PSW EST: 1972

* PhotoSnowdonia Workshops *

and the

Zone 8 Photographic Society EST: 1977

PRESIDENT: Bruce Alexander Carter, FZPS . . . . FIRST & PAST PRESIDENT: Kenneth A Nelson, Hon.FZPS

 

INFORMATION

ARTICLES

For all enquiries

Updated: Monday 22 May, 2006 21:38 (Webpage updated but not content)

PHOTO QUALITY B+W IMAGES FROM THE A3+ EPSON 1200 & 1160 INKJET PRINTERS

(NOTE: This has been extensively updated and available to members, with a wide range of other technical information leaflets, on the Members Only Forum. Articles will not be updated any more on this website, so will only be available to members). However, the basic principles remain fundamentally true for later printers, so this article is left for visitors as could be helpful as a basic guide

(This information also fundamentally applies to the 1270/80/90, 1160 and 2000P A3+ models and A4 models with photo-quality)

NOTE: For anyone wanting a B+W A3+ printer, get the Epson 1160. Whilst it only uses a 3-colour cartridge, the colour output is also exceptionally good - and the 3-colours are far more stable than the 5-colours (Posted 12th Feb 2001) but hurry as not many left (Posted 18th November 2001)

INCLUDING ADVICE ON SCANNING, MEDIA, INKS, PHOTOSHOP 5 CONTROLS AND EPSON 1200 * PRINTER SETTINGS

Permission is given to print this article out for immediate personal help when applying the controls described but neither the whole nor part of the article may be reproduced for publication without prior written permission.

INTRODUCTION:

There are a number of factors to consider to achieve the best results, meaning prints that are of photographic quality. Although this covers images originating from conventional cameras and film, the latter part can also apply to images originating from digital imaging camera equipment.

The first is resolution of the original image. The simplest way to achieve larger end prints up to the maximum on A3+ paper is to scan from a print. It is claimed that scanning from film is the best, whether negative or positive transparency, because light is transmitted through, giving a greater tonal range and separation. In practice, I have found the "from print" method to have many advantages, provided the print is made for scanning - rather like the methods adopted by Ansel Adams in producing prints to be the source for book illustrations. This involved making a print with a softer gradation than would be used for a print to be viewed, as contrast can best be adjusted "by the blockmaker" - or in our case, in the computer's software before printing. * Please see footnote for important additional helpful comments *

As an example, if 35mm colour or B+W film is used for negatives, then simple en-prints, of say 6"x4" or 7"x5" are made (whether self-made or via a local mini-lab) those prints would be of sufficient size to make a good scan for enlarging after scanning, without showing any distracting grain, provided, say, a maximum 200 ISO film speed was used. With a print of this size, provided the flatbed scanner had optical 600dpi resolution, a subsequent enlargement to A3 would produce an image superior in granular terms and sharpness than could have been obtained via conventional darkroom enlarging, where the emulsion grain would become apparent at such a print size.

Clearly, as we have found, using an original B+W negative of 5"x4" format, also on a flatbed scanner (with light source head to transmit light through the film) with 600dpi optical resolution, it is also possible to produce prints of A3 of excellent definition and no specifically visible grain. The scanner we use is the Mustek 1200P (Parallel Port connection) of optical 600x1200dpi together with its Transparency Head (just a matching cathode light box to allow scanning of negatives and transparencies - it does not cut out the internal reflective light cathode lamp but seems to work fine). Total cost in the UK is under £120 Sterling, so excellent value for money for those on a reasonably tight budget - like ourselves!). This head will work with any scanner using a cathode lamp. Remember, larger negs of 5"x4" for quality - or possibly 6x7/6x9 - as 6"x4" print is probably only acceptable from 35mm due optical resolution of 600dpi. See following comments re: Dedicated Film Scanners.

NOTE: We now (2005) use the Epson Photo Perfection range of flatbed scanners with film adapters

Recent tests, using 1200 dpi and 2400 dpi interpolation with 6x7/6x9 and 35mm respectively on this optical 600 dpi flatbed have produced remarkably good results. For 35mm B+W negatives, acceptable A4 printouts were produced, strangely without granular effects compared to scans via dedicated film scanners of higher optical dpi resolution! This tends to reinforce the feeling that it is some form of conflict with the higher dpi (eg: 2700 optical) of film scanners and the film grain that produces granular prints (this applies to monochrome, not colour). We will keep this research ongoing and will report back in due course.

