Digital BW, The Print

I have an Epson 2400 and an Epson 2200, and have decided I would like
to try a monochrome inkset in the 2200.  Previous experience: 
currently own both QTR and IJC.  About a year ago I used my Eye-One
Pro to make a profile for Epson Velvet Fine Art for QTR on the Epson
2200 (UC inks).  Also made one profile for IJC as an experiment, can't
remember which paper.  Used QTR ICC-create to build a profile for the
ABW mode on Epson 2400.  Fairly happy with the results, but would like
to see how much better (if any) monochrome inkset prints would look to me.

In spite of all my reading on this list, I haven't figured out what
inkset would be best for me to try.  Don't plan to print sepia, would
use subtle toning if not printing a straight neutral print.

Possible choices: Cone K7, MIS K4+, or ?

Any suggestions appreciated.

--John

I have to make the same kind of decission using the 2200 i have for 
B/W and buying a CFS with it. Or bying a new 2400 with or without CFS 
with what ink? 

I am also using a 1290 for mainly color images.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John 
Hollenberg" <weasel@...> wrote:
>
> I have an Epson 2400 and an Epson 2200, and have decided I would 
like
> to try a monochrome inkset in the 2200.  Previous experience: 
> currently own both QTR and IJC.  About a year ago I used my Eye-One
> Pro to make a profile for Epson Velvet Fine Art for QTR on the Epson
> 2200 (UC inks).  Also made one profile for IJC as an experiment, 
can't
> remember which paper.  Used QTR ICC-create to build a profile for 
the
> ABW mode on Epson 2400.  Fairly happy with the results, but would 
like
> to see how much better (if any) monochrome inkset prints would look 
to me.
> 
> In spite of all my reading on this list, I haven't figured out what
> inkset would be best for me to try.  Don't plan to print sepia, 
would

> use subtle toning if not printing a straight neutral print.
> 
> Possible choices: Cone K7, MIS K4+, or ?
> 
> Any suggestions appreciated.
> 
> --John
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "remkopieter"
<r.p.de.graaff@...> wrote:

>Or bying a new 2400 with or without CFS with what ink? 

If you won't be using the ABW driver and the K3 ink then is there any
reason to pay the extra money for a 2400?  Can't the 1800 be driven
with a RIP and whatever ink you want to put in it?


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Clayton,

I am missing your remark on the 1800.

At this moment I use the QTR RIP with standard Epson UC ink. This 
works fine except I mis the possibility to print on glossy papers 
although the No-black profile is after spraying more or less OK.

My thoughts were to buy the 2400 and use this with standard ink for 
BW as well as color and dedicate the 2200 for BW with the MIS UT7 
inks and QTR.

However when the results with the 2400 are better for BW i would 
dedicate the 2400 for BW,look for the methode to use for printing BW, 
sell the 2200 and use the 1290/1270 for color.



regards,


remko





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "remkopieter"
> <r.p.de.graaff@> wrote:
> 
> >Or bying a new 2400 with or without CFS with what ink? 
> 
> If you won't be using the ABW driver and the K3 ink then is there 
any

> reason to pay the extra money for a 2400?  Can't the 1800 be driven
> with a RIP and whatever ink you want to put in it?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

This is the approach I'm using on my 2200:
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf

 

So far, I think the need for the rip is worth the inconvenience.  In fact,
as a few recent posts suggest, rips might even make for better prints.  For
me, it's mostly the ease of profiling and the inkset options they allow that
make the rips attractive.

 

The ease of profiling comes, in part, from the toners being very light (no
carbon in them).  I totally ignore density when changing tones.  The
linearization takes care of any impact.  There are also no cross-overs.  So,
all I deal with are 2 curves - LM and LLC (50% dilution of LC).  The profile
I use for my brightened PremierArt Matte BW paper involved only moving end
points and 2 internal points on 2 curves.  The profiling and experiments
took only 4 iterations from the neutral curve starting point.  That is way
faster than previous blended inkset approaches would have allowed.  The ease
of experimenting is part of what encouraged me to try the brightened paper
(the mainstream media), and the results appear superior - higher dynamic
range.  See my notes on this at
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/PM_Split_Tone.pdf .

 

Having non-blended toners does reduce smoothness a bit, but because the LLK
is lighter than the UT7 light inks, the smoothness is not compromised.  The
limiting factor is the LC - which the 2400 uses.  So, with a 50% dilution of
LC used in this approach, we're smoother than the 2400.  In fact, with the
LLLK in the 2200, it has the lightest ink I've ever used in highlights -
very questionable whether it adds anything that one will see in a photo.
The other options such as glop or yellow ink might be more useful in the
yellow spot.  Note that with brightened paper, I'm not using any colors in
the lightest highlights.  That smoothes them out even more than the older
variable-tone inksets.  Frankly, in the 2200, dots are just not a problem
with this approach.

 

It's nice to not have to worry about mixing errors.  The only blend in the
basic approach is a 1:1 blend of LC and base.  As you may have noticed in
earlier posts, we've found that Image Specialists glop is essential if not
exactly the same as MIS base (and glop).  So, all inputs are available
commodities, although MIS's prices are good enough that there is little
reason not to use their services and more convenient sizes.   I think this
approach avoids the sources of the mixing errors.  Moreover, I've worked
with MIS to get them doing QC on the LK that they buy wholesale.  As such,
the MIS LK should be more consistent than other third party inks.   One can,
of course, mix the LLC just by purchasing 2 bottles of standard MIS inks -
Lc and glop - and pouring them together. 

