Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Inkjet Print vs Wet Chemical Print

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 1:29:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Now that some inkjet printers use 8 colors, are they able to produce a
wider, more faithful color gamut than the best conventional"wet
chemical" prints, e.g., Fuji Crystal Archive?
I assume that conventionat prints still use only 3 or 4 color CMY(K?) layers
Has anybody done the comparison yet.
I'd especially like to know how the Canon iP8500 stacks up because it
adds Red and Green to the CcMmYK gamut. This should extend the range of
reproducible colors noticeably.
OTOH, can a Camera operating in sRGB or even Adobe RGB 1998 color space,
take full advantage of a printer with a super wide color gamut such as
the Canon iP8500's CcMmYKRG gamut?
Bob Williams
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:58:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bob Williams" <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote in message
news:41AEB646.5040406@cox.net...
> Now that some inkjet printers use 8 colors, are they able to produce a
> wider, more faithful color gamut than the best conventional"wet chemical"
> prints, e.g., Fuji Crystal Archive?
I don't have a technical comparison, but I think wet-processed prints,
especially fuji frontier still look better. I have seen prints from the
canon i9something, (can't remember the exact number - 8 colour version), the
Epson R800, compared to Fuji Frontier, and I'd take the Fuji anyday -
cheaper too. The Epson looks to my eye to be better than the Canon. Where
the Fuji really excels though is showing up detail in dark areas. In dense
shadow areas, the Canon and Epson both become featureless black, yet the
Frontier can still show detail. By playing with gamma's it _may_ be possible
to pull some detail back out of the inkjets, but even still, their blacks
don't look as black as the frontier. I think the technical term would be
that their DMAX is less.
> I assume that conventionat prints still use only 3 or 4 color CMY(K?)
> layers
cmy - no k. however they are continuous tone, whereas the inkjets are
discrete tones - either a spot has ink or it doesn't.
> Has anybody done the comparison yet.
> I'd especially like to know how the Canon iP8500 stacks up because it adds
> Red and Green to the CcMmYK gamut. This should extend the range of
> reproducible colors noticeably.
The R800 is better IMO. This is purely subjective based on the look of the
prints, not based on any technical measurement.
Epson inks are much longer lasting than Canon too, although I think even
Epson doesn't measure up to the Frontier with crystal archive paper.
> OTOH, can a Camera operating in sRGB or even Adobe RGB 1998 color space,
> take full advantage of a printer with a super wide color gamut such as the
> Canon iP8500's CcMmYKRG gamut?
> Bob Williams
>
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 2:12:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:
> Now that some inkjet printers use 8 colors, are they able to produce a
> wider, more faithful color gamut than the best conventional"wet
> chemical" prints, e.g., Fuji Crystal Archive?

It's interesting to compare the gamut of a wet print and an inkjet
printer. Colour profiles are available for download, and with a
suitable tool like Chromix ColorThink you can do a gamut projection.

I've downloaded profiles for a Costco picked at random, the Calypso
Lightjet 5, and the Canon 9900, all using their best glossy papers.
If you go to http://www.littlepinkcloud.com/gamut2.jpg you'll see a
colour space diagram. The innermost coloured shape is the gamut of
the Costco prints. Outside that is the LightJet 5, and outside that
is the Canon 9900.

> I assume that conventionat prints still use only 3 or 4 color
> CMY(K?) layers
> Has anybody done the comparison yet.

Lots of people have, and the colour profiles are available on the
manufacturers' web sites.

> I'd especially like to know how the Canon iP8500 stacks up because it
> adds Red and Green to the CcMmYK gamut. This should extend the range of
> reproducible colors noticeably.

> OTOH, can a Camera operating in sRGB or even Adobe RGB 1998 color space,
> take full advantage of a printer with a super wide color gamut such as
> the Canon iP8500's CcMmYKRG gamut?

No, it can't. sRGB doesn't enclose all of the 9900 gamut. Going back
to the colour space diagram, the black shape is the sRGB gamut.
Adobe98 is a better choice, but there are still areas in the orange
that it doesn't reach.

Andrew.
Related resources
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 2:22:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Justin Thyme <pleasedontspamme@nowhere.com> wrote:

> "Bob Williams" <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:41AEB646.5040406@cox.net...
>> Now that some inkjet printers use 8 colors, are they able to produce a
>> wider, more faithful color gamut than the best conventional"wet chemical"
>> prints, e.g., Fuji Crystal Archive?

