Digital BW, The Print

I have spent the last 12 months doing a lot of printing on a 4800 
with the Epson K3 inks and the ABW driver – about 600, mostly Super 
A3, prints.  I have used some Velvet Fine Art for its excellent dmax 
(routinely in the 1.75 density range), but mostly Epson Ultrasmooth 
Fine Art for its superb consistency and quality, lack of OBA's and 
smooth surface (with a dmax around 1.69).  Having been a black and 
white printer for almost 40 years, I found the results with this 
setup excellent.

A few months ago I began to think about Cone's K7 inks and finally 
decided to try them with either Studioprint or QTR.  I was persuaded 
by one of our luminaries on the board to go with QTR and that's what 
I did.   My motivation to try the K7 system was influenced by the 
excellent visual reports of experienced printers; by the possibly 
greater stability (permanence) of the K7s; and because of my 
discomfort with the *idea* of color dots in the highlights with K3 
(visible only at 7X or more magnification in my experience).  All 
more-or-less in that order.  The K7 is also slightly cheaper than the 
Epson inks, but not much ($600 vs. $655 for a full set of 220ml 
carts, the Epson inks purchased from IT Supplies).

I have used QTR Create ICC profiles with both setups, and here are my 
impressions to date.

1. The changeover of inks was relatively easy and the Cone people 
were extraordinarily responsive on the few issues I need clarified.
2. The Cone profiles for QTR are excellent, obviously very carefully 
done.  In measuring targets for ICC profiles, they are ruler straight 
(very linear) and almost obviate the need for ICC profiling.
3. The provided profiles cover a decent range of papers, but not the 
two I've used with the K3 inks.
4. The dmax of the K7 fall measurably and visibly short of what I'm 
used to with the Epson ink/paper combinations.  On HPR, the 
K7/Cone/QTR turns in about 1.656 and EEM (which I use only for 
proofing) about 1.572.  I find the HPR figure acceptable, but not the 
best.
5. The K7's do a have a smooth, "photographic" look that makes the 
Epson system look a very, very tiny bit artificial compared to a 
silver print.  This is an extremely small difference.
6. The highlights of the K7's seem a bit dull compared to the K3 
prints.   I am guessing that this is a product of one of 
the "advantages" of the K7: because of the extra ink tones, the 
highlights are composed of a more even inking (less dottiness) than 
the Epson system.  The K3 highlights allow some paper to show 
through, creating a slight split-toning effect because of the 
different grays of ink and paper.  At the moment, I visually favor 
the Epson look in this regard.   The print is simply livlier and more 
nuanced.  The K7/HPR prints seems a little dead in comparison, but 
probably more like a silver print.
7. The highlight issue (in #6) is the biggest difference between 
visual observation of the two systems.   Otherwise the results are 
very, very similar.
8. My impressions are influenced by use of different papers with the 
two ink sets.  With the K3 inks, HPR was never one of my favorites.  
It seemed mediocre compared to the two Epson papers.  Dmax for the 
K3/HPR typically ran about 1.657 (which is virtually identical to 
what I get from the K7/HPR) and it displayed no other special 
virtues, other than its name, to my eyes.
9. Producing custom profiles for the QTR/K7 setup looks like a lot of 
work, particularly because of the number of inks.  For me this 
suggests staying with Cone-produced profiles.

So at this point I'm going to stay with and work with the K7's for a 
while (the ink changeover wasn't *that* easy).   The K7 prints look 
excellent alone or compared to a silver print, but not compared to a 
K3 print.

Good wishes,
Walt