Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2016-01-12 by david@...
Need some clarification, please. Now when you search for Epson's pigment inks there are three variations instead of two:
Ultrachrome
Ultrachrome K3
Ultrachrome HDR
My question is with regard to only the three black inks in each set...
Are they the same across the three name changes, or are there actually differences between them? If so, what is the difference between say, an UC matte black, a UCK3 matte black and of course the new HDR?
2016-01-13 by richard@...
2016-01-13 by Paul Roark
Here is how I understand it:
The UltraChrome inks don't include the LLK ink.The UltraChrome K3 uses the same K, LK, LLK in the x800-x900 printers but the x880 and up have the vivid magenta/vivid light magenta (and the orange/green inks in the 10 ink printers—but I think they use HDR for the x990 printers with original K3 inks)The New UltraChrome HDR have some new Black ink in the P-series printer, but It doesn't say anywhere if the LK/LLK inks are different or just the PK and MK. I can make a few tests next week with a 9900 and the P800 and measure the differences between the LK and LLK inks.
2016-01-13 by John Castronovo
The late great chemist and inventor John Edwards told me more than once that the European version of the MSDS is more accurate and complete by law than what we allow here in the states, so you might try getting those.
From: mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 10:29 PM
To: DigitalB&WPrint
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Ultra chrome black inks..
In the past, I looked at the Material Safety Data Sheets for the inks to see what they were doing. You can Google "Epson [printer model] MSDS" you can usually find these disclosure documents. They disclose some of ink's compositions. Unfortunately, there are increasingly errors. Whether they've been negligent or intentionally try to hide things is an open question. The problems seem to have become worse in recent years. You'll notice that the dates on the MSDSs for some old printers are very recent. I challenged them on the Claria K MSDS. They agreed it was wrong but never changed the website.
I think a draw down of samples of the inks might be more reliable today. Printing with them is better, of course, but a draw down is fast. See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Draw-Down-Procedure.pdf
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 4:41 PM, richard@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Here is how I understand it:
The UltraChrome inks don't include the LLK ink.
The UltraChrome K3 uses the same K, LK, LLK in the x800-x900 printers but the x880 and up have the vivid magenta/vivid light magenta (and the orange/green inks in the 10 ink printers—but I think they use HDR for the x990 printers with original K3 inks)
The New UltraChrome HDR have some new Black ink in the P-series printer, but It doesn't say anywhere if the LK/LLK inks are different or just the PK and MK. I can make a few tests next week with a 9900 and the P800 and measure the differences between the LK and LLK inks.
All the best,
Richard Boutwell
http://www.richardboutwell.com/
http://www.bwmastery.com/2016-01-13 by richard@...
2016-01-13 by Mark Savoia
Is it possible the newer P-series inks will not work with the older heads, even possibly damaging them? Mark stillrivereditions.com
> On Jan 13, 2016, at 9:09 AM, richard@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > > > > Paul, thanks for linking to that PDF again. I had forgotten about that. Something I think is another good thing to test, and where printing the ink separation strips for these K3 inks will show, is what happens to the shape of the curve as different amounts of ink are printed, rather than just their Dmax. Of course these different ink sets are printed by different printers, and since there is no way to refill the P800 printer cartridges, there will be some variance between one print head an other. I am not going to waste a whole lot of ink putting P800 ink in the 9900. . . > > If someone has a 2880 with refillable carts it would be easier to test some of the new P-series inks and compare them with the older x800-x880 inks. I could do something similar with my 1430, but the higher dpi print head would not make for a good comparison. > > These kinds of things are fun and welcome distractions from real job work, but I can't put much energy into them now. Maybe someone else can pick it up and post some results? > > Richard Boutwell > > http://www.richardboutwell.com/ <http://www.richardboutwell.com/> > http://www.bwmastery.com/ <http://www.bwmastery.com/>
2016-01-13 by brian_downunda@...
2016-01-14 by Paul Roark
Here is my understanding of the ink nomenclature:
Ultrachrome was the original pigment ink for the 2100/2200, and as Richard said, had K and LK but no LLK.
Ultrachrome K3 was for the 2400 / 3800 and added LLK. I suspect that the other inks were the same as Ultrachrome (K2) but I have no proof of this.