> I don't have a technical comparison, but I think wet-processed
> prints, especially fuji frontier still look better. I have seen
> prints from the canon i9something, (can't remember the exact number
> - 8 colour version), the Epson R800, compared to Fuji Frontier, and
> I'd take the Fuji anyday - cheaper too. The Epson looks to my eye
> to be better than the Canon.

I think you may have seen prints from images in the sRGB colour space.
If this is so, you really haven't seen what the Epson and Canon
printers can do.

> Where the Fuji really excels though is showing up detail in dark
> areas. In dense shadow areas, the Canon and Epson both become
> featureless black, yet the Frontier can still show detail. By
> playing with gamma's it _may_ be possible to pull some detail back
> out of the inkjets, but even still, their blacks don't look as black
> as the frontier. I think the technical term would be that their DMAX
> is less.

The Lab blackpoint of the LightJet is 5:3:-2, whereas the Canon 9900
is 7:1:-9, so the LightJet is indeed somewhat better. However, the
random Costco was 10:-1:1, which is less black than either of them.

Andrew.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 2:23:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> No, it can't. sRGB doesn't enclose all of the 9900 gamut. Going back
> to the colour space diagram, the black shape is the sRGB gamut.
> Adobe98 is a better choice, but there are still areas in the orange
> that it doesn't reach.
>
> Andrew.

This is yet another area that I need to look into. My Epson 2200 arrived
yesterday. So...is there a color space to accommodate the potential of this
printer?
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 3:17:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>OTOH, can a Camera operating in sRGB or even Adobe RGB 1998 color space,
>>take full advantage of a printer with a super wide color gamut such as
>>the Canon iP8500's CcMmYKRG gamut?
>
>
> No, it can't. sRGB doesn't enclose all of the 9900 gamut. Going back
> to the colour space diagram, the black shape is the sRGB gamut.
> Adobe98 is a better choice, but there are still areas in the orange
> that it doesn't reach.
>
> Andrew.

So how do we get our digicams to use the full capabilities of the
extended color gamut of 8-color printers like the Canon iP8500?
Are we waiting on improvements in the color space of camera sensors?
Some Sony cameras added an "Emerald" color to their regular RGB gamut,
but I've not seen any comments indicating that photos or inkjet prints
from the ner sensor were any better or worse than from the pre-Emerald
sensors.
Any thoughts/data on this?
Bob Williams
December 2, 2004 6:54:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote in
news:10qtu58tik0ro9e@news.supernews.com:

> I've downloaded profiles for a Costco picked at random, the Calypso
> Lightjet 5, and the Canon 9900, all using their best glossy papers.
> If you go to http://www.littlepinkcloud.com/gamut2.jpg you'll see a
> colour space diagram. The innermost coloured shape is the gamut of
> the Costco prints. Outside that is the LightJet 5, and outside that
> is the Canon 9900.
>
>

I looked at the diagram. What does that mean, in terms of actual prints,
and how do those gamuts compare to cameras.

Bob
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 7:00:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Color gamut is not even a significant issue in comparing hi end inkjet
printing to wet processes.
There are mismatches between all media in both gamut, reflectivity and other
issues that vary with the original media, printing process and paper
surface.
If one is knowledgeable about the digital imaging and inkjet printing
process there is no comparison between the results that can be achieved in
the digital/inkjet realm for color printing and that which can be achieved
in a wet process. That horse is out of the barn.
Knowledge is the key: if you don't know how to use the thing properly I
guarantee you will not be happy with the results from a 6 or 8 color inkjet
printer.
If Costco or Walmart makes better prints than you do either learn how to do
it properly or stay with the mass merchandisers.
Fine art black and white using particular processes and media can generate
effects not possible with inkjet printing: printing with metal and printing
with ink is bound to yield different results.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 8:00:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Interesting to note, that even in this thread, that even if it were
better, it would not be as satisfying as wet prints. It will probably
take awhile to overcome wet print prejudice for which one seems the best.

Also, for a lot of people wet prints are color processed just like from
film so whites are better, blues are better, and skin tones are better
(all subjectively) than what you will get out of an unadjusted print
stream to a printer.



