Digital BW, The Print

Paul,

Thanks, this sounds like VERY cost-effective approach.

As I'm starting to reach the end of my current UT3D ink stock for my 
2100, I'm open for another approach . Although still happy with the 
print quality and ease of profiling of UT3D (using QTR).

How would you position the Carbon-6 versus the K4+ for the 2100? Or 
for a 7600/9600 that (of course!) are for long on my wish list? I can 
can also see a hybrid: 3-5 carbon densities + some LM and (L)LC to 
get the ultimate neutral.

I've not so much interest in toning any more (my reason to opt for 
Ut#d at the time), but more in print smoothnes and in achieving truly 
neutral prints.

Thanks,

Joost

 
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
>
> 
> I've updated my PDF that deals with ink mixing and now have it 
focused
> on a specific proposed open-source 100% carbon (Eboni) inkset, 
which I
> call "Carbon-6."  The name is intended, in part, to distinguish it 
from
> Eboni-6, which will use the MIS base and different mixing ratios, 
but
> they clearly are closely related.  Eboni-6, will have a commercial 
base
> and be pre-mixed, and this Carbon-6 will have to be mixed from 
scratch
> by users.
> 
> See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf
> <http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf>
> 
> As I've noted over the last couple of years, I've used and explored 
an
> easy-to-mix ink base that is just water and glycerol.  Actually most
> water-based inkjet inksets are mostly water plus a significant
> percentage glycerol.
> 
> The primary constituent in my experiments that improved the 
smoothness
> of the bare-bones glycerol + water combination was a surfactant or
> wetting agent.   While I've been experimenting with some Dow
> surfactants, I've decided to step back and do long term testing of a
> simple mix using the more readily available Kodak Photo Flo.  It is 
not
> the strongest of this class of chemicals, but it's well known and 
good
> enough for printers with droplet sized greater than 1.5 picoliters. 
> This includes the vast majority of Epson printers.
> 
> Note that adding stronger surfactants may make this inkset slightly
> smoother under a loupe, but they also make it print warmer, which 
is not
> a positive characteristic when one is fighting carbon's tendency to 
have
> an elevated Lab B in these inksets.  So, the strength of the wetting
> agent or surfactant is a double edged sword.   Photo Flo appears to 
be a
> very nice and simple compromise.
> 
> I do still expect MIS to produce Eboni-6, and that remains in my 
7500,
> just as the 3-MK workflow will remain in my 1800.  However, I think 
a
> "home brew" base and carbon inkset that will run on most Epson 
printers
> and is extremely economical might have significant appeal to 
many.   It,
> hopefully, will take the low cost and high stability of the 1800 3-
MK
> workflow to most of the remainder of the Epson printer base.  
Because it
> can use the Epson driver for printing, it lends itself to very easy
> workflows.  The prints are among the smoothest and best I've ever
> produced.
> 
> This is still an experimental inkset.  I have not had it in a 
printer
> for long periods of time.  I have tested a bare bones water + 
glycerol +
> Eboni ink in a 220 for a number of months, including periods of no 
use
> that extended for several weeks, and it did not clog or otherwise 
cause
> any problems.  But the addition of the Photo Flo is new.
> 
> Kodak Photo-Flo 200 is mostly water with 25 - 30% propylene glycol 
and 5
> - 10% wetting agent (p-tert-octylphenoxy polyethoxyethyl alcohol).  
The
> propylene glycol is well know and often used in inskets.  It and
> glycerol are often seen as substitutes.  I have used it with good
> success.  But the wetting agent is a new component that I have not
> tested long term in this context.   I do, of course, have a fairly 
high
> confidence level in it or I would not publish this.
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.PaulRoark.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>