Digital BW, The Print

>I have the same experience with the FSN inks I bought for my 3000 printer.
>The C is greenish, the M is purplish and has almost the same density as Y,
>and Y is also too purplish, but much closer to neutral than M.

UT-FSN-C uses more cyan to blue than do the M and Y.  This was intentional
due to the exaggerated response many papers have in the deep shadows.  This
was mostly the older glossy papers.  The R2 neutral C and M use a more
"normal" ratio.  I've abandoned the FSN-C in favor of the R2. 

My FSN-Y, by the way, is greenish on the papers I use, so I use R2 Neutral
light diluted 1:1.  (The my 7500 I then mix this with 25% warm UT-FS-Y to
get the hue I want.)  I use 2 spectros to measure these things, because
these spectros also don't read the same.  It's real hard to control things
as accurately as we'd like to in B&W. 

There is simply no way I am aware of with current technology to make a
neutral ink that will have the same Lab A on all papers. In general, I want
a positive Lab A in a "neutral" print.  But, I, too, have seen batches of
inks that are way more magenta than the original targets.  (Using the CMY
density readings, the target for "neutral" was C=Y, and M=C+0.01.  This was
taken from my lightly selenium tones silver prints -- Kodak Polymax Fine Art
developed in Dektol.)  

The closeness of the M to Y is the old PiezoBW formula.  The standard
mid-tone dilution for adjacent inks is 0.3.  But FS/Piezo Y=0.5 M, and up at
that dilution the curve is starting to get rather non-linear.  So, the M and
Y are just not that different.  The original UT-Y (lightest carbon) was half
way between the Y and M.

I've abandoned the old FS-M density for my 7500, which is the only printer I
have now that needs a super-light ink.  The middle densities are now the R2
N Light and UT7 LC (or UT2 LM).  This is a standard density that is half way
between C and Y. 

My frustration with the fixed-tone inks obviously goes way back.  The
variable tone inks give one axis control, but that is obviously not adequate
to take care of the Lab A being at a place you don't want it.  The UT-3D is
my hope to get full Lab control in the neutral range.  We'll see.  My
frustration with the fact that few of the inks actually reflect the original
design targets is also becoming obvious with my postings on the issue on
this forum.  Needless to say, sellers don't like to see any dirty laundry
being aired in public.  Again, we'll see if it gets results or backfires.


> pure carbon inks seems like a better idea at this point.

You'll notice the 2400 experiment I posted.  MIS pure carbon and Epson color
-- not blended -- may be the way I'll be with large format.  I have an
experiment going now to see if I can stop the large format separation
problem.  We'll see.

However, the flip side of all this is that I'm also getting almost perfect
C88 prints with the simple MIS EZ inks.  The MIS inks are just un-beatable
bargains for lots of people.  The C88 Crane SR prints I'm getting with High
Speed checked are only matched by the 2400 at RPM.  No other printer and ink
combo I've see can match these two under a loupe.  I'm not even sure a
silver print can match this output.  And the C88 and MIS EZ inks are dirt
cheap.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com