Digital BW, The Print

I've updated my PDF that deals with ink mixing and now have it focused
on a specific proposed open-source 100% carbon (Eboni) inkset, which I
call "Carbon-6."  The name is intended, in part, to distinguish it from
Eboni-6, which will use the MIS base and different mixing ratios, but
they clearly are closely related.  Eboni-6, will have a commercial base
and be pre-mixed, and this Carbon-6 will have to be mixed from scratch
by users.

See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf
<http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf>

As I've noted over the last couple of years, I've used and explored an
easy-to-mix ink base that is just water and glycerol.  Actually most
water-based inkjet inksets are mostly water plus a significant
percentage glycerol.

The primary constituent in my experiments that improved the smoothness
of the bare-bones glycerol + water combination was a surfactant or
wetting agent.   While I've been experimenting with some Dow
surfactants, I've decided to step back and do long term testing of a
simple mix using the more readily available Kodak Photo Flo.  It is not
the strongest of this class of chemicals, but it's well known and good
enough for printers with droplet sized greater than 1.5 picoliters. 
This includes the vast majority of Epson printers.

Note that adding stronger surfactants may make this inkset slightly
smoother under a loupe, but they also make it print warmer, which is not
a positive characteristic when one is fighting carbon's tendency to have
an elevated Lab B in these inksets.  So, the strength of the wetting
agent or surfactant is a double edged sword.   Photo Flo appears to be a
very nice and simple compromise.

I do still expect MIS to produce Eboni-6, and that remains in my 7500,
just as the 3-MK workflow will remain in my 1800.  However, I think a
"home brew" base and carbon inkset that will run on most Epson printers
and is extremely economical might have significant appeal to many.   It,
hopefully, will take the low cost and high stability of the 1800 3-MK
workflow to most of the remainder of the Epson printer base.  Because it
can use the Epson driver for printing, it lends itself to very easy
workflows.  The prints are among the smoothest and best I've ever
produced.

This is still an experimental inkset.  I have not had it in a printer
for long periods of time.  I have tested a bare bones water + glycerol +
Eboni ink in a 220 for a number of months, including periods of no use
that extended for several weeks, and it did not clog or otherwise cause
any problems.  But the addition of the Photo Flo is new.

Kodak Photo-Flo 200 is mostly water with 25 - 30% propylene glycol and 5
- 10% wetting agent (p-tert-octylphenoxy polyethoxyethyl alcohol).  The
propylene glycol is well know and often used in inskets.  It and
glycerol are often seen as substitutes.  I have used it with good
success.  But the wetting agent is a new component that I have not
tested long term in this context.   I do, of course, have a fairly high
confidence level in it or I would not publish this.

Paul

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





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

Paul,

Would this work in the R1800? 

Would the visible benefits on the print be worth the efforts? 

Could it clog a 1.5picoliters print head?

What's your take on this?

Denis Bouchard

> enough for printers with droplet sized greater than 1.5 picoliters. 
> This includes the vast majority of Epson printers.
> 
>
> 
> I do still expect MIS to produce Eboni-6, and that remains in my 7500,
> just as the 3-MK workflow will remain in my 1800.  However, I think a
> "home brew" base and carbon inkset that will run on most Epson printers
>

> Would this work in the R1800? 

No, the Carbon-6 inkset is for the non-1.5 pl printers.  The 1.5 pl 
printers do better with a 3-MK type workflow in my view.

A stronger surfactant is required for the smaller jets.  This makes the 
inkset warmer, as do the smaller droplets. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thank you Paul!

I just bought a second Epson 7600 to use for B&W printing. It only had 
1000ML of ink through it, almost new.

Here are some quick calculations I did for mixing up 1 liter of each of 
the Carbon 6 inks:

					
INK	Eboni	Base	PrevInk    NextInk    Remaining 
K	1000			                1000 
C	650	1300		   (950)	1000 
M		950	950	   (900)	1000 
LC		900	900	   (750)	1050 
LM		750	750	   (500)	1000 
Y		500	500	        	1000 
				

"Eboni", "Base", and "PrevInk" refers to the ML of each of those 
components used at that step.  "NextInk" is how much of the ink mixture 
from the current step is used by the next step/next ink.

Sorry for the formatting, text-only posting makes it messy.  ;>)

	
Here are the cost calculations to make the above inks, not including 
any flushing fuids:

Item	         ML	Cost	
Glycerine	1232	$60 	1 gallon
Distilled Water	2728	$5 	1 gallon
Photo Flo	426.8	$7 	1 pint
Eboni           1650	$200 	2 liters
		
Total Cost		$272 	
Total Ink, Liters          6	
Cost per Liter		 $45 	


Note that some Eboni and quite a bit of glycerine is left over after 
making the first 1 liter per "color" batch. 

Making a total of 3 liters of each "color" of ink - or a total of 18 
liters of ink -  uses most of the raw materials and brings the average 
cost down to $33 per liter. Total cost is just under $600.

Best,
Michael

> I just bought a second Epson 7600 to use for B&W printing. 
> It only had 1000ML of ink through it, almost new.

Grab those older Epsons.  Even my old 7500 makes great prints with the 
similar Eboni-6 installed.  The old ones that have easily re-fillable 
carts may end up collectibles as Epson makes it impossible for third 
party inks to run in the new ones.  (I wish I had room for a 9600.)

> Here are some quick calculations I did for mixing 
> up 1 liter of each of the Carbon 6 inks:
> ...  $33 per liter. 

And on a per-print basis ... well, ink cost just became irrelevant.

Enjoy,

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Geez, that formatting was really awful once posted!  Sorry.

Here is a little better layout. This injdicates the amount of each 
ingredient - Eboni, Base, etc. - to mix to create 1 liter of each of 
the ink dilutions.


