Digital BW, The Print

Ernst wrote:

>> So, the star is the UltraChrome matte black, and the UltraChrome and
>> PiezoTone midtones are both excellent and about equal.

>...
>Quads and hexatones for an Epson 3000 and 9000 with an
>Ultrachrome black and Ultrachrome 50% to begin with and
>a fluid to mix the other tones then.

Rick wrote:

>Why not create quadtone inkset
>using standard black Epson pig. Inks?
>What dilutions might be required to match Cone driver?

Hopefully we'll be able to find an appropriate base.  I'll soon be receiving
some materials from MIS that may be part of an UltraChrome (UC) clone also,
including a new base.

I definitely see some potential steps forward in our quad insets based on
these new UC inksets.

The first obvious step is to see if we have a superior black for our
existing quads.  If the PiezoTone midtone problems are cured, the UC-K with
the PT midtones looks to be about as lightfast as any current technology can
get. The FS-N and VM-S are just behind that.  Recall that the UC
lighfastness for B&W is over 100 years.  I'd guess that the reduction in
lightfastness rating from the Archival inkset is really only in the UC color
inks.  So, that 200 year figure Epson originally claimed for the Archival
ink on EAM might not be that far off.

As aside on paper --

A 200 year ink on a 30 year paper (EAM/EEM) doesn't make much sense.  So,
with this new ink longevity, we need to find an appropriate paper.

For those who missed it, the UltraChrome inks are rated in the U.S. version
of the 7600 information download as having only a 30 year life.  The reason
for this is that Wilhelm is starting to look at paper life as well as
accelerated fading.  There are no standards for this yet, but his initial
report to Epson was that the EAM/EEM paper base would start to yellow in 30
years.  This is not the optical brightener yellowing that we are familiar
with, but yellowing that is probably caused by the paper's acidity.  So,
it's not that the UC inks have less lightfastness on EEM, it's that
EAM/EEM's paper base is looking much weaker than was originally represented
by Epson.  It may be that the skeptics were right -- it's just cheap paper.

Just because the EEM paper base starts to get a bit yellow in 30 years does
not necessarily mean than yellow affects the coating or image.  In a
subsequent talk, Wilhelm threw out 65 years as the predicted paper life.
Foreign Epson websites rate the UC inks on EEM at 75 years.  There just are
no standards, or quick and easy tests for paper life.

Nonetheless, I think it's the end of the line for "EAM"/EEM as a serious
paper for long term image permanence.  I have found an expert on paper
conservation who is going to test the paper for lignin and also has a line
to Wilhelm.  We'll have a much fuller story on "EAM"/EEM soon.  My current
view is that it's a great display and proofing paper, but we should use a
cotton or alpha cellulose paper for the old family photos, high-end sales,
or any use where the paper should look good for more than 30 years.

Some may have noticed that my latest curves -- for the 1290 -- included a
specific set for PhotoRag.  I still do most of my printing on EAM/EEM, but
I'm very interested in finding a true archival paper base that has at least
close to the image quality and image permanence of EEM.  So far, there are
not many good candidates.  It's hard to believe Epson can't make an alpha
cellulose version of EAM -- a name that it could then legitimately use.

Back to UC-derived inksets --

There are some interesting quad inkset alternatives I see for the 3000, et
al., and the UC & UC clone inks -- IFF (means "if and only if") those inks
work in the other printers.  Hopefully MIS will have a good UC clone so that
the inksets could either use the real Epson ink or the, presumably, more
affordable MIS ins.

I'd think FS/Piezo and VM inksets could used the UC & clone base inks and be
printable on glossy paper.  All it would take is a black ink switch to go
from one type of paper to the other.  Note that with the 3000, we can do
about 3 "black ink only" cleaning cycles to switch to the coated black
particle (glossy paper) -- much easier and cheaper than the 7600 switch.
(It's odd that Epson appears to have made a convertible inkset without the
hardware/driver ability to easily drain the black ink line only.  So, one
wastes a huge amount of other inks & $ in the 7600/9600 black ink switch.)

So, bottom line, between the UC inks and other experiments I'm doing, quads
just might take a leap forward this year.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

I am getting a bit lost on this. I gather that the UC-K offers ~0.5 Dmax
gain over FS-K on EAM but a Dmax loss on Photo Rag. If this is the case why
pursue the UC or did I miss something here? You also mention the "PiezoTone
midtone problems" and I am not sure what you are referring to. I thought
that the PT mids had held up well with only a slight warm shift.