Bob Williams wrote:
> Now that some inkjet printers use 8 colors, are they able to produce a
> wider, more faithful color gamut than the best conventional"wet
> chemical" prints, e.g., Fuji Crystal Archive?
> I assume that conventionat prints still use only 3 or 4 color CMY(K?)
> layers
> Has anybody done the comparison yet.
> I'd especially like to know how the Canon iP8500 stacks up because it
> adds Red and Green to the CcMmYK gamut. This should extend the range of
> reproducible colors noticeably.
> OTOH, can a Camera operating in sRGB or even Adobe RGB 1998 color space,
> take full advantage of a printer with a super wide color gamut such as
> the Canon iP8500's CcMmYKRG gamut?
> Bob Williams
>
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:06:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote in
> news:10qtu58tik0ro9e@news.supernews.com:

>> I've downloaded profiles for a Costco picked at random, the Calypso
>> Lightjet 5, and the Canon 9900, all using their best glossy papers.
>> If you go to http://www.littlepinkcloud.com/gamut2.jpg you'll see a
>> colour space diagram. The innermost coloured shape is the gamut of
>> the Costco prints. Outside that is the LightJet 5, and outside that
>> is the Canon 9900.

> I looked at the diagram. What does that mean, in terms of actual
> prints, and how do those gamuts compare to cameras.

Digital cameras typically have a very wide gamut, far wider than you
can display or print. However, the working spaces like sRGB and to a
lesser extent Adobe RGB are much smaller than that of cameras.

In terms of actual prints, the size of a printer's gamut determines
the range of colurs that can be printed. Of course, if an image is in
a colour space with a small gamut there's no benefit to a wide gamut
printer.

Andrew.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:06:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Digital cameras typically have a very wide gamut, far wider than you
> can display or print. However, the working spaces like sRGB and to a
> lesser extent Adobe RGB are much smaller than that of cameras.
>
It is my understanding that most P/S digicams use sRGB color space.
Some SLRs allow you to shoot in Adobe RGB 1998 color space.
I'm not sure how the various RAW captures fit into the picture but I
don't see how a camera color space can be all that wide if the sensor
has only an RG or B filter on each sensor site. The Sony F 828 uses
RGB+E(emerald)filters but I'm not sure if this significantly extends the
color gamut it captures.
Your thoughts, please...
Bob Williams
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:16:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bmoag <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Color gamut is not even a significant issue in comparing hi end inkjet
> printing to wet processes.

I have read some bizarre nonsense on this group before, but this is
special.

> There are mismatches between all media in both gamut, reflectivity
> and other issues that vary with the original media, printing process
> and paper surface.

True. However, a narrow gamut printer simply cannot produce a wide
range of highly saturated colours. That's the end of it. Of course
there's more to colour printing than saturation, but it is very
important.

> If one is knowledgeable about the digital imaging and inkjet
> printing process there is no comparison between the results that can
> be achieved in the digital/inkjet realm for color printing and that
> which can be achieved in a wet process.

Of course there is a comparison! Reflectance, density, and colour can
all be measured and compared, and regularly are.

> That horse is out of the barn.

> Knowledge is the key: if you don't know how to use the thing
> properly I guarantee you will not be happy with the results from a 6
> or 8 color inkjet printer.

True.

Andrew.
December 3, 2004 12:23:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote in news:10qute0cn14q306
@news.supernews.com:

> In terms of actual prints, the size of a printer's gamut determines
> the range of colurs that can be printed. Of course, if an image is in
> a colour space with a small gamut there's no benefit to a wide gamut
> printer.
>

I meant in the case of the specific examples on the chart. If I
photographed a still life with vivid color, and edited in Adobe RGB, and
then printed on the two printers in question, how would the variations
manifest themselves?

My interpretation is there would be more colors in the cyan and brown
regions, but I don't really know how to read the chart.

Bob
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:35:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

fortknight <nobody@home.com> writes:

> Interesting to note, that even in this thread, that even if it were better,
> it would not be as satisfying as wet prints. It will probably take awhile to
> overcome wet print prejudice for which one seems the best.
>
> Also, for a lot of people wet prints are color processed just like from film
> so whites are better, blues are better, and skin tones are better (all
> subjectively) than what you will get out of an unadjusted print stream to a
> printer.

I stopped patronizing my local Walmart because they started applying over
saturation to all prints and ruined the colors of pictures they used to print
perfectly. Yes, it may make some people's poorly exposed pictures come out,
but it ruins normal prints.

For day to day stuff, I use my two HP printers at home (usually on Ilford
Classic Pearl paper), and for stuff that is important, I send out to mpix.com.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 1:41:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>From: Bob Williams mytbobnospam@cox.net

>So how do we get our digicams to use the full capabilities of the
>extended color gamut of 8-color printers like the Canon iP8500?