 

Note I'm using Epson UC LM now.   I'll be doing comparison fade testing to
determine which LM is the best.  One attraction to this approach is that it
opens up each position to competition.  I'll use the best ink form any
vendor.  Past tests suggest Epson UC LM is the best.  We'll see. 

 

I think this basic approach will work on all Epson printers.  So,
transitioning from one printer to another will be easier and cheaper.  Even
the curves are not that different.  With a rip, comparing the full-on ink
limit initial test pages of different printers allows one to alter the ink
limits appropriately.  Once that is done, I found the basic curves transfer
over from printer to printer with little alteration needed.

 

The 3800 is a "large format" design, and I think it shows the future.  All
blended inks I've been involved with are unstable and experience tone
changes if the carts and lines are not regularly used or agitated.  This
approach avoids that problem.  I expect the 3800 to be the first real mass
market large format printer.  Dealing with the blended ink tone shifts on
that scale is something I will not do. 

 

If we all end up going with the k3 approach, most of the inks we have on
hand will be useable even in that approach.  What I've basically done is
take the k3 approach and port it to other Epson printers - and improved it
by cutting the LC density in half.

 

In short, this is a variable-tone approach for virtually all Epson printers
that is largely compatible with where I see the mainstream going.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 



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

A set of Cone K7 inks costs $119.00. Not free, but not terribly expensive. Try it out and 
see what you think.

 The profiles for the 2200 that come with QTR are *very good* - made by Cone & Co. You 
might find that your files need adjusting if you were used to printing heavy since Jon likes 
to make use of a subtle ramp from white to black. Viewing your files through the grey 
matte profile that is installed with QTR will give you a pretty good idea of how your files 
will print, if your monitor is profiled that is.

If you don't like the K7's it's easy to move on to something else. Put the Epson inks back in 
and print a bit till the grey goes away and you're back at square one. I have found the K7's 
to be very nice and haven't swapped them out since I first tried them.

Mark Stracke

> Possible choices: Cone K7, MIS K4+, or ?
> 
> Any suggestions appreciated.
>

This is the inkset I would suggest also for that printer. A group of
us met in NY and had a number of prints pinned up from the same file.
Those of us who had used the K6/K7 set had remarkably similar output
in regard to the greyscale ramp and resolution qualities, regardless
of what rip or what printers we were using. I really couldn't tell
what printers people were using. The little printers with K7 did as
well as the 9600s with Studio Print in my opinion, so did the 7000s.

The K7 inks would also be a really good choice for cfs set ups because
of their clog free nature. They are finely ground and well suspended
in the base. 

And, as he said the other great advantage with a small printer is that
you can pull them out and put Ultrachrome in right behind them for
another job, then go right back to K7 without even having to flush
your printer. That is certainly unique and they were really smart to
offer this adaptability. All you would have to do is print out a purge
grey scale and you've got a totally different inkset to work with.
This would also allow you to put in the k7 sepia set or a split tone
set if you should desire for a particular job.

I agree with Walker. There is always going to be need for a dedicated
mono inkset for some of us. Lets hope we will alway have it. This
inkset was set up for QTR so controlling output with the create icc
capabiliy is also a big plus. I love these inks.

John






--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Stracke"
<markastracke@...> wrote:
>
> A set of Cone K7 inks costs $119.00. Not free, but not terribly
expensive. Try it out and 
> see what you think.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> This is the approach I'm using on my 2200:
> http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf
> 

Paul,

I must confess I'm a bit puzzled by your suggestion of this inkset 
for the 2200. I just (2 weeks) started to work with the UT-3D set on 
my 2100. I have not made all required profiles yet, but the early 
results are very satisfying.

I think I do understand your suggestion to use this 4K+ set, with 
its LLLK, for printers with non-variable dots. But why for the 
2100/2200? As you indicated yourself, the LLLK might add less value 
for this variable dot printer. Now you use non-blended toners that 
seem to violate you earlier statements preferring blended toners (no 
color dots, less color shift problems on glossy paper, perhaps also 
longer lifetime). Why this apparent change in direction?

Joost

Joost,


> <paul.roark@...> wrote:
>>
>> This is the approach I'm using on my 2200:
>> http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf
> 

>Paul,

> I must confess I'm a bit puzzled by your suggestion of 
> this inkset for the 2200. I just (2 weeks) started to 
> work with the UT-3D set on my 2100. I have not made 
> all required profiles yet, but the early 
> results are very satisfying. ...

> Why this apparent change in direction?

Short answer:  The 3D inkset is fine, and I use it.  But my large format
tone instability, the advantages of standard inks, QC issues, and what I see
as the future of B&W printing have combined to alter the approach I'll be
using going forward.

The long answer gets too long to put everything in one post, but here are a
few factors that have influenced this change in direction.

