One of the problems with printed RC papers is what is called "outgassing". The glycols and glycerine in the ink medium can not evaporate through the back of the paper as the RC barriers block that direction. If a printed sheet is mounted in a frame with glass directly you could see condensation of the glycols and glycerine at the inside of the glass within a day depending on where it is displayed. Worse case is a heavy black in the print and sunlight on the frame. With non-RC papers this doesn't happen. Epson recommends to let the prints dry for some time with blotting paper on top before framing the print.

Color stabilisation will happen with pigment inks over a much shorter period than with dye inks. Dye inks tend to deviate in color even when dry due to changes in humidity levels and they are more prone to fading. This information is based on measurements on proof prints like done by Fogra. A nice example is the integrated spectrometer on the HP Z models. The pigment ink printed target is measured after 5 minutes drying. There is a choice to print the target and let it dry for much longer and have the spectrometer read the patches later but I have not seen much improvement in the profiles  that way.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Seth,

It is good that you mention Clayton. Precisely with B&W images and more specific with scanned B&W images you may see tone shifts in resampling up and down. It is quite complex, even the scan gives "aliased" grain and editing a grainy image shows that its tone range is based on two components, the pixel and the grain.  Sharpen and the contrast changes and vice versa. Print a grainy image in Black Only and a small size gives you a translation of the grain size to the printer dot size which is another texture, enlarge and the printer dots have to represent a larger grain distribution which isn't so nicely done as starting from a smooth pixel gradation. With a quad or K7 monochrome inkset it becomes more predictable. With a digital B&W image and a smoother inkset it all becomes more predicatble.

The other images that show the shifts are scanned or digital takes of art, sketches on paper etc. Texture of the original in that case.

Measuring a greyscale printed at different sizes may not prove anything if it is a perceptual issue and even a spectro- or densitometer would need an adaption of the measured area when texture is enlarged.

I never resample the files but on the fly at print time in Qimage.



met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Mike,

You have answered my question. I had some doubts about the gamma issue and the samples provided. The uncertainty about the actual gamma curve used like you explained would make any "solution" a gamble.

What I observed in smaller versus larger prints from the same file is still there though.



met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html

There have been discussions over the last year on the influence of the image gamma in the results of up- and downsampling. A recent one is at
the Fred Miranda forum:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/798523
and some other ones that also refer to Eric Brasseur's article:
http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/gamma.html
like
http://www.nabble.com/possble-replacement%28s%29-for-Gimp-Lanczos-td19089418.html#a19096945

Mike could you shed your light on this subject in relation to Qimage?

For printing when it is crucial I always make proof prints of cropped parts of blow-ups etc to get some idea whether the contrast and tone etc works the same on the larger print. Sharpening and resampling artefacts checked too. For small prints a proof isn't made but it could be replaced with one after some contrast etc editing if it doesn't look like intended. I didn't relate that to the original gamma of the file and the processing but thought it was mainly the aliasing on downsampling and the perceptual effect that larger prints look often lighter printed without an edit. The last either a result of (anti-)aliasing or an unknown perceptual effect that John Caponigro also observes. Unlike his observation I do not think that the larger print always looks lighter, depends on the content too.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html

Really wonder if that last part is a reply to my message but even where UV is cut out at 350Nm with normal window glass there still is enough visible light getting through to fade weak components of a print. There are estimations that UV fading isn't contributing more than 15% of the total light fading indoors. The weak components include OBAs but in your case the cyan ink too as explained below. The use of OBA loaded papers is a risk if long term preservation is a goal. The effect of OBA in frames behind more or less UV cutting glass is limited too.

Your 1280 used Epson dyes that were originally claimed to be lightfast by Wilhelm and Epson but shortly after the introduction users complained about very fast cyan ink fading. Especially in places near shores with high Ozone concentrations. Office environments with laser printers have higher Ozone levels too. Epson compensated the US customers that complained after class action threaths. Epson adapted the US advertsing and product labelling accordingly. Wilhelm admitted that gas fading wasn't properly tested at that time. That case was called the Orange Plague and happened about 9 years ago. You will find reports on the web. The Colorfast paper though recommended for that dye ink type wasn't that archival either and certainly didn't stop the cyan fading.  Framing does help to reduce gas fading but one has to be very careful in selecting the materials used for mounting etc. so no gas is evaporated from tape and glues.