Are you sure that the gamut is wider than AdobeRGB? Often the extra inks are
used to make smoother transitions between intermediate colors, not necessarily
to widen the gamut. If anyone knows of a link to ICC profiles for the iP8500
I'll download them and plot them vs AdobeRGB to see whether or not it's
actually wider.

>Are we waiting on improvements in the color space of camera sensors?

Most good dSLRs already capture colors beyond AdobeRGB's gamut. If you have
Photoshop CS and use the RAW converter you can convert to AdobeRGB space or, if
you feel you need something wider, you can convert to ProPhoto RGB ...
according to Bruce Fraser in "Camera RAW with Photoshop CS" "ProPhoto RGB
encompasses all colors we can capture, and the vast majority of colors we can
see -- if you see color clipping on a conversion to ProPhoto RGB you are
capturing something other than visible light!" He shows an example of an image
from a cheap dSLR (Canon 300D), plotting the actual colors of an image in sRGB
and AdobeRGB to show how many colors in a typical image are still outside the
gamuts of these common working spaces (pg 10 in the book).

Of course the problem with these ultra-wide gamut spaces is that a lot of the
bits are unused during editing, else we'd all be working in LAB mode already.

> Some SLRs allow you to shoot in Adobe RGB 1998 color space.

Actually the dSLRs shoot in their own unique device space and then you have the
option of converting the 'device space' colors to an abstract working space
like sRGB or AdobeRGB (or ProPhoto RGB) for ease of editing. The cameras don't
actually "shoot in Adobe RGB" space, rather their output gets converted to fit
that space.

>I'm not sure how the various RAW captures fit into the picture but I
>don't see how a camera color space can be all that wide if the sensor
>has only an RG or B filter on each sensor site.

R, G and B combine to define many millions of colors. The RAW converters
simply map the linear sensor data into whichever abstract working space you've
chosen. The camera's "gamut" is probably limited by the deepest, most
saturated green, red and blues their sensors can capture accurately.

>Some Sony cameras added an "Emerald" color to their regular RGB gamut,
>but I've not seen any comments indicating that photos or inkjet prints
>from the ner sensor were any better or worse than from the pre-Emerald
>sensors.

Seems to be a marketing gimmick ... again, this would in theory perhaps give
you more accurate transitions between colors but the absolute gamut would still
be defined by the primary colors.

Bill
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 5:43:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
>
>>Some SLRs allow you to shoot in Adobe RGB 1998 color space.
>
>
> Actually the dSLRs shoot in their own unique device space and then you have the
> option of converting the 'device space' colors to an abstract working space
> like sRGB or AdobeRGB (or ProPhoto RGB) for ease of editing. The cameras don't
> actually "shoot in Adobe RGB" space, rather their output gets converted to fit
> that space.


I always learn something interesting from you, Bill.
What you say makes a lot of sense.
I guess that a camera can collect an extremely wide range of colors
compared to what a printer can reproduce, even though the camera has
only 3 colored filters (RG&B).
Even if the camera collects only 256 shades each of RG&B (16.7 Million
colors) that is a whole lot more than a printer can actually reproduce.
Since each color of ink in a printer is fixed, the only way it can vary
the shade of a given color, say Magenta, is to do a little trompe l'oeil
and vary the ratio of Magenta ink to White paper. I don't think that
ANY printer can create 256 shades of magenta with any kind of detail. I
also doubt that the eye can discern 256 shades of magenta.
Bob Williams
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 1:43:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"fortknight" <nobody@home.com> wrote:

> Interesting to note, that even in this thread, that even if it were
> better, it would not be as satisfying as wet prints. It will probably
> take awhile to overcome wet print prejudice for which one seems the best.
>
> Also, for a lot of people wet prints are color processed just like from
> film so whites are better, blues are better, and skin tones are better
> (all subjectively) than what you will get out of an unadjusted print
> stream to a printer.

That may be true, but you don't have to be that passive. In affordable
commercial printing, that color processing is automated and pretty crude.
Doing your own digital processing gives you the option of doing a far better
job, depending on how much time you want to spend.

