Digital BW, The Print

Ding, ding, ding round 2...



From: failedthespian <failedthespian@yahoo.co.uk>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:41:41 -0000
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: New graduated black inks - beta testers wanted
please

 
 
 

Steve and Paul

Our inks are tested to an internationally accepted standard; the Blue
Wool Scale (BWS).  This is an internationally accepted ISO standard that
has been in existence for over eighty years; whereas the Wilhelm test
has not.  The BWS test is in use by the worlds' most respected
institutions - whereas the Wilhelm test is not.

The BWS does not predict fade properties in terms of years.  Most
informed students will understand that due to reciprocity failure it is
disingenuous to claim that a particular ink will have a fade free life
of a certain number of years.  And yet organisations like Wilhelm
continue to churn out figures conferring that this ink or that ink has a
life expectancy of X.  This is rubbish!

We know that certain inks that have been accredited with having a life
of seventy years, and yet the magenta and light magenta components of
these ink sets failed to get past BWS2.  This is a truly dreadful state
of affairs.

The Fine Art Trade Guild sets a minimum standard of BWS6 for all inks
that are to be used for prints intended to be displayed.  We know from
our own BWS testing that a considerable number of so called "archival"
inks accredited by Wilhelm would fail this basic test.

I trust this answers your point.

Paul Banks
Image Alchemy Ltd

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> It sounds like we're all interested in some of the same things.
>
> > I'm also eternally curious, so I'm interested,
> > but I'd like more info first.
>
> >...
>
> > At least 50% of my printing is sepia, and I mean
> > deep sepia, not the carbon-ink warmtone...
>
> I'm going to put LC, LM and Y, (along with K, LK and LLK) in a 220 at
Golden
> Trout workshop.  I think this arrangement allows the full range of
what most
> will want and be very flexible.  I think we'll end up generating a lot
of
> profiles that will be useable in a wide range of printers with these
> standard inks.
>
> How are you generating your deep sepia?
>
> With the old sepia I mixed for the UT2/7 toners, it was 8% Y, 8% M,
and the
> remainder the UT-LC (light carbon, about 50% LK).
>
>
> >F) You claim a fade resistance of ISO 105 - B02 standard of BWS 7.
> >What does that mean in either Wilhelm or real-time years,
> >and where can I find more info on the standards?
>
> It's hard to compare inks unless they are subject to a comparison test
on
> the same paper and in the same fader at the same time.  Wilhelm and
RIT are
> trusted third parties that can probably keep their variables under
control,
> but for most a comparison to a known sample like an Epson or MIS ink
is what
> I want to see.  The test conditions also, of course, need to be
disclosed so
> that we can evaluate the various factors that might influence the
outcome.
>
> >D) Your DIPS continuous inking system ...
>
> I suspect all of these CIS/CFS systems are subject to the same
problems I've
> experienced and measured in the large format printers.  Only regular
users
> should consider them with blended B&W inksets.  For high volume work
they
> do, however, make sense.  If Epson manages to cut off our carts, all
of us
> third party ink users may be using them.  That's really no problem,
> particularly if we use a non-blended, standard ink approach.
>
> With respect to CFS/CIS designs, I do like the idea of the dampers
being
> between the tubes and the heads like in large format printers.  These
> easy-to-change, cheap items have screens in them that can catch the
clumps
> before they get into the heads.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

 
    



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]