Whether Methane is healthy in relation to prints and humans is another question :-)


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Optical Brightener (OBA) fading in the paper coating and possibly the paper itself will shift the paper from cool white to warm white. Depending on the quality of the OBAs used, their presence in the coating and/or the paper itself you will see that yellowing happen. As they are basically dyes they will fade when exposed to visible and UV light and if not protected by RC barriers fade to gas (Ozone mainly) too.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

If you start from 1 or 2 mm extra image area around and cut to that margin inside the laminated print it becomes far less a problem. Less image content lost, easier to keep parallel and no crop marks needed inside the image that  may be obscured by image content anyway or remain visible after the cutting. I have done many prints at 75x100 cm that had just that 1,5 mm extra and where cut after their lamination on aluminium sheets.

met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html

If you select something like Finest Detail in the Epson driver menu you will get 720 PPI as the input resolution. Vector designs, small fonts, etc will benefit. No Epson driver here anymore but that is what I recall of 720 PPI on wide formats.

On the HP Z drivers the choice is 300-600-1200, the last having a similar function for vector, small fonts.

I'm not familiar with the Canon drivers but I guess it will be the same.

Whether the 600 PPI is an advantage has to be seen, in some cases the 360 PPI is sufficient for wide format where 300 PPI may not be sufficient. But it is true that 600 PPI is excellent for all photographic work, the best paper coatings included, no need to go beyond that on Canons and HPs. There's a 45% increase in resolution going from 600 to 720 PPI input and that number will be reflected in the data to process + printing.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

John,

Imatest Studio from the Norman Koren stable. It will do the same tests for your camera and lenses. That will make its price easier to digest. If you can do the job within 10 tests you could use the demo.

http://www.imatest.com

Depending on the manufacturer and the scanner model the "resolution" specs can be the upsampling possible with the driver or the physical sampling rate (what I like to call SPI). The first category are cheap consumer flatbeds, the second category better flatbeds and desktop filmscanners. None give a true optical resolution but Nikon usually is close with its numbers. Epson etc for the film scanner flatbeds gives a 200-300 % exaggeration of the optical resolution in their sampling rate numbers. So there are actually three categories of "resolution".

Remember that with some scanner drivers if you select 1200, 2400, the scanner actually will reduce the sampling rate which most of the time gives a lower true optical resolution but also a lower dynamic range. Resolution testing then isn't telling all of the image quality. Though the MTF chart like Imatest delivers is telling more. The highest sampling rate possible on the scanner (that is what the scanner manufacturer usually quotes as resolution but isn't resolution) will give the highest score too, and oversampling like more flatbeds do has some advantages. To avoid the reduced sampling rate of lower driver resolution settings you can select an odd resolution number just above the 1200, 2400. The driver will then use the scanner's highest sampling rate and downsample to the odd number in the driver. But that again relies on the quality of the downsampling routine. So I always scan at the highest sampling rate and use for example Qimage's downsampling to get a workable file size. And the Nikon 8000 doesn't reduce the sampling rate when lower resolution settings are selected, it will always downsample from the 4000 SPI. It gives a true 3800 PPI in practice. Most of the flatbeds do not get near the 50% of the highest sampling rate for their true optical resolution.

Edit: there is a cheaper alternative for Imatest: QuickMTF http://www.quickmtf.com/  70$ Shareware?
To make a slanted edge target for film scanner tests you can use a cut razor blade in a slide frame.
I made a slanted edge film target and had some processed by an image setter shop on lith film so the target could be used with the wet mounting I do. A razor blade wet mounted would show optical distortions in the fluid at the edge.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Mike,

I think we are not talking about the same issue. It isn't about launching Qimage and the driver not showing the last printer driver settings that were available when Qimage was closed. That works for me all the time except maybe when a new driver version has been installed (March in the Z3100 case) or when Qimage wasn't properly closed or what I describe later on. If that happens I start Qimage at its defaults.

Nor am I suggesting that the issue I describe is a Qimage flaw but not knowing how Qimage collects the data of the driver settings I tried to explain what I experience.

The experience I describe is that with a recall from the log file the printer driver print page sizes are not restored with whatever version used. With one exception: if the custom size is saved with a name that still exists when I do the log recall and when that name still represents the right sizes.

As you describe that Qimage just calls the stored image of the settings then the flaw must be that HP driver stores the custom sizes by name and not by the actual size description. Not a smart solution given the other issues: limited number of custom size names possible and updating the driver has to be done with the custom sizes removed. Reason why I use one custom size name per Z printer that I save again and again with different sizes. Nice for the next Qimage session and easy on the HP driver issues sketched but not right for log job recalls.

