Digital BW, The Print

benoit.lantoine <benoit.lantoine@...> wrote:

> **
>  ...
>
> I would like to mix inks myself (C6 inkset on epson 1400). I use most of
> the time Arches uncoated paper and I've read Paul's PDF talking about C6C
> base. One sentence sounds disturbing to me : "As the newest of the base
> variations, this mix may have involve more uncertainty."
>

I wrote that some time ago.  There is no evidence of the additional
surfactant in C6c causing trouble with the Eboni/Carbon-6 inks. I would use
that version in the 1400 for Arches.

I recently switched to C6c in my 7800, and for the first time had a gap in
a nozzle check with the channel that has HP Vivera pigments diluted with
the C6c.  I'll keep an eye on the potential issues that may relate to the
use of Tergitol 15-S-7 and HP inks.  It's too early to know if that one
incident is a sign of problems.  But, in general, aside from the 1400 (and
other 1.5 picoliter printers) used with Arches, I recommend the C6b
version.  It has been very stable and reliable.  (Note that I also have all
the ingredients needed to make the surfactants for that version should
Photo Flo and Edwal LFN become unavailable or outrageously expensive.)

 No problem so far to use it on fine art prints that could be sold ?
>

No problems.

>
> In this approach, would you advise me instead to use C6B just "to be sure"
> ?
>
No, with Arches use the C6c.

Last question : what tools are needed to make dilutions ? graduated
> pipettes ?
>

I use a digital scales with a 0.1 gram accuracy.  It's easier and more
accurate than the alternatives.  You can get a decent scales on line for a
reasonable price.

Also, regarding soft proofing, you can use QTR's Create ICC-RGB to make the
ICC needed for soft proofing.

(As you can tell from my PDFs, I don't use this method to match the
relative densities of the monitor to the print.  I prefer to edit in
standard Gray Gamma 2.2 and apply a correction curve for printing with QTR.)

Good luck with your mixing.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com



>
> Thank you very much.
>
>  
>


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