> compared to wet printing and sepia toning.
>>>
>>> Any recommendations as to a work path.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> rm
>>
>>
>> What did it look like on screen?
>> It is a big ask to get a B&W print off a printer that doesn't use
>> several black cartriges to be as good as a wet process print.
>> It's going to be pretty hard to get a 100% totally neutral grey in any
>> case, but calibrating your monitor and then ensuring that you use
>> profiles for the paper you are using would be the best starting place.
>> I've managed to get some pretty decent B&W prints, printed on Ilford
>> Galerie Smooth Pearl, which is a cleaner white than Epson premium
>> semi-gloss. (A profile for that paper / R1800 is downloadable from
>> Ilford). I haven't printed B&W in the darkroom for years now, but the
>> prints I've done look pretty darn good to me. Metamerism doesn't seem
>> to be a huge issue, tonal gradation is good and neutral. You
>> will waste a lot of ink and paper though if you don't get colour
>> calibration sorted first.
>>
>
> It looked Ok on the screen but the prints were muddy. That was using
> Ilford Gloss and I have that profile - this has worked for colour prints
> on Ilford Smooth Pearl paper.
>
> What I've come up with now is - scan - desaturate - auto contrast - then
> make sure the density looks OK as the photos vary.
>
> Printing Epson Gloss - let PShop determine colour/working RGB Trinitron
> 2.2/Saturation/Black point compensation.
>
> Best Photo / Photo Enhance on Epson Premium Gloss.
>
> Ill go back and give the Ilford another go and see if it compares. Ilford
> is my preferred paper for large prints just that I had some 6x4 Epson that
> I tried for test prints and it seemed to work better.
>
> I think that I expected a wet type result off the inkjet and started
> chasing my tail trying for the results with no positive direction.
>
> rm
>

Hi.

I don't do B & W, but I have seen fantastic quality B & Ws which had been
printed on an R1800, on all sorts of paper.

As for your "muddy" prints, I don't quite follow your explanation of your
workflow.

Are you using Trinitron RGB as your "workspace" profile.? That is your
Monitor Profile, and no-one has advised using a Monitor Profile as a Working
Space since PS 4 or 5.

You seem to be letting PS Colour Manage, but you never mentioned selecting
the Printer/Paper Profile.

If PS is colour Managing then in the Printer Advanced Dialogue box, you
should be selecting "No Colour Management". If you do not do this then PS
and the Printer will both apply corrections, and only one of them should be
doing so.

