Digital BW, The Print

[I¹m reposting this message because, although it shows up in my Sent Mail, I
didn¹t receive a copy via Digital BW email.  Sorry if you are getting it
twice.
HFL]


As the person who started this thread with the question, ³What¹s with MIS?²,
I¹d like to add a comment to my original post.

I had been printing with MIS quadtone inks for quite some time (and I¹ve got
a big carton of empty 4-oz bottles to prove it!) and had been very happy
with the product and with their support.  I then had a 2-year hiatus for
business reasons, but now I¹m back in the game with the R2400 replacing the
original 1160, and the 980 before that.

It was my intention to switch from the UC inks to MIS refillable carts early
on.  I have hesitated following through because all the negative opinions
expressed here painted a picture very much at odds with my earlier
experience.  I guess it¹s true that we are prone to complain loudly when
things go wrong and to be silent when all is well.  So, these posts in
defense of MIS are appropriate and welcome.  Thanks Paul, et al.

I recently bought MIS carts to improve my B&W prints over what I can get
with ABW.  As soon as the current batch of Epson carts need replacing (it
doesn¹t take long), I¹ll put in the MIS carts and be able to speak from
experience.  Better than just integrating all the negative comments and
coming to a questionable conclusion.

And good luck to MIS!

Harry


On 8/17/07 9:28 PM, "Edward Wiseman" <pahts@...> wrote:
> 
> 
>  I absolutely agree with Paul here....My own personal experiences with MIS
> have been both positive and negative, but the bottom line is that they REALLY
> try hard for a small company to fill a void and a need for us photographers..I
> would hate to see this MIS bashing deteriorate into the loss of  a GREAT
> resource such as I feel they have been for myself after doing business with
> them for over 5 years.. I print  my B&W's with a 1280 and their UT2 inks  and
> their spongeless carts (yes..a few did have leaks in the
> beginning..)..virtually trouble and clog-free for over a year now....Which is
> more than I can say for any CIS/CSF system I have used (with 2 1160's and 2
> other 1280's)
>  I think it's time to turn this discussion into a more positive vein....My
> black and white printing has was NEVER this good in the old WET darkroom days,
> and my productivity has increased immeasurably  in a great part due to the
> effort, products and support that this company has provided..
> Enuff said..
> 
> Eddie Wiseman
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Paul Roark
>  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
>  Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 8:57 PM
>  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: What's with MIS?
> 
> I'm not here to defend MIS or sell its products, nor am I here to take shots
>  at any company. I have no monetary relationships with any.
> 
> Neither MIS nor any other company has perfect products or support.
>  Clogging, cartridge quality, and customer support seem to be the main themes
>  in this thread, and each involves slightly different issues.
> 
> With respect to clogging, from what I can tell all inkjets can clog.
>  Pigments are said to clog more than dyes, but my old HP dye printers sure
>  did clog.
> 
> The information I've been able to get indicates that most of the pigment
>  particles themselves from the various competitors are close to the same
>  size, and all are so small that the particle sizes are rather irrelevant.
>  They are way smaller than the nozzles. The problem is agglomerations of
>  pigment particles, and that is probably unrelated to the minor differences
>  in particle sizes among the competing inksets we use. The base and how well
>  it disperses the particles is much more important.
> 
> (There are a number of factors to clogging that have nothing to due with the
>  inks, like capping station adjustment, but I'll ignore these here.)
> 
> The chemistry of the base is the main variable in the inks that seems to
>  affect how prone they are to clogging. In that respect, all of the
>  companies appear to have improved their products over the years I've been
>  involved. I just do not consider clogging a serious issue with today's
>  pigments and printers, whether they are Epson, MIS or Piezo inks.
> 
> How much an ink may be prone to clogging involves a combination of factors
>  including the binder used, as well as the solvents and other agents in the
>  base. If, for example, a base had no binder, it would probably not clog
>  very much if at all. Of course, the pigments would also fall off the paper.
>  In that respect, I use the MIS "UC" base, diluted 50% with distilled water,