I don't know the answer to the original question. But I do know that the A3
and larger samples that Epson shows in the Tokyo stores knock my socks off,
and are in no way inadequate in color, brightness, sharpness, and visual
impact. (The knock-your-socks-off quality of inkjets is why I got back into
medium format: it's been clear for many years that the better inkjets at
larger sizes really are adequate to show the MF advantage.) It may be that
at smaller sizes, wet projection technologies produce more detailed prints.
But at least to my eye, at A4 the Epson R800 is perfectly adequate, and that
at larger sizes, both the imaging technology (even 645) isn't adequate to
producing vast expanses of infinite detail, and that viewers, even ones that
come in for a closer look, don't put their noses on the prints the way
people do when I hand them A4 prints.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 2:00:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote in news:10qute0cn14q306
> @news.supernews.com:

>> In terms of actual prints, the size of a printer's gamut determines
>> the range of colurs that can be printed. Of course, if an image is in
>> a colour space with a small gamut there's no benefit to a wide gamut
>> printer.
>>

> I meant in the case of the specific examples on the chart. If I
> photographed a still life with vivid color, and edited in Adobe RGB,
> and then printed on the two printers in question, how would the
> variations manifest themselves?

It depends on how the rendering engine you're using works. The most
commonly used technique is called perceptual rendering, and that
compresses the colour range of your image to fit within the gamut of
your printer. A printer with a smaller gamut would result in a less
saturated print.

The way in which rendering compresses the gamut varies, but it's a
combination of reducing luminance and reducing saturation, as
required. (A print, unlike a monitor, can't produce highly saturated
colours at high luminance.)

> My interpretation is there would be more colors in the cyan and brown
> regions, but I don't really know how to read the chart.

More colours in the blue/cyan and the orange/yellow regions, yes. But
the 9900 has a wider gamut most everywhere. Even so, its gamut is
still a small part of the range of colours you can actually see.

Andrew.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 2:03:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:

>> Digital cameras typically have a very wide gamut, far wider than you
>> can display or print. However, the working spaces like sRGB and to a
>> lesser extent Adobe RGB are much smaller than that of cameras.
>>
> It is my understanding that most P/S digicams use sRGB color space.
> Some SLRs allow you to shoot in Adobe RGB 1998 color space.
> I'm not sure how the various RAW captures fit into the picture

RAW capture allows you to render to a wide colour space such as Wide
Gamut RGB.

> but I don't see how a camera color space can be all that wide if the
> sensor has only an RG or B filter on each sensor site.

Well, logically speaking, your eye only has only one of three filters
at each sensor site, therefore...

I may put a gamut diagram of a camera on the web.

Andrew.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 2:09:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Hilton <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote:
>>From: Bob Williams mytbobnospam@cox.net

>>So how do we get our digicams to use the full capabilities of the
>>extended color gamut of 8-color printers like the Canon iP8500?

> Are you sure that the gamut is wider than AdobeRGB?

The gamut of the 9900 is not wider than Adobe98, but it is not
entirely enclosed by it. I dunno about the 8500.

> Often the extra inks are used to make smoother transitions between
> intermediate colors, not necessarily to widen the gamut.

I don't think that's what the Epson printers do. From the reports of
users, the red and blue inks only seem to be used occaasionally for
those specific colours.

> Photoshop CS and use the RAW converter you can convert to AdobeRGB
> space or, if you feel you need something wider, you can convert to
> ProPhoto RGB ... according to Bruce Fraser in "Camera RAW with
> Photoshop CS" "ProPhoto RGB encompasses all colors we can capture,
> and the vast majority of colors we can see -- if you see color
> clipping on a conversion to ProPhoto RGB you are capturing something
> other than visible light!"

Indeed so. Two of the primaries of that space are outside the
spectral locus.

> Of course the problem with these ultra-wide gamut spaces is that a
> lot of the bits are unused during editing, else we'd all be working
> in LAB mode already.

Not to mention the fact that we can't actually see these colours on
our displays!

Andrew.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 2:14:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

fortknight <nobody@home.com> wrote:
> Interesting to note, that even in this thread, that even if it were
> better, it would not be as satisfying as wet prints. It will probably
> take awhile to overcome wet print prejudice for which one seems the best.

I saw something interesting at Photokina: the Noritsu digital dry
minilab. It uses an inkjet printer (from Epson) and it's intended to
replace a "trad" minilab, but without all the plumbing. The output is
excellent.

Andrew.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 12:22:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> Often the extra inks are used to make smoother transitions between
>> intermediate colors, not necessarily to widen the gamut.

>From: andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid
>
>I don't think that's what the Epson printers do.

Sure it is, that's why you get smoother textures using the 6 or 7 color Epsons
compared to the 4 color Epsons. And why light magenta and light cyan run out
faster than the other colors.

>From the reports of users, the red and blue inks only seem to be
>used occaasionally for those specific colours.

"Red and blue inks" ? What are you talking about? The Epsons are CMYK
printers (or CcMmYK or CcMmYKk) with no red or blue inks at all ...

