Digital BW, The Print

"Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> wrote:
> ...
> Three remaining questions:
> 1) Are the densities of UT3D and K3 LK/LLKs comparable?

Yes, the 3D Lk and LLK position inks match reasonably closely the densities of standard LK and LLK.

(Note that the light and dark M and C position ink densities match each other but are not the LK-LLK densities; they are darker.  Roughly, the LK is 30% PK, whereas the standard MIS UT-C matches 30% MK.)

> 2) In a 1.5pl printer does a K3 setup (MK+LK+LLK) make any 
> sense or is that overdone and would a K2 setup perform 
> equally well in practice?

It's a trade-off.  The LK is light enough that the vast majority of users will think it is very smooth.  However, the addition of an LLK density ink can make the print smoother, but few would ever see any difference.  I use PK BO for my brochures, and I doubt anyone (perhaps aside from people on this forum) would ever notice the tiny dots.  

There are trade-offs: more inks can give more smoothness, but one loses the spots for other uses and there may be more artifacts on glossy papers.

> 3) Again in a 1.5pl printer, what would be preferable: 
> MK+LK or MK+LLK?If I look to your comments on the 
> 1400-NC3 approach, I would expect MK+LLK.

Part of what influenced me in the NC3 is that the Eb6-Y is far more stable in the suspension than the denser mixes.  It's actually much lighter than needed.  In UT14 the light inks I opted for are the UT-LC density -- quite dark.  In part that is due to that density working better with the Epson driver in default settings.  Again, there are trade-offs.

I think in terms of smoothness, the MK-LK might be very good, but MK-LLK would also work fine.  In the NC2, I used LK (in part due to the HP-PK being available in Lk and that costing less per print than if someone used HP LLK).

Hope this helps.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com