When Qimage restores the last session's driver settings when it is started again it will look for the last log job I presume and when that job used a custom size it will restore that too as the HP driver requests the user to save a custom size with a name and that will still be available with the right size description when Qimage is started again. I hardly ever use another application to print from so there's little chance that that name gets another size description in between Qimage sessions.

Epson drivers allow you to use a temporary custom size setting and doesn't ask to save it with a name. A Qimage job log recall brings the right size back despite the "temporary" character of the size setting. So I think the Epson driver saves the size as well but on their actual size description. It worked all the time with the 9000's and the 10000 I had.

I'm used to the HP driver oddities, there are some tricks and I have no surprises anymore. Qimage's log recall isn't 100% available as a result of the HP driver settings description and that is a pity.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Mike,

The Z3100 printer driver custom size settings never were restored with a Qimage recall. Not within firmware/driver version periods, not in periods overlapping more versions. That has been my experience. With the Epson drivers Qimage picks up the actual sizes, with the HP you have to give the custom size a name and save that and Qimage will restore it based on the name but that name may carry other sizes meanwhile. If you print a lot of different custom sizes this method of saving them with a specific name isn't working well and there were problems with the quantity of custom sizes possible + driver upgrades didn't install with more custom sizes saved. Why Qimage looks for the naming instead of the actual sizes in the HP driver is something I do not understand. Restoring the HP driver settings with a Qimage recall is a risky business anyway so I check the log file, restore Qimage's settings and then check the printer driver settings to see what is correct and what not.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

Fred,

The Banner mode was an issue with the plain Z3100 model as it limited the total length to be printed to 2.75-3.25 meter depending on the firmware/driver versions. The optional HPGL driver allows far longer lengths for that model. It wasn't and still isn't clear to me what lengths the Z3100-PS model could print. The Z3200-PS model that I have now has no length limitations with the PCL3 driver. I was the first to mention this length issue here and on other forums. But it is no issue anymore for someone buying a new Z3200. Not with Qimage and not with another application that doesn't know the Poster/Tiles/Banner detour to print longer lengths than the driver allows.

I have not encountered that second issue. There was an issue with the driver going back to its default size setting that can be annoying but I have written down more than once how that can be avoided. Same for the shorter length than roll width issue. In both cases Qimage adapts to what the driver gives in information and one becomes aware of that flaw at that stage. As written I have not seen a print that was wasted because the driver does it in the end differently to the data it gave Qimage.

Few of the printer driver settings are reloaded again if one recalls a job in Qimage. That is correct. There are ways to counter that, the Z models have a job log and one can repeat the job there too. The HP printing shortcuts can recall what the Qimage recall can't do on the HP driver. But I find this the major issue left with the Z models + Qimage because it takes away one of the best Qimage features.

At the time the issues were discovered (often by me) I asked Mike what was going on. Not having a clue who could be blamed. Mike's explanation that HP didn't go by the Windows rules was good enough for me. I have no knowledge at that level so I'm not going to point fingers.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

I liked the simple email list structure. A filter on Thunderbird to bring relevant messages in one map, qimage and qstudio shared the same map. A filter on some contributors. One overview of all subjects. Reading the subject lines only and avoiding threads that are of no interest to me but with the knowledge they exist. I do not see that with the site forum which has the threads more pre-categorised so one may overlook an interesting topic or one has to plow through all the categories.

I understand there's no way back so yes move it all here.

Is there a way that you could make a Qstudio addition to the webpage that will only be visible to Qstudio subscribers recognised on their identity etc.?  Another URL to a page to log in would make it less attractive.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html

The HP drivers have some oddities (mainly in cooperation with Qimage though) but after some driver and firmware upgrades I do not see them as a reason to avoid the HP models. The advantages of the HP Z models are: an absolute lower ink waste if compared to the Epson models and to a lesser degree to the Canon models. Best fade resistance of all pigment inks. Best B&W print result. Integrated spectrometer for calibration and profiling included in the price and on the Z3200 with improved profile creation software . Cheap and easily replaceable heads that still last a long time. Mine over two years now without replacement. Together with the Canon no clog issues like the Epsons have. In general little maintenance is needed. Latest Z3200 firmware includes a bar code printed on the roll used that indicates what is left on the roll (Canon alike) and more accounting features.

To get an overall view of wide format printer issues you better check the following forum and the list I moderate:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=9bec964dd5de1b7ed90ed44cadc0b497&showforum=6


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/