I do agree that we have entered a new phase with the advances in ink
technology and what shakes out over the next 6 to 12 months will be most
interesting! I hope that the VM approach will not get lost in all the
excitement as the IP5 "Tint Picker" approach seems to be overlooking the
need or desire to vary hue with tone or to split tone.

Thanks for all the work and sharing of info,
Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
To: "DigitalB&WPrint" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] UltraChrome Fade test & EAM/EEM paper issues


> Ernst wrote:
>
> >> So, the star is the UltraChrome matte black, and the UltraChrome and
> >> PiezoTone midtones are both excellent and about equal.
>
> >...
> >Quads and hexatones for an Epson 3000 and 9000 with an
> >Ultrachrome black and Ultrachrome 50% to begin with and
> >a fluid to mix the other tones then.
>
> Rick wrote:
>
> >Why not create quadtone inkset
> >using standard black Epson pig. Inks?
> >What dilutions might be required to match Cone driver?
>
> Hopefully we'll be able to find an appropriate base.  I'll soon be
receiving
> some materials from MIS that may be part of an UltraChrome (UC) clone
also,
> including a new base.
>
> I definitely see some potential steps forward in our quad insets based on
> these new UC inksets.
>
> The first obvious step is to see if we have a superior black for our
> existing quads.  If the PiezoTone midtone problems are cured, the UC-K
with
> the PT midtones looks to be about as lightfast as any current technology
can
> get. The FS-N and VM-S are just behind that.  Recall that the UC
> lighfastness for B&W is over 100 years.  I'd guess that the reduction in
> lightfastness rating from the Archival inkset is really only in the UC
color
> inks.  So, that 200 year figure Epson originally claimed for the Archival
> ink on EAM might not be that far off.
>
> As aside on paper --
>
> A 200 year ink on a 30 year paper (EAM/EEM) doesn't make much sense.  So,
> with this new ink longevity, we need to find an appropriate paper.
>
> For those who missed it, the UltraChrome inks are rated in the U.S.
version
> of the 7600 information download as having only a 30 year life.  The
reason
> for this is that Wilhelm is starting to look at paper life as well as
> accelerated fading.  There are no standards for this yet, but his initial
> report to Epson was that the EAM/EEM paper base would start to yellow in
30
> years.  This is not the optical brightener yellowing that we are familiar
> with, but yellowing that is probably caused by the paper's acidity.  So,
> it's not that the UC inks have less lightfastness on EEM, it's that
> EAM/EEM's paper base is looking much weaker than was originally
represented
> by Epson.  It may be that the skeptics were right -- it's just cheap
paper.
>
> Just because the EEM paper base starts to get a bit yellow in 30 years
does
> not necessarily mean than yellow affects the coating or image.  In a
> subsequent talk, Wilhelm threw out 65 years as the predicted paper life.
> Foreign Epson websites rate the UC inks on EEM at 75 years.  There just
are
> no standards, or quick and easy tests for paper life.
>
> Nonetheless, I think it's the end of the line for "EAM"/EEM as a serious
> paper for long term image permanence.  I have found an expert on paper
> conservation who is going to test the paper for lignin and also has a line
> to Wilhelm.  We'll have a much fuller story on "EAM"/EEM soon.  My current
> view is that it's a great display and proofing paper, but we should use a
> cotton or alpha cellulose paper for the old family photos, high-end sales,
> or any use where the paper should look good for more than 30 years.
>
> Some may have noticed that my latest curves -- for the 1290 -- included a
> specific set for PhotoRag.  I still do most of my printing on EAM/EEM, but
> I'm very interested in finding a true archival paper base that has at
least
> close to the image quality and image permanence of EEM.  So far, there are
> not many good candidates.  It's hard to believe Epson can't make an alpha
> cellulose version of EAM -- a name that it could then legitimately use.
>
> Back to UC-derived inksets --
>
> There are some interesting quad inkset alternatives I see for the 3000, et
> al., and the UC & UC clone inks -- IFF (means "if and only if") those inks
> work in the other printers.  Hopefully MIS will have a good UC clone so
that
> the inksets could either use the real Epson ink or the, presumably, more
> affordable MIS ins.
>
> I'd think FS/Piezo and VM inksets could used the UC & clone base inks and
be
> printable on glossy paper.  All it would take is a black ink switch to go
> from one type of paper to the other.  Note that with the 3000, we can do
> about 3 "black ink only" cleaning cycles to switch to the coated black
> particle (glossy paper) -- much easier and cheaper than the 7600 switch.
> (It's odd that Epson appears to have made a convertible inkset without the
> hardware/driver ability to easily drain the black ink line only.  So, one
> wastes a huge amount of other inks & $ in the 7600/9600 black ink switch.)
>
> So, bottom line, between the UC inks and other experiments I'm doing,
quads
> just might take a leap forward this year.
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Martin,

You wrote:

>... I gather that the UC-K offers ~0.5 Dmax
>gain over FS-K on EAM but a Dmax loss on Photo Rag.
>If this is the case why pursue the UC ... ?

