Digital BW, The Print

"Mantinieri" <mantinieri@...> wrote:

>I have just read your updated write-up's and I am amazed by your endurance in researching new ink solutions.

Well, there is still room for the "darkroom enthusiast" version of digital printing.  I've marrowed my focus rather substantially, however.  The entry of the OEMs obviously had a major impact on field.  With them in the game, my focus is on setting a benchmark for  lightfastness -- 100% carbon -- and making products that are affordable for all and easy to use.  While Eboni-6 is very reasonably priced, the Carbon-6 is obviously the ultimate in affordability when it comes to dilute inksets.  Note, however, that printing with 100% Eboni black only is even cheaper.

What I'll be doing next is making the hextone approach easier and exploring some alternative substrates.

 
> I noticed that in your latest clear base formula you gave up on propylene glycol ...

It's still there -- in the Photo Flo.  Glycol is a significant ingredient, helping with paper penetration as well  as cleaning.  However, in my tests adding more of it resulted in less smooth printing.

 
> In you Ink-Mixing write-up, I have appreciated the special consideration you reserved to Arches Watercolor paper. I believe, Clayton Jones also mentioned in a recent thread. As many know by now, I use almost exclusively uncoated fine art paper and Arches is among the three I like the best. In my honest opinion, when an image is nice and rich in content, there is no need to chase the ultimate D-max in order to attract the eye.

I brought an Arches sample into the gallery where some knowledgable inkjet printers were here, and before they knew what it was, they commented on what nice blacks the print exhibited.  Go figure.  

 
> Not long ago, I had an exhibit here, in Southern Italy, showing in the same gallery, some prints of my portfolio made on Arches Watercolor, Magnani Pescia, Moab Entrada and Carbon-Gelatine prints (the latter having a D-max above 1.9). Even when shown side-by-side the effect of different D-max was pretty much irrelevant and the lower density of  Magnani Pescia (dmax 1.47-1.51, depending on the batch) was more than made up by the beauty of the paper surface (it's a printmaking paper rather than watercolor).

I think it was the surface texture of  the Arches HP that  impressed the viewers I was referring to also.  There are lots of elements of a print that will trump raw dmax.


 
> Regarding the tone of diluted Eboni on Arches you  are obtaining (Carbon-Print-Tones.pdf), they are quite different from my observations. In fact, your Lab-B goes above about 5 in the interval between steps 7 and 13 (from what I can discern from the graph on page 3) while, in my case, that happens in the range of steps 3-7.

In may be printer and profile differences.



> Speaking of tones, one reason why I like so much Magnani Pescia is because of the uniformity of the tones with diluted Eboni: Lab-B ranges between 2.5 and 3.6 everywhere except the two lightest and darkest patches.

I'm not sure I can get that in the US.  I recall you mentioning that before, and I looked for  the paper.  My recollection is  that I failed to find any.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com