First, note that in many ways the UT-3D approach will still have advantages
over the 4K+ or 5K+cm approach I'm moving to.  For example, the Epson driver
is more convenient than a rip, and some purists may still prefer the blended
inks over the separate inks for desktop printers (but the 2200 with LM and
LLC is amazingly smooth, and standard inks allow me to use the best ink at
each position regardless of base compatibility, thus probably offsetting any
longevity advantages of blending).  I might also add that the 3D inkset is
the one that I'll will be using for most of the museum project I'm on.  It's
a good inkset, and I'm using it. 

That said, I had some specific problems I needed to solve, and the future
looks a lot different to me after the introduction of the Epson k3 approach.
The 3D inkset may seem new to most, but I've been trying to solve it's
production and other problems for quite some time -- too long, in fact.

The immediate problem I had to solve involved the tone instability in my
7500.  My tests showed a huge advantage to non-blended inks.  I tried some
experiments with altering the ink base to solve the problem, but I
ultimately gave up on that approach.  While I found how to alter the
direction of the shifts, and while I think with enough time I could control
2 different pigment types in an ink, when the number of pigments goes to 3,
I doubt a base can be made that will be as stable as one that can be
tailored to a single pigment type.  I certainly don't have the time to work
on that solution at this point.  Additionally, the other issues here argued
against a unique base as a solution.  

The bottom line is that a non-blended approach is all I'll be using for my
large format printers.  My printing with the 7500 is too intermittent to
assure that I'll have tone stability from printing session to the next.
(Note that those who use their printers regularly will be un-affected by
this problem.) When one considers that the 3800 is a large format design, I
doubt I'll be looking at blended inkset solutions for it either.  

There are numerous advantages to standardized inks.  Quality control,
competing vendors, and using the same inks in all printers, among them. One
should recall that the only reason we got into the dedicated inkset approach
and non-standard ink densities is that the mainstream color market did not
produce a system or inks that were adequate.  That has changed.  As with the
printers themselves, I think this small niche market needs to take
advantages of the high volume products that already exist if they serve our
purposes.  I used to mix my own POTA developer for Technical Pan film --
until Kodak and others came out with products that were as good or better.
Then I used the simpler, pre-mixed solutions. 

Additionally, I think people need to be able to profile whatever inkset they
are using.  There are all different levels of involvement here.  The EZ and
R2 approaches have broad appeal because they do not require any hardware or
software other than the driver.  I think these approaches will continue to
have appeal.  On the other hand, the older variable tone inksets are
difficult for people to write new curves for unless they have a spectro and
the patience to fool around with profiling.  Most do not.

Here the 2400 ABW mode really changes things.  The ColorVision PFP's ability
to profile the 2400 Y=Carbon arrangement also takes semi-automatic profiling
to an inkset that is about as lightfast as is possible with today's
technology.  The UT-3D inkset does work on the 2400, but, frankly, I'm not
sure there is much of a market at that level for an inkset that does not
take advantage of the technical improvements in profiling that are in place.
The Create ICC approach does extend the life of existing profiles somewhat,
but as totally new papers come onto the market, and as the ink tones drift,
keeping the print tones and ramps where they were intended becomes
increasingly difficult for most users, who simply rely on existing curves
and profiles.

Looking forward -- and that is the only direction I look -- for those who
want to do something that the OEM solutions can't do, I see rips and
standardized, competitive inks as the variable-tone approach that will
survive in this very changed environment. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul....I can't read your .pdf...it dowloads fine (I'm on a mac), but reads as gobbledygook.

anyplace else I could read this?

thank you,
Sarah




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> 
wrote:

