Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> 
wrote:
> >What are the UT-VM inks? Are these MIS?
> 
> The original UT inkset was an upgrade of the old MIS VM inkset.  It used the
> same densities as the old one and worked reasonably well with the older
> curves for most printers.
> 
> The old MIS VM inkset actually started life as my "Variable-Piezo" inkset
> for my 1160.  MIS made a hextone version of it by simply moving the toner to
> the M spot from the Y position, so that it could benefit from the light ink.
> Then the toner and C inks were diluted for the light positions.
> 
> This inkset, on a 1280, produced the smoothest highlights I'd ever measured
> with my scanner at 1600 dpi (using the histogram standard deviation tool to
> get an objective measure).
> 
> The UT inkset is still sold by MIS.
> 
> I would stay away from the old MIS VM inkset.  Those old pigs warmed up and
> faded considerably more than the UT family of inks.  I wish they were off
> the market. 
> 
> The UT2 inkset came out of a project that had several goals.  One was to get
> better glossy printing.  As you can see from another thread here, the glossy
> materials are maturing into what some of use think is the closest thing to
> the air-dried silver prints we used to make.  In fact, I think they are now
> visually better than the old silver prints.  However, the UT inkset did a
> poor job on glossy papers.  One of the reasons was due to the inks being too
> light.  They flood the surface and cause much more roughness than do denser
> inks.
> 
> So, if ultimate smoothness under a loupe with matte paper is the goal, then
> the UT (aka UT-1) inkset might be what you'd want.  Those light inks,
> however, will exclude you from top notch glossy printing, which may be a
> huge part of the future of this medium.
> 
> Note also that the UT-1 inkset curves are more difficult to tweak, it cannot
> do sepia printing, and it cannot use the Glop to control the bronzing on
> glossy (Premium Semimatte included) papers.
> 
> So, it's a matter of compromising the various characteristics.  At any
> normal viewing distance I doubt many would be able to tell the difference
> between the inksets in terms of smoothness.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 

Thanks Paul,

I'm not sure this actually answers my question, unless I am too dense to read between the 
lines! I was initially confused because Roy's reference was to a UT-VM inkset, but from 
both your answer and the MIS website, it seems there is no UT-VM inkset, that the 2 terms 
are mutually exclusive. Unless by UT-VM he means the UT inks, which I understand from 
your message grew out of the VM inkset.