Digital BW, The Print

Shilesh,

>...The guys at LincolnInks
>have been suggesting a tri-tone solution without partitioning for
>quite a while now, and that may well be the way to go!

Yes, I've been surprised we don't hear more about the Lincoln Inks "quads"
on this list.  I never had that much interest in it because I never had a
hextone printer, and I'm interested in the longer life pigments offer.  I
also seem to remember someone on one of the lists reporting results that
were not that great.  I'm not sure what the negative results were caused by,
but I'd assume that what would work in the 870 I now have would only work in
those printers that were designed to use the same inkset as the 870.  I
think this includes the 1280 and 1290, but I'm no expert in this.

Paul

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Shilesh,
>
> >...
> >I did rough density measurents (scanner based) on Epson color dyes
> >and the FS Quads, and I believe the FS inks loaded in the following
> >order will require very small curves adjustments (I will try them
in
> >a couple of days):
>
> >CcMmYK (inks positions) = CYCYMK (FS inks) or Dark, Light, Dark,
> >Light, Medium, Black. This is slightly different from my current
ink
> >positions of CcMmYK = CMCMYK.
>
> I would think the C to Y difference might be a bit on the large
side.  Did
> you ever try the C & M system with M also in the yellow position?
With all
> 3 jets firing M in the highlights I was guessing that it might be
too dark.
>
> At any rate, I'll be curious what you find with the new ink
positions.

>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul Roark wrote:

>   I'm not sure what the negative results were caused by,
> but I'd assume that what would work in the 870 I now have would only 
> work in
> those printers that were designed to use the same inkset as the 870.  I
> think this includes the 1280 and 1290, but I'm no expert in this.
>
>
Yup, they use the same "disappearing cyan" OEM inkset..

KEith