Digital BW, The Print

> "john" <deanwork2003@> wrote:
> 
> > [WIR] is saying >406 WR years for the 7880/9880 
> > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/9880.html
> > 
> > and >115 WR years for the same paper on the 7800/9800 
> > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/9800.html ...
> > 

"Mark" <mark@...> wrote:
 
> My guess is that it is just an unintended clerical oversight,
> and that all three systems should have been posted with the 
> same ABW score.

I looked at some of the AaI&A results to see if the Vivid magenta was so much more lightfast that it would make a difference in the ABW results.  I saw no indication, however, that the new magenta is more lightfast.  

The relative weakness of the magenta compared to the cyan is often, if not usually, the weak point in what I call "blended" (carbon + color) B&W inksets.  When it fades faster than the cyan, the blended inkset prints tend to turn greenish.  Note that the dedicated B&W inksets usually do not add yellow, which is also weak.  

(I did add yellow in the original FSN to counterbalance the warm shift -- for a while.  But I decided to drop that effort when the pigments improved with the next generation.)

Epson's M is, in fact, very good relative to most I've used or tested.  I switched to it some years ago for my personal printing with blended inksets.  See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/4K+.pdf  I urged MIS to use Espon M in a premium B&W blended insket, but I was unsuccessful in convincing them.

> ...

> 
> ... WIR does not list what criterion became the failure mode 
> in its test reports, ...

WIR reports are sadly lacking compared to the AaI&A reports and what is needed by serious people.  I started doing my own testing because there was, at the time, simply no information that was good enough to actually design superior inksets.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com