Digital BW, The Print

Hi John,

>... I have a 7500 ...
> I'm thinking I'll turn it over to b&w, using QuadtoneRIP,...

> But what gives me pause is my current large quadtone 
> printer, a 3000 with FSN inkset. The 3000 gives very 
> satisfactory prints with the Piezography/R9 plugin. 
> With Quadtone rip, prints are almost as smooth, except 
> in the highlights where details that are easily seen
> with the plugin are gone.

Interesting.  I'd assume QTR at the highest resolution it supports for the
3000 would be machine limited, but maybe not.

> That's why I'm obsessing over what to do...
> just go with an affordable MIS solution like UT, 
> or would I get substantially better results with 
> K6 at $120/pint. ...

> Are people happy with the 7500 running 4 shades of black + toner?

My 7500 with this inkset -- http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/4K+.pdf -- does
not produce totally smooth test strips, but the display prints look fine.
I'm not sure how many others use this setup.

> For a UT solution, developing my own profiles with QTR: 
> Do you think I could (save a bundle and) get away with 
> keeping three of the six G6 inks now in the printer: 
> keeping the matte black; and keeping the cyan
> and light cyan as toner;

You'd want the LC and LM as the toners.

I'd dilute the LC 1:1 like it did.  It makes a difference in the 7500.  In
fact, even further dilution might make sense if it's still to rough.

> changing out only the C M Y 
> in favor of 75% 50% 25% UT? 

I'm not sure what base the MS G6 inks use, however, I'm guessing they'd be
compatible with the UT inks.

If you did not want glossy compatibility, you could use the MIS UT standard
dark and light carbons (e.g., 3D C & LC), omitting the PK, and then make a
very light gray with the 3D-LC diluted 1 LC to 2 base.  (This is the usual
dilution ratio.)  The standard UT C and LC are a bit darker than the LK and
LLK.  This gives you a better spacing on your grays and a super-light one
for the highlights.

Good luck with the project.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com