Digital BW, The Print

I found myself staring at the boxes of Costco paper a couple days 
ago...they still had a couple boxes of the old stuff which I use for 
color proofing, but being faced with profiling a new R260 I went with 
the new paper so I wouldn't have to do it again when i did switch, and 
have been pleasantly surprised. It was easier to get good color out of, 
prints well with pigs, and has a nicer surface than the old paper. With 
MIS inks it has a LOT of gloss differential, it needs coating. I'm 
getting a dmax of 2.28 uncoated, 2.38 with Premier, and 2.58 with MIS 
glop. Even though Premier doesn't give the most dmax boost, the surface 
gloss and texture with it is quite pleasing, and very 'ADFB' in 
character. I'll start a south-window test tomorrow, but in the 
meantime, does anyone know anything more about this stuff?

Steve Karafyllakis

Which MIS ink are you using?  I don't see the gloss differential with the MIS PRO inks in the R220.
   
  Tom Baker

Steven Karafyllakis <stevekphoto@bellsouth.net> wrote:
          I found myself staring at the boxes of Costco paper a couple days 
ago...they still had a couple boxes of the old stuff which I use for 
color proofing, but being faced with profiling a new R260 I went with 
the new paper so I wouldn't have to do it again when i did switch, and 
have been pleasantly surprised. It was easier to get good color out of, 
prints well with pigs, and has a nicer surface than the old paper. With 
MIS inks it has a LOT of gloss differential, it needs coating. I'm 
getting a dmax of 2.28 uncoated, 2.38 with Premier, and 2.58 with MIS 
glop. Even though Premier doesn't give the most dmax boost, the surface 
gloss and texture with it is quite pleasing, and very 'ADFB' in 
character. I'll start a south-window test tomorrow, but in the 
meantime, does anyone know anything more about this stuff?

Steve Karafyllakis



         


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

Tom;

I'm using the K4 inks in the R1800 (no glop) and there's a lot of 
it. A light coat of almost anything does the trick though.

Steve Karafyllakis









--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@...> wrote:
>
> Which MIS ink are you using?  I don't see the gloss differential 
with the MIS PRO inks in the R220.
>    
>   Tom Baker
> 
> Steven Karafyllakis <stevekphoto@...> wrote:
>           I found myself staring at the boxes of Costco paper a 
couple days 
> ago...they still had a couple boxes of the old stuff which I use 
for 
> color proofing, but being faced with profiling a new R260 I went 
with 
> the new paper so I wouldn't have to do it again when i did switch, 
and 
> have been pleasantly surprised. It was easier to get good color 
out of, 
> prints well with pigs, and has a nicer surface than the old paper. 
With 
> MIS inks it has a LOT of gloss differential, it needs coating. I'm 
> getting a dmax of 2.28 uncoated, 2.38 with Premier, and 2.58 with 
MIS 
> glop. Even though Premier doesn't give the most dmax boost, the 
surface 

> gloss and texture with it is quite pleasing, and very 'ADFB' in 
> character. I'll start a south-window test tomorrow, but in the 
> meantime, does anyone know anything more about this stuff?
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis
> 
> 
> 
>          
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Any update on the new Costco paper? I went to my local Costco today
(London Ontario) and they still have tons of old stuff in stock and I
got two boxes.. 

- M

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven
Karafyllakis" <stevekphoto@...> wrote:

> gloss and texture with it is quite pleasing, and very 'ADFB' in 
> character. I'll start a south-window test tomorrow, but in the 
> meantime, does anyone know anything more about this stuff?

Sorry Mike, can't add anything yet, the test strip hasn't been up 
long enough to be meaningful. I should have a better idea by the 
time you're done with the first box. I do know I like it better than 
the old stuff, it takes dyes well and was very easy to profile. 
Georgeous dye print quality.

