Digital BW, The Print

I complained previously about variations in UT2 ink tones from the set
I bought a year ago and a month ago and although I'm convinced that my
observation is correct I gave up on convincing MIS of that (they
insist that a year ago I bought UT but the lable on the bottles and my
memory say otherwise). 
My question for Paul Roark is if there is any problem (from a
chemistry point of view) in  replacing the cyan and light cyan in UT2
with magenta and light magenta (they are bluish as oposed to cool
gray) from UT. Using QTR I can mix inks any way I want to, it's the
ink tones that interest me. 
Having just bought a new set of UT2 inks (4oz bottles) I would hate to
spend the same money again for just 2 tones that I need.
Thanks for any input.

Andu

>... is ... there ... any problem (from a
>chemistry point of view) in replacing the cyan and light cyan in UT2

These are the cool gray inks.

>with magenta and light magenta (they are bluish as oposed to cool
>gray) from UT.

These are the UT1 toners.  The basic components are the same, but they have
a much lower density and higher gamut.  That is, less carbon and relatively
more color pigment.

Chemically, they are compatible.

One reason I moved to the more dense UT2 inks is that the UT inkset required
more volume of ink on the paper for a given level of image density.  This
caused spots on some glossy papers due to overloading the paper.  So, if you
plan on printing glossy papers, you're better off with the UT2 densities.

If the bottles are the same price, you also get more prints per dollar with
denser inks.  (Light ink = expensive water; more light ink also = more
bronzing; use the darkest set of inks the printer can handle and give the
smoothness you want.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> >... is ... there ... any problem (from a
> >chemistry point of view) in replacing the cyan and light cyan in UT2
> 
> These are the cool gray inks.

Correct.

> 
> >with magenta and light magenta (they are bluish as oposed to cool
> >gray) from UT.
> 
> These are the UT1 toners.  The basic components are the same, but
they have
> a much lower density and higher gamut.  That is, less carbon and
relatively
> more color pigment.
> 
> Chemically, they are compatible.

So I can even mix the two.

> 
> One reason I moved to the more dense UT2 inks is that the UT inkset
required
> more volume of ink on the paper for a given level of image density.
 This
> caused spots on some glossy papers due to overloading the paper. 
So, if you
> plan on printing glossy papers, you're better off with the UT2
densities.
> 
> If the bottles are the same price, you also get more prints per
dollar with
> denser inks.  (Light ink = expensive water; more light ink also = more
> bronzing; use the darkest set of inks the printer can handle and
give the
> smoothness you want.)

I print on photorag only and prefer the extended tonal variations to
economy.
Thanks a lot for the details.
Andu

> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com