Roy G
August 12, 2005 3:42:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Roy wrote:
> "Rob" <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message
> news:42fb0519$0$15502$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
>>frederick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rob wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Has anyone sorted out the R800/1800 black and white printing so as to
>>>>get good B&W prints? Printing through Photoshop.
>>>>
>>>>I have copied some old photo's and the prints are not very good as
>>>>compared to wet printing and sepia toning.
>>>>
>>>>Any recommendations as to a work path.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks
>>>>
>>>>rm
>>>
>>>
>>>What did it look like on screen?
>>>It is a big ask to get a B&W print off a printer that doesn't use
>>>several black cartriges to be as good as a wet process print.
>>>It's going to be pretty hard to get a 100% totally neutral grey in any
>>>case, but calibrating your monitor and then ensuring that you use
>>>profiles for the paper you are using would be the best starting place.
>>>I've managed to get some pretty decent B&W prints, printed on Ilford
>>>Galerie Smooth Pearl, which is a cleaner white than Epson premium
>>>semi-gloss. (A profile for that paper / R1800 is downloadable from
>>>Ilford). I haven't printed B&W in the darkroom for years now, but the
>>>prints I've done look pretty darn good to me. Metamerism doesn't seem
>>>to be a huge issue, tonal gradation is good and neutral. You
>>>will waste a lot of ink and paper though if you don't get colour
>>>calibration sorted first.
>>>
>>
>>It looked Ok on the screen but the prints were muddy. That was using
>>Ilford Gloss and I have that profile - this has worked for colour prints
>>on Ilford Smooth Pearl paper.
>>
>>What I've come up with now is - scan - desaturate - auto contrast - then
>>make sure the density looks OK as the photos vary.
>>
>>Printing Epson Gloss - let PShop determine colour/working RGB Trinitron
>>2.2/Saturation/Black point compensation.
>>
>>Best Photo / Photo Enhance on Epson Premium Gloss.
>>
>>Ill go back and give the Ilford another go and see if it compares. Ilford
>>is my preferred paper for large prints just that I had some 6x4 Epson that
>>I tried for test prints and it seemed to work better.
>>
>>I think that I expected a wet type result off the inkjet and started
>>chasing my tail trying for the results with no positive direction.
>>
>>rm
>>
>
>
> Hi.
>
> I don't do B & W, but I have seen fantastic quality B & Ws which had been
> printed on an R1800, on all sorts of paper.
>
> As for your "muddy" prints, I don't quite follow your explanation of your
> workflow.
>
> Are you using Trinitron RGB as your "workspace" profile.? That is your
> Monitor Profile, and no-one has advised using a Monitor Profile as a Working
> Space since PS 4 or 5.
>
> You seem to be letting PS Colour Manage, but you never mentioned selecting
> the Printer/Paper Profile.
>
> If PS is colour Managing then in the Printer Advanced Dialogue box, you
> should be selecting "No Colour Management". If you do not do this then PS
> and the Printer will both apply corrections, and only one of them should be
> doing so.
>
> Roy G
>
>
Sorry I did try the colour management of the Ilford paper with there
profiles. This I considered a muddy print - after several prints could
not adjust to get a good print.

Next step was to go into using the basic printing from PShop which was
described previous.

I still need some guidance as to what I should do as using PShop like I
said is still not the way to go.

rm
August 12, 2005 6:32:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Rob wrote:
> Roy wrote:
>
>> "Rob" <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message
>> news:42fb0519$0$15502$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>
