Digital BW, The Print

I can also confirm what Roger states after profiling well over 80  
papers with both CCK3 and CCvK3. While the CC K3 has slightly less  
gamut than Epson k3 (and less dmax with PK) the vivid M (and C for  
that matter) make up the difference. In general, fine art  
photographers aren't printing at the edges of their gamut anyway.  
Especially us BW folks.

Walker


On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:25 AM, rogerbarrett_hps wrote:

>
>
> I don't know about using the Epson vivid inks in a 3800, but I am  
> happily using the Conecolor vivid types with their refillable  
> cartridges in my 3800.
>
> I went for the vivid inks on the assumption that I was more likely  
> to get a colour gamut that matched the standard K3 gamut. I know  
> from doing hundreds of profiles for other people (my small business)  
> that third party inks seldom give the same colour gamut as OEM inks.  
> I was told by the people at Inkjet Mall that their vivid inks are OK  
> in the 3800 so went ahead and did it.
>
> In the event my initial assumption was confirmed. I have found that  
> the colour gamut of the Conecolor vivid set is marginally smaller  
> than I was achieving with the standard K3 set. This is after a bit  
> of fiddling to optimise driver settings and with careful profiling.
>
> The biggest difference that I found is in the Dmax with PK. I  
> believe this is because the Epson PK has black dye added to the  
> pigment, whereas the Conecolor is pure pigment. (I'm sure someone  
> will put me right on this if I'm wrong.) With MK I find that  
> Conecolor is a bit better than K3, again after optimising and  
> profiling.
>
> I should say that the prints I am producing with the Conecolor are  
> visually very similar to the K3 prints, although a side-by-side  
> comparison does show the slightly smaller gamut. The difference is  
> not big enough to send me running back to Epson inks - except maybe  
> the PK....
>
> Roger
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]