For convenience and speed of use, many photographers are using 35mm and a film scanner, like the Nikon or Canon 2700dpi optical devices. Whilst these are very good, they generally cost about four times the price of a decent 600dpi flatbed with a lightbox transparency head attachment. It has to be remembered that whilst 2700dpi sounds a high optical resolution, by the time the 35mm image has been enlarged to say A4 size, the resolution has dropped to around 300dpi and if that is printed at A3, the resolution will have dropped to around 200 dpi, which - whatever the printer resolution may be set to (max. 1440dpi) - will result in a granular appearance in the printed image. In theory, over 200 dpi should be OK but in practice - from our experience and reasoning - there is some form of interference between the dpi of the scanner and the grain structure in the B+W film emulsion. The nearest comparison is the old lens performance system of "lines per millimetre", with which a film resolution of, say, 200 lpmm coupled to a lens resolution of, say, 150 lpmm would actually result in an end lpmm resolution of considerably less than either - the formula is of academic interest but the comparison of what I believe is the same sort of effect of the interference between the scanning dpi and grain structures. The nearest comparison I can suggest would be the moire pattern that usually occurs when scanning a screened image - like an illustration in a book. As colour negs and transparencies cannot be truly sharp, due colour dyes, colour scanning seems quite acceptable.

Although a similar dpi would result if scanning a 5"x4" negative on a 600 dpi flatbed scanner with light attachment, it would appear there is not the problem if the film grain structure causing interference that occurs with the greater magnification of the emulsion structure as occurs using 35mm - even though the dpi at A3 SHOULD be OK, it clearly isn't. However, all is not totally lost!

Interpolation to higher dpi can be used, provided the file sizes can be handled by the computer specification but we have found that in reality, the actual optical resolution of the scanner is really the true determining influence on the final result. As an example, scanning at a flatbed maximum optical dpi of say 600 might produce a file size of 25Mb; change that to an interpolated 1200dpi and the file size shoots to 100Mb - twice the dpi = four times the file size. The actual end print may look no different, especially if when using Photoshop the printing dpi is specifically set to relate to the chosen print dpi resolution.

So, bear in mind that if printing using an Epson 1200 with 1440dpi print resolution, even for the black only ink, you could see a granular structure that is actually not the fault of the printer but that the image dpi resolution (OR the interference effects mentioned above) is enlarged and thus begins to show in the print. You need to take all matters into consideration when troubleshooting problems. To maximize the quality of the print itself, whatever went before, there are certain controls available in Photoshop and more specifically, in the Epson printer software properties dialogue. In Photoshop, if using version 5 or 5.0.2, the best procedure is as follows. Please ensure you read the section on recommendations to procedures to adopt before actually printing to avoid memory and other problems.

SCANNING & PHOTOSHOP BASICS: (Acquiring the Image)

Open or Acquire, Twain 32, the file image as normal procedure. If scanning a negative, use the Image, Invert to get a positive. Use Image, Auto Levels as the first, basic adjustment. Then use the Image, Levels to get the histogram and adjust the central pointer under the histogram, usually requires moving to the right and watch the on-screen changes, until what is required has been achieved. Then click on OK. Now select the Magnifier tool, then position over a section of the image that contains as best a selection of important bits of the image as possible and click to magnify at least four times - this should equate at least to the eventual A3 output size. Now use Filter, Blur, Gaussian Blur - and set the value to Radius 0.8 pixels and click on OK. Now select Filter, Sharpen, Unsharp Mask and set Values to 100%, Radius (usually from 1.5 to 5 values will work best - try 2 for starters - you can see effect in the magnified on screen image section as well as in the small enlarged view) and Threshold to 7 levels.

The best way to proceed now is to save this image in JPEG format, using the setting, when asked, of Quality 6, High and Baseline Optimized.

Now close Photoshop - this clears the scratch disk and frees memory that Photoshop hogs!