>>
>>> frederick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone sorted out the R800/1800 black and white printing so as
>>>>> to get good B&W prints? Printing through Photoshop.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have copied some old photo's and the prints are not very good as
>>>>> compared to wet printing and sepia toning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any recommendations as to a work path.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> rm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What did it look like on screen?
>>>> It is a big ask to get a B&W print off a printer that doesn't use
>>>> several black cartriges to be as good as a wet process print.
>>>> It's going to be pretty hard to get a 100% totally neutral grey in any
>>>> case, but calibrating your monitor and then ensuring that you use
>>>> profiles for the paper you are using would be the best starting place.
>>>> I've managed to get some pretty decent B&W prints, printed on Ilford
>>>> Galerie Smooth Pearl, which is a cleaner white than Epson premium
>>>> semi-gloss. (A profile for that paper / R1800 is downloadable from
>>>> Ilford). I haven't printed B&W in the darkroom for years now, but the
>>>> prints I've done look pretty darn good to me. Metamerism doesn't seem
>>>> to be a huge issue, tonal gradation is good and neutral. You
>>>> will waste a lot of ink and paper though if you don't get colour
>>>> calibration sorted first.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It looked Ok on the screen but the prints were muddy. That was using
>>> Ilford Gloss and I have that profile - this has worked for colour
>>> prints on Ilford Smooth Pearl paper.
>>>
>>> What I've come up with now is - scan - desaturate - auto contrast -
>>> then make sure the density looks OK as the photos vary.
>>>
>>> Printing Epson Gloss - let PShop determine colour/working RGB
>>> Trinitron 2.2/Saturation/Black point compensation.
>>>
>>> Best Photo / Photo Enhance on Epson Premium Gloss.
>>>
>>> Ill go back and give the Ilford another go and see if it compares.
>>> Ilford is my preferred paper for large prints just that I had some
>>> 6x4 Epson that I tried for test prints and it seemed to work better.
>>>
>>> I think that I expected a wet type result off the inkjet and started
>>> chasing my tail trying for the results with no positive direction.
>>>
>>> rm
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I don't do B & W, but I have seen fantastic quality B & Ws which had
>> been printed on an R1800, on all sorts of paper.
>>
>> As for your "muddy" prints, I don't quite follow your explanation of
>> your workflow.
>>
>> Are you using Trinitron RGB as your "workspace" profile.? That is your
>> Monitor Profile, and no-one has advised using a Monitor Profile as a
>> Working Space since PS 4 or 5.
>>
>> You seem to be letting PS Colour Manage, but you never mentioned
>> selecting the Printer/Paper Profile.
>>
>> If PS is colour Managing then in the Printer Advanced Dialogue box,
>> you should be selecting "No Colour Management". If you do not do this
>> then PS and the Printer will both apply corrections, and only one of
>> them should be doing so.
>>
>> Roy G
>>
> Sorry I did try the colour management of the Ilford paper with there
> profiles. This I considered a muddy print - after several prints could
> not adjust to get a good print.
>
> Next step was to go into using the basic printing from PShop which was
> described previous.
>
> I still need some guidance as to what I should do as using PShop like I
> said is still not the way to go.
>
> rm
>
Just a quick question...
Are using Ilford Galerie _Smooth_ Gloss or Classic Gloss?
Classic gloss is for dye inkjets. You will get horrible prints with the
R1800 on it.
August 12, 2005 8:04:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