>
> Joost,
> 
> 
> > <paul.roark@> wrote:
> >>
> >> This is the approach I'm using on my 2200:
> >> http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf
> > 
> 
> >Paul,
> 
> > I must confess I'm a bit puzzled by your suggestion of 
> > this inkset for the 2200. I just (2 weeks) started to 
> > work with the UT-3D set on my 2100. I have not made 
> > all required profiles yet, but the early 
> > results are very satisfying. ...
> 
> > Why this apparent change in direction?
> 
> Short answer:  The 3D inkset is fine, and I use it.  But my large format
> tone instability, the advantages of standard inks, QC issues, and what I see
> as the future of B&W printing have combined to alter the approach I'll be
> using going forward.
> 
> The long answer gets too long to put everything in one post, but here are a
> few factors that have influenced this change in direction.
> 
> First, note that in many ways the UT-3D approach will still have advantages
> over the 4K+ or 5K+cm approach I'm moving to.  For example, the Epson driver
> is more convenient than a rip, and some purists may still prefer the blended
> inks over the separate inks for desktop printers (but the 2200 with LM and
> LLC is amazingly smooth, and standard inks allow me to use the best ink at
> each position regardless of base compatibility, thus probably offsetting any
> longevity advantages of blending).  I might also add that the 3D inkset is
> the one that I'll will be using for most of the museum project I'm on.  It's
> a good inkset, and I'm using it. 
> 
> That said, I had some specific problems I needed to solve, and the future
> looks a lot different to me after the introduction of the Epson k3 approach.
> The 3D inkset may seem new to most, but I've been trying to solve it's
> production and other problems for quite some time -- too long, in fact.
> 
> The immediate problem I had to solve involved the tone instability in my
> 7500.  My tests showed a huge advantage to non-blended inks.  I tried some
> experiments with altering the ink base to solve the problem, but I
> ultimately gave up on that approach.  While I found how to alter the
> direction of the shifts, and while I think with enough time I could control
> 2 different pigment types in an ink, when the number of pigments goes to 3,
> I doubt a base can be made that will be as stable as one that can be
> tailored to a single pigment type.  I certainly don't have the time to work
> on that solution at this point.  Additionally, the other issues here argued
> against a unique base as a solution.  
> 
> The bottom line is that a non-blended approach is all I'll be using for my
> large format printers.  My printing with the 7500 is too intermittent to
> assure that I'll have tone stability from printing session to the next.
> (Note that those who use their printers regularly will be un-affected by
> this problem.) When one considers that the 3800 is a large format design, I
> doubt I'll be looking at blended inkset solutions for it either.  
> 
> There are numerous advantages to standardized inks.  Quality control,
> competing vendors, and using the same inks in all printers, among them. One
> should recall that the only reason we got into the dedicated inkset approach
> and non-standard ink densities is that the mainstream color market did not
> produce a system or inks that were adequate.  That has changed.  As with the
> printers themselves, I think this small niche market needs to take
> advantages of the high volume products that already exist if they serve our
> purposes.  I used to mix my own POTA developer for Technical Pan film --
> until Kodak and others came out with products that were as good or better.
> Then I used the simpler, pre-mixed solutions. 
> 
> Additionally, I think people need to be able to profile whatever inkset they
> are using.  There are all different levels of involvement here.  The EZ and
> R2 approaches have broad appeal because they do not require any hardware or
> software other than the driver.  I think these approaches will continue to
> have appeal.  On the other hand, the older variable tone inksets are
> difficult for people to write new curves for unless they have a spectro and
> the patience to fool around with profiling.  Most do not.
> 
> Here the 2400 ABW mode really changes things.  The ColorVision PFP's ability
> to profile the 2400 Y=Carbon arrangement also takes semi-automatic profiling
> to an inkset that is about as lightfast as is possible with today's
> technology.  The UT-3D inkset does work on the 2400, but, frankly, I'm not
> sure there is much of a market at that level for an inkset that does not
> take advantage of the technical improvements in profiling that are in place.
> The Create ICC approach does extend the life of existing profiles somewhat,
> but as totally new papers come onto the market, and as the ink tones drift,
> keeping the print tones and ramps where they were intended becomes
> increasingly difficult for most users, who simply rely on existing curves
> and profiles.
> 
> Looking forward -- and that is the only direction I look -- for those who
> want to do something that the OEM solutions can't do, I see rips and
> standardized, competitive inks as the variable-tone approach that will
> survive in this very changed environment. 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

If you want an inkset that doesn't clog, has awesome smoothness of
tone,  especially in the high values,good dmax, and perfectly neutral
color everytime, try Cone NK7. If you like warm but not too warm, try
the CSK7. You can also put the Ultrachrome right in there behind them
without having to purge the lines or heads. QTR is the rip, it is $50.00.

john

Sarah,

 

Try it now.  The last time this happened there was some font incompatibility
that was the source of the problem.  So, I tried to make sure it's all
Arial, which has worked in the past.

 

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sagaface
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:36 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Suggested Monochrome Inkset for Epson 2200? (for
Paul R.)

 

Paul....I can't read your .pdf...it dowloads fine (I'm on a mac), but reads
as gobbledygook.

anyplace else I could read this?

