Digital BW, The Print

David,


  "PAUL ROARK'S C6C BASE PREMIXED ­ FOR ARCHES WATERCOLOR PAPER"
>
> I thought these bases were for mixing inks? Where does the watercolor paper
> come into play? Is this a base designed for making inks intended to be
> printed on watercolor papers (and therefore probably what I need)?
>
The additional surfactant in the C6C base helps  with respect to Arches, at
least when the 1400 is used.  I'm not sure it adds much with 3.5 pl
printers.


> Also, the base for use with the Epson 1400. Can that also be used with the
> Epson 3800,
>

Yes, I'd call the C6B the most  important base.  It works well with all
Epson  printers and most papers.

The formulas for the bases are discussed at
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf .  My effort was to use, to
the extent possible, chemicals that were readily available and familiar to
darkroom practitioners.  The first base just used Photo Flo, which was OK
for the oldest, slowest printers, but the newer, faster printers put  more
 demands on the surfactant mix.  In that respect, I  think Edwal LFN is
very good and I would not omit it in any blend now.  In fact, I've  never
found any incompatibilities with the surfactants that I use in these mixes.
 So, if Arches is your target, then you might want to use the C6C even if,
in the 3880, the last surfactant is not necessary.  It won't hurt.


> or do I have to buy one of the other bases for that printer? (I
> have both printers.) If so, which one? (Bearing in mind; watercolor papers,
> warmest possible prints.)
>

Note that for the MIS glossy carbons, MIS sells a the base that is used.  I
would recommend if you use the glossy carbons you stick with the MIS base
for them.  It's  what they sometimes call the amber base.



>
> I find it interesting that most of the surfactant you use in your base
> formulas is PhotoFlo. I would have thought that would be too prone to
> foaming for inks and would have guessed that LFN would have worked better.
> Where I needed a surfactant in some of the techniques I developed for B&W
> film and paper processing, PhotoFlo gummed up the works while LFN saved the
> day. Curious to know what your experiences were.
>

Photo flo has glycol in it.  That is what "gummed up" things occasionally
in the darkroom, but it's actually an active ingredient in the  ink.  So,
using Photo Flo is not just for  the surfactant but also as an easy way to
get a small amount of glycol in the mix.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]