Digital BW, The Print

Hi Steve,

What wax are you using to wax a print?

Thanks,

Scott


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:
> 
> A further report and observations on overcoating with MIS gloss 
> optimizer. Some bad news, I'm afraid, at least for those of us 
using 
> the MIS UC inks.
>  After switching my K from the 'Universal' to MIS PK and gloss-
> coating with the 1280, I started getting some very good dmax, far 
> better than I've gotten with matte K on Photorag. The problems 
> however, started a few hours after making the prints, when the 
gloss 
> coat really started to dry. The dark gray areas gradually lost 
their 
> gloss, and in some cases actually bronzed up again, and looked very 
> flat. Not the results I'd gotten with the full color prints.
> The glossy papers hardly suffered at all, but the semi-matte showed 
> the effect heavily, especially with low-key but not black areas. 
The 
> problem seemd to involve only the dark grays, IOW the LK printed 
> areas. I then did a full-page gray-scale, and coated 5 sections 
with 
> 5 different levels of glop, using the Epson driver sliders to 
> control the lay-down. 
> After dry-down, 2 things became obvious: 1) While the 100% K band 
> retained the gloss, the bands from 95% to about 75% matted and 
> bronzed again. 2) The heaviest glop coat retained the gloss most 
> consistently. 20% may work if you're mixing it into the ink, but 
> this way, you need more like 120% for a solid coat. 
> 
> A later test of the Epson Premium semi-gloss was more successful: a 
> day later the surface felt dry, no visible dry-down effects, and a 
> killer tonal range. So far with this ink combination, the Epson 
> premium semi-gloss is the winner.
> 
> Other papers tested:
> 
> Epson PGPP
> Epson Prem. semi-matte
> Oriental Graphica luster
> Proof-Line semimatte DP and Glossy DP
> Kirkland Glossy (the Swiss-made) 
> 
> I'm hoping that this problem has to do with the MIS LK ink, so I've 
> ordered a cart of the Epson to test; If the Epson ink is better, A 
> much lighter coat might do the job.
> This of course means switching and flushing the LK line, so I'd 
like 
> to put out a request to those list members running QTR on PC who 
> have an idea how to do this, for a curve that will run the LK 
> channel only, at full tilt. Or a description of what it needs to 
> look like at any rate, or a link to that info if it is already 
> available.
> 
> Some further observations-
> 
> Drying the prints before gloss-coating does not seem to be 
> neccessary. The prints I've had least trouble with, I dried quickly 
> with a few seconds of hair drier blast, and fed right through the 
> gloss coat stage. 
> 
> If you use a desktop printer for the gloss, the pizza-wheels MUST 
> go. Even at the slowest feed setting the glop coat is too soft to 
> take the abuse. This causes problems with last half-inch of paper 
if 
> you're overcoating all the way out. Easy enough to allow for it 
with 
> a border.
> 
> Nozzle checks need to be done on an instant-dry glossy or semi-
gloss 
> paper, so you can see the reflection on the pattern, and so the 
> other ink colors don't get on your rollers and then on your next 
> print. I had been using the back of RC paper-the zero absorption 
> makes the gloss coat easy to see, but cost me a couple of otherwise 
> good prints.
> 
> I've had the glop cart in the 1280 for a couple days now, no 
> clogging problems yet, only the occasional cleaning cycle needed, 
so 
> far so good. It hasn't been as trouble-free as running dyes, but 
> easier than pigments.
> 
> The glop is easy to refill in the annoying 1280 carts. I've found I 
> don't have to pull out the remaining ink/foam-I'm getting 10-15ml 
in 
> the bottom with no BS. Wonderfull, considering these carts are 
small 
> and coating an entire piece of paper eats the stuff up in a hurry. 
> Good thing it's cheap in bulk.
> 
> QTR is working very well for this. So far I've used only the EEM 
> profiles for all the RC papers I've tested, and I have no problem 
> fine-tuning any given pair without-split-toning, crossover or 
> visible metamerism. I do have to use the 1440 super and 
> unidirectional printing to get as smooth and micro-banding free a 
> print as I like, but I would use that setting regardless.
> What the heck, I think I'll go ahead and pay for it...
> 
> Print protection being an issue, I tried waxing a couple of the 
> prints that dried properly-it works well, the wax goes on smoothly 
> and easily, and buffs up nicely. No more skid-marks or 
fingerprints, 
> thank you. Very different from trying to wax a straight UC print. I 
> don't know how much protection wax adds, but it's got to be good 
for 
> something more than just smudge resistance.
> 
> That's it so far;
> I'd be interested in hearing from others trying this out, 
> particularly anyone using straight Epson UC inks; any problems?
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis
> 
> http://www.stevekphoto.com