thank you,
Sarah

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> 
wrote:
>
> Joost,
> 
> 
> > <paul.roark@> wrote:
> >>
> >> This is the approach I'm using on my 2200:
> >> http://home1. <http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf>
gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf
> > 
> 
> >Paul,
> 
> > I must confess I'm a bit puzzled by your suggestion of 
> > this inkset for the 2200. I just (2 weeks) started to 
> > work with the UT-3D set on my 2100. I have not made 
> > all required profiles yet, but the early 
> > results are very satisfying. ...
> 
> > Why this apparent change in direction?
> 
> Short answer: The 3D inkset is fine, and I use it. But my large format
> tone instability, the advantages of standard inks, QC issues, and what I
see
> as the future of B&W printing have combined to alter the approach I'll be
> using going forward.
> 
> The long answer gets too long to put everything in one post, but here are
a
> few factors that have influenced this change in direction.
> 
> First, note that in many ways the UT-3D approach will still have
advantages
> over the 4K+ or 5K+cm approach I'm moving to. For example, the Epson
driver
> is more convenient than a rip, and some purists may still prefer the
blended
> inks over the separate inks for desktop printers (but the 2200 with LM and
> LLC is amazingly smooth, and standard inks allow me to use the best ink at
> each position regardless of base compatibility, thus probably offsetting
any
> longevity advantages of blending). I might also add that the 3D inkset is
> the one that I'll will be using for most of the museum project I'm on.
It's
> a good inkset, and I'm using it. 
> 
> That said, I had some specific problems I needed to solve, and the future
> looks a lot different to me after the introduction of the Epson k3
approach.
> The 3D inkset may seem new to most, but I've been trying to solve it's
> production and other problems for quite some time -- too long, in fact.
> 
> The immediate problem I had to solve involved the tone instability in my
> 7500. My tests showed a huge advantage to non-blended inks. I tried some
> experiments with altering the ink base to solve the problem, but I
> ultimately gave up on that approach. While I found how to alter the
> direction of the shifts, and while I think with enough time I could
control
> 2 different pigment types in an ink, when the number of pigments goes to
3,
> I doubt a base can be made that will be as stable as one that can be
> tailored to a single pigment type. I certainly don't have the time to work
> on that solution at this point. Additionally, the other issues here argued
> against a unique base as a solution. 
> 
> The bottom line is that a non-blended approach is all I'll be using for my
> large format printers. My printing with the 7500 is too intermittent to
> assure that I'll have tone stability from printing session to the next.
> (Note that those who use their printers regularly will be un-affected by
> this problem.) When one considers that the 3800 is a large format design,
I
> doubt I'll be looking at blended inkset solutions for it either. 
> 
> There are numerous advantages to standardized inks. Quality control,
> competing vendors, and using the same inks in all printers, among them.
One
> should recall that the only reason we got into the dedicated inkset
approach
> and non-standard ink densities is that the mainstream color market did not
> produce a system or inks that were adequate. That has changed. As with the
> printers themselves, I think this small niche market needs to take
> advantages of the high volume products that already exist if they serve
our
> purposes. I used to mix my own POTA developer for Technical Pan film --
> until Kodak and others came out with products that were as good or better.
> Then I used the simpler, pre-mixed solutions. 
> 
> Additionally, I think people need to be able to profile whatever inkset
they
> are using. There are all different levels of involvement here. The EZ and
> R2 approaches have broad appeal because they do not require any hardware
or
> software other than the driver. I think these approaches will continue to
> have appeal. On the other hand, the older variable tone inksets are
> difficult for people to write new curves for unless they have a spectro
and
> the patience to fool around with profiling. Most do not.
> 
> Here the 2400 ABW mode really changes things. The ColorVision PFP's
ability
> to profile the 2400 Y=Carbon arrangement also takes semi-automatic
profiling
> to an inkset that is about as lightfast as is possible with today's
> technology. The UT-3D inkset does work on the 2400, but, frankly, I'm not
> sure there is much of a market at that level for an inkset that does not
> take advantage of the technical improvements in profiling that are in
place.
> The Create ICC approach does extend the life of existing profiles
somewhat,
> but as totally new papers come onto the market, and as the ink tones
drift,
> keeping the print tones and ramps where they were intended becomes
> increasingly difficult for most users, who simply rely on existing curves
> and profiles.
> 
> Looking forward -- and that is the only direction I look -- for those who
> want to do something that the OEM solutions can't do, I see rips and
> standardized, competitive inks as the variable-tone approach that will
> survive in this very changed environment. 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

 



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> If you want an inkset that doesn't clog, has awesome smoothness of
> tone,  especially in the high values,good dmax, and perfectly neutral
> color everytime, try Cone NK7. If you like warm but not too warm, try
> the CSK7. You can also put the Ultrachrome right in there behind them
> without having to purge the lines or heads. QTR is the rip, it is 
$50.00.

I ordered the Cone neutral K7 for my Epson 2200.  I have some Red River 
Dourian Art (I think, the one that is a dead ringer for HPR per Clayton 
Jones) at home, as well as Epson Vevlet Fine art.  

Any favorite papers for this inkset?

--John

Strange...I still can't read it. There are a few letters and symbols that show up but mostly 
nothing. I wonder what the deal on my 'puter is. Oh well.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> 
wrote:

