Digital BW, The Print

As suddenly my small B&W dedicated R285 died I had to search quickly for a replacement. I still dream of a true large format printer but a good deal for a brand new 4800 came along that I couldn't refuse. So I will be setting that up for B&W. 

My key requirements:
- both matte & glossy
- neutral only (tunable to paper tone)
I will drive the 4800 with QTR.

So a logical starting point is Paul's recent setup for the 7800:

http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/7800-EbHp.pdf

However, I do have a few questions/remarks.
- The set hinges on the warm Eboni dilutions and uses Vivera as toner. As Vivera is more neutral then Eboni, the reverse choice would seem more logical to me.
- GLOP is missing from the set.

For me, this setup seems more logical:

- MK Eboni
- PK Vivera
- 4 shades of diluted PK Vivera
- 1 dilution of Eboni
- Glop

or as alternative

- MK Eboni
- PK Vivera
- 3 shades of diluted PK Vivera
- 2 dilutions of Eboni
- Glop

As Paul is the expert here: what do I miss?

Joost

"horstenj" <j.h.j.h@...> wrote:

> ... brand new 4800 ... I will be setting that up for B&W. 
> 
> My key requirements:
> - both matte & glossy

HP Z3100 PK is my favorite neutral glossy ink at the moment.

MIS Eboni is great for an MK, but its dilutions are not glossy compatible.


> - neutral only (tunable to paper tone)

HP PK and its dilutions are quite neutral in the highlights and too cold in the shadows on most papers.


> I will drive the 4800 with QTR.

Of course, QTR is a good choice.  However I also recommend inksets be made to be Epson driver compatible.  Sometimes there are other applications that you need to print from.  It's easy to keep an inkset compatible with the Epson driver.  A 30% dilution plus or minus 10% in the crossovers usually works.  Glop in the Y position makes the most sense.


> 
> So a logical starting point is Paul's recent setup for the 7800:
> 
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/7800-EbHp.pdf

I am much more matte oriented.  The 3 HP levels -- PK, LK, and LLK -- are bare bones minimums.  I wanted to be sure I could still print 100% carbon on Arches to my standards.  That requires very low ink limits on the midtone inks.  To get better coverage with lower limits, I needed more of the dilute Eboni inks.


> However, I do have a few questions/remarks.
> - The set hinges on the warm Eboni dilutions and uses Vivera as toner. As Vivera is more neutral then Eboni, the reverse choice would seem more logical to me.

Yes, I agree.

I think a very good "variable tone," neutral-oriented, matte and glossy compatible inkset would have the HP PK based inks as the basics and probably MIS LK or EZ-Warm as the warm carbon toner.  One of the test inksets I used had only LK as the warm toner, and it worked quite well.  Since the highlights require a colder ink to be neutral than do the shadows, I omitted and MIS LLK.  If there were room for that, I'd add the LLK just in case I needed to warm up the highlights.


> - GLOP is missing from the set.
> 
> For me, this setup seems more logical:
> 
> - MK Eboni
> - PK Vivera
> - 4 shades of diluted PK Vivera

Here is where you'd have to decide whether you want the MIS LLK in there and take out one HP.  

As an alternative to the MIS LK, the MIS EZ-Warm is made as one-ink midtone that works rather well.  It's 100% carbon. It would give you a smoother ink for the highlights if they needed warming.

(For some reason that escapes me, the EZ-W ink actually appeared to make a smoother print than the lighter carbons in the 2400 Y=EZW setup.)

> - 1 dilution of Eboni.

If you want to tone your glossy prints a little bit with a warm carbon, don't use the dilute Eboni inks.  They rub off glossy papers.  Also, if you go with the MIS LK type inks, they'll stay in suspension (as will the HP inks), so you avoid the more frequent agitation the dilute Eboni requires.  In wide format printers dilute Eboni is really for purists who want 100% carbon on matte paper.  It takes special care in wide format printers (not a problem in desktop units).