Re-open Photoshop and the file. Use Image, Size to specify the final print size required - as you adjust one dimension, the other automatically adjusts to suit, provided you have not accidentally (or deliberately?) unchecked the Constrain Proportions box, of course! For best results, make sure the Constrain Proportions and the Resample Image are selected (checked) and that you have Bicubic against the Resample Image box. Now change the Resolution in the Print Size box area to 360 pixels/inch. This sets the dpi to a directly related figure to the final 1440dpi printer output resolution. i.e. 360 times 4 = 1440. We have found this to work very well and helps keep file sizes to more practical levels. Before entering the Print Dialogue menu, make sure the image is back to full view (use ALT to change the magnifier to reduce) and is shown as a vertical (Portrait) format on the screen, thus a landscape format would be shown on its side, so if necessary, use the Image, Rotate Canvas to achieve this.

The reason for having any image as a vertical (Portrait) format on screen is that the Epson always accepts paper narrow end first - in other words, it always prints in Portrait mode. Whilst you can leave the image in landscape mode on the screen and instruct the printer to print it correctly along the length of the paper, this involves a lot more work for the computer when sending the file imformation to the printer. So, take my tip and help speed matters up by having all files in vertical (Portrait) mode on screen so it can print more easily as a "Portrait" on the paper, which as mentioned, always goes "Portrait" mode through the printer!

Select the Rectangle selection tool and select a portion of the image (using the on-screen rulers to help with size) to about 51/2" x 31/2". This section will easily fit on a quarter of an A4 sheet and inexpensive A4 inkjet paper will be quite suitable for our purposes. You will *need* to use the small card support for this paper and size, as mentioned in the Epson 1200 handbook. Well, that's what it says but we have been using without the support card without any difficulty. We think if you put in the small piece and then adjust the width control, the paper will get caught under the lip without the card support - so simply adjust the width support approx. before inserting the paper! It seems to work every time!

PRINTING:

Now go to File, Print and when the printer dialogue box appears, follow these instructions carefully. Click on Setup and enter the main printer dialogue selection process. You will now be in the Page Setup box. Set paper size to Photo Paper 6x4in in the drop down menu box. Always set orientation to Portrait. Now click on the Properties button to get to the Epson Stylus Photo 1200 Properties box, which has tabs. On the Main tab page in this box, set to Photo Quality Ink Jet Paper, select the Black ink. set for Quality (not speed) and (contrary to advice in the handbook!) select Custom, Advanced. Select Black Ink and Photo 1440 and you should only have the choice of Error Diffusion anyway. Click on OK to go back. Now select the tab for Paper. Select Photo Paper 6x4in as before (Yes, I know it's a pain but it seems necessary to set every time where anything is duplicated on selection pages) and select Standard (default) and check Centered for Printable Area. Now select the Layout tab and ensure Normal is selected (it's the default, anyway but just check). Select 1 page and None for Watermark (all are default settings). It should not be necessary to go to the Utility tab page unless really needed, so have a look to see what's on offer if you wish! Click on OK to get back to Page Setup. Just check it still says the right paper size and click on OK to get back to the Print page - at last!

Finally, make sure that Selection is checked (dot in a circle) to ensure only the bit of the image selected is going to be printed, then click on OK to Print. I am assuming that you did remember to switch on the printer and press the feed button to feed the paper into the printer, of course!

This will print that small section to the equivalent size for the full print output, without wasting paper or ink or time. You should be thus able to inspect a decent "test strip" and judge for sharpness, grain and contrast, etc. I have found this simple inkjet paper gives a good account of itself (provided you put it in the right side up, of course) and reasonably equates to the density, etc. when printed on to Epson Photo Paper. If printing on to an art paper, like the 100% rag Arches, whether hot or cold pressed or any other similar art paper, you will need to make the image a bit denser and slightly higher contrast for the best results. Again, you could use a small 6"x4" piece of the actual final printing material if you want to see the exact results you will get - in other words, treat as test pieces. After a very short while, you will get quite expert at judging what is required for different materials.

By the way, different "papers" give different results. Not only can the colour vary considerably (yes, even with just the black ink the colour of the image can vary from brown-black to green-black and blue-black according to the material) but also the material can cause dot gain - meaning the ink spreads, not always immediately but often over several hours. For example, we have not used the Kodak Gloss Photo Paper but from several sources, the initial image has looked very good but by the following morning, the ink has started to spread in the base. This does not happen with the new Epson Photo Paper, which has a "soft gloss" finish and a base nearer to a conventional photographic paper. The hot pressed art papers, sized with gelatin, are excellent and show no visible dot gain and their warm base colour (they vary from off white to cream) goes very well with many photographic images. They are also free of any acids or alkalis and thus will ensure the longest life for the inks. It does appear that the base for printing, especially if containing chemicals, has a lot more to do with fading than people have imagined. In other words, the base can cause deterioration of the inks, so it is not all down to fading in the light - the light can accelerate the base yellowing, which itself then accelerates the ink deterioration.

