Digital BW, The Print

Hi Bob,

>Should we not avoid using the term 'Pure Carbon' for pigment inks, 
>since it isn't. The first line in Paul's article is clearer - 
>calling them '100% carbon pigment (no color inks)'. 
>The qualification is important in making it 
>clear what is 100% (not the carbon, but the pigment). 
>A hyphen between carbon and pigment would be even better IMO.

The truth is that we consumers will probably never get access to the entire
chemical makeup of our materials.  This --
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Pigment-dispersion.jpg  -- is my best guess
as to the dispersion approach used on the carbon pigments that are sold by
MIS.  Between what MIS was able to find out from its supplier and my hacking
their web pages, I came up with this as the most probable edge treatment.
(Epson calls the edge treatment of its MK a "solubility" treatment -- which
makes no sense for a pigment.)

I think the hyphenated carbon-pigment may be a good solution, in part
because it also makes clear there are no dyes in the image-forming substance
(as far as we know and can tell from fade tests).

It turns out some of the US government's consumer protection laws and rules
allow the use of statements that imply if not state "pure" or "100%"
whatever when the "impurities" are added to the product to improve it.
Down, wines, and no doubt other products are in this category.  It may be
that the edge effects are in this category.  They may not be image-forming
at all.  For all I know they may evaporate.  On the other hand, there are
also binders that do stay with the pigment, although not necessarily image
affecting.

How much one has to disclose to make the material differences clear to
consumers might not be clear itself.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com