Add, in ML, for each dilution:

**** EBONI **** BASE *** PREVINK *** USE FOR NEXT INK ** REMAINING
K --- 1000 ------- 0 ------ 0 ---------- (0) ------------ 1000 ml
C ---- 650 ---- 1300 ------ 0 ---------(950) ------------ 1000 ml
M ------ 0 ----- 950 ---- 950 ---------(900) ------------ 1000 ml
LC ----- 0 ----- 900 ---- 900 ---------(750) ------------ 1050 ml
LM ----- 0 ----- 750 ---- 750 ---------(500) ------------ 1000 ml
Y ------ 0 ----- 500 ---- 500 ---------- (0) ------------ 1000 ml


Looks like a 1970's computer printout. ;>) Noe let's hope that I got 
the mixture correct.

Best,
Michael

Thanks for re-posting, Michael. 

Are you using Photoshop or QTR with your 7600 / Carbon-6 setup? 

Mark  

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Michael T.
Murphy" <uriel_bear@...> wrote:

>
> Geez, that formatting was really awful once posted!  Sorry.
> 
> Here is a little better layout. This injdicates the amount of each 
> ingredient - Eboni, Base, etc. - to mix to create 1 liter of each of 
> the ink dilutions.
> 
> 
> Add, in ML, for each dilution:
> 
> **** EBONI **** BASE *** PREVINK *** USE FOR NEXT INK ** REMAINING
> K --- 1000 ------- 0 ------ 0 ---------- (0) ------------ 1000 ml
> C ---- 650 ---- 1300 ------ 0 ---------(950) ------------ 1000 ml
> M ------ 0 ----- 950 ---- 950 ---------(900) ------------ 1000 ml
> LC ----- 0 ----- 900 ---- 900 ---------(750) ------------ 1050 ml
> LM ----- 0 ----- 750 ---- 750 ---------(500) ------------ 1000 ml
> Y ------ 0 ----- 500 ---- 500 ---------- (0) ------------ 1000 ml
> 
> 
> Looks like a 1970's computer printout. ;>) Noe let's hope that I got 
> the mixture correct.
> 
> Best,
> Michael
>

> Are you using Photoshop or QTR with your 7600 / Carbon-6 setup?


I'd like to hear how the alternatives work in the 7600 also.

I'm using the Epson driver in my test 220, but I use an ICC made with
Create ICC-RGB and a Photoshop curve that is similar to (in fact, now
exactly the same as) the one I made for the Eboni-6 beta inkset and
downloadable from http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6-profiles.zip
<http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6-profiles.zip>

The curve that is in the ICC partitions the inks -- Y used exclusively
in the highlights, then the M channel starts and finally the C channel
starts.  It's perfectly smooth.  While a k2 printer can also get away
with a simpler no-curve Create ICC linearization, the same curve seems
to work for virtually all (matte) papers.  So, using the curve is no
more work.  I'll make a curve specifically for Carbon-6 at some point,
but for now the Eboni-6 curve works fine.

I like the Create ICC-RGB workflow not only due to its ease, speed, and
"color management" matching of the print to the monitor (relative
densities only with the existing curve -- more later), but also because
it gives a high bit pipeline all the way to the printer.  I edit in 16
bit grayscale, and the PS CM engine used in the Print Preview, which I
believe is 16 bit, outputs a 24 bit signal to the printer, overcoming
the usual 8 bit constriction there.  While I understand that this is
probably overkill, it makes me feel good that, if my understanding is
correct, I'm probably not losing any information in the pipeline.

Being a Windows user, I also very much appreciate being able to print my
draft images right from PS.

Paul

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









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

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

> Grab those older Epsons.  Even my old 7500 makes great prints with 
the 
> similar Eboni-6 installed.  The old ones that have easily re-fillable 
> carts may end up collectibles as Epson makes it impossible for third 
> party inks to run in the new ones.  

And if they are properly maintained should last an extremely long time 
for most artists. The 9500 was built for the industrial printing 
market, it was made to run for years with only a stop when the paper 
runs out. It is said that they were not designed by Epson, but by 
either Mutoh or Mimaki (I forget which one) makers of really industrial 
strength large format printers.

I've posted Photoshop curves and ICCs for Premier Art Smooth BW and
Photo Rag at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/C-6-Profiles.zip
<http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/C-6-Profiles.zip>  .  The ICCs with
"SP" in the name are suitable for soft proofing.  The curve and PA
Smooth BW ICC without SP in the name are more thoroughly partitioned and
do not support the soft proofing.  On old printers the non-SP curve may
be smoother.

Paul

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



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

>--- "pr_roark" <pr_roark@...> wrote:
> 
> > Are you using Photoshop or QTR with your 7600/Carbon-6 setup?
> 
> I'd like to hear how the alternatives work in the 7600 also.
> 


Hello folks,

I am sorry for the delay.  I was traveling for a few days.

I just picked up the new 7600 on Friday.  I spent the day Saturday 
flushing the printer and testing the heads, putting it on the network, 
etc.  

It only had 1000 ml of ink through it, so it is like brand new. But the 
old carts - which expired in 2005 - were almost welded in place.  It 
still had a decent nozzle check when I got it and cleaned up with no 
problem though. ;>)

Paul, you make a good case for running profiles with curves in 
Photoshop.  I am also on Windows, so the ability to preview is 
valuable.  I will probably set up in Photoshop first, then try QTR a 
bit later. I will try the 7500 curves to start. I have an i1 
spectrophotometer to make the profiles.

I have a variety of standard matte papers - Epson Enhanced Matte, 
Ultrasmooth, Somerset Enhanced Velvet, Legion Digital Rag, Moab 
Entrada, Crane Museo Max, Hahnemuhle Photo Rag,  Harman MATT FB Mp and 
a couple of others. I'll have to choose 3 or 4 to start and test on 
matte.

