Digital BW, The Print

Paul,

> I've double-checked my numbers and added the missing ones to the
table.

>                      300 HOURS TEST RESULTS
> 
> 2200 Ink            Fade   Warm    EAM Dmax
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Epson Matte Black     0      0     1.73 1160/BO
> 
> Epson Archival Black  0     .02    1.48 1160/BO
> 
> MIS Matte Black      .07    .02    1.58/1.51 BO
> 
> 
> -----------  Non 2200 Ink for comparison
> MIS FS Black         .02     0     1.61/1.59 1160/not BO


You entered 0 for the warming amount for the MIS FS black - how can
that be?  I use that ink in my BO printing and it definitely warms,
though not nearly as bad as the full ink set.  Is this a mistake?


>One problem with the dmax readings is that EAM and EEM 
>from the various batches I have are so different.  
>Note that all the fade testing of the group was on a 
>relatively late batch of EAM, not the new EEM.

Understood, but that's ok because I've been using the old EAM and that
gives me a good value to compare with.  For me it's all relative.  The
numbers don't mean much except if it's higher or lower than EAM then I
have a realistic comparison.  I'm using an 870 which I like very much.
 I'm not in a hurry, but someday I'll probably upgrade to a 1280 or
2200.  It just depends on the inks.

So it looks like the Epson Matte Black is top dog - wasn't the
Archival supposed to be better?

Regards, - cj