Steve Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Hung" 
<mhkhung@...> wrote:
>
> Any update on the new Costco paper? I went to my local Costco today
> (London Ontario) and they still have tons of old stuff in stock 
and I

> got two boxes.. 
> 
> - M
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven
> Karafyllakis" <stevekphoto@> wrote:
> > gloss and texture with it is quite pleasing, and very 'ADFB' in 
> > character. I'll start a south-window test tomorrow, but in the 
> > meantime, does anyone know anything more about this stuff?
>

I don't know anything about the paper Steve is curious about, but I  
am eager to know Steve's and others' impressions of Epson's new  
printers and their new "Claria" inks, partly because they sound good  
for business cards, envelopes, postcards and notecards, especially,  
at least for me, if they print black-only.

Thanks.
--
Sam


On Nov 8, 2006, at 10:36 PM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:

> I found myself staring at the boxes of Costco paper a couple days
> ago...they still had a couple boxes of the old stuff which I use for
> color proofing, but being faced with profiling a new R260 I went with
> the new paper so I wouldn't have to do it again when i did switch, and
> have been pleasantly surprised. It was easier to get good color out  
> of,
> prints well with pigs, and has a nicer surface than the old paper.  
> With
> MIS inks it has a LOT of gloss differential, it needs coating. I'm
> getting a dmax of 2.28 uncoated, 2.38 with Premier, and 2.58 with MIS
> glop. Even though Premier doesn't give the most dmax boost, the  
> surface
> gloss and texture with it is quite pleasing, and very 'ADFB' in
> character. I'll start a south-window test tomorrow, but in the
> meantime, does anyone know anything more about this stuff?
>
> Steve Karafyllakis

[snip]

Hi Sam;

I haven't even tried the 'Grayscale' option on the 260-that's right, 
it reads 'grayscale' which doesn't sound promising. For color, on the 
new Costco, I'm getting excellent results after profiling: nice clean 
colors that are life-like without being oversaturated. HOWEVER: Epson 
has really done it this time: It's a whole new cartridge, and the 
chip has two extra contacts, so you're stuck with Epson inks for a 
while. Scuttlebut is, there's a pair of wires going into the cart, 
maybe a crude sensor of some sort. Newegg.com has the best prices on 
ink so far. My advice is, if you're looking for cheap mass quantity 
printing, pick up a refurbed 220 or 340 while you still can.

Steve Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam McCandless 
<samcc@...> wrote:
>
> I don't know anything about the paper Steve is curious about, but 
I  
> am eager to know Steve's and others' impressions of Epson's new  
> printers and their new "Claria" inks, partly because they sound 
good  
> for business cards, envelopes, postcards and notecards, 
especially,  
> at least for me, if they print black-only.
> 
> Thanks.
> --
> Sam
> 
> 
> On Nov 8, 2006, at 10:36 PM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
> 
> > I found myself staring at the boxes of Costco paper a couple days
> > ago...they still had a couple boxes of the old stuff which I use 
for
> > color proofing, but being faced with profiling a new R260 I went 
with
> > the new paper so I wouldn't have to do it again when i did 
switch, and
> > have been pleasantly surprised. It was easier to get good color 
out  
> > of,
> > prints well with pigs, and has a nicer surface than the old 
paper.  
> > With
> > MIS inks it has a LOT of gloss differential, it needs coating. I'm
> > getting a dmax of 2.28 uncoated, 2.38 with Premier, and 2.58 with 
MIS

> > glop. Even though Premier doesn't give the most dmax boost, the  
> > surface
> > gloss and texture with it is quite pleasing, and very 'ADFB' in
> > character. I'll start a south-window test tomorrow, but in the
> > meantime, does anyone know anything more about this stuff?
> >
> > Steve Karafyllakis
> 
> [snip]
>

On Nov 26, 2006, at 9:36 PM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:

> [snip]
> I haven't even tried the 'Grayscale' option on the 260-that's right,
> it reads 'grayscale' which doesn't sound promising.

That's right, and too bad, but not necessarily a deal-breaker for me.


> For color, on the
> new Costco, I'm getting excellent results after profiling: nice clean
> colors that are life-like without being oversaturated.

And this is promising - for color. But I care about that too.