I would also like to test with some of the newer photo papers - 
Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta, Harman GLOSS FB Ai, and Epson Exhibition 
Fiber.  I will spray those to start, but I may try to get GLOP set up 
on the 7600 later.

Unfortunately I have to get a start on taxes before I spend too much 
time on this.  I also have a trip coming up in 10 days which will be a 
bit of a distraction.

I think the 7600 and 9600 are the last, great printers for 3rd party 
inks.  I can get in and reset the maintenance tank, then re-pack it 
myself. I can set the ink to Dye or Pigment (using 6 or 7 channels, 
respectively.)  I can use large 220ml refillable carts and tell the 
printer to ignore the chips if I need to.  With a pigment color ink set 
I can use the "South African" method to swap blacks by only flushing 
the one black line. (That should be SOP for the Epson printers, not 
a "bug" that Epson later disabled in the 7800!)

They use rolls, have the 24" or 44" width, are built for volume work 
and will run forever, but they cost less than an Epson 2400.  I guess I 
better buy one more as a spare. ;>)

The ink set looks like it should be great!  Simple, stable, great tonal 
range with good longevity. Thanks again Paul for all of the R&D you 
have done to put this together.  

At $33 per liter, the ink cost comes to $0.033 (three point three 
cents) per milliliter.  So a 24"x36" print would run just under $0.20 
(twenty cents - assuming about 1 ML of ink use per square foot.)  

I will try to clean up the spreadsheet with mixing calculations, 
quantities needed for buying, and pricing information and post that 
later this week. Paul, you can add that to the standard file sets if 
you like.

Have fun folks.  Keep us updated!

Best,
Michael

Michael,


> I just picked up the new 7600 ...

Congratulations.

> ... I will probably set up in Photoshop first, then try QTR a
> bit later.

The 7600 sometimes has a low dmax with the Epson driver.   So, that will
be one thing to keep an eye on.  QTR can often overcome this driver
problem.

> I will try the 7500 curves to start. I have an i1
> spectrophotometer to make the profiles.

I just ordered a cheap CIS for $48 on eBay to try the Carbon-6 with my
2200.  That should be close to the 7600 and other k2 printers.  So, I'll
be able to test the inkset not only with a k2 printer, but also with one
of these cheap CISs.  I'll post links to profiles at
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf
<http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf>

> I have a variety of standard matte papers - Epson Enhanced Matte,
> Ultrasmooth, Somerset Enhanced Velvet, Legion Digital Rag, Moab
> Entrada, Crane Museo Max, Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, Harman MATT FB Mp and

Be sure to try some of the Premier Art Smooth BW to see what that end of
the scale looks like.  In a test between my 1800 3MK setup with my
standard un-brightened paper and the Carbon-6 with PA BW, both in my
normal mat boards, the Carbon-6 won for most people.

> I would also like to test with some of the newer photo papers - ...

> I will spray those to start, but I may try to get GLOP set up
> on the 7600 later.

Glop does not appear to be compatible with Eboni-6.  I'll be curious if
Carbon-6 does better.  That is certainly something I'll be testing also.

C-6 and Eboni-6 print very warmly on photo papers.  It's the closest to
sepia you can get with these inksets.


> Unfortunately I have to get a start on taxes ...

Yes, I usually like to start a few hours before mid-night April 15.

> I think the 7600 and 9600 are the last, great printers for 3rd party
> inks.

You may be right.  I would not ignore a great deal on a 7500 or 9500
either.

> The ink set looks like it should be great!

Be clear that it's still an experiment, but one that I'm determined to
push forward with because I think the field needs a product like this. 
I hope also that companies like MIS will compete not only with pre-mixed
inksets like Eboni-6 but also with MK and clear fluids for user mixing.

Paul

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



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

<pr_roark@...> wrote:

> 
> I just ordered a cheap CIS for $48 on eBay to try the Carbon-6
> with my 2200.  That should be close to the 7600 and other k2
> printers.  

Let me know how that works for you.  I have been looking at the same 
thing.

I have an Epson 7880, two 7600's, and a 1400.  I used to have a 
studio, where they all resided quietly out-of-sight. Since I closed 
the studio and moved them home they draw more attention from the wife 
than is healthy. She can't seem to get over how much the large 
printers cost, among other things. ;>)  

I have 3 color ink sets that I am running, still short 1 machine for 
a color set.  I am going to have to use small, inconspicous machines 
from here on out (except for a 9600 or 9880 that I want to add, in 
exchange for one of the 7600's.)

 
> Be sure to try some of the Premier Art Smooth BW to see what

I will add some to my next, weekly, MIS order.

 
> Glop does not appear to be compatible with Eboni-6.  I'll
> be curious if Carbon-6 does better.  

Hmmm, I'll give it a try. Doesn't sound that promising. Oh well.

What do you think about mixing up an inkset like the Carbon 6, but 
using the PKN ink - with blue pigment - as the base for all 6 inks?  
A better gloss set, better with GLOP - would it work OK for all of 
the dilutions?


> > Unfortunately I have to get a start on taxes ...
> 
> Yes, I usually like to start a few hours before mid-night April 15.

You have more confidence in your capabilities than I do!  Or you need 
more excitement in your life ...  

It is nice that there is always the "bail out" option of filing for 
an extension, but you need to be close enough to figure out what you 
owe them anyway.  Good luck.


Best,
Michael

Michael wrote:
...

> I have an Epson 7880, two 7600's,...

> they draw more attention from the wife
> than is healthy. ...

> I am going to have to use small, inconspicous machines
> from here on out (except for a 9600 ...

I keep looking for an inconspicuous 9600 that I can convince my wife
matches the couch.  No luck so far.

