Digital BW, The Print

I might add that I published a formula for a UC-based UT7 clone.  One small
company evaluated it and concluded they could not make money with it.

If I thought it was the Holy Grail of inks, I'd be using it.  When the inks
are purchased in the largest carts available, the costs are not outrageous.
But, the MIS pigs did significantly better in my fade tests unless the
UC-based quad prints were sprayed with PremierArt Print Shield, which lowers
the dmax of matte prints.  (The MIS inks act like their base already has
some UV absorbing and/or sealing characteristics.)

So, since I really don't have any significant trouble with MIS inks, for me
they are better and easier than the Epson inks -- not to mention much
cheaper.

On the other hand, for someone who is just not comfortable with third party
inks, UC-based inksets are definitely possible.  If there was enough demand
from them, one of the companies would mix them.  Any one can do the mixing,
and the ink can be filtered as it is loaded into carts (really only relevant
for large format printers).

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 


>> From: Bob Frost [mailto:bob@...]
> 
>> Because so few people would buy them, Epson would 
>>not sell enough of them or
>> of their inks to make a profit. Quite simple!


> From: "joelpickford" <joelpickford@...>
> 
> Why can't this industry get black and white right???!!!  
>It seems so obvious to me as a
> frustrated power user what needs to be done.  
>The good ideas that are out there simply
> need to be properly implemented and combined with the right materials:
> 
> 
> Epson clearly knows how to manufacture pigment inks that do not clog, 
>but they have too
> much of a big corporate one-size-fits-all mentality to bother with B&W.
> Are you listening Epson???!!!  
>All they would have to do is create various dilutions of their
> "light black" ink,
> which is nearly the same as Cone's "Carbon Sepia."  
>For a cool tone set, a little dye or
> another pigment would just have to be added.
>