Ultrachrome K3 Vivid was released for the 2880 / 3880. My understanding is that with the exception of Vivid Magenta and Vivid Light Magenta, the other inks were the same. This is strongly implied by the fact that you could use 3800 carts in the 3880, other than VM & VLM.
Ultrachrome HDR was for the ten ink printers and added orange and green. I assume that the other inks were the same as Ultrachrome K3 Vivid, but again I have no proof. Based on what I've read, the additional two inks were of little benefit for photography and were intended for graphic arts printing.
UltraChrome HD pigment ink is intended for the SureColor printers like the P600 and P800, so the naming is potentially confusing, given that there's also HDR. HDX is the version of HD for the ten ink printers. We have to assume that the blacks are quite different to Ultrachrome K3 Vivid, but it's not clear whether the other inks have changed. I read one report of someone who was sent a refurb 3880 (I think) and one of the included carts was for the P800 (cyan I think). When he queried this, he was told that it was the same. This surprises me, given the difficulty that Jon Cone has reported getting refillables for the P800, but there was no follow-up report about whether the P800 cart really did work in the 3880. There are also reports that yellow has been reformulated for longevity, which if true would be no bad thing.
This reads like a claim that there have not been all that many changes to the inks since the 2100/2200. The only ones that I've seen Epson promote specifically are the introduction of LLK, then VM and VLM and now the blacks in the new HD inkset. It's possible that there have been other subtle reformulations along the way, but if so then subtle would be the operative term. I'm happy to stand corrected if I've missed anything.
I guess it's possible that you could damage a print head by using newer ink in and older printer, but personally I think that's unlikely. After all, people use pigment inks in a 1430, which is a printer for dye inks.
2016-01-14 by Elliot Puritz
Thanks Paul. To be completely honest, I find the discussions of the various Epson inks very confusing. I do not print black and white using either the Epson or the Canon inks. However, given the confusion about the Epson inks, I am moved to ask why those who print black and white using the Epson printers and who are thinking of updating to one of the newer Epson printer models are not considering "updating" to the Canon printers and ink sets. Based upon what I am reading here, if I were contemplating the initial purchase of an Epson or Canon printer, is there a compelling reason to buy the Epson? Simply curious and of course somewhat naïve… Elliot
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:16 PM To: DigitalB&WPrint Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Ultra chrome black inks.. I generally agree with the above posts. Just looking at the blacks, I get the impression the new PK -- better dmax -- is one of the advertising points for it. Initially the MSDS for the new MK changed to being explicitly a carbon black. Previously Epson had used some generic "proprietary pigments and dyes" (paraphrasing). They used this for most of their blacks. So, initially it looked like the MK may have changed. Now they may be going back to older MSDSs and changing the blacks to be "carbon" blacks instead of their previous generic (hide the ball) approach. (I have not checked all the MSDSs in different locals, but I agree that often one can find different things in different countries in terms of what they disclose.) At any rate, from my perspective, I find it interesting that Epson has chosen to tell people that their blacks and grays are carbon. Whether they are also a blend of carbon and color is still an open question. I assume they are a blend. That is one thing I will get some data on with the fade test of the K3 LK. Regarding the new inkset for the P series (if that is a correct nomenclature), I think they've gone to a new generation of coating. They are, among other things, trying to reduce the bronzing. Frankly, I think Canon had already done that, and HP also seemed to be a step ahead there. My apparent finding of a slow incompatibility between the Epson K3 C and my generic dilution base, in my view, may be evidence that Epson was still relying on steric dispersion technology. This with carbon inks dates back a few thousand years (and it can still be a useful approach). I think the modern electrostatically dispersed pigs (read Canon and HP when it comes to color) may be superior for what they are shooting for, which includes high gloss. Note that the MKs are often also now electrostatically dispersed. I suspect this Epson ink coating upgrade is a big deal for high gloss color printers, which I why I set up a 3880. I think there are going to be a lot of those available on the used market for photographers who prefer the dedicated. It may be that the new PK will also be a good input for DIY B&W printers. If Epson has an ink that challenges HP on both color and artifacts, then I'll definitely be interested. If it's electrostatically dispersed, the generic base should work fine. Paul