Digital BW, The Print

Paul Roark wrote:

>> ... The MIS 7600 version instead of the MIS Pro 
>> but there isn't much difference in the pigment load.
> 
> They are now, apparently, the same inks.
> 
> The early versions appeared to have a more yellow base.  The latest base is
> closer to neutral.

Paul,

On the Roma canvas we used then + Lascaux varnish (from the 
bottle sprayed or rolled) the shift to yellow was just too 
much. A pity they couldn't inform us of possible changes in 
the base then. There was another issue if I recall it 
correctly: the MIS Pro magenta for the 9800 had another 
pigment load (but the same pigment) than the MIS 7600 
magenta for the 9600 had, you couldn't make the same gamut 
the K3's made and you couldn't get the same gamut the 9600 
with UC or MIS 7600 had.

> Have you seen any evidence that the Epson k3 magenta is better or worse than
> the k2 magenta with respect to lightfastness? 

The time the K3 inks were used was very limited. My friend 
bought the 9800 and within maybe a month it was loaded with 
MIS inks. The same method that I used to convert the 10000 
carts for refilling was used on the 9800 carts, similar 
design but smaller parts. MIS actually didn't know then that 
the Epson 9800 carts needed conversion and I guess the very 
first 9800 MIS clone ink in quantity went to Europe, the 
rest was only used for 2400's in the US then. That was our 
impression when we contacted MIS with questions.

> It sounds like you're becoming an HP fan.  A service bureau I know here is
> becoming a fan of Canon.  It sounds like Epson is losing market share.

Epson needed good competition, I do not underestimate 
Epson's skill to deliver better printers in the future but 
when you control the market there's no urge to do major 
upgrades in technology or to change the service policies. 
Even if you have enough innovations up your sleeve. It is 
just a matter of staying a nose length in front and you keep 
the biggest share with the least effort. Every 3 years a new 
generation that had just enough appeal to attract buyers but 
nothing else. The 3800 gloss / matte black ink selection has 
nothing revolutionary, it could have been done years ago 
(and better) but would have cut ink consumption then. Epson 
got that lead 10 years ago. It milked the cow but was asleep 
when Canon and HP entered the arena.

Apart from all the nice HP Z3100 features there's something 
else that makes HP interesting: it is all over the place in 
the printing world right now: The Scitex inkjet wide formats 
(UV curing inks, solvent inks), the HP 9000 etc solvent 
models (Konica piezo heads),  the new stackable HP pi\ufffdzo 
heads for similar inkjet models, the single array head / 
ultra fast printers based on the same thermo head design the 
Z3100 has, the Indigo printer and there's more. A much wider 
field it wants to play on than Epson (including Seiko) and 
Canon want to play on. There are high volume Canon 
electrostatic printers (not comparable with the Indigo 
though) but it doesn't do anything in the sign market. Epson 
  and Seiko have sold some head designs in the sign market 
but there's no big market share and they are losing ground 
against Xaar, Spectra and Konica heads. And unlike Kodak, 
Fuji, Agfa, Oc\ufffd, that all want to play in that wider field 
HP is developing the high tech parts itself to replace what 
it now buys from companies like Xaar. This isn't a half 
hearted attempt, it will stay in this market.


Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |