Digital BW, The Print

> The Cone site implies that MIS inks might have a higher pH and are more
> prone to Metamerism:
> 
> From the Cone site:
> 
> "Piezography™inks are not subject to the metamerism found in dye based
> inks nor dye/pigment inks. Metamerism is the tendency for an ink system
> to appear different under varying light conditions. For example,
> Piezography™ prints do not change dramatically under tungsten,
> fluorescent and incandescent light sources. The same can not be said for
> ink systems produced by EPSON, LYSON, MIS and others. Additionally, our
> inks have a pH basic rating of 9 which makes them EPSON compatible.
> Competing inks are often acidic."

I don't mean to bash Cone or try to bolster any of the companies he tries to
impugn, but I think a broad statement like this needs to be read very
carefully and deconstructed.

First off, this snippet was taken from the PiezoBW blurb. I think it's
specious of Jon to imply that HIS inks should perform better than
dye/pigment inks when he's admitted that the PiezoBW inks THEMSELVES are
dye/pigment.

Furthermore, unless Jon knows something we don't, Epson does not yet sell a
Quad ink, so I don't know what he's comparing to of their line; and Epson's
most metameric product is their encapsulated pigments which have no dye.

All in all I believe Cone is not comparing apples to oranges, and the whole
statement is a squishy mess.

Lastly, inks, in a usable sense, not a quantum mechanical sense ;-), will
only be as archival as the papers/coatings they are used on. Until we know
what pH a given paper/coating is optimized for I wouldn't pay much attention
to the pH of the ink that is put on it. (Pity Harvey's not here to call
foolish for saying as much ;-))

Todd