www.PaulRoark.com On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 2:51 PM, brian_downunda@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Here is my understanding of the ink nomenclature: Ultrachrome was the original pigment ink for the 2100/2200, and as Richard said, had K and LK but no LLK. Ultrachrome K3 was for the 2400 / 3800 and added LLK. I suspect that the other inks were the same as Ultrachrome (K2) but I have no proof of this. Ultrachrome K3 Vivid was released for the 2880 / 3880. My understanding is that with the exception of Vivid Magenta and Vivid Light Magenta, the other inks were the same. This is strongly implied by the fact that you could use 3800 carts in the 3880, other than VM & VLM. Ultrachrome HDR was for the ten ink printers and added orange and green. I assume that the other inks were the same as Ultrachrome K3 Vivid, but again I have no proof. Based on what I've read, the additional two inks were of little benefit for photography and were intended for graphic arts printing. UltraChrome HD pigment ink is intended for the SureColor printers like the P600 and P800, so the naming is potentially confusing, given that there's also HDR. HDX is the version of HD for the ten ink printers. We have to assume that the blacks are quite different to Ultrachrome K3 Vivid, but it's not clear whether the other inks have changed. I read one report of someone who was sent a refurb 3880 (I think) and one of the included carts was for the P800 (cyan I think). When he queried this, he was told that it was the same. This surprises me, given the difficulty that Jon Cone has reported getting refillables for the P800, but there was no follow-up report about whether the P800 cart really did work in the 3880. There are also reports that yellow has been reformulated for longevity, which if true would be no bad thing. This reads like a claim that there have not been all that many changes to the inks since the 2100/2200. The only ones that I've seen Epson promote specifically are the introduction of LLK, then VM and VLM and now the blacks in the new HD inkset. It's possible that there have been other subtle reformulations along the way, but if so then subtle would be the operative term. I'm happy to stand corrected if I've missed anything. I guess it's possible that you could damage a print head by using newer ink in and older printer, but personally I think that's unlikely. After all, people use pigment inks in a 1430, which is a printer for dye inks.
2016-01-14 by ssanking@...
2016-01-14 by Paul Roark
Thanks Paul.
To be completely honest, I find the discussions of the various Epson inks very confusing.
I do not print black and white using either the Epson or the Canon inks. However, given the confusion about the Epson inks, I am moved to ask why those who print black and white using the Epson printers and who are thinking of updating to one of the newer Epson printer models are not considering "updating" to the Canon printers and ink sets. Based upon what I am reading here, if I were contemplating the initial purchase of an Epson or Canon printer, is there a compelling reason to buy the Epson?
Simply curious and of course somewhat naïve…
Elliot
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:16 PM
To: DigitalB&WPrint
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Ultra chrome black inks..
I generally agree with the above posts. Just looking at the blacks, I get the impression the new PK -- better dmax -- is one of the advertising points for it. Initially the MSDS for the new MK changed to being explicitly a carbon black. Previously Epson had used some generic "proprietary pigments and dyes" (paraphrasing). They used this for most of their blacks. So, initially it looked like the MK may have changed. Now they may be going back to older MSDSs and changing the blacks to be "carbon" blacks instead of their previous generic (hide the ball) approach. (I have not checked all the MSDSs in different locals, but I agree that often one can find different things in different countries in terms of what they disclose.)
At any rate, from my perspective, I find it interesting that Epson has chosen to tell people that their blacks and grays are carbon. Whether they are also a blend of carbon and color is still an open question. I assume they are a blend. That is one thing I will get some data on with the fade test of the K3 LK.
Regarding the new inkset for the P series (if that is a correct nomenclature), I think they've gone to a new generation of coating. They are, among other things, trying to reduce the bronzing.
Frankly, I think Canon had already done that, and HP also seemed to be a step ahead there.
My apparent finding of a slow incompatibility between the Epson K3 C and my generic dilution base, in my view, may be evidence that Epson was still relying on steric dispersion technology. This with carbon inks dates back a few thousand years (and it can still be a useful approach). I think the modern electrostatically dispersed pigs (read Canon and HP when it comes to color) may be superior for what they are shooting for, which includes high gloss.
Note that the MKs are often also now electrostatically dispersed.
