Digital BW, The Print

Paul;

I've always been a bit of a contrarian when it comes to dry-
mounting. My feeling is the primary function of an art piece is to 
be on display, hopefully giving its owner a little pleasure every 
day, and ther's no way a photo or a print (on any but the heaviest 
papers) will stay flat and look nice for any length of time without 
being mounted. I'll bet quite a few valuable prints have been 
damaged over the years by carelesness precisely becuase they were 
unmounted and unprotected.

As for the Cone Museum K - I've been printing with it for a few 
days, about to finish my first cart. My impressions? I like the way 
it looks, it blends well with my customized MIS set, adding just a 
little bit more Dmax. Nothing drastic mind you, but noticeable. The 
tone is very neutral in daylight, but it has a tiny bit of 
metamerism indoors, shifting a bit to the selenium-brown side. 
That's some thing I can live with, I like that much better than the 
yellow-brown of straight MIS black. On the down side, I find myself 
doing more cleaning cycles, almost before every print; I have to do 
at least a nozzle check first, and that gets anoying. I think the 
Museum K simply dries faster. I going to try a few drops of Windex 
on the parking pad every night before I put it to bed, maybe that'll 
help in the morning at least---

Steve K

 In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> >I assume that since ... you also haven't tested dry-mounted 
prints?
> 
> No, I haven't tested them.
> 
> > I would guess that the mount board and
> >glue/tissue would help, if a barrier does indeed make a 
difference?
> 
> That is what I've heard.  Collectors and conservators hate the dry 
mounting
> or any non-reversible process.  However, from what I've heard, 
which is
> consistent with what I've seen, the dry mounted prints are usually 
in better
> shape.  I just received an old mounted print today.  The mount 
board was not
> archival, and the acid has caused it to almost turn to dust.  The 
print,
> however, is in surprisingly good shape.  The mount tissue seems to 
have
> isolated it even from the acidic board, at least to a certain 
extent.
> 
> 
> 
> >> I just bought a 7500 and think it will make a great B&W machine.
> I'm
> >> currently planning on using the coated Epson Archival black
> pigment mixed as
> >> an FS/Piezo-compatible "quad."  I'll print with the Epson driver
> an use the
> >> double-cyan ink placement method.  (In short, I'm going to go 
with
> the
> >> Epson-coated pigs rather than rely on post-printing coating to
> protect the
> >> individual pigment particles.  Whether I use post-printing 
coating
> for dmax
> >> and physical protection depends on other factors.)
> 
> >Is it possible to buy the Epson archival black in bottles, or are
> <you sucking it out of cartridges?
> 
> It'll be pulled out of 10000 carts.
> 
> > Also, What is the double-cyan ink placement method?
> 
> I'm going to try cyan in both cyan and magenta, and then the 
magenta density
> in both the light/photo positions.  Yellow (lightest FS/Piezo ink) 
will stay
> in the yellow position.
> 
> >... I did go ahead with the 7500-
> 
> Congratulations.
> 
> >...I do like the idea of an Epson arch. K inkset,
> >that would put my mind to rest, even if it cost a bit more.
> 
> The 10000 carts can be purchased for in the $130 range.  That 500 
ml is
> mostly diluted for the midtones.  The black will get you up to 2.2 
on RC
> paper.  That dmax and 100+ years are something to think about.
> 
> I still prefer the matte look, even if the dmax is lower.  For 
matte, the
> Archival K dmax is closer to 1.50.  Too bad.  I'm leaning toward 
the Cone
> Museum K for that.  The fade tests Cone published for the Museum K 
look very
> good, as do the prints I've made with an initial purchase of 4 
oz.  The 220
> ml "universal" cart is about $75.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com