Digital BW, The Print

Footnote 1 suggests that prototype K3s were used....I think they are all
over the place and Wilhem likely is simply under pressure to support the
Epson promotion.  I have tried to get an ETA on the new printers from
Calumet here in London to no avail.  I do think I am likely to be an early
jumper on one of these - albeit I can't make my mind up as to whether the
extra size of the 4800 really is that much bigger than the 2400....


> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 08:55:37 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Epson K3 Inkset Permanence Rating
> 
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/9800.html
> 
> 
> The Note on the right of the introduction of the B&W section says: "The
> Display Permanence Ratings given here are based on long-term testing with
> the previous generation of UltraChrome inks."
> 
> So, we have no specific new B&W display life information.
> 
> The WIR note continues: "WIR testing to date with UltraChrome K3 inks
> indicates that significant increases in Display Permanence Ratings for
> black-and-white prints can be expected because the three-level, high-stable
> carbon pigment based black inks in the UltraChrome K3 inkset largely replace
> the ... color inks ..."
> 
> The introduction also notes, "The last of the Iris Graphics continuous flow,
> dye-based inkjet printers originally used by Nash Editions was retired in
> December 2004."
> 
> It all makes me wonder if Epson may be re-thinking its "Giclee" marketing
> and predominantly "proprietary dyes and pigments" Material Safety Data Sheet
> description of their black inks.
> 
> I hope someone who buys a 2400 will supply me with a test strip to test
> against the MIS UT inks as soon as possible.  That should be interesting.
> 
> Meanwhile I see Kodak has yet another new top management person. Good luck.
> It's going to be hard to watch the Titanic attempt to steer away from the
> iceberg with its way too small rudder.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com