I suspect this Epson ink coating upgrade is a big deal for high gloss color printers, which I why I set up a 3880. I think there are going to be a lot of those available on the used market for photographers who prefer the dedicated.
It may be that the new PK will also be a good input for DIY B&W printers. If Epson has an ink that challenges HP on both color and artifacts, then I'll definitely be interested. If it's electrostatically dispersed, the generic base should work fine.
Paul
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 2:51 PM, brian_downunda@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Here is my understanding of the ink nomenclature:
Ultrachrome was the original pigment ink for the 2100/2200, and as Richard said, had K and LK but no LLK.
Ultrachrome K3 was for the 2400 / 3800 and added LLK. I suspect that the other inks were the same as Ultrachrome (K2) but I have no proof of this.
Ultrachrome K3 Vivid was released for the 2880 / 3880. My understanding is that with the exception of Vivid Magenta and Vivid Light Magenta, the other inks were the same. This is strongly implied by the fact that you could use 3800 carts in the 3880, other than VM & VLM.
Ultrachrome HDR was for the ten ink printers and added orange and green. I assume that the other inks were the same as Ultrachrome K3 Vivid, but again I have no proof. Based on what I've read, the additional two inks were of little benefit for photography and were intended for graphic arts printing.
UltraChrome HD pigment ink is intended for the SureColor printers like the P600 and P800, so the naming is potentially confusing, given that there's also HDR. HDX is the version of HD for the ten ink printers. We have to assume that the blacks are quite different to Ultrachrome K3 Vivid, but it's not clear whether the other inks have changed. I read one report of someone who was sent a refurb 3880 (I think) and one of the included carts was for the P800 (cyan I think). When he queried this, he was told that it was the same. This surprises me, given the difficulty that Jon Cone has reported getting refillables for the P800, but there was no follow-up report about whether the P800 cart really did work in the 3880. There are also reports that yellow has been reformulated for longevity, which if true would be no bad thing.
This reads like a claim that there have not been all that many changes to the inks since the 2100/2200. The only ones that I've seen Epson promote specifically are the introduction of LLK, then VM and VLM and now the blacks in the new HD inkset. It's possible that there have been other subtle reformulations along the way, but if so then subtle would be the operative term. I'm happy to stand corrected if I';ve missed anything.
I guess it's possible that you could damage a print head by using newer ink in and older printer, but personally I think that's unlikely. After all, people use pigment inks in a 1430, which is a printer for dye inks.
2016-01-14 by Elliot Puritz
Thanks very much Paul. A very instructive answer with information that likely may not be well known. Paul, as an aside, I wonder if there is any difference in the color inks, i.e., Epson vs. Canon. Elliot
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:27 PM To: DigitalB&WPrint Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Ultra chrome black inks.. I stay with Epson because they have performed so well for me over the years. Also, and critical for what I do, the Epson piezo head can handle higher viscosity inks than the thermal heads of the HP and Canon printers. The higher viscosity allows relatively larger carbon particles in the inks. Those tend to be less warm and probably also slightly more lightfast. The piezo heads have been very tolerant of differences in viscosity. I can run Canon and HP inks in my Epsons. It doesn't work the other way around. The HP pigs, according to my centrifuge testing, settle more slowly in my higher viscosity generic base than they do in the OEM HP base. The Eboni type carbon would settle faster in the lighter thermal dilution base. I made a generic base for a thermal printer and tested a carbon inkset in a Canon. The Epson did much better. I'm not saying Canon or HP could not make a great B&W inkset, but with the materials that I had available to me, the performance of the Canon was such that I simply dropped that project. So, at least at this point in time and for my preferences in B&W printing with dedicated, predominantly carbon inksets, the Epson platform is preferable. Paul www.PaulRoark.com On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:51 PM, 'Elliot Puritz' drpuritz@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Thanks Paul. To be completely honest, I find the discussions of the various Epson inks very confusing. I do not print black and white using either the Epson or the Canon inks. However, given the confusion about the Epson inks, I am moved to ask why those who print black and white using the Epson printers and who are thinking of updating to one of the newer Epson printer models are not considering "updating" to the Canon printers and ink sets. Based upon what I am reading here, if I were contemplating the initial purchase of an