frederick wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
>> Roy wrote:
>>
>>> "Rob" <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message
>>> news:42fb0519$0$15502$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>> frederick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Rob wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Has anyone sorted out the R800/1800 black and white printing so
>>>>>> as to get good B&W prints? Printing through Photoshop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have copied some old photo's and the prints are not very good as
>>>>>> compared to wet printing and sepia toning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any recommendations as to a work path.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What did it look like on screen?
>>>>> It is a big ask to get a B&W print off a printer that doesn't use
>>>>> several black cartriges to be as good as a wet process print.
>>>>> It's going to be pretty hard to get a 100% totally neutral grey in any
>>>>> case, but calibrating your monitor and then ensuring that you use
>>>>> profiles for the paper you are using would be the best starting place.
>>>>> I've managed to get some pretty decent B&W prints, printed on Ilford
>>>>> Galerie Smooth Pearl, which is a cleaner white than Epson premium
>>>>> semi-gloss. (A profile for that paper / R1800 is downloadable from
>>>>> Ilford). I haven't printed B&W in the darkroom for years now, but the
>>>>> prints I've done look pretty darn good to me. Metamerism doesn't seem
>>>>> to be a huge issue, tonal gradation is good and neutral. You
>>>>> will waste a lot of ink and paper though if you don't get colour
>>>>> calibration sorted first.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It looked Ok on the screen but the prints were muddy. That was using
>>>> Ilford Gloss and I have that profile - this has worked for colour
>>>> prints on Ilford Smooth Pearl paper.
>>>>
>>>> What I've come up with now is - scan - desaturate - auto contrast -
>>>> then make sure the density looks OK as the photos vary.
>>>>
>>>> Printing Epson Gloss - let PShop determine colour/working RGB
>>>> Trinitron 2.2/Saturation/Black point compensation.
>>>>
>>>> Best Photo / Photo Enhance on Epson Premium Gloss.
>>>>
>>>> Ill go back and give the Ilford another go and see if it compares.
>>>> Ilford is my preferred paper for large prints just that I had some
>>>> 6x4 Epson that I tried for test prints and it seemed to work better.
>>>>
>>>> I think that I expected a wet type result off the inkjet and started
>>>> chasing my tail trying for the results with no positive direction.
>>>>
>>>> rm
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I don't do B & W, but I have seen fantastic quality B & Ws which had
>>> been printed on an R1800, on all sorts of paper.
>>>
>>> As for your "muddy" prints, I don't quite follow your explanation of
>>> your workflow.
>>>
>>> Are you using Trinitron RGB as your "workspace" profile.? That is
>>> your Monitor Profile, and no-one has advised using a Monitor Profile
>>> as a Working Space since PS 4 or 5.
>>>
>>> You seem to be letting PS Colour Manage, but you never mentioned
>>> selecting the Printer/Paper Profile.
>>>
>>> If PS is colour Managing then in the Printer Advanced Dialogue box,
>>> you should be selecting "No Colour Management". If you do not do this
>>> then PS and the Printer will both apply corrections, and only one of
>>> them should be doing so.
>>>
>>> Roy G
>>>
>> Sorry I did try the colour management of the Ilford paper with there
>> profiles. This I considered a muddy print - after several prints
>> could not adjust to get a good print.
>>
>> Next step was to go into using the basic printing from PShop which was
>> described previous.
>>
>> I still need some guidance as to what I should do as using PShop like
>> I said is still not the way to go.
>>
>> rm
>>
> Just a quick question...
> Are using Ilford Galerie _Smooth_ Gloss or Classic Gloss?
> Classic gloss is for dye inkjets. You will get horrible prints with the
> R1800 on it.

