• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / Printers / Dot gain in the Epson P800

Dot gain in the Epson P800

September 9, 2019 JimK 3 Comments

This is a continuation of testing that I’ve been doing on the Epson P800 printer. I’ve created a category called “Printers”, and put this post in that category. If you go to the Category List (on the right in the desktop formatting), find “Printers” and click on it, you’ll see all the posts in the series.

Yesterday I reported on the resolution ability of the Epson P800 printer in “Finest Detail” mode, and found that contrast was almost zero at 720 pixels per inch (ppi). It appeared to me that the issue that was holding the printer back was not so much the ability of the mechanism to correctly position the droplets as it was the spreading of the drops when they hit the paper. If offset lithography, this is called “dot gain”. I don’t know quite what to call it in inkjet printing, where the situation is different because you can’t look at the halftoned image before it’s sent to the printer, but I’m going to call it the same thing here.

Side note. I am doing this with a consumer printer, the P800. Why not use one of Epson’s pro printers, you might ask. Here’s why. I spent 5 or 6 miserable years using the Epson 4900. I’m sure that printer is great if you use it every day. But I print every week or two, and every printing session began with trying to get the nozzles unclogged, accompanied by much cursing. I am happy to report that my P800 nozzles don’t clog often.

Back to the point of this post. I created a different test target to get a feel for what is going on. Here’s a piece of it:

The target consists of 1/720 inch black lines with variable spacing. In the lower right, there are 180 lines per inch, in the upper left, there are 90 lines per inch, and in the other two quadrants there are 45 lines per inch. Looking at it another way, in the lower right, there are 3 white lines between each black line, in the upper left, there are 7 white lines between each black line, and in the other two quadrants there are 15 white lines between each black line.

I printed the target on an Epson P800, using Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper, setting the marking engine resolution to 2880×1440 dpi, checking the “Finest Detail” box. I scanned  them with an Epson V850 Pro scanner at 3200 ppi. Here’s a blowup of the same area of the scan:

 

You can see that the lines that should be 1/720 of an inch wide are almost 1/360 of an inch wide.

One of the effects of this is to darken the average values in areas where there’s a lot of high-frequency dark detail over what they should be.

Is the spreading worse because we’re laying down a lot of ink? I reduced the putative density of the black lines to middle gray and tried again:

That’s not entirely it, but reducing the ink load does help.

Printers

← Epson P800 high-contrast resolution GFX 100 self-heating read noise and EDR →

Comments

  1. Ilya Zakharevich says

    September 9, 2019 at 7:51 pm

    Aha! I have not seen it when I wrote the comment on
      https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/megapixels-smart-resizing-and-printing-viewing-distance-and-printer-considerations/#comment-253319
     — but there I got to the same conclusions.

    Now, when I thought about it more, it looks like most of this “bug” may be compensated by preprocessing before printing: linear filtering to compensate for decay of MTF (up to about 500ppi), AND by non-linear modelling of ink spread. Suppose we have such a model (for the simplest example, “replace a pixel by its darkest neighbor after rescaling to a certain ppi”); then one can compensate by brightening the initial image as 2I‒I’ (here I is the initial image, and I’ is the result of non-linear modelling).

    Of course, it is still not clear in which gamma one should do the subtraction in 2I‒I’…

    Reply
  2. Anders Lundeby says

    September 11, 2019 at 12:21 am

    Thanks for your excellent blog, it is such a releief to read the results from competent testing. Regaridng resolution tests on Epson printers, I have done similar testing on the 3800 some years ago, and got similar results as you regaridng resolution. One other result I found, was that slanted lines looked smoother when printed at 720 ppi. Based on this I suggest a follow-up test of ink dot placement with slanted lines printed at 360 and 720 ppi. You will do the test better than I did, and more people will get to see the results, whatever they will be.
    Best regards,
    Anders Lundeby

    Reply
  3. carl says

    September 10, 2020 at 3:54 pm

    I burst out laughing at your comment re: the Epson 4900 — I had one and ended up donating it to a photography school. Loved the prints, but just wasn’t printing enough to stop the clogging. I now have a P800 (haha).

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.