> HOWEVER: Epson
> has really done it this time: It's a whole new cartridge, and the
> chip has two extra contacts, so you're stuck with Epson inks for a
> while. Scuttlebut is, there's a pair of wires going into the cart,
> maybe a crude sensor of some sort. Newegg.com has the best prices on
> ink so far. My advice is, if you're looking for cheap mass quantity
> printing, pick up a refurbed 220 or 340 while you still can.

All of my printing is done in small quantities. But I'm still  
sensitive to the costs. And a little frustrated because I think ink  
costs are getting more complicated to calculate. At a glance, the  
NewEgg prices, neglecting taxes, shipping, and any rebate on returned  
empties, look to me little if any lower _if_ the NewEgg prices for  
the standard cartridges are compared to the Epson Store prices for  
the larger "High-Capacity" Claria cartridges, which I _think_ only  
the Epson Store so far has.

The number-of-pages cartridge yields, based on the new standards  
still emerging for yields, are 300 vs 480 in the case of black and  
515 vs 855 in the case of an all-colors average. I don't remember  
seeing such new-standard yields for the 200 (I have) or the 220 and  
340 printers. But I don't think the comparison matters much for those  
of us who are proofing on them or using them for black-only printing.


> Steve Karafyllakis
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam McCandless
> <samcc@...> wrote:
> [snip]

I hope Steve and others will keep the paper news coming. I'm  
interested mostly in matte papers, and of the papers Epson is  
recommending most highly for their new Claria inks, to me only the  
Premium Semigloss and the Ultra Premium Glossy look promising for my  
card-stock uses in terms of their specified weight and thickness. And  
even in their case, I'm concerned about what it's like to print or  
write on the uncoated, reverse side of the sheet - with any ink set  
since I could change printers between sides, not that I was looking  
for another complication!

Thanks again.
--
Sam

Sam:

I've been using MIS dye inks for years for my proofing and promo 
work, and that makes the previous printers MUCH cheaper to run


> All of my printing is done in small quantities. But I'm still  
> sensitive to the costs. 


, to me only the  
> Premium Semigloss and the Ultra Premium Glossy look promising for 
my  
> card-stock uses in terms of their specified weight and thickness. 
And  
> even in their case, I'm concerned about what it's like to print or  
> write on the uncoated, reverse side of the sheet - with any ink 
set  
> since I could change printers between sides, not that I was 
looking  
> for another complication!
> 
> Thanks again.

Sam:

 --I've printed some cards on the Costco, with K4 PK as it seems to 
stay on better. Even then, They take hours to dry enough to handle, 
and the slightest moisture smears the text. And both of the above 
Epson papers are far worse: they not only have a very thick 
polyethylene coating, they also have the Epson logo on the back. 

I would suggest you try LexJet's Sunset Photo eSatin 300g for card 
stock. Its as stiff as the Ultra Premium Glossy, prints qite nicely, 
and while not as archival, it will certainly hold up long enough for 
promo use and greeting cards. And the back is more paper-like, and 
takes inks (PK at any rate) quite well.

And the front also does a good job with pigs, for B&W printing.

How all this squares with your desire to get the most out of the new 
Claria inks you'll have to judge.


Steve Karafyllakis

I too would like to know. I'd love to get some in 13x19 inch and roll sizes. I really like the paper and especially like the price. I've looked at the costco web site and they only seem to carry letter size.

Walt

>On Nov 8, 2006, at 10:36 PM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
>
>> I found myself staring at the boxes of Costco paper a couple days
>> ago...they still had a couple boxes of the old stuff which I use for
>> color proofing, but being faced with profiling a new R260 I went with
>> the new paper so I wouldn't have to do it again when i did switch, and
>> have been pleasantly surprised. It was easier to get good color out  
>> of,
>> prints well with pigs, and has a nicer surface than the old paper.  
>> With
>> MIS inks it has a LOT of gloss differential, it needs coating. I'm
>> getting a dmax of 2.28 uncoated, 2.38 with Premier, and 2.58 with MIS
>> glop. Even though Premier doesn't give the most dmax boost, the  
>> surface
>> gloss and texture with it is quite pleasing, and very 'ADFB' in
>> character. I'll start a south-window test tomorrow, but in the
>> meantime, does anyone know anything more about this stuff?
>>
>> Steve Karafyllakis
>
>[snip]
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See ?Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines? in the Files section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE ?OWNER? AND ?MODERATORS? OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  ?OWNER? AND ?MODERATORS? OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

