Digital BW, The Print

Better than Glop ? Anyone used it ?

See:

http://www.image-specialists.com/specialty.htm

Bottom of the page.

Ernst

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> Better than Glop ? Anyone used it ?
> 
> See:
> 
> http://www.image-specialists.com/specialty.htm
> 
> Bottom of the page.
> 
> Ernst

There is a newer version that is not listed on the website, but I 
haven't used it. I suspect that others have. Some people have said that 
whatever is used in the R800/1800 ink set that WeInk sells works almost 
as good as the Epson GLOP, and I think the Glop and Krystal Topcoat are 
the same thing, but not positive. It does sound like a miracle product 
though doesn't it? The HP style cart I think might be the same one that 
has been used on several Encad printer models, so it might be a cheap 
way to make a liquid lamination machine.

Sounds like someone has been listening to us.  I am very interested in
hearing what people think of this.

> From: dfaprinting <dfaprinting@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 23:13:00 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Krystal Topkote
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
> <E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
>> Better than Glop ? Anyone used it ?
>> 
>> See:
>> 
>> http://www.image-specialists.com/specialty.htm
>> 
>> Bottom of the page.
>> 
>> Ernst
> 
> There is a newer version that is not listed on the website, but I
> haven't used it. I suspect that others have. Some people have said that
> whatever is used in the R800/1800 ink set that WeInk sells works almost
> as good as the Epson GLOP, and I think the Glop and Krystal Topcoat are
> the same thing, but not positive. It does sound like a miracle product
> though doesn't it? The HP style cart I think might be the same one that
> has been used on several Encad printer models, so it might be a cheap
> way to make a liquid lamination machine.
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Sounds like someone has been listening to us

It's actually been out for a couple of years now. But again, I 
haven't tried it yet. I suspect that the newer version may be the 
same as GLOP, but have not asked them yet. I do need to contact them 
about something else, so when I do, I'll ask if it is the same 
product.

Is there some virtue to applying this stuff with a printer rather than
with a spray? (other than the standard issues with drifting sprays and
propellants)?

Does it eliminate bronzing on gloss/semi? 

Would it create a gloss rectangle over an image on EEM or similar?

Is someone here using it routinely? On what paper? Why? 

Djon




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:

>
> Better than Glop ? Anyone used it ?
> 
 >

I've just started to test it in a 2200. I used to spray and roll
various things on my prints, but mostly Golden water-based UVLS, and
also tried using R800 glop as an overcoat. Others I tried: Sureguard,
Printshield, Imageshield, Lascaux, GAC 500.

So far I've found Krystal Topkote (GIE822/WJ822) to work well. I've
had better results than with the R800 glop in the R800 (which I gave
up on). I found little density change when using glop, but the KT
improves the D-Max on Epson Premium Glossy Photo from around 2.4 to
over 2.5 (K3 black inks in a 2200). The coating also appears to be
more durable. It reduces the slight gloss differential of the K3 inks
and has a good effect on standard UC 2200 prints on Premium Glossy.
I'm very pleased with that particular combination.

Using the Epson driver with the High Speed setting gives the best
results so far. The advantage over hand spraying is that the coating
is precise and even, and dust is much less of a problem. There is also
no need to wear a mask.

My next tests will be with matte papers, and I hope to get round to
those at the weekend.

Best,
Helen  

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
<djon43@y...> wrote:

>
> Is there some virtue to applying this stuff with a printer rather than
> with a spray? (other than the standard issues with drifting sprays and
> propellants)?
> 
> Does it eliminate bronzing on gloss/semi? 
> 
> Would it create a gloss rectangle over an image on EEM or similar?
> 
> Is someone here using it routinely? On what paper? Why? 
> 
> Djon

I wonder if you thinned Glamore or Glamore2 down enough if it would 
spray and cover well enough to do what you want to do.

Helen,
Thanks for the progress reports.
Do you have an opinion as to why the R800/glop did not work like the WJ822?
What was the reason for giving up on it?
If Greg is right, and WJ824 _is_ glop, I wonder if you would have a
different result with it in the 2200, and different than your current WJ822
batch?

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
helen_bach2003
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:11 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Krystal Topkote

I've just started to test it in a 2200. I used to spray and roll
various things on my prints, but mostly Golden water-based UVLS, and
also tried using R800 glop as an overcoat. Others I tried: Sureguard,
Printshield, Imageshield, Lascaux, GAC 500.

So far I've found Krystal Topkote (GIE822/WJ822) to work well. I've
had better results than with the R800 glop in the R800 (which I gave
up on). I found little density change when using glop, but the KT
improves the D-Max on Epson Premium Glossy Photo from around 2.4 to
over 2.5 (K3 black inks in a 2200). The coating also appears to be
more durable. It reduces the slight gloss differential of the K3 inks
and has a good effect on standard UC 2200 prints on Premium Glossy.
I'm very pleased with that particular combination.

Using the Epson driver with the High Speed setting gives the best
results so far. The advantage over hand spraying is that the coating
is precise and even, and dust is much less of a problem. There is also
no need to wear a mask.

My next tests will be with matte papers, and I hope to get round to
those at the weekend.

