Digital BW, The Print

Sorry to ask this here, but I know that you guys are the ones to be most 
concerned about print quality and longevity.

Now that it seems clear that the major part of my printing (B&W) will be 
done on the 1400, I presumably will do color and digital negatives on my 
totally new and never used 2100/2200.

Question: which inks should I use for this, if I am to maximize 
longevity and gamut?

Louis

Op 17-1-2011 10:59, Louis de Stoutz schreef:
> Sorry to ask this here, but I know that you guys are the ones to be most
> concerned about print quality and longevity.
>
> Now that it seems clear that the major part of my printing (B&W) will be
> done on the 1400, I presumably will do color and digital negatives on my
> totally new and never used 2100/2200.
>
> Question: which inks should I use for this, if I am to maximize
> longevity and gamut?
>
> Louis
>

The original Epson Archival pigment inks of the 2100-2200 are probably 
the most fade resistant of all Epson pigment inks including the most 
recent ones. The inkset doesn't have a gamut and shows "metamerism". 
The 2100 smallest droplet size is I guess 3x that of the 1400. It will 
be hard to get an image quality equal to recent models with any pigment ink.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

Hi Ernst,

 

I think you may be confusing the Epson 2000, which used the original Epson
Archival pigment inkset, with the 2100/2200 which used the Ultrachrome
inkset (as used in the 4000, 7600, 9600).  From memory the 2100 has a 3.5pl
minimum dot size verses the 1.5pl for the 1400 - not as good for black only
printing but fine for most other uses.  I think the 2000 had a 5pl dot size.

 

David Whistance



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

Op 17-1-2011 16:04, David Whistance schreef:
> Hi Ernst,
>
>
>
> I think you may be confusing the Epson 2000, which used the original Epson
> Archival pigment inkset, with the 2100/2200 which used the Ultrachrome
> inkset (as used in the 4000, 7600, 9600).  From memory the 2100 has a 3.5pl
> minimum dot size verses the 1.5pl for the 1400 - not as good for black only
> printing but fine for most other uses.  I think the 2000 had a 5pl dot size.
>
>
>
> David Whistance

My mistake, 2000p it was.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:
>...
> The original Epson Archival pigment ...
> probably the most fade resistant ...

The 7500, 2000p, etc. pigments had the reputation as being the best.  However, I was surprised  in my testing that the Epson Archival MK appeared to be a hybrid carbon + dye ink, similar to the first generation MKs we had available to us.  

The Wilhelm type tests of the time were, apparently, not picking up this performance due to their limited sampling and/or methods of rating an inkset.  In my testing I saw the dye (old  style) fade very quickly.  When it was all burned up, the residual carbon part of the MK was rock solid. This, also, appeared to not trigger the  standards on  which the advertised claims were based.


> inks of the 2100-2200 

When they went to the PK or MK choice, they dropped the hybrid approach.  So, these more modern, second generation PK and MK are far better than the old "Archival" inkset hybrid K.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Op 17-1-2011 20:02, Paul schreef:

> When they went to the PK or MK choice, they dropped the hybrid
> approach.  So, these more modern, second generation PK and MK are
> far better than the old "Archival" inkset hybrid K.
>
> Paul www.PaulRoark.com

True but they never tested the total Epson Archival inkset again on the
same conditions and Epson Ultrachrome in general seems to be the third
in ranking right now of the three OEM pigment sets. Canon gaining more
and more recognition over the last years, HP very good right away. It
was a 6 ink system too which makes it harder to compete. I wonder how
its CMY would test against today's CMYs, Not that you would like to use
them.
At that time David Tobie made the comment that it was a prefaded ink
system and he was right, Epson had a kind of 1950's color nostalgia
posters made with the 10000CF on the Photokina booth, not very
convincing even then in 2002.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

Ernst Dinkla <edinkla@...> wrote:
>
> ... I wonder how [the Epson Archival] CMY would test against today's CMYs, ...


When I was using the 7500 in what I called my 4K+ (4 MIS carbons plus LM and LC [actually 50% LC]) I tested (more of an "initial" fade test) the Archival LM against the UltraChrome LM.  My memory is that the Epson Archival was slightly "better" but since I'd have to use more of it, being lower gamut, to offset the carbon warmth, I concluded they were essentially equal for my purposes.  I used the Archival LM just because the cart would plug in to my 7500.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com