Digital BW, The Print

I am using the MIS K4 PK ink with semi-matte.  I had some trouble  
getting smooth tonal transition with the R2-PKN so I switched back to  
the K4 PK ink.  All of the semi-matte profiles I posted are for use  
with the K4 PK.

http://homepage.mac.com/scho/FileSharing3.html

On Dec 25, 2005, at 7:34 AM, mambo445 wrote:

> I am planning to use Semi-Matte paper with my 2400. I have also
> purchased the MIS K4 inkset but after reading your comments on R2-PKN
> versus K4-PK, I am questioning whether I bought the right PK.
>
> Is the ink load on the R2-PKN and K4-PK the same? Why do you think you
> getting higher DMAX on the R2-PKN versus K4-PK?
>
> Is the tone on Semi-Matte more neutral with the R2-PKN or just higher
> DMAX or both when compared to K4-PK?
>
> Also is the lack of bronzing and metamerism that you noticed with
> K4-PKN, the same with R2-PKN?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
> <scho@m...> wrote:
>>
>> I've been using the MIS k4 inks in my 2400, both with MK (Eboni) and
>> PK (mostly the latter).  I provided some comparisons of Epson k3 and
>> MIS k4  density measurements  in an earlier thread (see links below),
>> but the bottom line is that Epson k3 PK dmax is slightly higher
>> compared to MIS PK4 on the same papers.  Dmax differences between
>> Epson k3 MK and MIS Eboni are dependant on the paper, in some cases
>> Eboni exhibits higher dmax on 3rd party papers and Epson k3 MK does
>> better on Epson papers (VFA in particular).  On the RC papers with
>> MIS k4 inks surface gloss is noticeably less compared to Epson k3
>> inks on the same papers (a plus in my book) and on my two favorite RC
>> papers (Epson Premium Semimatte and Pictorico Premium Photo Glossy)
>> there is no bronzing or gloss differential as well.  The MIS R2-PKN
>> can also be used if you want a cooler black and slightly higher
>> dmax.  I've only made a few color prints on Epson Premium Semimatte
>> (I made my own profile) with the k4 inks, but they look great and I
>> see no difference compared to Epson k3, other than less gloss and
>> slightly lower dmax.
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/ 
>> 70576
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/ 
>> 70648
>>
>> Carl
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Bob Michaels wrote:
>>
>>> Peter: my excellent experience with the MIS PRO matches yours. I use
>>> it in a 1280. That's why I was hoping the MIS PRO and the K4 were  
>>> the
>>> same. Unfortunately, MIS says the MIS PRO is not usable in a 2400.
>>>
>>> Anyone got a report on how the K4 does?
>>>
>>> Bob Michaels
>>>
>>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwbonkers"
>>> <PeterDLevis@a...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>>
>>>> I cannot answers your question with regards the K4 inks but I did
>>> recently do a
>>>> comparison with MIS Pro vs Epson ink in a 2100.  My friends 2100  
>>>> had
>>> MIS Pro ink and
>>>> mine Epson ink. I  made profiles for Olmec Satin with my EyeOne
>>> using the same settings
>>>> for each setup. We then printer the same test chart from each
>>> printer. Looking at the test
>>>> print side by side it was hard to see much difference. The MIS  
>>>> print
>>> looked to us just as
>>>> good as the Epson print. We were both very impressed by the MIS
>>> print. We also both
>>>> thought that the MIS print exhibited less metamerism than the Epson
>>> print. Apart from
>>>> making a custom profile there was no hassle in using the MIS ink.
>>>>
>>>> One of the reasons for doing the test is that I upgraded my printer
>>> recently to the 2400
>>>> and like yourself I'm interested in the K4 inks. The result of our
>>> simple test has given me
>>>> confidence to try the K4 inks when I have used up my stock of
>>>> Epson ink.
>>>>
>>>> Just for interest we also printed the same test print on my 2400
>>> with K3 Epson inks. The
>>>> 2400 print was the clear winner. The print showed slightly more
>>> detail and saturation but
>>>> the real difference was that there was no metamerism. It showed
>>> quite clearly why the
>>>> 2400 is so good at BW compared to the 2100.
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>
>>>> Regards Peter.