I'm far from an expert when it comes to digital especially the technical aspects. Is it possible that your printer rollers need to be cleaned? I had a problem at one time with my 2200 and bought cleaning sheets from Epson that did the trick.
HOME PAGE
That the banding doesn't appear with the Epson driver probably means it isn't a cleaning or head alignment problem, or that the media isn't being moved precisely. I've heard only good things about the 3880 when it comes to the banding issue that plagued previous Epson printers (such as the 2100/2200). Given the 1/16" repeating nature of the banding, parallel to the direction that the printhead travels (if I've understood you correctly), my guess would be that the issue stems from the way that one pass of the printhead slightly overlaps the previous one, combined with the inks you're using in that part of the negative, the dithering algorithm and media settings (speed, dpi, platten gap etc.)
Do you get the same results when you change the dither algorithm (adaptive hybrid -> ordered -> fast -> very fast) / resolution (720 -> 1440 -> 2880) / speed (Bi-directional vs Uni-directional)?
Could you attach a larger version of the image showing the banding? Also, if you have a scanner, scan that section of the negative at a high native resolution (i.e. non-interpolated) and have a close look at the way the ink droplets have been laid down on the banding boundaries. Sometimes that can be very informative.
How are you creating your digital negatives? Is Adobe InDesign part of your process or are you printing directly from photoshop?
That the banding doesn't appear with the Epson driver probably means it isn't a cleaning or head alignment problem, or that the media isn't being moved precisely. I've heard only good things about the 3880 when it comes to the banding issue that plagued previous Epson printers (such as the 2100/2200). Given the 1/16" repeating nature of the banding, parallel to the direction that the printhead travels (if I've understood you correctly), my guess would be that the issue stems from the way that one pass of the printhead slightly overlaps the previous one, combined with the inks you're using in that part of the negative, the dithering algorithm and media settings (speed, dpi, platten gap etc.)
Do you get the same results when you change the dither algorithm (adaptive hybrid -> ordered -> fast -> very fast) / resolution (720 -> 1440 -> 2880) / speed (Bi-directional vs Uni-directional)?
Could you attach a larger version of the image showing the banding? Also, if you have a scanner, scan that section of the negative at a high native resolution (i.e. non-interpolated) and have a close look at the way the ink droplets have been laid down on the banding boundaries. Sometimes that can be very informative.
- Defects in the negative will always be visible with an 8-10x loupe.
- The marks on the print look like they are made by star ("pizza") wheels, not banding. If the marks
are in the direction of the paper feed they are certainly not banding.
Alex,
I as I mentioned above the technical aspect of all this is not my thing. For several years I have been using Dan Burkholder's plug-in for digital negatives with PhotoShop and Pictorico OHP Transparency Film on an Epson 2200 with Epson Ultrachrome inks. I do tweak the image from the plug-in transfer but very little. I just use the Epson profile for enhanced matte and get very good negatives for pt/pd. (In my simplified way) Have you tried printing in a "default" way such as I do to see if the same problem occurs? I would think that if the banding does not happen then the problem is with something you included or left out in your programming. If you can get proper results without knocking yourself making a custom profile don't bother and enjoy printing.
HOME PAGE
Philip,
The pattern is visible with a naked eye.
We are probably talking about different things here.
Take a look at this image http://i.imgur.com/KQfx6.jpg, you can clearly see the banding between 95% and 100% marks on the smooth gradient portion of the tablet.
Jeff,
I'm leaning towards doing what you suggesting, as there seem to be no problem printing through Epson driver.
It's just it's sad that I wasted 50+ hours of my time, used up almost 3 packs of Pictorico and over 50 sheets of Ilford paper, 1/3 of the printer ink, got almost a perfect profile, all of that for nothing ...
I mean it works for other people, there must be a logical explanation why it doesn't work for me.
But if I don't find the answer soon, I might just go with the Epson driver.
Thank you.
Yes, QTR can be a rabbit hole. You might try finding a working profile on the web and tweaking for your environment. You might already be doing this, but consider one curve for light inks and one for dark inks instead of creating a separate curve for each color. Some colors don't contribute much UV blocking so not using these channels can simplify your profile. Ron Reeder has documented a pretty simple workflow for creating digital negatives with QTR. You can also use the Epson driver Advanced B&W with a yellow boost to create negatives. You will still need to create a correction curve, but you will bypass all the profiling required by QTR. PDN and other methods of colorizing work well on the 38xx, too.
That definitely looks like posterisation - though not in the image itself if it prints ok with the Epson drivers. Very odd - definitely try some different versions of QTRip, you never know. When I was trying to get to grips with QTRip, I had problems with one version (on Vista x64) that wouldn't print correctly. Rolling back to an earlier version worked. Have you seen Clay Harmon's guide to QTRip and digital negatives? Eminently readable - you may find that odd bit of something in there to help. Here's the download link.
Good luck, and let us all know how you get on.
Angus
This looks like posterization to me. It probably means the the curve adjustments in the 90-100% range are too rapid. The biggest reason this probably won't be a problem is that these values correspond to the deepest shadow areas of your negative, and it is unlikely your print process will be able to discriminate that bottom 5% of gray anyway.
One of the first steps using QTR, is to print out an "Ink Pattern Page". Looking at my printout (Epson R2400), I noticed distinct banding in the LLK channel - all along the density range. None of the other inks display that banding, but the LLK shows it profusely.
I'm not familiar with the internals of QTR, but I don't think the banding comes from Photoshop's inability to render a smooth gradient: it's just the printer itself, as far as I can tell. Which tells me it's better not to use that ink at all.
Being able to turn off that inkjet nozzle, strikes me as one of the (few) compelling advantages of QTR.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?