> > Glop does not appear to be compatible with Eboni-6. I'll
> > be curious if Carbon-6 does better.
>
> Hmmm, I'll give it a try. Doesn't sound that promising. Oh well.

Yesterday I put prints of the same image that were on Crane Silver Rag
(dmax 3) and some matte papers (dmax 1.62-1.72) in mylar sleeves to see
how much difference the huge dmax really makes.  The image was my Zion
Narrows (http://www.paulroark.com/Zion-Narrows.html
<http://www.paulroark.com/Zion-Narrows.html> ) that is very dependent on
the black end of the scale.  The bottom line was that the huge dmax is
almost irrelevant.  The differences among the prints are almost nil. 
Most of the time the H. Photo Rag wins the contest.  The point is that I
have yet to be convinced these new glossy papers are worth the effort
we've put into them.  I know those in the service bureau business will
have to respond to the customer demand, but at least for those of use
whose target is display behind glass, I think matte paper is still the
best way to go.


> What do you think about mixing up an inkset like the Carbon 6, but
> using the PKN ink - with blue pigment - as the base for all 6 inks?

The last of this type of inkset I made was the MIS UT-RC for the 260. 
Carl and I are using some of those inks in 1800 experiments (where there
is some microbanding under a loupe).  These RC PKs dilute with MIS glop
very well.  (The original PKN was never intended for dilution and is too
green.)

However,  glossy inks in large format is just not an area I'm interested
in.  My goals include eliminating color inks totally from all my display
print production.  I also will never put a blended inkset into a large
format printer due to the tonal instability I've experience.  So, while
the approach you're suggesting will work fine for those who want glossy
prints with blended inks, it's not where I think fine art ought to be
headed, and I'm limiting the time I put into that direction.

The big boys can have glossy printing, and I think they will.  I just
want to make sure there are better products out there for the B&W
purists, and there are.

Paul

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








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

I'm looking for an inconspicuous 44" printer that matches our bank account
without my wife noticing the difference or the printer. Any suggestions ? 

--------------------------------

Brian Corll

http://www.briancorll.com

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of pr_roark
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 11:42 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: "Carbon-6" Ink Mixing

 


Michael wrote:
...

> I have an Epson 7880, two 7600's,...

> they draw more attention from the wife
> than is healthy. ...

> I am going to have to use small, inconspicous machines
> from here on out (except for a 9600 ...

I keep looking for an inconspicuous 9600 that I can convince my wife
matches the couch. No luck so far.





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

Rob a bank and move.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Mar 18, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Brian Corll wrote:

> I'm looking for an inconspicuous 44" printer that matches our bank  
> account
> without my wife noticing the difference or the printer. Any  
> suggestions ?
>
> --------------------------------
>
> Brian Corll
>
> http://www.briancorll.com
>


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

Or find a new wife who is into photography? ;-)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Savoia
<mark@...> wrote:

>
> Rob a bank and move.
> 
> Mark
> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
> 
> On Mar 18, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Brian Corll wrote:
> 
> > I'm looking for an inconspicuous 44" printer that matches our bank  
> > account
> > without my wife noticing the difference or the printer. Any  
> > suggestions ?
> >
> > --------------------------------
> >
> > Brian Corll
> >
> > http://www.briancorll.com
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>...looking for an inconspicuous 44" printer ...

Seriously, for me the 24" is much easier to hide and use.  A matted
22x28 image looks very good on the walls, and digital panoramas are
sufficiently easy that I'm starting to explore that as a route to the
really large landscape displays.  A 22 inch high by 4 or more feet wide
pan can even be done hand held with digital camaras now.  See the image
at my www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.PaulRoark.com>  for a tripod-mounted
Tech Pan version of what I'm talking about.

Paul





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

> <pr_roark@...> wrote:
>
> I keep looking for an inconspicuous 9600 that I can convince
> my wife matches the couch.  No luck so far.
 
The problem is the nosie and the vibration. I think you have to 
package it as some type of massage chair.

Cover it in thick, rumply, pleated fabric. Attach a love seat or day 
bed on the back side. Keep the lights down low - it is supposed to be 
a relaxing environment after all. (That will also let you edit on 
your laptop while sitting there.)

Let her try it.  When she claims it does not help her at all, tell 
her that you *love* it and that it is the only thing that really 
helps your back problems.  Then you can edit and print all night 
while you are supposed to be watching tv.  (Better feed the output 
through a slot in the floor though.)

I think we need to form some type of "boating club for 
photographers."  We get all of these brochures, phamplets, sales 
literature for $100,000+ sail boats, etc.  Go on and on about buying 
one of those things and sailing around the world. It will be quite a 
relief when we decide to stay home and "settle" for a $5K printer! ;>)


> Glop does not appear to be compatible with Eboni-6. I'll
> be curious if Carbon-6 does better.

> The last of this type of inkset I made was the MIS UT-RC
> for the 260. 

> However,  glossy inks in large format is just not an area
>  I'm interested in.  My goals include eliminating color
> inks totally from all my display print production.

I think I'll follow your advice and leave the Carbon 6 as a matte 
paper ink set for now. I'll look for another ink set for glossy 
prints on the newer papers. I am interested/curious to test the newer 
papers with B&W. (I have tested most of them with color ink.)  I have 
5 color ink sets that I want to run and/or test over teh next few 
months. Maybe I'll just substitute blacks in one of those and run 
glossy B&W there.

Otherwise my wife has a 260, maybe I should convert that!  We bought 
at least 4 digital cameras last year, I should have picked up more of 
those little beasts - essentially free after rebate when buying a 
digital camera.

Enjoy the taxes!

Best,
Michael

>...my wife has a 260, maybe I should convert that!

Actually, the little R260 can make some fine B&W glossy prints with MIS
UT-RC PKs.

