Digital BW, The Print

One more note: after posting this, I took the GLOP cart out of the 
1280, flushed the head again and replaced the K dye ink I got a good 
nozzle check quickly, there don't seem to be any ill effects so far.

-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:
> 
> Hello All;
> 
> I received the bottle of MIS Gloss Optimizer (GLOP) this past 
> Thursday and have some results to report that anyone using UC inks 
> on RC papers will find very interesting.
> 
> The first tests were done with MIS UC-clones in a 7600, with Eboni 
> K. First tests indicate that the GLOP is NOT compatible with EBONI-
> it not only doesn't help it in any way, but a heavy enough coat 
> causes the ink to bead and craze and generally look very ugly.  I 
> then took out the Eboni and replaced it with MIS Universal K, an 
ink 
> I was not very pleased with when I first tried it. I will probably 
> wind up using with MIS PK. As my final solution for RC papers. 
> 
> The first quick test I did was to put some in a cheap ($20.00) 
> Badger air brush and spray it on a couple different papers, just 
to 
> see if it was worth the effort to proceed.  Results: GLOP does 
less 
> than nothing for matte papers-it actually hurts the DmaX a bit. On 
> semi-matte RC paper, with the eboni ink, any area that was pure 
> Eboni was basically un-affected with a light coat, but any other 
> area showed an increase in Dmax, an major improvement in the 
clarity 
> and depth of the image tones, and not even a hint of bronzing or 
> differential glossing of the surface. Definitely worth pursuing 
> further!
> 
> I then pulled out the old 1270, flushed the K head with ammonia 
> window cleaner (Windex) and put a virgin cart filled with GLOP in 
it.
> It took three cleaning cycles to get the old junker giving a clean 
> nozzles test (you have to do it on glossy paper so you can see the 
> change in reflectivity of the GLOP). I then set in on BO did a 
> print, and discovered that ....the printer was useless. The C and 
M 
> nozzles that had been misfiring in color would shut off in BO.
> 
> Well, 'in for a penny, in for a pound' I thought, and repeated the 
> procedure with my 1280, which up until now has had nothing but 
dyes 
> in it, and has very little wear. The nozzle check was good the 
first 
> time, so I overprinted several pages of test images I had prepared 
> the night before. The papers I tested were:
> 
> Epson Premium Glossy
> Ilford Classic Gloss
> Epson Premium Semi-matte-250
> Proof-line Photo glossy DP
> Oriental Graphica Lustre
> Proof-line Semi-matte/DP
> Proof-line Photo Lustre
> 
> The 'image' was a simple 100% black rectangle applied through 
> the 'color controls' setting with only the black ink, at 1440 dpi 
> and high speed on.
> 
> Results:
> 
> Glossy papers: The Epson PGPP and the PL glossy respond 
essentially 
> the same way: a single average coat completely eliminated any hint 
> of bronzing, and kicked up the Dmax and color saturation enough to 
> make it worth the effort. One coat however did not even out the 
> gloss, there was still an obvious difference between lightly inked 
> highlights and heavier areas. It took a second pass through the 
> printer to achieve even gloss, though I'm hard pressed to see any 
> real improvement otherwise.
> On these two papers and the semi-mattes, the GLOP dried as quickly 
> as ink would, so running them through a second time was not a 
> problem. The GLOP also reduced the overall shine of the paper 
> considerably, to more of a smooth semi-gloss that looks much 
closer 
> to air-dried Fiber-Based paper than anything else I've seen so 
far. 
> This was especially true of the Epson PGPP
> 
> The Ilford Classic Glossy takes a long time (days) to really dry 
> out, so waiting 12 hrs before coating it may not have been enough 
> for a fair test. This paper takes UC inks without any bronzing at 
> all, but the surface remains fragile even after ti has dried. When 
I 
> cotaed it, the coating showed un-evenness in the form of lines 
> parallel to print head travel, even though none of the other 
papers 
> had that problem at the same settings. A heavier coating on the 
> other half of the test sheet did not help much, and the entire 
sheet 
> showed roller and pizza-wheel marks. Perhaps this would work in a 
> wide-format printer where ther are no rollers after the head, but 
> with the smaller printers I'm not optimistic. Too bad, since this 
> kind of paper gets the best longevity ratings in the RC category.
> 
> The Semi-matte/Lustre papers also responded similarly to each 
other 
> as a group: They coated evenly with only one coat, gained in DMAX, 
> color saturation and depth of tone, no longer showed any hint of 
> bronzing, the gloss was perfectly even for all of them. In this 
> case, instead of reducing the shine, the GLOP increased it, to the 
> point that the only real difference between the semi-mattes and 
the 
> glossies was a bit more 'tooth' in the former. And of course the 
> second coat needed for the glossy paper. Of the four I tested, I 
> preferred the final look of the Proof-Line and Epson semi-mattes-
> Epson has the smoothest texture of the group, but the Proof-Line 
> appears to give the best dmax, but the difference is subtle on 
both 
> counts. As I don't have a densitometer I can't verify subtle Dmax 
> differences, and I'm not sure I would even bother with the 
Universal 
> K ink. With the coating it becomes almost acceptable, but I expect 
> either Epson or MIS Photo K to be much better.
> 
>  The Proof-Line papers are part of some sample-packs from 
Adventure 
> Cam Photo that I'm testing. At first blush they seem to be a very 
> respectable group of papers, though I need to do more comparisons 
to 
> really decide if any of them will replace what I'm currently 
using. 
> If I can find a way to apply GLOP to a wide-format print with-out 
> buying a third large printer, the PL semi-matte may become my 
medium 
> of choice for the large display prints I need for my clients. 
> Coated, and properly profiled, the overall look of the paper would 
> be indistinguishable from the Fuji Lustre RA paper I used until 6 
> months ago. 
> 
> So, to summarize: yes, despite speculation to the contrary, it 
works 
> as an overcoat for glossy and particularly lustre papers, and it 
is 
> well worth doing if you have a way to do it. Even spraying it on 
was 
> relatively easy-it doesn't stink (though I would still avoid 
> breathing it) and it is fairly easy to get a fine, even coat, at 
> least with the model-maker's airbrush I used.
> 
> Now I'm looking for a large format GLOP solution
> 
> Steven Karafyllakis
> 
> http://www.stevekphoto.com