Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "lambonick" <BMWNick@i...> 
wrote:
> 
> --- 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.


Sorry about the terminology -- yes I mean't straight, original UT inks that are 
colorwise the same as the old VM.

Roy