Digital BW, The Print

"Foon Hoe" <feedthefoon@...> wrote:
>
>...
> 
> The easier one seems to be using eb6-YK or 3MK.  I have taken a look at Paul's 1400-YK profiles already.  

> Do the 3MK profiles use the same MK ink in three different slots? 

Yes, so it will not meet your smoothness standards.

> The profiles that uses Y and K can be 3Y3K, 3Y1K, 1Y1K, and etc.  I saw in here (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6.pdf) Paul uses 1Y1K. 

I'd call most of the Y-K work as experimental.  The Eb6-Y does not settle very fast and is a bit more neutral. Thus I was trying to see if just using it and the K could make good prints.  While it did a decent job, I moved back toward the full Eboni-6, but with some HP PK in there for glossy printing and more neutral matte prints when I want them.

Keep in mind that Eboni-6 is matte only.

> Is there significant difference in having more slots for each density? 

In the 3-MK the point was to have only 100% Eboni to keep the tone as neutral as possible for a 100% carbon ink, while also having enough nozzles working to hide the banding that the 1800 is prone to.  In my 1400, I don't have banding with the K channel.  As such, my 1400 single black only is actually smoother than the 1800 3-MK.  I sure can't guarantee all 1400s are this smooth, however.  In fact, my 1400 Y channel does band.

> Is it so that the inks can be distributed slightly differently to avoid banding?

The more inks firing, the less likely you'll see banding.  Having the inks close to each other in density also might help.  However, you have an off-setting goal of hiding the transitions from a light to dark ink in the cross-overs.  Then again, it's easier to maintain a printer with fewer inks.  So, you have a lot of factors pointing in different directions that will make one system better for one person and setup, and not as good for another.  It's hard to generalize.

Of a more practical matter, I'd suggest you go with a system that has a good workflow -- or better, multiple workflows -- and existing profiles.  For those just getting into this type of printing, I recommend an ink setup that prints reasonably good with the Epson driver and no profiles at all.  Having immediate positive feedback really helps.


> I have also just noticed the 3PK and the glop.  Is the 3PK similar to 3MK except for using the undiluted PKN inks?

MK is matte black for matte paper only.  PK is photo black for glossy paper.  On matte paper it cannot give a good dmax -- deep black.  PK is just a bit more dense on the paper than the darkest matte gray ink.  So, in an ink setup, it'll go into the C or M spot and work well with the Epson driver.  Note the Eboni-1400 setup I use -- see http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eb1400.pdf .  With that setup the HP PK is used in a black only mode to get a great dmax on glossy paper.  With the Epson driver and no profile at all (aside from the built in Epson profiles) it acts as a cool dark gray, simply cooling the deep shadows about on Lab B unit -- just barely visible.  Note that an MIS neutral PKN could be used there, but I found the MIS PKs banded.  That is, the HP PK prints more smoothly, has a higher dmax, can be diluted and stay glossy, does not separate, does not differentially fade, and is more lightfast.


>  Paul has mentioned about printing in two pass, the first to print and the second for the glop. 

I don't do that any more.  The exit rollers in the printer I was using for those experiments got badly fouled with glop.  In fact, I don't use glop at all any more.  The HP PK does bronze a bit, but the black only method of printing holds that down significantly compared to when dilute glossy inks are used.  I don't find it that much of an issue.  Then again, I don't use glossy for fine art.  I spent enough time chasing the "holy grail" of the air dried silver print that was my standard for years.  I finally came to the point where I liked the inkjet matte prints better.  My dry mounting press is now for flattening Arches watercolor paper.

> What is the significance of the glop if the UTRC glossy set doesn't have it?  

Glop reduces gloss differential and bronzing.  A post-printing spray does a better job, but using  a solvent spray is easiest if you live in a climate where you can spray in an open garage or the like all year.  You don't want to breath the solvents.

 
> Please tell me if what I am thinking about to print both glossy and matte is feasible. Using two of the slots to print eb6-1Y1K, three to print 3PK, and fill the remaining slot with cleaning fluid (or glop).

The Eb6-YK will do OK for matte.  The 3PK will probably not be smooth enough for you.

You might want to consider just using the UT14 and wait until you have a better feel for B&W inksets before trying to put together your own unique approach.  There is a substantial learning curve here.  Getting a system that works right off the bad is important.  You can always change later, even rinsing out the UT14 carts for the next inks you want in those carts.

 
> ... the amount of information is simply overwhelming ...

That's a major reason why the commercial, more turn-key systems are used.  I never really used the UT14 myself but made it so MIS and users would have a simple variable-tone, matte and glossy inkset for the 1400.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com