>  as a cleaning and storage fluid. It has no binder because the Epson UC pigs
>  rely on their coatings to stick them to the paper. Of course, these
>  coatings can also cause the particles to stick together and stick to the
>  nozzles. But I'd guess that the less binder, the less the likelihood of
>  clogging, all else being equal.
> 
> Glossy paper compatibility requires a different binder -- and probably more
>  -- than matte paper. I suspect one can make a matte paper only pigment that
>  clogs less than one that must be able to stick on glossy paper.
> 
> Epson's MK pigments have no coating and must, therefore, have a binder in
>  the base just like MIS Eboni. On the other hand, both are compatible with
>  matte paper only. I'd guess they both clog about equally, but I've never
>  run any objective tests on that. I've never had significant problems with
>  either.
> 
> In general, MIS is a reseller of Image Specialists inks, and that company is
>  a major supplier to many third party companies and industrial users. That
>  and the even larger companies above it are where the sophisticated chemistry
>  is done.
> 
> The cartridge issue is mostly a question of what quality MIS can buy. For
>  example, the spongeless carts are wonderful when they seal, but a
>  significant number appear to have problems with their exit port poppet
>  valves. A significant part of what MIS does is search for the best carts at
>  the best prices. In general they've done a good job, but they -- and we --
>  are dealing with a quality issue that is not totally within MIS's control.
>  From what I can tell, they receive a test batch and then have to buy in
>  quantity to get good prices. The shipments of production carts do not
>  always match the quality of those in the initial test shipment. Not
>  surprisingly, much of this seems to come from China. So, the bottom line
>  seems to be that about 1/3 of my spongeless carts will leak when I pull the
>  stopper to refill them. I may just throw the leaky ones away and use
>  another, new spongeless cart. Even if it takes 2 carts to find one that is
>  perfect, the price is still a fraction of what the alternatives are.
> 
> I hear a mixed bag in terms of customer support. The truth is that this
>  list has more experience with most of the problems than the people at MIS.
>  MIS is a handful of employees in a small company, and they spend most of
>  their time searching for products to meet consumer demand, filling orders,
>  and doing all the other things that need to be done to run a small business.
>  MIS is not a group of B&W photographers and printer experts. Frankly, the
>  appeal of this company from my perspective is based on this. They simply
>  provide what the market wants. That is their business model. They do not
>  push any agenda; they simply react to the market. As such, they have been
>  an excellent source of very competitively priced inks and accessories. And,
>  while I was not active at the very beginning, I believe that MIS was
>  actually the first commercial supplier of inks to B&W experimenters on the
>  forums that preceded this Yahoo list.
> 
> Regardless of all the above, I'm very aware that our materials are not
>  perfect by any means. As I go forward, the workflows I develop and use
>  reflect not only what I think make the best prints (from my perspective),
>  but also which workflows are the easiest, including avoiding the problems
>  that have surfaced regarding our materials, printers and drivers. Like
>  most, I want the best for the least -- time and money. Right now, for what
>  I do, MIS supplies what I need to accomplish this, particularly with their
>  Eboni MK.
> 
> My main concern is not the minor problems that are reported here with
>  respect to MIS, but whether Epson will be able to succeed in its effort to
>  choke off all third party competition. MIS provides some outstanding inks
>  at prices that, if one refills carts, are about 1/10th the OEM prices, based
>  on equal quantities. This drops to even less if one uses the denser inks
>  more. With the 100% Eboni approach, the ink costs simple become trivial.
>  So, I'm definitely willing to put up with an occasional leaky cart for these
>  price difference, particularly when the third party products give me B&W
>  prints that are, from my perspective, better than any Epson inkset can
>  accomplish.
> 
> So, what's with MIS? I think they are just a small company doing the best
>  they can at their price point and under the circumstances that include the
>  huge dominant players trying to cut off all cart supplies.
> 
> Paul
>  www.PaulRoark.com
> 


-- 

Harry F. Lockwood




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