Epson or Canon printer, is there a compelling reason to buy the Epson? Simply curious and of course somewhat naïve… Elliot From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:16 PM To: DigitalB&WPrint Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Ultra chrome black inks.. I generally agree with the above posts. Just looking at the blacks, I get the impression the new PK -- better dmax -- is one of the advertising points for it. Initially the MSDS for the new MK changed to being explicitly a carbon black. Previously Epson had used some generic "proprietary pigments and dyes" (paraphrasing). They used this for most of their blacks. So, initially it looked like the MK may have changed. Now they may be going back to older MSDSs and changing the blacks to be "carbon" blacks instead of their previous generic (hide the ball) approach. (I have not checked all the MSDSs in different locals, but I agree that often one can find different things in different countries in terms of what they disclose.) At any rate, from my perspective, I find it interesting that Epson has chosen to tell people that their blacks and grays are carbon. Whether they are also a blend of carbon and color is still an open question. I assume they are a blend. That is one thing I will get some data on with the fade test of the K3 LK. Regarding the new inkset for the P series (if that is a correct nomenclature), I think they've gone to a new generation of coating. They are, among other things, trying to reduce the bronzing. Frankly, I think Canon had already done that, and HP also seemed to be a step ahead there. My apparent finding of a slow incompatibility between the Epson K3 C and my generic dilution base, in my view, may be evidence that Epson was still relying on steric dispersion technology. This with carbon inks dates back a few thousand years (and it can still be a useful approach). I think the modern electrostatically dispersed pigs (read Canon and HP when it comes to color) may be superior for what they are shooting for, which includes high gloss. Note that the MKs are often also now electrostatically dispersed. I suspect this Epson ink coating upgrade is a big deal for high gloss color printers, which I why I set up a 3880. I think there are going to be a lot of those available on the used market for photographers who prefer the dedicated. It may be that the new PK will also be a good input for DIY B&W printers. If Epson has an ink that challenges HP on both color and artifacts, then I'll definitely be interested. If it's electrostatically dispersed, the generic base should work fine. Paul www.PaulRoark.com On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 2:51 PM, brian_downunda@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m> wrote: Here is my understanding of the ink nomenclature: Ultrachrome was the original pigment ink for the 2100/2200, and as Richard said, had K and LK but no LLK. Ultrachrome K3 was for the 2400 / 3800 and added LLK. I suspect that the other inks were the same as Ultrachrome (K2) but I have no proof of this. Ultrachrome K3 Vivid was released for the 2880 / 3880. My understanding is that with the exception of Vivid Magenta and Vivid Light Magenta, the other inks were the same. This is strongly implied by the fact that you could use 3800 carts in the 3880, other than VM & VLM. Ultrachrome HDR was for the ten ink printers and added orange and green. I assume that the other inks were the same as Ultrachrome K3 Vivid, but again I have no proof. Based on what I've read, the additional two inks were of little benefit for photography and were intended for graphic arts printing. UltraChrome HD pigment ink is intended for the SureColor printers like the P600 and P800, so the naming is potentially confusing, given that there's also HDR. HDX is the version of HD for the ten ink printers. We have to assume that the blacks are quite different to Ultrachrome K3 Vivid, but it's not clear whether the other inks have changed. I read one report of someone who was sent a refurb 3880 (I think) and one of the included carts was for the P800 (cyan I think). When he queried this, he was told that it was the same. This surprises me, given the difficulty that Jon Cone has reported getting refillables for the P800, but there was no follow-up report about whether the P800 cart really did work in the 3880. There are also reports that yellow has been reformulated for longevity, which if true would be no bad thing. This reads like a claim that there have not been all that many changes to the inks since the 2100/2200. The only ones that I've seen Epson promote specifically are the introduction of LLK, then VM and VLM and now the blacks in the new HD inkset. It's possible that there have been other subtle reformulations along the way, but if so then subtle would be the operative term. I'm happy to stand corrected if I've missed anything. I guess it's possible that you could damage a print head by using newer ink in and older printer, but personally I think that's unlikely. After all, people use pigment inks in a 1430, which is a printer for dye inks.
2016-01-14 by David Kachel
2016-01-14 by brian_downunda@...
2016-01-14 by Paul Roark
2016-01-14 by David Kachel