Digital BW, The Print

"shileshjani" <janishilesh@...> wrote:

 
> ... I did not know that [MIS] K4 (presumably Image Specialist) LK and LLK were 100% carbon.

I've been told by MIS and IS they are, and in my tests they perform as I'd expect carbon to.  However, my tests are not as thorough as Mark's.

> ... these MIS K4 are significantly warmer than equivalent Epson OEM K3 inks.

And with the UT carbons like MIS UT7 C and LC, as well as EZ-W, you have a full set of different densities from PK to LLK:  K4-PK, UT7-C, K4-LK, EZ-W, UT7-LC, K4-LLK.

> (1) Are OEM LK and LLK not 100% carbon?

I don't know.  The K2 OEM PK nad LK tested very well for me -- like carbon.  They are less warm, perhaps due to larger particles.  They do not stay in suspension as well as the MIS warm carbons, which is also consistent with larger particle sizes.

...
> (3) Is there any fade data available for K4 PK, LK, and LLK used without color inks?

In addition to my testing, there is at least one Aardenburg Imaging test that had MIS PK in the black spot.  At that point it behaved consistently with what I'd expect from carbon.

> I personally find the color of K4 LK and LLK (warm/red) to be gorgeous compared to OEM equivalents, which seem warm/green.

The OEM K3 is un-usable by itself, in my view.


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com