>
> Sarah,
> 
>  
> 
> Try it now.  The last time this happened there was some font incompatibility
> that was the source of the problem.  So, I tried to make sure it's all
> Arial, which has worked in the past.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sagaface
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:36 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Suggested Monochrome Inkset for Epson 2200? (for
> Paul R.)
> 
>  
> 
> Paul....I can't read your .pdf...it dowloads fine (I'm on a mac), but reads
> as gobbledygook.
> 
> anyplace else I could read this?
> 
> thank you,
> Sarah
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Joost,
> > 
> > 
> > > <paul.roark@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> This is the approach I'm using on my 2200:
> > >> http://home1. <http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf>
> gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf
> > > 
> > 
> > >Paul,
> > 
> > > I must confess I'm a bit puzzled by your suggestion of 
> > > this inkset for the 2200. I just (2 weeks) started to 
> > > work with the UT-3D set on my 2100. I have not made 
> > > all required profiles yet, but the early 
> > > results are very satisfying. ...
> > 
> > > Why this apparent change in direction?
> > 
> > Short answer: The 3D inkset is fine, and I use it. But my large format
> > tone instability, the advantages of standard inks, QC issues, and what I
> see
> > as the future of B&W printing have combined to alter the approach I'll be
> > using going forward.
> > 
> > The long answer gets too long to put everything in one post, but here are
> a
> > few factors that have influenced this change in direction.
> > 
> > First, note that in many ways the UT-3D approach will still have
> advantages
> > over the 4K+ or 5K+cm approach I'm moving to. For example, the Epson
> driver
> > is more convenient than a rip, and some purists may still prefer the
> blended
> > inks over the separate inks for desktop printers (but the 2200 with LM and
> > LLC is amazingly smooth, and standard inks allow me to use the best ink at
> > each position regardless of base compatibility, thus probably offsetting
> any
> > longevity advantages of blending). I might also add that the 3D inkset is
> > the one that I'll will be using for most of the museum project I'm on.
> It's
> > a good inkset, and I'm using it. 
> > 
> > That said, I had some specific problems I needed to solve, and the future
> > looks a lot different to me after the introduction of the Epson k3
> approach.
> > The 3D inkset may seem new to most, but I've been trying to solve it's
> > production and other problems for quite some time -- too long, in fact.
> > 
> > The immediate problem I had to solve involved the tone instability in my
> > 7500. My tests showed a huge advantage to non-blended inks. I tried some
> > experiments with altering the ink base to solve the problem, but I
> > ultimately gave up on that approach. While I found how to alter the
> > direction of the shifts, and while I think with enough time I could
> control
> > 2 different pigment types in an ink, when the number of pigments goes to
> 3,
> > I doubt a base can be made that will be as stable as one that can be
> > tailored to a single pigment type. I certainly don't have the time to work
> > on that solution at this point. Additionally, the other issues here argued
> > against a unique base as a solution. 
> > 
> > The bottom line is that a non-blended approach is all I'll be using for my
> > large format printers. My printing with the 7500 is too intermittent to
> > assure that I'll have tone stability from printing session to the next.
> > (Note that those who use their printers regularly will be un-affected by
> > this problem.) When one considers that the 3800 is a large format design,
> I
> > doubt I'll be looking at blended inkset solutions for it either. 
> > 
> > There are numerous advantages to standardized inks. Quality control,
> > competing vendors, and using the same inks in all printers, among them.
> One
> > should recall that the only reason we got into the dedicated inkset
> approach
> > and non-standard ink densities is that the mainstream color market did not
> > produce a system or inks that were adequate. That has changed. As with the
> > printers themselves, I think this small niche market needs to take
> > advantages of the high volume products that already exist if they serve
> our
> > purposes. I used to mix my own POTA developer for Technical Pan film --
> > until Kodak and others came out with products that were as good or better.
> > Then I used the simpler, pre-mixed solutions. 
> > 
> > Additionally, I think people need to be able to profile whatever inkset
> they
> > are using. There are all different levels of involvement here. The EZ and
> > R2 approaches have broad appeal because they do not require any hardware
> or
> > software other than the driver. I think these approaches will continue to
> > have appeal. On the other hand, the older variable tone inksets are
> > difficult for people to write new curves for unless they have a spectro
> and
> > the patience to fool around with profiling. Most do not.
> > 
> > Here the 2400 ABW mode really changes things. The ColorVision PFP's
> ability
> > to profile the 2400 Y=Carbon arrangement also takes semi-automatic
> profiling
> > to an inkset that is about as lightfast as is possible with today's
> > technology. The UT-3D inkset does work on the 2400, but, frankly, I'm not
> > sure there is much of a market at that level for an inkset that does not
> > take advantage of the technical improvements in profiling that are in
> place.
> > The Create ICC approach does extend the life of existing profiles
> somewhat,
> > but as totally new papers come onto the market, and as the ink tones
> drift,
> > keeping the print tones and ramps where they were intended becomes
> > increasingly difficult for most users, who simply rely on existing curves
> > and profiles.
> > 
> > Looking forward -- and that is the only direction I look -- for those who
> > want to do something that the OEM solutions can't do, I see rips and
> > standardized, competitive inks as the variable-tone approach that will
> > survive in this very changed environment. 
> > 
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Well I have three papers that I use with it primarily, but most
everything works well. My favourite for my own work is Hahnemuhle
Museum Etching (100 rag with no obas), Hah. Photo Rag 308, and
Hahnemuhle William Turner. I've also used Innova Cold Press with good
results. Strangely enough the fairly warm Epson Ultrasmooth that I
like for color looks quite cool with this inkset. Kind of nice but
really cool.

John

> 
> I ordered the Cone neutral K7 for my Epson 2200.  I have some Red River 
> Dourian Art (I think, the one that is a dead ringer for HPR per Clayton 
> Jones) at home, as well as Epson Vevlet Fine art.  
> 
> Any favorite papers for this inkset?
> 
> --John
>

I have playing with the K7 split tones lately and I
second John's choices on paper, especially Museum
Etching-great stuff, but expensive.
I made a couple curves for the Premier Fine Art 270g
that aren't bad, but it prints cooler than the Hahn
papers. Paul Roark has always suspected that Premier
Hot Press and Epson Ultrasmooth are the same paper and
John and my findings that both print coolish might
confirm that.
Ultimately the split tones and Museum Etching may be
my favorite combo after years of screwing around with
a bunch of inks and papers.
John E

--- john dean <deanwork2003@...> wrote:

