Digital BW, The Print

Justin ("mis_inksupply"),

It's good to see that MIS is getting more involved with B&W.

> The ESC-BASEPT-UC "amber" base is not recommended for use with the Eboni inks as it can cause poor ink performance.

I agree.

We'll need to be sure we're coordinated with the current names of the MIS bases.  The names on the bottles have changed over the years.  And what we've called them casually on the forum are not necessarily on the bottles (like "Glop").

 
> We are looking into offering the base on our site, but do fear that there will be issues with mixing base types if users are not careful.


I agree.  There are a couple open issues with respect to mixing bases.  First, my long term test bed that had MIS K4 carbon blended with the generic base failed.  It looks like it was probably the cis involved, but I cannot tell.  At this point, however, I do not recommend using the generic base with MIS glossy inks.  At any rate, the un-coated MIS pigments lose their glossy compatibility with the generic base.  

The generic base does work to dilute the HP coated glossy Z3100/3200 pigments.  At least with respect to the HP PK, I had long term tests with a 30% PK/70% generic base setup that worked perfectly.

With respect to the HP tests, I did have one printer (and old 2200) that showed some clogging in a 50/50 blend.  Again, it could have been the printer, which totally failed soon after this instance.  But there is an outside chance that while a 30% PK/70% base mix is stable, a 50/50 is not.  To avoid that possibility and since the 50/50 is not needed, I removed that mix from my PDFs.

There are other issues relating to pH and biocides.  

After rather tedious work to learn how to buffer an ink, making a base with those characteristics, and testing it, I concluded the effort was a waste of time.  Even though the 2% Eboni mix did start to diverge from the 100%'s pH, the actual stability of the suspension as tested in my centrifuge indicated mixed results, and almost no effect either direction.  At least with that ink blend, it simply does not look like additional work to buffer the base is needed.  


On the biocide issue, it appears carbon is simply not much liked by bugs.  It and the base appear rather inert.  Be sure to use un-polluted distilled water and high grade glycerol.  Note that there may be color inks that are at risk.  One OEM chemist noted it was the yellow that needed the biocide.

Note also that the HP-MIS glop combo seems stable and a worthy ink option.  See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/1100-HpGO.pdf

I do think MIS ought to consider cloning that setup.  UT14 LC is close.  A bit more neutral LK and LLK would be good additions to the product line.  UT14 LC by itself on most papers ends up with a slightly negative Lab B.  That is, it's a bit cooler than just neutral.  It was intentionally designed to be run in a printer with un-cooled MIS carbon that would be blended in via the profiles to bring it back to neutral.  


> We are currently testing the Paul's base and looking to see what our options are.


I think the market would welcome an easier way to get it.  I do not make a practice of selling the generic pigment base.  So, it's not a problem with me.  My goals have been to be sure there is a viable and very affordable "digital darkroom" for B&W photographers.  B&W photography has meant so much to me, and I assume I'm not alone, that to the extent I can help be sure the materials and workflows are available to all, including starving students/artists and retirees on fixed incomes (like me), I'll do so.  Easy access to the ingredients and different types of pre-mixed bases fit that model very well.


I think there is room for a "Photographers Formulary" model in the digital darkroom, and MIS is the logical company to fill that void.


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com