Bill
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 12:50:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

He apparently **thinks** Magenta is "red" ... and Cyan is "blue" ...






"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20041203162239.06450.00001170@mb-m22.aol.com...
> >> Often the extra inks are used to make smoother transitions between
> >> intermediate colors, not necessarily to widen the gamut.
>
> >From: andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid
> >
> >I don't think that's what the Epson printers do.
>
> Sure it is, that's why you get smoother textures using the 6 or 7 color
Epsons
> compared to the 4 color Epsons. And why light magenta and light cyan run
out
> faster than the other colors.
>
> >From the reports of users, the red and blue inks only seem to be
> >used occaasionally for those specific colours.
>
> "Red and blue inks" ? What are you talking about? The Epsons are CMYK
> printers (or CcMmYK or CcMmYKk) with no red or blue inks at all ...
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:49:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Meissner wrote:
> fortknight <nobody@home.com> writes:
>
>
>>Interesting to note, that even in this thread, that even if it were better,
>>it would not be as satisfying as wet prints. It will probably take awhile to
>>overcome wet print prejudice for which one seems the best.
>>
>>Also, for a lot of people wet prints are color processed just like from film
>>so whites are better, blues are better, and skin tones are better (all
>>subjectively) than what you will get out of an unadjusted print stream to a
>>printer.
>
>
> I stopped patronizing my local Walmart because they started applying over
> saturation to all prints and ruined the colors of pictures they used to print
> perfectly. Yes, it may make some people's poorly exposed pictures come out,
> but it ruins normal prints.
>
> For day to day stuff, I use my two HP printers at home (usually on Ilford
> Classic Pearl paper), and for stuff that is important, I send out to mpix.com.
>
Michael- Or anyone-

What type of color management do you use with that paper (my favorite)
on what HP? I have a dj 5550, produces ok prints with 6 color mode, and
it's now a backup, but would like to profile it if possible better than
I do now.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:49:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> writes:

> Michael Meissner wrote:
> > fortknight <nobody@home.com> writes:
> >
> >>Interesting to note, that even in this thread, that even if it were better,
> >>it would not be as satisfying as wet prints. It will probably take awhile to
> >>overcome wet print prejudice for which one seems the best.
> >>
> >>Also, for a lot of people wet prints are color processed just like from film
> >>so whites are better, blues are better, and skin tones are better (all
> >>subjectively) than what you will get out of an unadjusted print stream to a
> >>printer.
> > I stopped patronizing my local Walmart because they started applying over
> > saturation to all prints and ruined the colors of pictures they used to print
> > perfectly. Yes, it may make some people's poorly exposed pictures come out,
> > but it ruins normal prints.
> > For day to day stuff, I use my two HP printers at home (usually on Ilford
> > Classic Pearl paper), and for stuff that is important, I send out to mpix.com.
> >
> Michael- Or anyone-
>
> What type of color management do you use with that paper (my favorite) on what
> HP? I have a dj 5550, produces ok prints with 6 color mode, and it's now a
> backup, but would like to profile it if possible better than I do now.

None at the moment, other than converting the picture to postscript before
printing under Linux (the postscript step is so I can accurately control the
sizes, dpi, etc.).

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 2:00:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
news:2d5sd.166$wa3.147@trnddc02...
> He apparently **thinks** Magenta is "red" ... and Cyan is "blue" ...
>

[.]

Unless he's read about the Epson PictureMate which uses "six fade-resistant
pigment ink colours: the usual black, cyan, magenta and yellow plus,
unusually, red and blue".
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 4:37:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <10r0iktiq6s3k6d@news.supernews.com>,
andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid says...
>
>fortknight <nobody@home.com> wrote:
>> Interesting to note, that even in this thread, that even if it were
>> better, it would not be as satisfying as wet prints. It will probably
>> take awhile to overcome wet print prejudice for which one seems the best.
>
>I saw something interesting at Photokina: the Noritsu digital dry
>minilab. It uses an inkjet printer (from Epson) and it's intended to
>replace a "trad" minilab, but without all the plumbing. The output is
>excellent.
>
>Andrew.