Best,
Helen




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

I did think of trying the Golden UVLS that I was already using with a
hand spray, or ECO Printshield, thinned down. We asked Premier for
advice about using ECO-P in a printer, pointing out the potential
advantages, but got no reply. So I decided to start with something
that was already formulated by people who know a great deal more than
I do about ink and inkjets. I don't mind experimenting, but I don't
want to clog a 2200 with varnish. I was given a C82 which I might try
with a mix of the above-mentioned coatings and MIS base after doing
settling tests.

I have no idea how Krystal Topkote will behave as it ages, and I got
the impression that Image Specialists hadn't either.

Best,
Helen

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:

>
> I wonder if you thinned Glamore or Glamore2 down enough if it would 
> spray and cover well enough to do what you want to do.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody" 
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
>
> Helen,
> Thanks for the progress reports.
> Do you have an opinion as to why the R800/glop did not work like 
the WJ822?
> What was the reason for giving up on it?
> If Greg is right, and WJ824 _is_ glop, I wonder if you would have a
> different result with it in the 2200, and different than your 
current WJ822
> batch?
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 


If you look around the Image Specialists web site, and or the 
getinkexpress web site, you'll see that WJ824 is what they sell for 
GLOP, and I'm pretty sure that the very first set of inks that they 
had for the R800 used the WJ822 (since they already had it).

WJ824 is used to dilute the UltraPro and K3 replacement inks (except 
the matte black which uses WJ820 to dilute). I believe (not 
confirmed) that the R800/1800 ink set that they have uses the older 
Ultra2 (Ultrachrome replacement) base, and would use the WJ820 for a 
dilution material.

John,
I found that running the K3/2200 B&W prints through my R800 and laying 
down Epson glop actually decreased the D-Max slightly - by an average 
of 0.1 - and also produced occasional blemishes that had the appearance 
of minute light-coloured blisters. I didn't investigate further, mainly 
because of the lowering of D-Max.

I'm a bit baffled by the 822/824 thing, and we have had slightly 
different stories from Image Specialists ("824 has a little more gloss 
and it has replaced 822") and Weink ("IS only list 822 as Krystal 
Topkote. 824 is replacement glop.")

The bottle of 822 is marked as both Krystal Topkote and clear base. At 
the rate we're using it, the 500 ml won't last long so I'll try some 
824 in a while. If anything, I'd like a bit more gloss.

Best,
Helen


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody" 
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
>
> Helen,
> Thanks for the progress reports.
> Do you have an opinion as to why the R800/glop did not work like the 
WJ822?
> What was the reason for giving up on it?
> If Greg is right, and WJ824 _is_ glop, I wonder if you would have a
> different result with it in the 2200, and different than your current 
WJ822

> batch?
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody

Helen,
OK, it is starting to make sense now, thanks.
The 822/824 thing sounds just like the MIS “what new base?” response.
Have you tried creating an IJC 822 channel in your printing curves, or do
you prefer to put down a uniform coating after printing?

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
helen_bach2003
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:08 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Krystal Topkote

John,
I found that running the K3/2200 B&W prints through my R800 and laying
down Epson glop actually decreased the D-Max slightly - by an average
of 0.1 - and also produced occasional blemishes that had the appearance
of minute light-coloured blisters. I didn't investigate further, mainly
because of the lowering of D-Max.

I'm a bit baffled by the 822/824 thing, and we have had slightly
different stories from Image Specialists ("824 has a little more gloss
and it has replaced 822") and Weink ("IS only list 822 as Krystal
Topkote. 824 is replacement glop.")

The bottle of 822 is marked as both Krystal Topkote and clear base. At
the rate we're using it, the 500 ml won't last long so I'll try some
824 in a while. If anything, I'd like a bit more gloss.

Best,
Helen




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

John,

I've just got round to measuring the tests that compare simultaneous
coating using IJC/OPM and coating in a second pass, using the Epson
driver, about ten minutes after the original prints were made.

The original IJC profile for this test uses the PK, LK and LLK inks
from the K3 set in an Epson 2200.
Epson Premium Glossy Photo paper.

IJC settings for 822 channel: limit 26 (ie max) 0, 250; 255, 250 (ie a
straight horizontal line from zero to 255 at just below maximum ink level.

Epson driver settings: Watercolor Radiant White (there is an MK cart
in the first slot, the PK is in the second slot so the Epson driver
thinks it is loaded with MK), 720 dpi, High Speed

The IJC simultaneous coat appeared to be thinner than the Epson
second-pass coat, and it still showed some slight gloss differential.
The second-pass coat had none. The simultaneous coat actually lowered
the D-Max by about 0.1 and the density at the greyscale value of
around 5 (on 0 - 255) was lowered by around 0.2 - thus increasing the
shadow separation. The second-pass coat raised the D-Max by about 0.1,
with the increase rapidly tailing off by about 5, which also increased
the shadow separation. I have the impression that the second-pass coat
allows more black ink to be put down, but that's just an impression -
I have, as yet, no real evidence. When I have time, I'm going to tweak
the profile in an attempt to make the most of the 822.

Best,
Helen

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
>
> Helen,
> OK, it is starting to make sense now, thanks.
> The 822/824 thing sounds just like the MIS �what new base?� response.
> Have you tried creating an IJC 822 channel in your printing curves,
or do

> you prefer to put down a uniform coating after printing?
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody

Helen, I just ordered a bottle of WJ824 to use for some testing. It's 
what they use to dilute the newer series inks. I can let you know what 
it looks like when I get it. I bought it to use in making a grayscale 
set of inks, but I might try spraying onto a print to see what it looks 
like.