If you don't mind me shouting from the novice gallery, Sam, I think
you're cheating yourself if you're not taking Epson's Epson-only paper
recommendations with a large grain of salt. All of those papers
predate Claria by a long shot, so their "optimized for Claria" claim
is pure hooey. Not only are there other papers out there with the same
characteristics, and better, many papers are available coated for dye
printing on both sides, from Hahnehmuhle, Bergger, Inkpress, etc. (and
also btw Epson's own double-sided matte @9.7mil).

To get an idea of what's available, try www.bhphotovideo.com, click
"Printers and Scanners" on the home page, choose "standard" or "fine
art" papers, and then filter for double-sided. B&H also stocks sample
packs from several brands.

For cardstock, I've only compared the Inkpress Matte 80 (12mil) with
Epson Matte Heavyweight (9mil and "optimized for use with Claria
ink"). The Inkpress was cheaper, seemed to me better on brightness
(actually brighter than I wanted), smoothness and yellowing, but it
flaked more than the Epson matte. Inkpress claims acid- and
lignin-free. I saw no difference in output on the 220 w/ OEM color
inks--very fine resolution, same colors.

I also tried Inkpress' Semigloss d-s and didn't care for it, but
that's probably a matter of taste.

Cheers,
Bob L

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam McCandless
<samcc@...> wrote:

> 
> I hope Steve and others will keep the paper news coming. I'm  
> interested mostly in matte papers, and of the papers Epson is  
> recommending most highly for their new Claria inks, to me only the  
> Premium Semigloss and the Ultra Premium Glossy look promising for my  
> card-stock uses in terms of their specified weight and thickness. And  
> even in their case, I'm concerned about what it's like to print or  
> write on the uncoated, reverse side of the sheet - with any ink set  
> since I could change printers between sides, not that I was looking  
> for another complication!
> 
> Thanks again.
> --
> Sam
>

On Nov 27, 2006, at 7:19 AM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:

> [snip]
>
> Sam:
>
>  --I've printed some cards on the Costco, with K4 PK as it seems to
> stay on better. Even then, They take hours to dry enough to handle,
> and the slightest moisture smears the text. And both of the above
> Epson papers are far worse: they not only have a very thick
> polyethylene coating, they also have the Epson logo on the back.

Thanks for saving me from trying those, Steve.


> I would suggest you try LexJet's Sunset Photo eSatin 300g for card
> stock. Its as stiff as the Ultra Premium Glossy, prints qite nicely,
> and while not as archival, it will certainly hold up long enough for
> promo use and greeting cards. And the back is more paper-like, and
> takes inks (PK at any rate) quite well.
>
> And the front also does a good job with pigs, for B&W printing.

That sounds more like it, if not a strong case for adding an R260 to  
my 200.


> How all this squares with your desire to get the most out of the new
> Claria inks you'll have to judge.
>
> Steve Karafyllakis

It looks like maybe it would be more of an experiment than I had in  
mind, Steve, but I might do it anyway, and in any case, thanks again  
for your help.
--
Sam

On Nov 27, 2006, at 3:30 PM, l33ry wrote:

> If you don't mind me shouting from the novice gallery, Sam,

Not at all, Bob.


> I think
> you're cheating yourself if you're not taking Epson's Epson-only paper
> recommendations with a large grain of salt. All of those papers
> predate Claria by a long shot, so their "optimized for Claria" claim
> is pure hooey.

Yes, but I thought the handful they singled out probably the best  
they thought they had for the new Claria ink.


> Not only are there other papers out there with the same
> characteristics, and better, many papers are available coated for dye
> printing on both sides, from Hahnehmuhle, Bergger, Inkpress, etc. (and
> also btw Epson's own double-sided matte @9.7mil).

Maybe I should start with those instead.