Epson tried marketing a similar system to portrait labs a couple of years ago,
unfortunatly it used the Epson 5000, a printer that was very expensive per
print. Using say an Epson 4000 this would help a lot of labs that are having
problems with local clean water ordinences. I have never liked the results of
store minilabs. The last one I used I had a progression of a sunset, they
compensated so everyone was the same, so much for using them for proofing.If
inkjet is done well it is great even with my Epson 9000 it is hard to tell it
from a wet print. The problem is that many inkjet printers lock out the "photo"
settings unless you are using the companies premium paper, so you can't print
at top res with say a nice matte paper.
Another beef I have with the instore labs is they base thier printing on sRGB
color space and then posterize the printing, not a great combination.

Tom
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 10:46:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote:

> He apparently **thinks** Magenta is "red" ... and Cyan is "blue" ...

The R800 has both red and blue ink. You two are simply dead wrong.

> "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote in message
> > >From the reports of users, the red and blue inks only seem to be
> > >used occaasionally for those specific colours.
> >
> > "Red and blue inks" ? What are you talking about? The Epsons are CMYK
> > printers (or CcMmYK or CcMmYKk) with no red or blue inks at all ...

Nope. The R800 (and PX-G920 and PX-G5000) are CMYKRB + matt black + gloss
coat.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 10:46:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> "Red and blue inks" ? What are you talking about? The Epsons are CMYK
>> printers (or CcMmYK or CcMmYKk) with no red or blue inks at all ...

>From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
>
>The R800 has both red and blue ink. You two are simply dead wrong.

I stand corrected ... I'm used to the Ultrachrome inks, which don't have red or
blue and didn't consider this consumer model ...

Bill
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 10:46:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <coqqm2$2bd$1@nnrp.gol.com>, davidjl@gol.com says...
> Nope. The R800 (and PX-G920 and PX-G5000) are CMYKRB + matt black + gloss
> coat.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

I'm personally waiting for the CMYKRB + matt black + gloss coat +
scratch & sniff coating, personally.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:28:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20041203184648.10335.00000978@mb-m25.aol.com...
> >> "Red and blue inks" ? What are you talking about? The Epsons are CMYK
> >> printers (or CcMmYK or CcMmYKk) with no red or blue inks at all ...
>
> >From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
> >
> >The R800 has both red and blue ink. You two are simply dead wrong.
>
> I stand corrected ... I'm used to the Ultrachrome inks, which don't have
red or
> blue and didn't consider this consumer model ...

I suspect things are about to change, although it's still a future tense
sort of thing. Epson has already released a new version of the R800 (in the
Japanese market, the PX-G920 has replaced the PX-G900, which appears to be
the R800) and a super A3 printer using the same inks (the PX-G5000). I'm
finding the detail rendering capabilities of the PX-G900 seriously
impressive, and (reading between the lines in Epson's ads) it sounds as
though Epson thinks of this 1.5 pl droplet ink system as a major improvement
on and future replacements for the 4 pl droplet Ultrachromes.

Still, I suspect that for 13x19 and larger prints, very few of us actually
have images that really need finer detail rendering than the 4pl Ultrachrome
system provides. (I suspect that the reason MR at LL found the 1Ds better
than 6x7, was that at the 255 dpi he was printing at, the 1Ds provides all
the detail the 2200 can render, so there's no way even large format would
have looked any better<g>.) So they may stick with Ultrachrome for the
printers larger than 13x19.

Sorry to be rude and pushy here, but I really like the R800. I find its
ability to render detail seriously impressive. It would be interesting to
see an R800 vs. 2200 review by someone who knows more about color than I do.
(Oh, yes. Epson claims the PX-G920 and PX-G5000 to have a wider gamut than
the R800/PX-G900.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:42:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Hilton <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote:
>>> Often the extra inks are used to make smoother transitions between
>>> intermediate colors, not necessarily to widen the gamut.

>>From: andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid
>>
>>I don't think that's what the Epson printers do.

> Sure it is, that's why you get smoother textures using the 6 or 7 color Epsons
> compared to the 4 color Epsons. And why light magenta and light cyan run out
> faster than the other colors.

>>From the reports of users, the red and blue inks only seem to be
>>used occaasionally for those specific colours.

> "Red and blue inks" ? What are you talking about? The Epsons are CMYK
> printers (or CcMmYK or CcMmYKk) with no red or blue inks at all ...

You removed the context. We were talking about the latest Epson
pigment inks, which drop the light cyan and light magenta in favour of
red and blue, in order to increase gamut.

Andrew.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:47:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Hilton <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote:
>>> "Red and blue inks" ? What are you talking about? The Epsons are CMYK
>>> printers (or CcMmYK or CcMmYKk) with no red or blue inks at all ...

>>From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
>>
>>The R800 has both red and blue ink. You two are simply dead wrong.