I have not seen good density readings for UC on all the papers of interest.
I'm hoping there is a good alternative to EEM that mates well with the UC
inks.  For example, if Eclipse Satine survives Brightcube's financial
difficulties, that would be a combination I'd like to see results for.
Also, progress is being made on coatings, which are not out of the picture
yet and might change the Dmax equation.

But, it may well be that the extra longevity of the UC ink is just not worth
bothering with.  I'm not sure I'd bother pursuing an inkset just because it
had a glossy paper option, but I think there are many who would like to see
such a quad.

>You also mention the "PiezoTone
>midtone problems" and I am not sure what you are referring to. I thought
>that the PT mids had held up well with only a slight warm shift.

The PT midtones are great when it comes to fade testing. However, I'm not
sure if the 1280 PT-S separation problem was just an isolated, 100% cart
problem.  Now I've also heard of some yellow jets dropping out on the PT-WN.
Again, I don't know it these are isolated cart problems.  So, I'd like to
see more experience with those inks before I'd outright recommend them.

>... I hope that the VM approach will not get lost ...

Don't worry, I'm going to use a vm-sepia inkset for the foreseeable future.
I still also prefer the Epson driver and the 3000.  I'll improve that inkset
and approach with tougher inks as they become available.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
_________________________________________


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
To: "DigitalB&WPrint" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] UltraChrome Fade test & EAM/EEM paper issues


> Ernst wrote:
>
> >> So, the star is the UltraChrome matte black, and the UltraChrome and
> >> PiezoTone midtones are both excellent and about equal.
>
> >...
> >Quads and hexatones for an Epson 3000 and 9000 with an
> >Ultrachrome black and Ultrachrome 50% to begin with and
> >a fluid to mix the other tones then.
>
> Rick wrote:
>
> >Why not create quadtone inkset
> >using standard black Epson pig. Inks?
> >What dilutions might be required to match Cone driver?
>
> Hopefully we'll be able to find an appropriate base.  I'll soon be
receiving
> some materials from MIS that may be part of an UltraChrome (UC) clone
also,
> including a new base.
>
> I definitely see some potential steps forward in our quad insets based on
> these new UC inksets.
>
> The first obvious step is to see if we have a superior black for our
> existing quads.  If the PiezoTone midtone problems are cured, the UC-K
with
> the PT midtones looks to be about as lightfast as any current technology
can
> get. The FS-N and VM-S are just behind that.  Recall that the UC
> lighfastness for B&W is over 100 years.  I'd guess that the reduction in
> lightfastness rating from the Archival inkset is really only in the UC
color
> inks.  So, that 200 year figure Epson originally claimed for the Archival
> ink on EAM might not be that far off.
>
> As aside on paper --
>
> A 200 year ink on a 30 year paper (EAM/EEM) doesn't make much sense.  So,
> with this new ink longevity, we need to find an appropriate paper.
>
> For those who missed it, the UltraChrome inks are rated in the U.S.
version
> of the 7600 information download as having only a 30 year life.  The
reason
> for this is that Wilhelm is starting to look at paper life as well as
> accelerated fading.  There are no standards for this yet, but his initial
> report to Epson was that the EAM/EEM paper base would start to yellow in
30
> years.  This is not the optical brightener yellowing that we are familiar
> with, but yellowing that is probably caused by the paper's acidity.  So,
> it's not that the UC inks have less lightfastness on EEM, it's that
> EAM/EEM's paper base is looking much weaker than was originally
represented
> by Epson.  It may be that the skeptics were right -- it's just cheap
paper.
>
> Just because the EEM paper base starts to get a bit yellow in 30 years
does
> not necessarily mean than yellow affects the coating or image.  In a
> subsequent talk, Wilhelm threw out 65 years as the predicted paper life.
> Foreign Epson websites rate the UC inks on EEM at 75 years.  There just
are
> no standards, or quick and easy tests for paper life.
>
> Nonetheless, I think it's the end of the line for "EAM"/EEM as a serious
> paper for long term image permanence.  I have found an expert on paper
> conservation who is going to test the paper for lignin and also has a line
> to Wilhelm.  We'll have a much fuller story on "EAM"/EEM soon.  My current
> view is that it's a great display and proofing paper, but we should use a
> cotton or alpha cellulose paper for the old family photos, high-end sales,
> or any use where the paper should look good for more than 30 years.
>
> Some may have noticed that my latest curves -- for the 1290 -- included a
> specific set for PhotoRag.  I still do most of my printing on EAM/EEM, but
> I'm very interested in finding a true archival paper base that has at
least
> close to the image quality and image permanence of EEM.  So far, there are
> not many good candidates.  It's hard to believe Epson can't make an alpha
> cellulose version of EAM -- a name that it could then legitimately use.
>
> Back to UC-derived inksets --
>
> There are some interesting quad inkset alternatives I see for the 3000, et
> al., and the UC & UC clone inks -- IFF (means "if and only if") those inks
> work in the other printers.  Hopefully MIS will have a good UC clone so
that
> the inksets could either use the real Epson ink or the, presumably, more
> affordable MIS ins.
>
> I'd think FS/Piezo and VM inksets could used the UC & clone base inks and
be
> printable on glossy paper.  All it would take is a black ink switch to go
> from one type of paper to the other.  Note that with the 3000, we can do
> about 3 "black ink only" cleaning cycles to switch to the coated black
> particle (glossy paper) -- much easier and cheaper than the 7600 switch.
> (It's odd that Epson appears to have made a convertible inkset without the
> hardware/driver ability to easily drain the black ink line only.  So, one
> wastes a huge amount of other inks & $ in the 7600/9600 black ink switch.)
>
> So, bottom line, between the UC inks and other experiments I'm doing,
quads

