Digital BW, The Print

John,

>Does anyone have reliable info on the true permanence o UT7 pigment inkset
>by MIS? ...

See my latest fade test results.  UT7 is essentially the same as UT2 in
terms of longevity.

>I still need reliable confirmation in order to sell work for exhibitions
>and galleries, etc.

What I do is just compare to Epson and then use the Wilhelm numbers.  The
color pigments are not as lightfast as the black (carbon) pigments.  The
Wilhelm color v. "B&W" shows this, as do my tests.  Yet, the Wilhelm "B&W"
tests are of UC images that are still mostly color pigment.  Thus those
numbers put a very conservative floor on what these true B&W (predominantly
carbon) inksets can do.

Of course, no gallery cares what I say, so for marketing purposes a B&W
inkset that uses only Epson inks might be really help from a marketing point
of view.  That is why I'll publish at least a first draft of an Epson
UC-based variable-tone inkset.  Then any enterprising person or small
company can fine-tune and market it (no royalties to anyone).  I suspect a
commercial outfit other than MIS might mix and market such an inkset.  

I want competition and acceptance of our medium, and I think we're making
progress.

>I know from past experience there is a lot of misinformation out there from
>Cone's early proclamtions of "carbon pigment the oldest substance known to
>mankind" when they later addmitted to me they were realisticly rated at 50
>years in average daylight ..

The carbon is tough stuff.  It's the dye that was also in the inks that were
the problem.  I decided to do my own fade testing because of this type of
hype and misinformation.  Life is too short to wait for Wilhelm or RIT to
test everything, and they never will.

>Does anyone have substantial print permanene data on the new 
>MIS black channel pigment ink apart from the in house MIS tests? 
>Who can confirm their superiority to the UC matte 
>black or Cone's black for that matter.

My rather simple fluorescent light fade testing suggests that the Epson UC
Matte Black is perhaps a hair more lightfast that Eboni (the differences
were so small they might be testing artifacts), but it's also considerably
warmer.  Both are about the best inks I've ever tested.  The Cone Museum
black tests out as essentially the same as Eboni.  I think Eboni is the way
to go.

As to fade testing, I take with a grain of salt any "years of display"
rating. I'm also well aware of the pros and cons of the various light
sources and a number of other variables in the testing.  From my
perspective, however, the results are simply good enough to be useful
guides, especially when I find they correlate well with other published
tests. 

Why doesn't MIS hire Wilhelm?  Well, they did pay RIT once, and those
results were published and very useful.  Now I'd guess MIS just doesn't
think it's a good investment now, however.  

Having me out here is a mixed bag for them.  After all, if they paid, for
example, Wilhelm to test the UT7 inkset, they'd probably just be getting the
results only to find I published my initial results for a possible UT8
inkset that showed there might soon be an inkset that is considerably
better.  

The field is moving so fast, and MIS is so small, that it is hard for them
to get a return from any investment in a singe inkset.  Epson can sell a
thousand carts in a day.  MIS, on the other hand, might be stuck with a
large and expensive inventory of obsolete carts.  They have to do the
filling in high volume to get the cost per cart reasonable.  But if I
obsolete their inventory too fast, that and any other investment in any
particular inkset is just wasted.  

I doubt this will satisfy your galleries, but these inksets are good and
getting better.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com