Digital BW, The Print

I am looking to get back into B&W printing. I used R200 in the past with UT-3D inkset and that proved to be too much for me to handle - could never quite dial out duotone (manytone!) look. I have ColorVision device for calibration.

I'm planning on using an R280 now and I am trying to decide on inkset to use. I would like to print on matte and glossy, and have as little gloss differential as reasonably possible. Being locked into a single tone would be fine if it doesn't look objectionable on Kirkland, Epson Archival Matte and Alpha Cellulose. Archival is not overly important - i'm really just playing and learning with these prints.

I am reading throgh Paul Roark's site and I want to verify that I can simply use Epson 1400 methods with same or close enough results on R280? It would seem that choices for matte + glossy would be:

UT14 - matte and glossy, has glop, can be tweaked a little between neutral and warm
1400-NC2 - similar conceptually to above, change of pigments used for better longevity
1400-NC2b - skips glop. Worse on glossy?
Eboni-1400 - similar to straight Eboni-6, not all that glossy friendly.

Would this be an accurate summary? I have a feeling that I'll be sorry if I don't have glop (I really don't know, never saw one vs the other), which would make it choice between UT14 and 1400-NC2. I am not really sure I understand pros and cons of one vs the other other then NC2 being more archival. NC2 drawbacks?

> I am reading throgh Paul Roark's site and I want to verify that I can simply use Epson 1400 methods with same or close enough results on R280? 

Yes.  I have an R280 and 1400 and they profile extremely close to each other (if not identical).  QTR does support the R280 as well.

I too bought a R280 as a mini-1400 to get into the B&W game and it works great (and it was free with rebate when I bought it as well!).  Just recently I decided I wanted to print bigger and acquired a 1400 - just under $200 new these days!

Sorry I can't give you much advice on the inks, I only print matte papers and use a two dilution Eboni set.  Maybe Paul or someone else with more experience will stroll by with some advice.

Ken

"marko.mili" <marko.mili@...> wrote:
>
> ... I have ColorVision device for calibration.
> 
> I'm planning on using an R280 now and I am trying to decide on inkset to use. I would like to print on matte and glossy, and have as little gloss differential as reasonably possible. Being locked into a single tone would be fine if it doesn't look objectionable on Kirkland, Epson Archival Matte and Alpha Cellulose. Archival is not overly important - i'm really just playing and learning with these prints.
> 
> I am reading throgh Paul Roark's site and I want to verify that I can simply use Epson 1400 methods with same or close enough results on R280? It would seem that choices for matte + glossy would be:
> 
> UT14 - matte and glossy, has glop, can be tweaked a little between neutral and warm


The UT14 inkset may be the best for your uses.  I have not tried it in a 280, but if they are similar the basic profiles provided should be within what you can linearize with your spectro.


> 1400-NC2 - similar conceptually to above, change of pigments used for better longevity
> 1400-NC2b - skips glop. Worse on glossy?


I would not recommend the NC2 inkset.  It was experimental and had a more limited application.

> Eboni-1400 - similar to straight Eboni-6, not all that glossy friendly.


The "Eboni-1400" setup I now use is mostly for matte paper and for maximum longevity.  The glossy is limited to black only -- thought it does work very well, and black only has less bronzing than the dilute ink approach.

 
>  I have a feeling that I'll be sorry if I don't have glop ...

That's possible.  I think UT14 is your best bet.  I might note, however, that glop is not 100% effective in eliminating reflective artifacts.  But it does help.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com