See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R260.htm
<http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R260.htm>  and

  http://www.inksupply.com/r260_blackandwhite.cfm
<http://www.inksupply.com/r260_blackandwhite.cfm>

The cool and neutral PK inks in Black Only mode using QTR are
surprisingly good.  It may well be what I start to use just to keep
track of that flow of new papers.

Frankly, I like to have an everyday printer with color inks, and the 260
is it for now.

Paul

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





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

Paul,

Thanks, this sounds like VERY cost-effective approach.

As I'm starting to reach the end of my current UT3D ink stock for my 
2100, I'm open for another approach . Although still happy with the 
print quality and ease of profiling of UT3D (using QTR).

How would you position the Carbon-6 versus the K4+ for the 2100? Or 
for a 7600/9600 that (of course!) are for long on my wish list? I can 
can also see a hybrid: 3-5 carbon densities + some LM and (L)LC to 
get the ultimate neutral.

I've not so much interest in toning any more (my reason to opt for 
Ut#d at the time), but more in print smoothnes and in achieving truly 
neutral prints.

Thanks,

Joost

 
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
>
> 
> I've updated my PDF that deals with ink mixing and now have it 
focused
> on a specific proposed open-source 100% carbon (Eboni) inkset, 
which I
> call "Carbon-6."  The name is intended, in part, to distinguish it 
from
> Eboni-6, which will use the MIS base and different mixing ratios, 
but
> they clearly are closely related.  Eboni-6, will have a commercial 
base
> and be pre-mixed, and this Carbon-6 will have to be mixed from 
scratch
> by users.
> 
> See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf
> <http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf>
> 
> As I've noted over the last couple of years, I've used and explored 
an
> easy-to-mix ink base that is just water and glycerol.  Actually most
> water-based inkjet inksets are mostly water plus a significant
> percentage glycerol.
> 
> The primary constituent in my experiments that improved the 
smoothness
> of the bare-bones glycerol + water combination was a surfactant or
> wetting agent.   While I've been experimenting with some Dow
> surfactants, I've decided to step back and do long term testing of a
> simple mix using the more readily available Kodak Photo Flo.  It is 
not
> the strongest of this class of chemicals, but it's well known and 
good
> enough for printers with droplet sized greater than 1.5 picoliters. 
> This includes the vast majority of Epson printers.
> 
> Note that adding stronger surfactants may make this inkset slightly
> smoother under a loupe, but they also make it print warmer, which 
is not
> a positive characteristic when one is fighting carbon's tendency to 
have
> an elevated Lab B in these inksets.  So, the strength of the wetting
> agent or surfactant is a double edged sword.   Photo Flo appears to 
be a
> very nice and simple compromise.
> 
> I do still expect MIS to produce Eboni-6, and that remains in my 
7500,
> just as the 3-MK workflow will remain in my 1800.  However, I think 
a
> "home brew" base and carbon inkset that will run on most Epson 
printers
> and is extremely economical might have significant appeal to 
many.   It,
> hopefully, will take the low cost and high stability of the 1800 3-
MK
> workflow to most of the remainder of the Epson printer base.  
Because it
> can use the Epson driver for printing, it lends itself to very easy
> workflows.  The prints are among the smoothest and best I've ever
> produced.
> 
> This is still an experimental inkset.  I have not had it in a 
printer
> for long periods of time.  I have tested a bare bones water + 
glycerol +
> Eboni ink in a 220 for a number of months, including periods of no 
use
> that extended for several weeks, and it did not clog or otherwise 
cause
> any problems.  But the addition of the Photo Flo is new.
> 
> Kodak Photo-Flo 200 is mostly water with 25 - 30% propylene glycol 
and 5
> - 10% wetting agent (p-tert-octylphenoxy polyethoxyethyl alcohol).  
The
> propylene glycol is well know and often used in inskets.  It and
> glycerol are often seen as substitutes.  I have used it with good
> success.  But the wetting agent is a new component that I have not
> tested long term in this context.   I do, of course, have a fairly 
high

> confidence level in it or I would not publish this.
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.PaulRoark.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi Joost,


> Thanks, this sounds like VERY cost-effective approach.

Carbon-6 is definitely still in the experimental stage.  On the R220 I
get very nice prints.  Yesterday I set up a 2200 with one of those
super-cheap SuperJetUSA CISs sold on eBay.  The CIS is rather lacking in
instructions (a CD was of some help, but did not cover the 2200 nor how
to prime the empty carts -- more on that below).  I'm not sure what the
European CIS situation is.

So far I've only made a single test strip with the 2200 Epson driver and
no profile, but under a loupe there appears to be some microbanding.  I
don't think it's visible in normal prints, but we'll have to see if a
proper profile takes care of it.

In general, I know the Photo Flo surfactant is a bit weaker than what is
usually used in inkjet inks.  It looked like it'd be OK for non-1.5
picoliter printers, but that is one of the things we'll have to
determine.  In general, it appears that the smaller the droplet and the
faster the printer, the better the surfactant needs to be.  Of course,
this also warms up the print, as the warmth appears to come from the
edges, which spread more if the surface tension is lower.  This warmth
is not desirable with carbon if you want to print a neutral B&W.   So,
the selection of base and surfactant type and amount is a double edged
sword.  The base used for Eboni-6 is actually an old formula.  The newer
ones don't work well in terms of keeping the warmth down because they
are made for the newer, faster machines with smaller nozzles.

If C-6 needs re-working with respect to the surfactant, Eboni-6 is the
commercial version that is close to the same (slightly different mixing
ratios).   It prints very smoothly in all the printers I've tested,
including the 1.5 pl models.  It is now available in bulk from MIS.  (I
have not tested a mix of the two bases.)

With respect to surfactants, I've found 1% isopropyl alcohol provides a
very marginal improvement in the smoothness.  That will be the first
thing I try if it turns out the Photo Flo by itself is not smooth enough
in the 2200.

