Digital BW, The Print

Steve,

I've found that the print surface seems to look slightly "smoother" if 
the glop is applied with the other inks as the image is printed and if 
the glop ink limit is set at 10%.  Prints made with higher glop limits 
(I tried 10, 20, 50, 75, and 100) take longer to dry and don't look as 
smooth (slight gloss differential).  Limiting the glop application is 
of course also cost effective.  I also found that Epson Premium 
Semigloss looked very good, but Ilford Smooth Pearl, Epson Premium 
Semimatte, and Pictorico Gallery High Gloss White (not the film) also 
gave excellent results (the latter only if you like a high gloss 
finish).  Surprisingly, I did not get good results with IJA 
Microceramic Luster (bronzing was still visible after coating) so there 
are some RC papers that are problematic.  I've been doing these tests 
with a custom inkset in my 2200 consisting of the MIS UT-FSN quad inks 
plus the UT2 warm gray and sepia inks.  I use three QTR profiles for 
neutral, carbon, and sepia toned prints.  The glop is in the black 
cartridge slot because no black ink is needed with these profiles (the 
dark grays are sufficient to generate a dmax in the 2-2.2 range).  A 
flat toner curve is used in the profiles to apply the glop evenly 
across the print.  These are the first B&W prints I've made on RC 
papers that have absolutely no bronzing or gloss differential.  I put a 
Glop archive with the profiles (both .txt and .quad files) and toner 
curve on my filesharing site for anyone who wishes to try them.

I also made some neutral prints on Epson Premium semigloss using the 
Epson UC inks in my 4000 with two QTR profiles (one K-less and the 
other with PK ink) and then coated with glop in my 2200 with various 
glop levels using your BO overlay technique.  Unfortunately I could not 
get rid of the bronzing completely on either print with glop (even at 
levels of 120%).  I don't know if applying the glop with the UC inks 
(as I do with the MIS UT FSN/UT2 inks in the 2200) would make any 
difference or not.  I suspect that the glop just works better at 
eliminating bronzing with the MIS UT class inks than with the Epson UC 
inks.

Carl

http://homepage.mac.com/scho/FileSharing2.html

On Dec 20, 2004, at 9:21 PM, Steven Karafyllakis 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” 
> AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>