> I stand corrected ... I'm used to the Ultrachrome inks, which don't
> have red or blue and didn't consider this consumer model ...

I'm guessing that the R800 and its friends are the future for
Ultrachrome, as far as Epson is concerned. The new colours do extend
the gamut in a useful way. I wouldn't be surprised to see a
high-performance printer with these new inks next year.

Andrew.
December 4, 2004 6:45:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Hilton wrote:
>>>Often the extra inks are used to make smoother transitions between
>>>intermediate colors, not necessarily to widen the gamut.
>
>
>>From: andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid
>>
>>I don't think that's what the Epson printers do.
>
>
> Sure it is, that's why you get smoother textures using the 6 or 7 color Epsons
> compared to the 4 color Epsons. And why light magenta and light cyan run out
> faster than the other colors.
>
>>From the reports of users, the red and blue inks only seem to be
>
>>used occaasionally for those specific colours.
>
>
> "Red and blue inks" ? What are you talking about? The Epsons are CMYK
> printers (or CcMmYK or CcMmYKk) with no red or blue inks at all ...
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>

My Epson R800 has these color Ultrachrome inks (in order):

Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
Matte Black
Photo Black
Red
Blue
Gloss Optimizer

OK, that last isn't really an 'ink' as it adds no color. It isn't nice
to have for evening out the gloss on glossy papers.

The Matte Black is used on matte and plain papers. The Photo Black is a
gloss black for glossy papers. I have seemed to notice that it will use
both on papers in between, but I'm not sure about this.

The Red and Blue inks are really red and blue. I haven't really tested
it, but it does seem to expand the gaumet of the print. With my old 870,
it didn't like to print from files that were AdobeRGB. The R800 loves
printing from files with AdobeRGB. They don't get used as much as CMY
and seem to be fill in colors.

I'm very happy with the output of my R800. I think that Epson hit on a
great set of colors.

Clyde
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 7:32:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> "Red and blue inks" ? What are you talking about? The Epsons are CMYK
>> printers

>From: Clyde lughclyde@attbi.comedy

>My Epson R800 has these color Ultrachrome inks (in order):
> ...
>Red
>Blue

I already apologized for my mistake, I wasn't even considering these letter
sized printers since they don't print large enough for my tastes and I didn't
know which ink colors they used.

>I'm very happy with the output of my R800. I think that Epson hit on a
>great set of colors.

When they bring out a 13x19" or, better, 17x22" model I'll take a look :) 

Bill
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 2:23:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bhilton665@aol.comedy (Bill Hilton) writes:

>>> Often the extra inks are used to make smoother transitions between
>>> intermediate colors, not necessarily to widen the gamut.
>
>>From: andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid
>>
>>I don't think that's what the Epson printers do.
>
> Sure it is, that's why you get smoother textures using the 6 or 7 color Epsons
> compared to the 4 color Epsons. And why light magenta and light cyan run out
> faster than the other colors.
>
>>From the reports of users, the red and blue inks only seem to be
>>used occaasionally for those specific colours.
>
> "Red and blue inks" ? What are you talking about? The Epsons are CMYK
> printers (or CcMmYK or CcMmYKk) with no red or blue inks at all ...

Not the R800; it's a CMYKK(1)RBGl printer (glossy and matte black,
Red and Blue, and Gloss overcoat). The Canon i9900 also has two
additional "primaries".
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 2:24:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bhilton665@aol.comedy (Bill Hilton) writes:

>>> "Red and blue inks" ? What are you talking about? The Epsons are CMYK
>>> printers (or CcMmYK or CcMmYKk) with no red or blue inks at all ...
>
>>From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
>>
>>The R800 has both red and blue ink. You two are simply dead wrong.
>
> I stand corrected ... I'm used to the Ultrachrome inks, which don't have red or
> blue and didn't consider this consumer model ...

Those *are* Ultrachrome inks.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 5:15:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote:
>
> I already apologized for my mistake,

You won't be hearing the end of it for a quite a while<g>. We're having too
much fun.

> >I'm very happy with the output of my R800. I think that Epson hit on a
> >great set of colors.
>
> When they bring out a 13x19" or, better, 17x22" model I'll take a look :) 

PX-G5000.

I was expecting Epson to do something like the R800 for a long time: the
2200's 4pl is just too large for A4 and smaller, but the dye-based inks'
permanence problems are only going to be ameliorated, not fixed, by
tweaking. And, of course, glossy papers are a bit of a problem with the
2200.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
!