Ilford Galerie Smooth high gloss.

I just combined the boxes and normally use smooth pearl for colour but
each of the boxes did say they were Epson 2100 compatable. The
literature says that its suitable for either dye or pigment. (I'm still
using OEM inks)

When I used Epson paper it was a much better print and using the Ilford
maybe still be unsuitable even though its Galerie?

rm
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 8:21:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hello,

I know none of you like spam and this message is spam.
However, it does not mean we don't have good products that will fulfill
your need.

We do have bulk ink systems for Epson r800 and 1800, etc.
Just spend a minute to click the following link won't take too much of
your time.
In return, you may find out this product will save you quite a lot.

http://www.inkrepublic.com/ProductDetail.asp?item=R800



www.inkrepublic.com
August 13, 2005 3:18:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Rob wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>
>> Rob wrote:
>>
>>> Roy wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Rob" <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:42fb0519$0$15502$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> frederick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has anyone sorted out the R800/1800 black and white printing so
>>>>>>> as to get good B&W prints? Printing through Photoshop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have copied some old photo's and the prints are not very good
>>>>>>> as compared to wet printing and sepia toning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any recommendations as to a work path.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What did it look like on screen?
>>>>>> It is a big ask to get a B&W print off a printer that doesn't use
>>>>>> several black cartriges to be as good as a wet process print.
>>>>>> It's going to be pretty hard to get a 100% totally neutral grey in
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> case, but calibrating your monitor and then ensuring that you use
>>>>>> profiles for the paper you are using would be the best starting
>>>>>> place.
>>>>>> I've managed to get some pretty decent B&W prints, printed on Ilford
>>>>>> Galerie Smooth Pearl, which is a cleaner white than Epson premium
>>>>>> semi-gloss. (A profile for that paper / R1800 is downloadable from
>>>>>> Ilford). I haven't printed B&W in the darkroom for years now, but the
>>>>>> prints I've done look pretty darn good to me. Metamerism doesn't
>>>>>> seem
>>>>>> to be a huge issue, tonal gradation is good and neutral. You
>>>>>> will waste a lot of ink and paper though if you don't get colour
>>>>>> calibration sorted first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It looked Ok on the screen but the prints were muddy. That was
>>>>> using Ilford Gloss and I have that profile - this has worked for
>>>>> colour prints on Ilford Smooth Pearl paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I've come up with now is - scan - desaturate - auto contrast -
>>>>> then make sure the density looks OK as the photos vary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Printing Epson Gloss - let PShop determine colour/working RGB
>>>>> Trinitron 2.2/Saturation/Black point compensation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Photo / Photo Enhance on Epson Premium Gloss.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ill go back and give the Ilford another go and see if it compares.
>>>>> Ilford is my preferred paper for large prints just that I had some
>>>>> 6x4 Epson that I tried for test prints and it seemed to work better.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that I expected a wet type result off the inkjet and
>>>>> started chasing my tail trying for the results with no positive
>>>>> direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> rm
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>> I don't do B & W, but I have seen fantastic quality B & Ws which had
>>>> been printed on an R1800, on all sorts of paper.
>>>>
>>>> As for your "muddy" prints, I don't quite follow your explanation of
>>>> your workflow.
>>>>
>>>> Are you using Trinitron RGB as your "workspace" profile.? That is
>>>> your Monitor Profile, and no-one has advised using a Monitor Profile
>>>> as a Working Space since PS 4 or 5.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be letting PS Colour Manage, but you never mentioned
>>>> selecting the Printer/Paper Profile.
>>>>
>>>> If PS is colour Managing then in the Printer Advanced Dialogue box,
>>>> you should be selecting "No Colour Management". If you do not do
>>>> this then PS and the Printer will both apply corrections, and only
>>>> one of them should be doing so.
>>>>
>>>> Roy G
>>>>
>>> Sorry I did try the colour management of the Ilford paper with there
>>> profiles. This I considered a muddy print - after several prints
>>> could not adjust to get a good print.
>>>
>>> Next step was to go into using the basic printing from PShop which
>>> was described previous.
>>>
>>> I still need some guidance as to what I should do as using PShop like
>>> I said is still not the way to go.
>>>
>>> rm
>>>
>> Just a quick question...
>> Are using Ilford Galerie _Smooth_ Gloss or Classic Gloss?
>> Classic gloss is for dye inkjets. You will get horrible prints with
>> the R1800 on it.
>
>
> Ilford Galerie Smooth high gloss.
>
> I just combined the boxes and normally use smooth pearl for colour but
> each of the boxes did say they were Epson 2100 compatable. The
> literature says that its suitable for either dye or pigment. (I'm still
> using OEM inks)
>
> When I used Epson paper it was a much better print and using the Ilford
> maybe still be unsuitable even though its Galerie?
>
Smooth is okay - no problems. I havn't tried smooth gloss / B&W.
Dye ink looks nice on that paper - but it will fade very fast.
I suggest you have a look here:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/index.php
There is a forum for the Epson R1800. One thread is titled "Perfect B&W
prints from the R1800" and has workflow instructions for how the poster
got neutral charcoal and sepia toned B&W.
There are a couple of other threads that may be of interest.
If it was me, and I was sure I had the profiles and workflow correct but
still had the problem, I would do the following:
Head alignment - it's important to do this.
Nozzle clean.
If all above okay I would probably cheat by making a small greyscale
image, adjusting the hue slightly in bands on the image, print it,
select the one I liked best, and use it for reference.
August 13, 2005 3:18:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