> Well I have three papers that I use with it
> primarily, but most
> everything works well. My favourite for my own work
> is Hahnemuhle
> Museum Etching (100 rag with no obas), Hah. Photo
> Rag 308, and
> Hahnemuhle William Turner. I've also used Innova
> Cold Press with good
> results. Strangely enough the fairly warm Epson
> Ultrasmooth that I
> like for color looks quite cool with this inkset.
> Kind of nice but
> really cool.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> > 
> > I ordered the Cone neutral K7 for my Epson 2200. 
> I have some Red River 
> > Dourian Art (I think, the one that is a dead
> ringer for HPR per Clayton 
> > Jones) at home, as well as Epson Vevlet Fine art. 
> 
> > 
> > Any favorite papers for this inkset?
> > 
> > --John
> >
> 
> 
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollenberg" <weasel@...> 
wrote:
> 
> I ordered the Cone neutral K7 for my Epson 2200.  I have some Red River 
> Dourian Art (I think, the one that is a dead ringer for HPR per Clayton 
> Jones) at home, as well as Epson Vevlet Fine art.  
> 
> Any favorite papers for this inkset?

I'd recommend starting with Photo Rag. It's the standard on which the ink color (or lack of 
color) was based. It's a fine paper too.

 My other suggestion is to work with the curves that come with Quad Tone Rip at the start. 
The two papers you mention are not among the ones for which curves are supplied.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, john eckenrode 
<ejohn182002@...> wrote:
>
> I have playing with the K7 split tones lately and I
> second John's choices on paper, especially Museum
> Etching-great stuff, but expensive.

How does Museum Etching differ from German Etching?  Is the paper tone 
the same?  I haven't seen either, but have a sheet of Mediastreet Royal 
Plush which I understand is the same as German Etching.  

--John

Paul,

After following and participating this post I just ordered the UT7 
MC2200UTK-PLUS inkset . So I decided to start using my 2200 dedicated 
for  B&W.

After installing etc. I will report on the results.

Thanks for now

Remko



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> This is the approach I'm using on my 2200:
> http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf
> 
>  
> 
> So far, I think the need for the rip is worth the inconvenience.  
In fact,
> as a few recent posts suggest, rips might even make for better 
prints.  For
> me, it's mostly the ease of profiling and the inkset options they 
allow that
> make the rips attractive.
> 
>  
> 
> The ease of profiling comes, in part, from the toners being very 
light (no
> carbon in them).  I totally ignore density when changing tones.  The
> linearization takes care of any impact.  There are also no cross-
overs.  So,
> all I deal with are 2 curves - LM and LLC (50% dilution of LC).  
The profile
> I use for my brightened PremierArt Matte BW paper involved only 
moving end
> points and 2 internal points on 2 curves.  The profiling and 
experiments
> took only 4 iterations from the neutral curve starting point.  That 
is way
> faster than previous blended inkset approaches would have allowed.  
The ease
> of experimenting is part of what encouraged me to try the 
brightened paper
> (the mainstream media), and the results appear superior - higher 
dynamic
> range.  See my notes on this at
> http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/PM_Split_Tone.pdf .
> 
>  
> 
> Having non-blended toners does reduce smoothness a bit, but because 
the LLK
> is lighter than the UT7 light inks, the smoothness is not 
compromised.  The
> limiting factor is the LC - which the 2400 uses.  So, with a 50% 
dilution of
> LC used in this approach, we're smoother than the 2400.  In fact, 
with the
> LLLK in the 2200, it has the lightest ink I've ever used in 
highlights -
> very questionable whether it adds anything that one will see in a 
photo.
> The other options such as glop or yellow ink might be more useful 
in the
> yellow spot.  Note that with brightened paper, I'm not using any 
colors in
> the lightest highlights.  That smoothes them out even more than the 
older
> variable-tone inksets.  Frankly, in the 2200, dots are just not a 
problem
> with this approach.
> 
>  
> 
> It's nice to not have to worry about mixing errors.  The only blend 
in the
> basic approach is a 1:1 blend of LC and base.  As you may have 
noticed in
> earlier posts, we've found that Image Specialists glop is essential 
if not
> exactly the same as MIS base (and glop).  So, all inputs are 
available
> commodities, although MIS's prices are good enough that there is 
little
> reason not to use their services and more convenient sizes.   I 
think this
> approach avoids the sources of the mixing errors.  Moreover, I've 
worked
> with MIS to get them doing QC on the LK that they buy wholesale.  
As such,
> the MIS LK should be more consistent than other third party inks.   
One can,
> of course, mix the LLC just by purchasing 2 bottles of standard MIS 
inks -
> Lc and glop - and pouring them together. 
> 
>  
> 
> Note I'm using Epson UC LM now.   I'll be doing comparison fade 
testing to
> determine which LM is the best.  One attraction to this approach is 
that it
> opens up each position to competition.  I'll use the best ink form 
any
> vendor.  Past tests suggest Epson UC LM is the best.  We'll see. 
> 
>  
> 
> I think this basic approach will work on all Epson printers.  So,
> transitioning from one printer to another will be easier and 
cheaper.  Even
> the curves are not that different.  With a rip, comparing the full-
on ink
> limit initial test pages of different printers allows one to alter 
the ink
> limits appropriately.  Once that is done, I found the basic curves 
transfer
> over from printer to printer with little alteration needed.
> 
>  
> 
> The 3800 is a "large format" design, and I think it shows the 
future.  All
> blended inks I've been involved with are unstable and experience 
tone
> changes if the carts and lines are not regularly used or agitated.  
This
> approach avoids that problem.  I expect the 3800 to be the first 
real mass
> market large format printer.  Dealing with the blended ink tone 
shifts on
> that scale is something I will not do. 
> 
>  
> 
> If we all end up going with the k3 approach, most of the inks we 
have on
> hand will be useable even in that approach.  What I've basically 
done is
> take the k3 approach and port it to other Epson printers - and 
improved it
> by cutting the LC density in half.
> 
>  
> 
> In short, this is a variable-tone approach for virtually all Epson 
printers