> just might take a leap forward this year.
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
>

----- Original Message -----

From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
To: "DigitalB&WPrint" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] UltraChrome Fade test & EAM/EEM paper issues


> Martin,
>
> You wrote:
>
> >... I gather that the UC-K offers ~0.5 Dmax
> >gain over FS-K on EAM but a Dmax loss on Photo Rag.
> >If this is the case why pursue the UC ... ?
>
> I have not seen good density readings for UC on all the papers of
interest.
> I'm hoping there is a good alternative to EEM that mates well with the UC
> inks.  For example, if Eclipse Satine survives Brightcube's financial
> difficulties, that would be a combination I'd like to see results for.
> Also, progress is being made on coatings, which are not out of the picture
> yet and might change the Dmax equation.

I wonder about the Eclipse since it always gave a lower Dmax but the UC
seems to respond very differently than earlier inks so I guess it is back to
ground zero as far as testing this stuff out. I suspect that if Eclipse does
go away, which looks very likely as they are not shipping any paper at this
time, it will be back at some point.

>
> But, it may well be that the extra longevity of the UC ink is just not
worth
> bothering with.  I'm not sure I'd bother pursuing an inkset just because
it
> had a glossy paper option, but I think there are many who would like to
see
> such a quad.

That is very true and I do tend to forget about the glossy side of inkjet.
Something I would reconsider if they could come up with a paper that did not
have an "RC" look to it.
>
> >You also mention the "PiezoTone
> >midtone problems" and I am not sure what you are referring to. I thought
> >that the PT mids had held up well with only a slight warm shift.
>
> The PT midtones are great when it comes to fade testing. However, I'm not
> sure if the 1280 PT-S separation problem was just an isolated, 100% cart
> problem.  Now I've also heard of some yellow jets dropping out on the
PT-WN.
> Again, I don't know it these are isolated cart problems.  So, I'd like to
> see more experience with those inks before I'd outright recommend them.

All the PT wedges I sent were done using a CIS. I don't seem to be having
any problems printing with them but others report they do. As far as the PT
grays go I think it is a cart and software issue but usage is perhaps still
too new to be sure we have seen all the problems.

>
> >... I hope that the VM approach will not get lost ...
>
> Don't worry, I'm going to use a vm-sepia inkset for the foreseeable
future.
> I still also prefer the Epson driver and the 3000.  I'll improve that
inkset
> and approach with tougher inks as they become available.

Sounds good.

Martin Wesley