frederick wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
>> frederick wrote:
>>
>>> Rob wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Rob" <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:42fb0519$0$15502$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> frederick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rob wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Has anyone sorted out the R800/1800 black and white printing so
>>>>>>>> as to get good B&W prints? Printing through Photoshop.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have copied some old photo's and the prints are not very good
>>>>>>>> as compared to wet printing and sepia toning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any recommendations as to a work path.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> rm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What did it look like on screen?
>>>>>>> It is a big ask to get a B&W print off a printer that doesn't use
>>>>>>> several black cartriges to be as good as a wet process print.
>>>>>>> It's going to be pretty hard to get a 100% totally neutral grey
>>>>>>> in any
>>>>>>> case, but calibrating your monitor and then ensuring that you use
>>>>>>> profiles for the paper you are using would be the best starting
>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>> I've managed to get some pretty decent B&W prints, printed on
>>>>>>> Ilford
>>>>>>> Galerie Smooth Pearl, which is a cleaner white than Epson premium
>>>>>>> semi-gloss. (A profile for that paper / R1800 is downloadable from
>>>>>>> Ilford). I haven't printed B&W in the darkroom for years now, but
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> prints I've done look pretty darn good to me. Metamerism doesn't
>>>>>>> seem
>>>>>>> to be a huge issue, tonal gradation is good and neutral. You
>>>>>>> will waste a lot of ink and paper though if you don't get colour
>>>>>>> calibration sorted first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looked Ok on the screen but the prints were muddy. That was
>>>>>> using Ilford Gloss and I have that profile - this has worked for
>>>>>> colour prints on Ilford Smooth Pearl paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I've come up with now is - scan - desaturate - auto contrast
>>>>>> - then make sure the density looks OK as the photos vary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Printing Epson Gloss - let PShop determine colour/working RGB
>>>>>> Trinitron 2.2/Saturation/Black point compensation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best Photo / Photo Enhance on Epson Premium Gloss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ill go back and give the Ilford another go and see if it compares.
>>>>>> Ilford is my preferred paper for large prints just that I had some
>>>>>> 6x4 Epson that I tried for test prints and it seemed to work better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that I expected a wet type result off the inkjet and
>>>>>> started chasing my tail trying for the results with no positive
>>>>>> direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rm
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't do B & W, but I have seen fantastic quality B & Ws which
>>>>> had been printed on an R1800, on all sorts of paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for your "muddy" prints, I don't quite follow your explanation
>>>>> of your workflow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you using Trinitron RGB as your "workspace" profile.? That is
>>>>> your Monitor Profile, and no-one has advised using a Monitor
>>>>> Profile as a Working Space since PS 4 or 5.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be letting PS Colour Manage, but you never mentioned
>>>>> selecting the Printer/Paper Profile.
>>>>>
>>>>> If PS is colour Managing then in the Printer Advanced Dialogue box,
>>>>> you should be selecting "No Colour Management". If you do not do
>>>>> this then PS and the Printer will both apply corrections, and only
>>>>> one of them should be doing so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Roy G
>>>>>
>>>> Sorry I did try the colour management of the Ilford paper with there
>>>> profiles. This I considered a muddy print - after several prints
>>>> could not adjust to get a good print.
>>>>
>>>> Next step was to go into using the basic printing from PShop which
>>>> was described previous.
>>>>
>>>> I still need some guidance as to what I should do as using PShop
>>>> like I said is still not the way to go.
>>>>
>>>> rm
>>>>
>>> Just a quick question...
>>> Are using Ilford Galerie _Smooth_ Gloss or Classic Gloss?
>>> Classic gloss is for dye inkjets. You will get horrible prints with
>>> the R1800 on it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ilford Galerie Smooth high gloss.
>>
>> I just combined the boxes and normally use smooth pearl for colour but
>> each of the boxes did say they were Epson 2100 compatable. The
>> literature says that its suitable for either dye or pigment. (I'm
>> still using OEM inks)
>>
>> When I used Epson paper it was a much better print and using the
>> Ilford maybe still be unsuitable even though its Galerie?
>>
> Smooth is okay - no problems. I havn't tried smooth gloss / B&W.
> Dye ink looks nice on that paper - but it will fade very fast.
> I suggest you have a look here:
> http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/index.php
> There is a forum for the Epson R1800. One thread is titled "Perfect B&W
> prints from the R1800" and has workflow instructions for how the poster
> got neutral charcoal and sepia toned B&W.
> There are a couple of other threads that may be of interest.
> If it was me, and I was sure I had the profiles and workflow correct but
> still had the problem, I would do the following:
> Head alignment - it's important to do this.
> Nozzle clean.
> If all above okay I would probably cheat by making a small greyscale
> image, adjusting the hue slightly in bands on the image, print it,
> select the one I liked best, and use it for reference.
>
>

Thanks thats the best suggestion Ill go there and see what they say.

Its been interesting in trying all the odd papers I have - Kodak Ilford
Epson and Fuji. making a 6x4 on the R1800 then one on the R210
completely different results even tried the 1270. One thing I did notice
was the R210 on Epson Premium Gloss looked good.

rm
August 13, 2005 2:36:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

<icemomochachaforum@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123888886.327246.258580@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
>
> I know none of you like spam and this message is spam.
> However, it does not mean we don't have good products that will fulfill
> your need.
>
> We do have bulk ink systems for Epson r800 and 1800, etc.
> Just spend a minute to click the following link won't take too much of
> your time.
> In return, you may find out this product will save you quite a lot.
>
> http://www.inkrepublic.com/ProductDetail.asp?item=R800
>
>
>
> www.inkrepublic.com

Hi.

