Thanks Martin, Paul and Richard. Martin's thoughts on the 50/50
mix warming as much as the FS at 100% seems to steer me
towards the FS-N. Also, Richard has a good point. As a
"newbie" to quadtone printing, I might be better served just
getting used to making good prints with one inkset rather than
adding to the list of variables of things that might go wrong. The
step wedges of the FS-N don't strike me as being excessively
cool, so perhaps I'll go with those inks for it's neutrality and fade
resistance. Richard, any comments on that MIS CFS system?
Easy to set up?
Thanks again!
Andy
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Richard Sintchak
<richard@c...> wrote:
> Saturday, July 20, 2002, 11:21:07 AM, akivisuals wrote:
>
> a> I'm thinking of getting started with a CFS for my 1160 and
am
> a> trying to determine which inks to use. I want to use the
Piezo
> a> driver with MIS FS inks (for ink costs), but am hesitating
between
> a> the FS and FS-N inks. After checking out the step wedges
on
> a> this site showing the blends and the regular wedges with
FS
> a> and FS-N inks I've decided that a blend would be a good
> a> alternative to the coolness of the FS-N and the warmth of
the FS.
>
> a> Now my question is, how will mixing the inks affect the
fading of
> a> the inks. Paul Roark's 300 hr fade test tells me that the
FS-N is
> a> way more fade resistant (actually color shift resistant). Will
> a> blending 50/50 between the two inks cause a significant
color
> a> shift in fade tests? Also, which inks need to be blended?
Just
> a> the 3 greys or does the black ink need to be blended as
well?
> a> Are the blacks the same in both inksets?
>
> a> Thanks to all of you on this website. You've all been so
helpful in
> a> answering questions as I get started down this exciting
> a> quadtone path!
>
> a> Andy
>
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> As usual Martin's reply is erudite and not to be dismissed. But
I'll
> throw in my latest experience as well.
>
> I did get my new CFS with FS-N inks up and running yesterday
so I can
> comment (subjectively) on my recent direct experience of using
the FS
> and FS-N inks. To me the FS-N is not as cool as I thought it
would be.
> I would say that the FS-N is not as cool as the FS is warm
(which is
> the way it is supposed to be). Side by side one can definitely
see the
> difference and comparing this way the FS-N does look slightly
cool.
> However when viewed separately it's a different story. In the FS
one
> alone one can see some warmth. Not a lot, but definite
warmth. I like
> warmth but to me if a print is going to be warm it should not be
> subtly warm but should be definitely warm, perhaps even
starting to
> look sepia. The FS-N when viewed alone one cannot really see
the
> coolness. It simply looks neutral. If you are used to viewing
warm
> prints, or particularly like warmer prints, than you might think
the
> FS-N looks cool but the coolness is not something that is
easily seen
> like the warmth of FS is. My first day opinion is that I like the
FS-N
> very much, nice and neutral. But I can also see where the FS
warmth
> might work better in some circumstances. But with the FS-N
it's less
> warmth and more neutral that I wanted and that's exactly what I
got.
>
> As I mentioned I considered mixing also since I have two sets
of 4 oz
> bottles of FS and FS-N. But in the end decided to go straight on
the
> FS-N if only for the purposed of establishing a benchmark in
my eye
> and mind of what FS-N looks like as a "stock" ink. This adds
better to
> my knowledge base of digital inks rather than doing a mix and
not
> knowing whether I have successfully warmed up the FS-N
results or not
> since I'd have no idea what FS-N looked like if I did not see it
first
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> for myself. I can see how perhaps you want to find that perfect
> combination straight off but I think as a newbie if you start right
> off mixing inks you'll only confuse yourself. Just my 2 cents....
>
> Best regards,
> Richard
>
> mailto:richard@c...