I purchased a 220 ml matt k cartridge from STS Sucked it dry.. I made uo a standard C6 inkset. no K in the yellow. I am by far no expert but I love to fiddle.
I made up a 21 step profile for arches BRT White. There was a slight increase in Dmax When compared to the MIS C6 in run in another 1400. The STS profile was dead straight before linerizing. Using the North light 51 step tst print The STS is definitely the stronger print.I have not yet created QTR profile.
I also made up a C6 STS K+MIS 2 K ink set. I got a 1.63 dmax using Paul's QTR profiles.
Using the straight STS ink set and addiding K in the Yellow I got a 1.69 dmax.
I also tested with Han German etch. and got a 1.75 Dmax and a very nice 51 test print. I did not test Paul's Icc's yet.
These t tests may not be a valid way to test, and are definitely subjective. they may also be in the realm of opinions. And we know what they are worth.
But as Paul says "Enjoy the Journey"
Kelly
A footnote I am using a Spyder for the profiles
Message
Re: [Digital BW] STS- C6 ink set
2014-11-26 by Paul Roark
The STS MK I'm testing is what they claim is the previous Image Specialists' input for Eboni -- called WJ1082. STS says it is different from their other MK. It would be interesting to see if it really is different.
Do you have some full 21-step test strip Lab L, A and B readings for Arches BW for the STS MK? If you have the full 21-step results for the MIS Eb6 or Carbon-6 with the MIS Eboni, with the same ink arrangement, that would be the best comparison (same spectro). What I'm trying to find is the comparison of the dilute ink Lab readings for the old v. new alternatives.
Note that the STS wj1082 has a major dry-down increase in dmax overnight. I've read up to 1.77, with 1.75 being common where 2 MKs are firing.
Note also that you'll often get a better dmax if the 21-step is vertical on the paper as opposed to horizontal across the paper. I spectulate that the vertical placement gives the ink a bit longer to dry before a second pass hits it. In testing the 2% mix, I see a significant difference in the blotchiness due, I believe, to dot gain or ink spread at the 100% end of the QTR tests when comparing horizontal to vertial 21-step placement.
At any rate, if you have those full 21-step test strip Lab readings that would show same-dilution comparisons, that would be very useful.
BTW, I've reverse engineered the Edwal LFN and Photo Flo 200 formulas. They are now in:
at footnotes 10 and 16. While I'm at it, I've ordered samples of some new surfactants to test. I';ll publish whatever formulas I come up with if I find a new and better mix. So, far, I'd stay with the existing ones as long as the surfactants are available. Photo Flo 200 appears to be restricted to in-store sales now at B&H and Adorama. If need be I or MIS might come up with a surfactant blend that only needs to be mixed with water and glycerol (readily available) and is easy to ship.
Paul
Paul
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:01 AM, kellyhealy@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote: