Digital BW, The Print

Haven't had the chance to try the new papers yet, but after reading 
Walt's comments, I was wondering if the "gloss issue" he mentions has 
to do with the micro encapsulation of the K3 inks. Has anyone tried 
the MIS K4 inks in a x800(or 2400) on these papers? MIS states that 
their K4 inks are "not as glossy as the Epson K3 inks".
The reason I'm asking is that I'm getting close to point of having to 
get ink for my 4800, and now that MIS has gotten their problems 
resolved with their funnel fill carts, I am once again rethinking the 
K4 inks set.

KeithR 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets" 
<odets@...> wrote:
>
> Folks-
> 
> I've finally gotten a box of Crane Silver Rag and had a quick and 
> dirty look.  I did this simply by printing an auto nozzle check 
> (solid rectangles) with the MK still in the printer, just wanting 
to 
> see what the ink looked like on the surface.  This is a 4800 with 
K3 
> inks.
> 
> If I leave out the MK swatch, the ink is *much* glossier than the 
> paper itself--the ink looks like something laminated to the surface 
> of the paper.  So, I am imaging that an image would show 
significant 
> gloss differential between very open highlights and more dense 
areas 
> of the image, as well as between dense areas of the image and the 
> paper surround.
> 
> In comparing the CSR to a few silver gelatin, fiber, gloss, matte-
> dried prints, the SR is actually more matte than the fiber paper.  
> The gloss of the ink is a closer match to the gelatin paper.
> 
> Though the CSR doesn't really look like a matte-dried paper, I like 
> the look and find it very "photographic."  But with the K3 inks, I 
> can't see that it would be useful without a Print Shield spray or 
> something like that.
> 
> Any comments on evaluating the paper/ink in this way or on my 
> observations?
> 
> Thanks,
> Walt
>