The first Dow surfactant I tested worked great, but has a couple defects
that that caused it to be dropped.  I have a second one for testing now.
However, one reason I'd like to stick with the Photo Flo is that it's so
well known and tested long term in imaging products, where we'd know if
it had negative effects.  Keeping the chemistry, mixing and profiling as
simple as possible are clearly goals here.

With respect to the SuperJet CIS, I found it easy to prime (get the ink
in) by just filling the tanks and then using a syringe with a modified
MIS bottom fill adapter on it (see
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Mod_Bot_Fill.jpg
<http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Mod_Bot_Fill.jpg>  ) to pull the ink
through and into the carts.  I held the cart upside down so the air
would be pulled out of it.  (The bevel cut on that bottom fill adapter
shown above can be done with sharp scissors.)

An interesing aspect of the CIS design is that the syringes they profide
fit tightly in the tank air inlet hole.  As such, I had one channel
where the nozzles were mostly gone.  Clearly I had a major air bell in
the system.  To avoid having to do too many cleanign cycles to get the
air out, I used the syringe to pressurize the tank of the mis-firing
channel during a cleaning cycle.  It appeared to work well.  The first
page through the printer after this had some ink on it, but I'm guessing
pressurizing the tank saved a lot of cleaning cycles.


> How would you position the Carbon-6 versus the K4+ for the 2100?

C-6 and Eboni-6 are matte paper only, 100% carbon pigment inksets.  So,
while they have a nice range of tones on matte papers, there will not be
the flexibility of an inkset that has color channels available for tone
profiling.  Of course, being 100% carbon monotones makes the C-6 or
Eboni-6 inksets much easier to profile and more stable, with no color
artifacts or weaknesses in that respect at all.  In the 220, they are
the smoothest inksets I've ever used, comparable to the K7 test strips I
have.

> ...I can
> can also see a hybrid: 3-5 carbon densities + some LM and (L)LC to
> get the ultimate neutral.

Eboni-6 appears to be incompatible with some modern inks.  Carbon-6 has
not been tested with such.  Base compatibility is one of the issues with
respect to clogging.  When incompatible bases mix on the parking pad
they can lead to clogs.  If you ever had a used 1280 that you put Eboni
in you'll know what I mean.  Until the dyes were rinsed from the pad,
the result was bad nozzle checks rather regularly.

> I've not so much interest in toning any more ...

That's one of the things that happened to me also.  The novelty of print
tone control wore off.  Now I'm more in the mode of getting "back to
basics" -- B&W photography and printing.  Getting the color out is part
of that.  But, the usual carbon pigments were just too warm when
diluted.  So, these 2 inksets -- Eboni-6 and Carbon-6 -- basically use
the most neutral carbon I've found with bases that preserve most of that
neutrality on at least some papers -- not all.  Paper choice becomes key
to tone here.

Paul

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







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

Eboni-6 is the
> commercial version that is close to the same (slightly different mixing
> ratios).   It prints very smoothly in all the printers I've tested,
> including the 1.5 pl models.  It is now available in bulk from MIS.

Paul,

Using Eboni-6 in an R1800 vs 3MK, I assume one would get similar
results as John Cone's K7 in terms of smoothness? But one would lose
the very unique highlights glow of the BO approach?

Thanks,

Denis

Denis,

Eboni-6 should be very smooth in an 1800, but I have not compared it to
what the K7 inkset can do in that printer.   These Eboni dilutions print
more warmly in the 1.5 pl printers, so I have not had much interest in
pursuing them there.   But for those who like warm prints, it might be
an interesting option.

Paul

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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "the_des_bois"
<thedesbois@...> wrote:
>
>> Eboni-6 is the
> > commercial version that is close to the same (slightly different
mixing
> > ratios). It prints very smoothly in all the printers I've tested,
> > including the 1.5 pl models. It is now available in bulk from MIS.
>
> Paul,
>
> Using Eboni-6 in an R1800 vs 3MK, I assume one would get similar
> results as John Cone's K7 in terms of smoothness? But one would lose
> the very unique highlights glow of the BO approach?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Denis
>




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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
>
> ...  Yesterday I set up a 2200 with one of those
> super-cheap SuperJetUSA CISs sold on eBay.  ...

At 2880 the Epson 2200 with Carbon-6 is very smooth.  I think I can 
detect some artifacts with a loupe on the ultra smooth PA surface, 
but it appears to be invisible in actual prints.  With Photo Rag the 
paper texture is the dominant pattern and the only thing I can see in 
the highlights.  

I'm using Create ICC-RGB to make ICCs that have simple one-point 
Photoshop curves in them.  I pull up the Blue and Green curves in the 
center and push down the Red curve.  That's it.  These modern K2 
printers do very well with that approach.  The ramp even pre-ICC is 
near perfect.  So, curves with other image editors will be very easy 
to control. 

As usual for K2 printers (in my experience), I'm seeing a dmax of 
0.02 better with QTR and PA BW, but on Photo Rag the Epson driver is 
giving 1.7+.


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

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

Hi Paul, 

thanks for the elaborate anwer

> I'm not sure what the
> European CIS situation is.

Frankly, I have never looked much into CIS systems. I got my empty 
spongeless cartridges from mandev.co.uk. They sell a CIS based on teh 
same cartridges. The setup manual came with my cartridges. Looked 
like a lot could go wrong ...;-)

> So far I've only made a single test strip with the 2200 Epson 
driver and
> no profile, but under a loupe there appears to be some 
microbanding.  I
> don't think it's visible in normal prints, but we'll have to see if 
a
> proper profile takes care of it.

Hmm... actually I nver see any banding on my 2100, not even in pure 
warm or cold ut3d tones, when only two heads are firing 
simultanuously.