> that is largely compatible with where I see the mainstream going.
> 
>  
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

The H. Museum Etching is 100% rag, and the German Etching is Alpha
Cellulose (high grade wood pulp). The Museum E. has no oba's but is
slightly brighter than the GEtch but not much. The textures are very
similar but not identical since they are made from different
substances. I have found the M Etch (also called White Etching) to be
tougher on the surface. I used to have more problems with the G.
Etching scuffing in big black areas, similarly to W. Turner, since the
"tooth" sticks out more. A lot of this has to do with how well you
brush the paper before printing however. For some reason the M. Etch.
just seems to be a great fit with the  NK7 inkset that I'm using, but
then so is PhotoRag.

John



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollenberg"
<weasel@...> wrote:

>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, john eckenrode 
> <ejohn182002@> wrote:
> >
> > I have playing with the K7 split tones lately and I
> > second John's choices on paper, especially Museum
> > Etching-great stuff, but expensive.
> 
> How does Museum Etching differ from German Etching?  Is the paper tone 
> the same?  I haven't seen either, but have a sheet of Mediastreet Royal 
> Plush which I understand is the same as German Etching.  
> 
> --John
>

john dean wrote:
> The H. Museum Etching is 100% rag, and the German Etching is Alpha
> Cellulose (high grade wood pulp). The Museum E. has no oba's but is
> slightly brighter than the GEtch but not much. The textures are very
> similar but not identical since they are made from different
> substances. I have found the M Etch (also called White Etching) to be
> tougher on the surface. I used to have more problems with the G.
> Etching scuffing in big black areas, similarly to W. Turner, since the
> "tooth" sticks out more. A lot of this has to do with how well you
> brush the paper before printing however. For some reason the M. Etch.
> just seems to be a great fit with the  NK7 inkset that I'm using, but
> then so is PhotoRag.
> 
> John
> 

I've not tried either but am under the impression that the White & 
Museum Etching are different papers. The White Etching is significantly 
cheaper and contains OBA's.

Museum Etching:
http://www.hahnemuehle.com/index.php?mid=401&lng=en&pkat=1233

White Etching:
http://www.hahnemuehle.com/index.php?mid=401&lng=en&pkat=315

Howard

You would think that wouldn't you? The roll version of Museum Etching
has "White Etching 350 gsm 100% rag" on the box, which is the Museum
Etching paper. You'll have to ask the Germans why they don't just call
it Museum Etching on the roll paper boxes like the sheet form. So far
I've used about 10 rolls of this stuff so it isn't a misplaced label.
The sheet form of " White Etching" is 25% rag and 247 gsm, a lesser
quality paper. 

John

> I've not tried either but am under the impression that the White & 
> Museum Etching are different papers. The White Etching is significantly 
> cheaper and contains OBA's.
> 
> Museum Etching:
> http://www.hahnemuehle.com/index.php?mid=401&lng=en&pkat=1233
> 
> White Etching:
> http://www.hahnemuehle.com/index.php?mid=401&lng=en&pkat=315
> 
> Howard
>

Guys.. As far as I Know They must Have missed labeled The rolls that Came to
the states..

 

They tell me that its all labeled in Germany..That its correct.

 

 

 

Jim Doyle

 

Shades Of Paper

600 Deer Rd Unit 4

Cherry Hill NJ 08034

856-795-7780

www.shadesofpaper.com

 

 

   _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of john dean
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 5:42 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Museum Etching

 

You would think that wouldn't you? The roll version of Museum Etching
has "White Etching 350 gsm 100% rag" on the box, which is the Museum
Etching paper. You'll have to ask the Germans why they don't just call
it Museum Etching on the roll paper boxes like the sheet form. So far
I've used about 10 rolls of this stuff so it isn't a misplaced label.
The sheet form of " White Etching" is 25% rag and 247 gsm, a lesser
quality paper. 

John

> I've not tried either but am under the impression that the White & 
> Museum Etching are different papers. The White Etching is significantly 
> cheaper and contains OBA's.
> 
> Museum Etching:
> HYPERLINK
"http://www.hahnemuehle.com/index.php?mid=401&lng=en&pkat=1233"http://www.ha
hnemue-hle.com/index.-php?mid=401&-lng=en&pkat=-1233
> 
> White Etching:
> HYPERLINK
"http://www.hahnemuehle.com/index.php?mid=401&lng=en&pkat=315"http://www.hah
nemue-hle.com/index.-php?mid=401&-lng=en&pkat=-315
> 
> Howard
>

 


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.5/534 - Release Date: 11/14/2006



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.5/534 - Release Date: 11/14/2006
 


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