The Epson black ink, used on the right base materials, seems to offer long life, based on initial tests, so it really does seem the base is important, not only for image "colour" reasons but also for longevity aspects. The alternative inks, claimed to be archival, are probably best used with 100% art rag materials for maximum longevity. Tests by colleagues of these archival inks, when used on more "normal" media, like Photo Gloss and the like, would appear to offer little advantage over the normal Epson inks and are slightly more expensive anyway, especially if original Epson inks are purchased from discount sources - buying five together seems to produce bigger reductions! In other words, the "archival" inks can suffer fading directly, it would appear, from reaction to the base material. Refilling cartridges may be OK for Hewlett Packard type inks but the Epson print heads are more prone to getting into difficulties if any air locks occur, so my advice is to stick with the official Epson inks or buy the ready filled archival ink alternatives. For more details view: http://www.graphicstar.clara.net OR send an e-mail requesting information on Lysonic Inks and other archival media to: donna@graphicstar.clara.net We do not have any financial contacts but would appreciate your mentioning our name - Thanks!

NOTE (2005): We have been using and recommending PrintRite inks, available from: http://www.esunrise.co.uk

If you still exhibit granular print outs, look at the means of acquiring the image as it is more likely that it is not the printer but more the dpi enlargement in the scanning. I did get some granularity/texturising in the first A3 print, made without any controls other than resizing but after investigation, realised it was possible to eliminate this via Photoshop filters.

Careful use of the Gaussian Blur settings and the Unsharp Mask settings enabled elimination, so it was not the printer causing the problems. By using the Magnifier tool and having an enlarged part-picture on screen whilst making settings enabled the best image construction before printing out, as the enlarged part enabled viewing as the controls were tried with different settings for both these filters for Radius and Threshold as appropriate.

FINAL POINT OF IMPORTANCE: IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU SET THE PRINTING dpi TO (we recommend) 360dpi IN THE IMAGE, SIZE DIALOGUE BOX WHEN YOU SET THE IMAGE SIZE REQUIRED FOR THE PRINTOUT AS THIS MATCHES THE PRINTER'S 1440 dpi AND ENSURES GRAIN-FREE IMAGES. MOST GRANULAR PRINTOUTS ARE DUE USING A SETTING HERE OF LESS THAN 360 dpi OR A dpi THAT DOES NOT DIRECTLY SCALE TO 1440 dpi. FOR EXAMPLE, SETTING 300 dpi COULD GIVE A MORE GRANULAR OUTPUT, AS COULD 500dpi TOO.

BEFORE MAKING THE FINAL PRINT:

ADJUST ANY SETTINGS AS NECESSARY AS REGARDS PAPER TYPE & SIZE. ALL OTHER SETTINGS SHOULD THEN BE OK AND REMEMBER TO ENSURE YOU HAVE THE FULL IMAGE, NOT JUST A SELECTION TO PRINT.

IMPORTANT FOOTNOTE: From our experience of using this new printer, it is perfectly possible to achieve images of extremely fine gradation and granular structure. Very close examination (e.g. with stronger than normal reading glasses) will show very slight and fine dot structure - after all, the image is formed from very small droplets of ink - yet from normal viewing distances the images do not suffer in comparison to darkroom-produced images and in real terms, the ultra fine dots on, say, an A3 size print will be finer than grain in appearance compared to a similar sized print made from a medium-size negative on slow, fine grained film. This is a most encouraging performance and a most welcome breakthrough. Hopefully, the next generation of printers will use even smaller micro dots to outperform conventional prints from large negatives!

The important point to note from the above is that if you should be getting grainy looking printouts, it is not the printer you should be looking to for the cause. Recent trials show that should a coarse grained print be obtained, for whatever reason, by using the various filters in programmes like Photoshop 5 (and earlier and lite versions, too) as well as other competent programmes like Paint Shop Pro and Micrografx Picture Publisher, you can eliminate (or in unusually severe cases, minimise) this granular structure appearing in the print, so the problem would lie with the B+W image file.