> 
> > ...I can
> > can also see a hybrid: 3-5 carbon densities + some LM and (L)LC to
> > get the ultimate neutral.
> 

> Eboni-6 appears to be incompatible with some modern inks.  Carbon-6 
has
> not been tested with such.  Base compatibility is one of the issues 
with
> respect to clogging.  When incompatible bases mix on the parking pad
> they can lead to clogs.  If you ever had a used 1280 that you put 
Eboni
> in you'll know what I mean.  Until the dyes were rinsed from the 
pad,
> the result was bad nozzle checks rather regularly.

I'm not sure if I understand you (while understanding the issues of 
base incompatibility). Ultrachrome inks are compatible with Eboni, 
and clearly the C-6 mixes are also compatible with Eboni (one of the 
positions being pure Eboni). So my logic would say that Ultrachrome 
inks have to be compatible with the C-6 set. So from that perspective 
it sgould be possible to combine UC LM and LC and some C-6 tones into 
a "4C + MC" approach. Do I miss something???

Joost

Joost,

> ... I have never looked much into CIS systems. 
> I got my empty spongeless cartridges from mandev.co.uk.

We have a special problem in the U.S. with our International Trade 
Commission ruling.  When carts were more readily available, I used 
them also.


> > Eboni-6 appears to be incompatible with some modern inks.  
> > Carbon-6  has not been tested with such.  
> > Base compatibility is one of the issues ...


> I'm not sure if I understand you (while understanding the issues of 
> base incompatibility). Ultrachrome inks are compatible with Eboni, 
> and clearly the C-6 mixes are also compatible with Eboni ...
> So my logic would say that Ultrachrome 
> inks have to be compatible with the C-6 set. 

It seems odd, but the base compatibility issue may not work like 
equivalences.  A=B and B=C certainly makes A=C.  However, the 
compatibilities issues, according to what MIS says (coming from Image 
Specialists I believe), may result in A being compatible with B, and 
B being compatible with C, but A not being compatible with C.

In the Eboni-6 situation, the base that is used to dilute Eboni to 
make the more dilute inks is not, apparently, the native base for 
Eboni, although it is compatible with Eboni.  The Eboni-6 dilution 
base, however, is said to be incompatible with the UltraChrome inks, 
and I've seen some evidence of incompatibilities with Glop, the base 
for the MIS UT inks.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hello Paul,

I want to try C-6 in my R1800 (Glycerine USP and Photo-Flo being
readily available and very cheap here).

Where would I place the different dilutions (densities?) in an R1800?

Would it be safe to assume this:

R1800 Ink position / C-6 reference
MK / Eboni
R / C
B / M
C / LC
M / LM
Y / Y
PK / clear base
GL / clear base

Thanks for your advice and help,

Denis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 

> 
> 
> Denis,
> 
> Eboni-6 should be very smooth in an 1800, but I have not compared it to
> what the K7 inkset can do in that printer.   These Eboni dilutions print
> more warmly in the 1.5 pl printers, so I have not had much interest in
> pursuing them there.   But for those who like warm prints, it might be
> an interesting option.
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.PaulRoark.com>
> 
>

Denis,
 
> I want to try C-6 in my R1800 (Glycerine USP and Photo-Flo being
> readily available and very cheap here).

I don't recommend C6 in the 1800.  I think you'll have microbanding.  
The Eboni-6 surfactant is probably strong enough to work well, but 
not Photo Flo.


> 
> Where would I place the different dilutions (densities?) in an 
R1800?

I dislike the 1800 Epson driver, so I'd recommend QTR.  Then it 
really doesn't matter where you put the different densities.

With the 1800 Epson driver you have to guess what the R and B are 
going to be doing.  It's just not worth messing with.

Paul   
www.PaulRoark.com  



> 
> Would it be safe to assume this:
> 
> R1800 Ink position / C-6 reference
> MK / Eboni
> R / C
> B / M
> C / LC
> M / LM
> Y / Y
> PK / clear base
> GL / clear base
> 
> Thanks for your advice and help,
> 
> Denis
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
> > 
> > 
> > Denis,
> > 
> > Eboni-6 should be very smooth in an 1800, but I have not compared 
it to
> > what the K7 inkset can do in that printer.   These Eboni 
dilutions print
> > more warmly in the 1.5 pl printers, so I have not had much 
interest in
> > pursuing them there.   But for those who like warm prints, it 
might be

> > an interesting option.
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.PaulRoark.com>
> > 
> >
>

Paul,

Since I have many carts lying around doing nothing and I love trying 
stuff I'll give it a try anyways. ;-)

I understand the issues with the R & B channels vs the Epson driver.

Using QTR do you think the Hawk Mountain Condor BW qidf provided with 
your Eboni 6 curves and profiles would be a good starting point?

I,ll let you know if I get banding or not once I've tried stuff for a 
while. :)

Many thanks again,


Denis
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
>
> Denis,
>  
> > I want to try C-6 in my R1800 (Glycerine USP and Photo-Flo being
> > readily available and very cheap here).
> 
> I don't recommend C6 in the 1800.  I think you'll have 
microbanding.  
> The Eboni-6 surfactant is probably strong enough to work well, but 
> not Photo Flo.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Where would I place the different dilutions (densities?) in an 
> R1800?
> 
> I dislike the 1800 Epson driver, so I'd recommend QTR.  Then it 
> really doesn't matter where you put the different densities.
> 
> With the 1800 Epson driver you have to guess what the R and B are 
> going to be doing.  It's just not worth messing with.
> 
> Paul   
> www.PaulRoark.com  
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Would it be safe to assume this:
> > 
> > R1800 Ink position / C-6 reference
> > MK / Eboni
> > R / C
> > B / M
> > C / LC
> > M / LM
> > Y / Y
> > PK / clear base
> > GL / clear base
> > 
> > Thanks for your advice and help,
> > 
> > Denis
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Denis,
> > > 
> > > Eboni-6 should be very smooth in an 1800, but I have not 
compared 

> it to
> > > what the K7 inkset can do in that printer.   These Eboni 
> dilutions print
> > > more warmly in the 1.5 pl printers, so I have not had much 
> interest in
> > > pursuing them there.   But for those who like warm prints, it 
> might be
> > > an interesting option.
> > > 
> > > Paul
> > > 
> > > www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.PaulRoark.com>
> > > 
> > >
> >
>

Also how about using Photoflo at a 12-14% levle in the base?

