Digital BW, The Print

Terry,

>Paul, are you still using UT-3D in your smaller inkjets, 
>and will you continue to use and develop the inkset/profiles?

>> Paul Roark wrote:
>> ... I'm moving away from blended
>> inksets (more than one pigment type in the same ink, like 
>> carbon plus color pigments) for large format printers. 

My personal concerns about blended inks are mostly aimed at the large format
printers, where my infrequent printing habits have caused me to have trouble
with tone shifts.  It's too early to know whether the non-blended ink B&W
approach solves the problem, but I assume it will at least make a
significant improvement.  So, I just re-loaded my 220 with UT-3D inks. 

On the other hand, as technology moves forward, the writing may be on the
wall for most of the blended inksets.  The success of the k3 approach and
the entry of Canon and HP with similar printers may all be pointing the way
to the future.  I expect the 3800 to be a big success also, and it is a
"large format" printer when it comes to the blended inkset issues that I'm
concerned with.

Add to that the initial feedback that upcoming profiling software seems to
work with the 2400 Y=carbon approach, but the software does not work with
very low gamut blended inks like the UT-3D. There are other factors as well
that work against the blended inks.

So, while I think there will always be markets and uses for the blended B&W
inks, the percentage of B&W digital prints that are made with them will
probably decrease substantially in the next few years.  In fact, I believe
that is exactly what has happened since the introduction of the 2400.  As
the printers and drivers for such printers improve, dedicated B&W inksets
for the middle of the market become rather a moot point.

Still, I expect the EZ and R2 inksets to do well, and there will always be
enthusiasts that just do not want color dots, no matter how small and
invisible, in their B&W prints.  Doing something that improves on what the
big three can do is part of the game for some of us.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com