Digital BW, The Print

Wolf wrote:

>I've just completed a comparative test between the Cone inks and the
>MIS FS inks using the Piezo driver ...

>I originally started with the Cone inks / Piezo driver, and ...
>then switched to a cart of the MIS FS inks,...
>...the MIS inks worked with ... a minute tweaking of gamma and
>contrast, (and I do mean minute)...

If the MIS FS inks were purchased more than a month ago, they were probably
the originals, which were just a hair too light in the magenta and yellow
positions.  They were re-formulated to be closer to Piezo inks just
recently.  (Just the densities/dilutions were changed slightly.)

>... none of my judges, ... could justify the considerable price
>difference of the Cone inks. All were actually quite shocked that there
>could be that great a difference in cost, and wondered if perhaps there
>was some 'secret ingredient' to the Cone inks, ...

Jon Cone claims that his costs are higher.  My speculation is that he is not
mixing the inks himself and is stuck with a contract that has him paying an
intermediary way too much.

MIS buys the ink in very large quantities and mixes it.  That holds the
costs way down.

>... if it can be proven that one ink set is clearly more
>permanent than the other then this would probably prove to be the
>determining factor.

My tests indicate the MIS inks are more fade resistant.  The Piezo inks,
according to my tests and statements from the sellers, have some dyes in
them.  The MIS FS inks are straight dilutions of a black ink, with no dyes
added.  That is probably the main difference.  The black inks used by the
two companies appear to be so close that I think they are probably the same
ink.  All of these inks come from large chemical companies, and these
resellers are not inclined to disclose their sources.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com