Might give a very warm print but might be an interesting look?

Or another surfactant like Tween 20 or Triton X-100?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "the_des_bois" 
<thedesbois@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
> 
> Since I have many carts lying around doing nothing and I love 
trying 
> stuff I'll give it a try anyways. ;-)
> 
> I understand the issues with the R & B channels vs the Epson driver.
> 
> Using QTR do you think the Hawk Mountain Condor BW qidf provided 
with 
> your Eboni 6 curves and profiles would be a good starting point?
> 
> I,ll let you know if I get banding or not once I've tried stuff for 
a 
> while. :)
> 
> Many thanks again,
> 
> 
> Denis
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
> <pr_roark@> wrote:
> >
> > Denis,
> >  
> > > I want to try C-6 in my R1800 (Glycerine USP and Photo-Flo being
> > > readily available and very cheap here).
> > 
> > I don't recommend C6 in the 1800.  I think you'll have 
> microbanding.  
> > The Eboni-6 surfactant is probably strong enough to work well, 
but 

> > not Photo Flo.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Where would I place the different dilutions (densities?) in an 
> > R1800?
> > 
> > I dislike the 1800 Epson driver, so I'd recommend QTR.  Then it 
> > really doesn't matter where you put the different densities.
> > 
> > With the 1800 Epson driver you have to guess what the R and B are 
> > going to be doing.  It's just not worth messing with.
> > 
> > Paul   
> > www.PaulRoark.com  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Would it be safe to assume this:
> > > 
> > > R1800 Ink position / C-6 reference
> > > MK / Eboni
> > > R / C
> > > B / M
> > > C / LC
> > > M / LM
> > > Y / Y
> > > PK / clear base
> > > GL / clear base
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your advice and help,
> > > 
> > > Denis
> > > 
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Denis,
> > > > 
> > > > Eboni-6 should be very smooth in an 1800, but I have not 
> compared 
> > it to
> > > > what the K7 inkset can do in that printer.   These Eboni 
> > dilutions print
> > > > more warmly in the 1.5 pl printers, so I have not had much 
> > interest in
> > > > pursuing them there.   But for those who like warm prints, it 
> > might be
> > > > an interesting option.
> > > > 
> > > > Paul
> > > > 
> > > > www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.PaulRoark.com>
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I did not see additional smoothness from more than 10% Photo Flo.

If you have an Eboni-6 profile for QTR, then that might well simply 
be re-linearized for Carbon-6.  The dilutions are slightly different.

Paul      
www.PaulRoark.com  

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "the_des_bois" 
<thedesbois@...> wrote:
>
> Also how about using Photoflo at a 12-14% levle in the base?
> 
> Might give a very warm print but might be an interesting look?
> 
> Or another surfactant like Tween 20 or Triton X-100?
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "the_des_bois" 
> <thedesbois@> wrote:
> >
> > Paul,
> > 
> > Since I have many carts lying around doing nothing and I love 
> trying 
> > stuff I'll give it a try anyways. ;-)
> > 
> > I understand the issues with the R & B channels vs the Epson 
driver.
> > 
> > Using QTR do you think the Hawk Mountain Condor BW qidf provided 
> with 
> > your Eboni 6 curves and profiles would be a good starting point?
> > 
> > I,ll let you know if I get banding or not once I've tried stuff 
for 
> a 
> > while. :)
> > 
> > Many thanks again,
> > 
> > 
> > Denis
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
> > <pr_roark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Denis,
> > >  
> > > > I want to try C-6 in my R1800 (Glycerine USP and Photo-Flo 
being
> > > > readily available and very cheap here).
> > > 
> > > I don't recommend C6 in the 1800.  I think you'll have 
> > microbanding.  
> > > The Eboni-6 surfactant is probably strong enough to work well, 
> but 
> > > not Photo Flo.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Where would I place the different dilutions (densities?) in 
an 
> > > R1800?
> > > 
> > > I dislike the 1800 Epson driver, so I'd recommend QTR.  Then it 
> > > really doesn't matter where you put the different densities.
> > > 
> > > With the 1800 Epson driver you have to guess what the R and B 
are 
> > > going to be doing.  It's just not worth messing with.
> > > 
> > > Paul   
> > > www.PaulRoark.com  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Would it be safe to assume this:
> > > > 
> > > > R1800 Ink position / C-6 reference
> > > > MK / Eboni
> > > > R / C
> > > > B / M
> > > > C / LC
> > > > M / LM
> > > > Y / Y
> > > > PK / clear base
> > > > GL / clear base
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for your advice and help,
> > > > 
> > > > Denis
> > > > 
> > > > --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Denis,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Eboni-6 should be very smooth in an 1800, but I have not 
> > compared 
> > > it to
> > > > > what the K7 inkset can do in that printer.   These Eboni 
> > > dilutions print
> > > > > more warmly in the 1.5 pl printers, so I have not had much 
> > > interest in
> > > > > pursuing them there.   But for those who like warm prints, 
it 

> > > might be
> > > > > an interesting option.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Paul
> > > > > 
> > > > > www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.PaulRoark.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>