Do you provide colour Profiles for your Ink System system, or are the
Colours so accurate that the "Canned" ones from the Paper Makers will still
work?

Roy G
>
August 13, 2005 3:12:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Rob wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>
>> Rob wrote:
>>
>>> frederick wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Roy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rob" <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:42fb0519$0$15502$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> frederick wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rob wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has anyone sorted out the R800/1800 black and white printing
>>>>>>>>> so as to get good B&W prints? Printing through Photoshop.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have copied some old photo's and the prints are not very good
>>>>>>>>> as compared to wet printing and sepia toning.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any recommendations as to a work path.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What did it look like on screen?
>>>>>>>> It is a big ask to get a B&W print off a printer that doesn't use
>>>>>>>> several black cartriges to be as good as a wet process print.
>>>>>>>> It's going to be pretty hard to get a 100% totally neutral grey
>>>>>>>> in any
>>>>>>>> case, but calibrating your monitor and then ensuring that you use
>>>>>>>> profiles for the paper you are using would be the best starting
>>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>>> I've managed to get some pretty decent B&W prints, printed on
>>>>>>>> Ilford
>>>>>>>> Galerie Smooth Pearl, which is a cleaner white than Epson premium
>>>>>>>> semi-gloss. (A profile for that paper / R1800 is downloadable from
>>>>>>>> Ilford). I haven't printed B&W in the darkroom for years now,
>>>>>>>> but the
>>>>>>>> prints I've done look pretty darn good to me. Metamerism
>>>>>>>> doesn't seem
>>>>>>>> to be a huge issue, tonal gradation is good and neutral. You
>>>>>>>> will waste a lot of ink and paper though if you don't get colour
>>>>>>>> calibration sorted first.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It looked Ok on the screen but the prints were muddy. That was
>>>>>>> using Ilford Gloss and I have that profile - this has worked for
>>>>>>> colour prints on Ilford Smooth Pearl paper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I've come up with now is - scan - desaturate - auto contrast
>>>>>>> - then make sure the density looks OK as the photos vary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Printing Epson Gloss - let PShop determine colour/working RGB
>>>>>>> Trinitron 2.2/Saturation/Black point compensation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best Photo / Photo Enhance on Epson Premium Gloss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ill go back and give the Ilford another go and see if it
>>>>>>> compares. Ilford is my preferred paper for large prints just that
>>>>>>> I had some 6x4 Epson that I tried for test prints and it seemed
>>>>>>> to work better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that I expected a wet type result off the inkjet and
>>>>>>> started chasing my tail trying for the results with no positive
>>>>>>> direction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't do B & W, but I have seen fantastic quality B & Ws which
>>>>>> had been printed on an R1800, on all sorts of paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for your "muddy" prints, I don't quite follow your explanation
>>>>>> of your workflow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you using Trinitron RGB as your "workspace" profile.? That is
>>>>>> your Monitor Profile, and no-one has advised using a Monitor
>>>>>> Profile as a Working Space since PS 4 or 5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to be letting PS Colour Manage, but you never mentioned
>>>>>> selecting the Printer/Paper Profile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If PS is colour Managing then in the Printer Advanced Dialogue
>>>>>> box, you should be selecting "No Colour Management". If you do not
>>>>>> do this then PS and the Printer will both apply corrections, and
>>>>>> only one of them should be doing so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roy G
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry I did try the colour management of the Ilford paper with
>>>>> there profiles. This I considered a muddy print - after several
>>>>> prints could not adjust to get a good print.
>>>>>
>>>>> Next step was to go into using the basic printing from PShop which
>>>>> was described previous.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still need some guidance as to what I should do as using PShop
>>>>> like I said is still not the way to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> rm
>>>>>
>>>> Just a quick question...
>>>> Are using Ilford Galerie _Smooth_ Gloss or Classic Gloss?
>>>> Classic gloss is for dye inkjets. You will get horrible prints with
>>>> the R1800 on it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ilford Galerie Smooth high gloss.
>>>
>>> I just combined the boxes and normally use smooth pearl for colour
>>> but each of the boxes did say they were Epson 2100 compatable. The
>>> literature says that its suitable for either dye or pigment. (I'm
>>> still using OEM inks)
>>>
>>> When I used Epson paper it was a much better print and using the
>>> Ilford maybe still be unsuitable even though its Galerie?
>>>
>> Smooth is okay - no problems. I havn't tried smooth gloss / B&W.
>> Dye ink looks nice on that paper - but it will fade very fast.
>> I suggest you have a look here:
>> http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/index.php
>> There is a forum for the Epson R1800. One thread is titled "Perfect
>> B&W prints from the R1800" and has workflow instructions for how the
>> poster got neutral charcoal and sepia toned B&W.
>> There are a couple of other threads that may be of interest.
>> If it was me, and I was sure I had the profiles and workflow correct
>> but still had the problem, I would do the following:
>> Head alignment - it's important to do this.
>> Nozzle clean.
>> If all above okay I would probably cheat by making a small greyscale
>> image, adjusting the hue slightly in bands on the image, print it,
>> select the one I liked best, and use it for reference.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks thats the best suggestion Ill go there and see what they say.
>
> Its been interesting in trying all the odd papers I have - Kodak Ilford
> Epson and Fuji. making a 6x4 on the R1800 then one on the R210
> completely different results even tried the 1270. One thing I did notice
> was the R210 on Epson Premium Gloss looked good.
>
> rm
>
Epson have released a "White Paper on Print Permanence" which you can
download from:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/Epson_Print_Perma...
There is some information about the technology of paper coatings for
inkjet printers in that which is quite interesting.
August 13, 2005 4:01:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