> - Glop
> 
> or as alternative
> 
> - MK Eboni
> - PK Vivera
> - 3 shades of diluted PK Vivera
> - 2 dilutions of Eboni

In this case if the 2 dilutions were in the M or C channel the Epson driver could control tone somewhat, though with K3 machines the gray substitution is such that controlling tone is not particularly effective.  If there is a single warm carbon, I'd probably put it in the LK position.  That way with the Epson driver it's just offset the too-cold HP PK shadows.

Again, I'd stay away from Eboni dilutions for glossy.  Two dilutions of MIS glossy carbon -- K4-LK & LLK -- would be the most logical 2 glossy carbons.  Avoid the LK & LLK from the B&W inksets.  Many of them have been toned slightly.  Go with the 100% carbon K4 LK & LLK, or a single EZ-warm.

> - Glop

In the Y position, you can control this very easily even with the Epson driver.

In general, I think an HP + MIS glossy carbon inkset might be the best glossy compatible setup we can make.  The MIS colors are not as strong as the OEM's, but the third party carbon is very good.

Do note that the the generic bases described at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf will dilute the HP PK and still make glossy-compatible inks due to the gloss on the HP pigs coming from a coating on the particle.  The MIS PK cannot be diluted with the generic base and stay glossy compatible.  With MIS pigs and gloss is in the base (glop).

Let us know how it works out.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks Paul for the elaborate response. Being partly a confirmation and partly a correction it's very helpful. For instance, I was (of course) aware of the gloss incompatibility of Eboni, but just assumed its dilutions would cause no problem. Furthermore, I had not realized the "split-tone behaviour" HP inks.

Wrt to warm toner: you suggest to consider a single EZ-warm. What's the density compared to MIS LK and LLK? I happen to have a stock of both LK and LLK. I could easily mix them to create an intermediate density. For future use I could slightly dilute LK.

Based on your feedback I'm tempted to go for

MK
PK 100%
LPK 50%
LLPK 25%
LLLPK 12%
LLLLPK 6%
warm toner (LK / LLK mix)
glop

I don't full grasp your reasoning wrt the distribution of the dilutions over the ink slots to achieve Epson driver compatibility. How would you distribute the set above?

Of course I'll report ack but appreciate that I'm now collecting the equipment and materials so I'll need some time to sort everything out.

Regards,

Joost

Joost,

>... I had not realized the "split-tone behaviour" HP inks.

It is typical of cooled carbon inks.  It takes more cool color in the highlights than the shadows to have a level tonal response.

> Wrt to warm toner: you suggest to consider a single EZ-warm. 
> What's the density compared to MIS LK and LLK? 

EZ carbon is 75% of LK.

>I happen to have a stock of both LK and LLK. I could easily mix them to create an intermediate density. 

> For future use I could slightly dilute LK.

With glop to keep it as glossy as before, although I'm not sure what the small amount of generic base would do to the glossiness of the LK.

 
> Based on your feedback I'm tempted to go for
> 
> MK
> PK 100%
> LPK 50%

One person reported excess foaming in a 50% mix, but his last analysis of the problem indicated it was probably due to an incompatibility with the Piezo ink that was previously in the cart.  I did not have the excess foaming in the 50% mix I tested. 

> LLPK 25%
> LLLPK 12%
> LLLLPK 6%
> warm toner (LK / LLK mix)
> glop
> 
> I don't full grasp your reasoning wrt the distribution of the dilutions over the ink slots to achieve Epson driver compatibility. How would you distribute the set above?

Aside from the light inks being in the light ink spots and about 1/3 the density of the dark inks they'll cross over to, the main issue with k3 printers is the LK position density.  If it is too low relative to the C and M, you'll get a posterization in the shadows.  The HP PK in the LK spot would avoid this problem, but it would also stop you from being able to use the Epson driver for glossy printing.  I'm not sure if the 50% HP PK in the LK spot will be enough to avoid posterization.  So, there is a trade off here.  Since you are using QTR for most printing, it may be that just keeping the Epson driver matte paper compatible is the best you can do.