> To get an idea of what's available, try www.bhphotovideo.com, click
> "Printers and Scanners" on the home page, choose "standard" or "fine
> art" papers, and then filter for double-sided. B&H also stocks sample
> packs from several brands.

Thanks for this tip.


> For cardstock, I've only compared the Inkpress Matte 80 (12mil) with
> Epson Matte Heavyweight (9mil and "optimized for use with Claria
> ink"). The Inkpress was cheaper, seemed to me better on brightness
> (actually brighter than I wanted), smoothness and yellowing, but it
> flaked more than the Epson matte. Inkpress claims acid- and
> lignin-free. I saw no difference in output on the 220 w/ OEM color
> inks--very fine resolution, same colors.
>
> I also tried Inkpress' Semigloss d-s and didn't care for it, but
> that's probably a matter of taste.
>
> Cheers,
> Bob L

Thanks again, Bob, for this report.
--
Sam

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam McCandless
> <samcc@...> wrote:
>> [snip]

A few people are saying that the Claria printers use ink much faster 
than the previous R series printers. Something you might want to 
consider checking out before making an investment. If the fade 
resistance is real, then I can see the desire for these printers, but 
if the ink consumption is really as bad as other people make it out to 
be, I can't see these machines surviving very long.

On Nov 28, 2006, at 8:08 AM, Greg wrote:

> A few people are saying that the Claria printers use ink much faster
> than the previous R series printers. Something you might want to
> consider checking out before making an investment. If the fade
> resistance is real, then I can see the desire for these printers, but
> if the ink consumption is really as bad as other people make it out to
> be, I can't see these machines surviving very long.
[snip]

Me either, Greg, and thanks for this report, which I'll try to check  
out, but I believe these printers are the first on which Epson has  
reported on ink-cartridge yields based on a new and still "emerging"  
standard. So I'm not optimistic about being able to compare yields  
across the old-new standard divide. But if I can find paper I like on  
which the Claria inks live up to Epson's promo, I'll probably be glad  
to live with whatever the pages-per-cartridge yield is, especially  
for envelopes, business cards, postcards, etc. Because I'd do those  
in small quantities as well as small formats, and the R260 itself is  
only about $100 (new, w/rebate), so it wouldn't be a big investment  
for me.

Thanks again.
--
Sam

Of course you're right, Sam. I agree that they are, ultimately, merely
steering customers to those of their papers that are best suited. But
Epson's language on their website implies more than that and I felt
compelled to voice my skepticism. Their claims that these ten-year-old
products are "optimized for use with Claria" and "designed for use
with the Ultra High-Def printers", products introduced this year,
strike me as a somewhat disingenuous and misleading way sell paper.
Many Epson papers are quite good, and for all I know they may indeed
be the best papers in the world for this ink, but I'd be shocked if
they were the only good options. Even from a marketing angle, I'm
puzzled by those statements, as they seem just as likely to backfire
as succeed.

But I am probably both ranting and digressing by now, so I'll shut up.
I wish you good luck and much fun in your quest, Sam.

Bob L

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam McCandless
<samcc@...> wrote:

> Yes, but I thought the handful they singled out probably the best  
> they thought they had for the new Claria ink.
> 
>

On Nov 28, 2006, at 2:41 PM, l33ry wrote:

> Of course you're right, Sam. I agree that they are, ultimately, merely
> steering customers to those of their papers that are best suited. But
> Epson's language on their website implies more than that and I felt
> compelled to voice my skepticism. Their claims that these ten-year-old
> products are "optimized for use with Claria" and "designed for use
> with the Ultra High-Def printers", products introduced this year,
> strike me as a somewhat disingenuous and misleading way sell paper.
> Many Epson papers are quite good, and for all I know they may indeed
> be the best papers in the world for this ink, but I'd be shocked if
> they were the only good options. Even from a marketing angle, I'm
> puzzled by those statements, as they seem just as likely to backfire
> as succeed.

I think you're right about all of that, Bob.


> But I am probably both ranting and digressing by now, so I'll shut up.
> I wish you good luck and much fun in your quest, Sam.
>
> Bob L

Thanks again, Bob, and please sound off if you think you see me going  
astray.
--
Sam