icemomochachaforum@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I know none of you like spam and this message is spam.
> However, it does not mean we don't have good products that will fulfill
> your need.
>
> We do have bulk ink systems for Epson r800 and 1800, etc.
> Just spend a minute to click the following link won't take too much of
> your time.
> In return, you may find out this product will save you quite a lot.
>
> http://www.inkrepublic.com/ProductDetail.asp?item=R800
>
>
>
> www.inkrepublic.com
>

I did go there from http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/index.php this forum and
it looked interesting. In fact they spoke about the need for a different
cover for the cartridges as the original pinched the lines. Is this
supplied with the 1800 kit?

Speaking of CIS I have just picked one up new for the R210 for $63AUD
($48 USD) this is a wholesale price - others are available plus about
25%. Haven't installed it yet but do intend as soon as my inks are empty.

The kit includes 6x 25mls ink which pour into refillable external tanks.
Its a neat kit.

At this price its far below the general pricing of similar kits.

rm
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 12:50:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ink Republic has requested that individual distributors STOP sending
spam, as it damages the company's reputation. SO please stop.

I have no association with Ink Republic, in fact, I do not even own any
of their products, but I have been getting good reports from most people
who are using their continuous inking systems on Epson printers.

The advantage is they have designed the system to work similarly to
Epson's wide carriage professional machines by using an ink damper
rather than a sponged cartridge.

I cannot state if the pricing is good value, or if the inks they sell
should be the ones you use (I believe they rebrand the inks).

BUT, people who are interested should visit the company's website and
ignore any direction by their distributors, some of whom, in
contravention to the company's requests, are spammers.

I don't think Ink Republic is using gmail (as this poster did), since
they own their own domain, at least I hope this person isn't from Ink
Republic, after they promised me they would do everything they could to
prevent spamming on this group..

Art

icemomochachaforum@gmail.com wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I know none of you like spam and this message is spam.
> However, it does not mean we don't have good products that will fulfill
> your need.
>
> We do have bulk ink systems for Epson r800 and 1800, etc.
> Just spend a minute to click the following link won't take too much of
> your time.
> In return, you may find out this product will save you quite a lot.
>
> http://www.inkrepublic.com/ProductDetail.asp?item=R800
>
>
>
> www.inkrepublic.com
>
!