You might try this:
K = Eboni
LK = HP PK
LLK = 25% HP PK

C = 50% HP PK 
LC = 12% HP PK

M = EZ
LM = 6% HP PK

Y = glop

Paul, I am going to do the same as Joost, but for 2200 printer. I will drop MK because I now have new 1400 happily printing with C6 inks. I still have inks from UT7 inkset, could I use UT7-C and UT7-LC instead of LK and LLK as you recommended? It seems to be carbon only inks. I am using QTR only and don't care about compatibility with driver. I also have clear UT base, so I could dilute those inks if needed.
I saw some warning about incompatibility between UT base in C6 base, could I use UT based and C6 based inks at the same time?

Thanks,
Sergei

Ha, that's good news. We can exchange some thoughts and experiences. As said to Paul, I'm still collecting all stuff I need so I need some time to start up. Most likely, I will start with the matte setup as I've not much experience with gloss printing yet.

As initial thought, I was thinking to create three matte QTR curves:

cool/neutral 1: MK PK LLK LLLLK
cool/netural 2: MK LK LLLK
warm          : MK warm-toner

Printing would then happen with equal ratios for the two cool/neutral curves and blend in the warm curve where desired. The reasoning is that QTR does not create much overlap in multi-ink setups. In this way one would trick QTR and get many nozzles to fire simultanuously, a bit similar to the Piezotone approach.

For gloss the scheme would look:

cool/neutral 1: PK LLK LLLLK Glop
cool/netural 2: PK LK LLLK Glop
warm          : PK warm-toner Glop

Does this make any sense?

Joost



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "santonov2you" <drumscanner@...> wrote:

>
> Paul, I am going to do the same as Joost, but for 2200 printer. I will drop MK because I now have new 1400 happily printing with C6 inks. I still have inks from UT7 inkset, could I use UT7-C and UT7-LC instead of LK and LLK as you recommended? It seems to be carbon only inks. I am using QTR only and don't care about compatibility with driver. I also have clear UT base, so I could dilute those inks if needed.
> I saw some warning about incompatibility between UT base in C6 base, could I use UT based and C6 based inks at the same time?
> 
> Thanks,
> Sergei
>

"santonov2you" <drumscanner@...> wrote:
>
> Paul, I am going to do the same as Joost, but for 2200 printer. I will drop MK because I now have new 1400 happily printing with C6 inks.

> I still have inks from UT7 inkset, could I use UT7-C and UT7-LC instead of LK and LLK as you recommended? It seems to be carbon only inks. 

The UT7 C & LC are slightly denser carbon than the LK and LLK, but they would probably work fine.  Since the highlights are usually the parts of the print that require the most cooling to be neutral, little or no UT7-LC would be in the very lightest parts of the print.  If you like very warm prints, then you'd want the UT7-LC there, but they'd still be no less smooth than the UT7 highlights.

> I saw some warning about incompatibility between UT base in C6 base,

I've never seen an incompatibility with the C6 base, though there was one report of a potential problem -- excess foam -- when a 50% HP PK dilution was used in a cart that had Piezo inks in it previously.  The problems with the MIS glop (which appears to be the real UT base) and the MIS clear base (no slight color at all) is that they made poor bases for diluting Eboni; they resulted in rough printing.

> could I use UT based and C6 based inks at the same time?

I believe so, but I can't guarantee anything.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks, Paul!

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
Since the highlights are usually the parts of the print that require the most cooling to be neutral, little or no UT7-LC would be in the very lightest parts of the print.

...but Paul, it is shadows that has to be warmed for HP PK, not highlights cooled, right? so it seems that UT7-C/LC will be exactly where it should be. I will use diluted HP PK inks for highlights.

--Sergei

Sergei,
>
> ... it is shadows that has to be warmed for HP PK, not highlights cooled, right? so it seems that UT7-C/LC will be exactly where it should be. I will use diluted HP PK inks for highlights.


Yes, you've got it.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com