It does seem that some form of dot interference may have occurred - rather like the moire pattern when a print is copied from a magazine - where the dot pattern from the scan related badly to the dot pattern of the printer. In the case of the magazine copy, many scanners have a filter to "descreen", as do some software programmes. Judicial use of the Gaussian Blur filter- or even just the Blur filter - can eliminate this, then the use of the Unsharp Mask filter can restore any loss of sharpness without the dot grain pattern that can appear when the Sharpen filter is used. You could also try the descreen filter, too!

The best advice I can give is to magnify the image on screen as described above, even to having it larger than you intend to make the final image, though of course you can only view part of the whole during this process. Hone in on any area that ideally has some detail and plain middle-to-light grey tones. This way you can watch the changes on-screen as you try various settings for different filters or other image manipulation controls. As one example, tree branches against a reasonably plain area of sky would be ideal. You can try various settings and watch the effect using the preview box ticked in Photoshop, only clicking on "OK" when you think you have achieved what you require.

By also using the method described above to print a quarter of an A4 test of a selected area, you can make an inexpensive print of part of the image at the end size required and see how it actually prints. If you keep notes of settings, you should only have to do this for a couple of pictures to learn all you need to know about how to proceed in the future, using your own method of acquiring the image. 35mm film scanners, even with 2700dpi we know can produce this sort of problem (this only applies to B+W silver negatives, not colour dye images) when trying for an image to A3 size, so some experimentation may be required to try different dpi interpolation levels to see how best to avoid - or at lest minimize - the possibility of a granular print cause by the image dot structure interfering with that of the printer. Then using the filter and other controls should get over any problems.

Scanning from an en-print, whether colour or B+W, of size 7"x5" does not seem to cause these problems as far as we have found so if you use a film scanner, you MAY have to carry out some controlled tests along the lines described above. Seeing results from one of the Society's Associates - Bruce Carter - who added a Canon 2700 dpi film scanner for 35mm work (his main work is via scanning 5"x4" negs on a 600 dpi flatbed scanner with light box attachment - his is Umax) back up my own ideas, in that Bruce reckons an A4 print is about the largest he can accept from 35mm scans. It is possible - and I will check this in the near future - that making a scan from 35mm in a dedicated 2700 scanner and then from that producing an intermediate print say around 7"x5", then scanning that print on a flatbed to then print to A3 could be one answer for anyone not wishing (or unable) to make a print, for scanning, by conventional photographic means in a darkroom. Scanning from 35mm, if using chromogenic film (like Ilford XP2 for example) is a better proposition as there are no problems due it being a dye-image negative).

The latest Epson 1200 Photo Perfection 1200 optical dpi scanner, with head for scanning from 35mm to 5x4 gives high quality and can be recommended. Scans we made were very sharp and full of detail with no artefacts. The TWAIN controls for brightness/contrast and gamma were not very good, giving very limited adjustments, thus scans were too dark, even after setting all controls for maximum brightness but were easily corrected in Photoshop. Only drawback is the connection is only USB with no option for parallel. This precludes people like me who use Windows NT4 and I'm not about to abandon my Mustek scanner nor lash out increasing Bill Gate's coffers by paying for an upgrade (?) to Windows 2000. (We tested on a newly built Win-98 machine - installation of this USB device proved quite tricky - echoed by other Society members). It certainly was not plug and play (whatever that was supposed to be!). Perhaps "PLUG & PRAY" is the truer association!

NOTE (2005): In the end (for several years now) I had to change to Win 2K because of USB requirements. At least it has proven to be a stable as its predecessor, NT4

NOTE: We can only reply in detail to queries from Members of the Zone 8 Photographic Society

 Above article is not to be reproduced in part or whole without written permission but you can print it out for your personal use

© Brian SL Allen - 1999 ©

If you are not a member of the Zone 8 Photographic Society (membership details are available by sending an e-mail using the link shown) you will not have access to the free advice facility on photographic conventional, digital imaging and related computing topics nor all other membership benefits such as Newsletters, informative e-mailouts, Forum, Gallery, Meets, Technical Information Leaflets, etc!