Digital BW, The Print

Roark Fade Tests

PiezoToneWN 50%     MIS-FS 50%    
1.56% fade          18.18% fade 

The above data is from Mr. Roark's test in the files section. I want the most fade resistant warm neutral ink to use with Piezography software. I have already decided to use the Museum Black with one or the other. Do I get better fade resistance for my money with the Cone ink which fades 1.56% or the MIS ink which fades 18.18%? Isn't the lower number better in fade? I just want to know which ink will fade less.


Mike

Roark Fade Tests

PiezoToneWN 50%     MIS-FS 50%    
1.56% fade          18.18% fade 

The above data is from Mr. Roark's test in the files section. I want the most fade resistant warm neutral ink to use with Piezography software. I have already decided to use the Museum Black with one or the other. Do I get better fade resistance for my money with the Cone ink which fades 1.56% or the MIS ink which fades 18.18%? Isn't the lower number better in fade? I just want to know which ink will fade less.


Mike

On 11/11/02 7:37 PM, "PhotoBike@..." <PhotoBike@...> wrote:

> Roark Fade Tests
> 
> PiezoToneWN 50%     MIS-FS 50%
> 1.56% fade          18.18% fade
> 
> The above data is from Mr. Roark's test in the files section. I want the most
> fade resistant warm neutral ink to use with Piezography software. I have
> already decided to use the Museum Black with one or the other. Do I get better
> fade resistance for my money with the Cone ink which fades 1.56% or the MIS
> ink which fades 18.18%? Isn't the lower number better in fade? I just want to
> know which ink will fade less.

Yes the neutral warm piezotone inks with Museum Black are the most stable
inks at present.

Robert

The PiezoTone WN & Selenium test strips that I tested had excellent midtone
fade characteristics.  I have not tested the Museum black.  The UltraChrome
matte black is the best I've seen in that category.  However, it must be
pulled out of a 9600 cart, and its density on non-EAM papers is apparently
not the best.  (But I've never seen numbers of either the UC or Museum
blacks.)

(Robert, have you measured the UC Matte black density on Eclipse or other
papers?)

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
_________________________________________

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Robert Morrison [mailto:rmorrison@...]
  Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 7:57 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] MIS Fade Data


  On 11/11/02 7:37 PM, "PhotoBike@..." <PhotoBike@...> wrote:

  > Roark Fade Tests
  >
  > PiezoToneWN 50%     MIS-FS 50%
  > 1.56% fade          18.18% fade
  >
  > The above data is from Mr. Roark's test in the files section. I want the
most
  > fade resistant warm neutral ink to use with Piezography software. I have
  > already decided to use the Museum Black with one or the other. Do I get
better
  > fade resistance for my money with the Cone ink which fades 1.56% or the
MIS
  > ink which fades 18.18%? Isn't the lower number better in fade? I just
want to
  > know which ink will fade less.

  Yes the neutral warm piezotone inks with Museum Black are the most stable
  inks at present.

  Robert



  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

On 11/11/02 8:31 PM, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> The PiezoTone WN & Selenium test strips that I tested had excellent midtone
> fade characteristics.  I have not tested the Museum black.  The UltraChrome
> matte black is the best I've seen in that category.  However, it must be
> pulled out of a 9600 cart, and its density on non-EAM papers is apparently
> not the best.  (But I've never seen numbers of either the UC or Museum
> blacks.)
> 
> (Robert, have you measured the UC Matte black density on Eclipse or other
> papers?)
> 
I haven't done the tests myself...I was working off of numbers that Antonis
had generated with his 2200.  I haven't put matte black into my 2200 yet.
The bottom line is that the matte black ink is great with EAM (about 1.75).
It is fair with photorag (mid 1.6's) and poor with other papers (low 1.5's
and below).  Personally, I don't see the advantage of working with matte
black unless the only paper you are going to print on is EAM.  It doesn't
seem like a good ink to base a quad black inkset on to me. The photo black
ink gives you the advantage of being able to easily switch between matte and
luster papers.  At this point everything I'm working with will be coated in
the end...so the difference in uncoated dmax doesn't really matter to me.
Photoblack on poor black papers like Somerset enhanced or Eclipse Satine can
reach a dmax of 2 when coated...the prints are stunning...compared to
uncoated prints matte black EAM prints.

Robert

Robert,

>> ...have you measured the UC Matte black density on Eclipse or other
>> papers?
>
>...I was working off of numbers that Antonis
>had generated with his 2200.  ...
>The bottom line is that the matte black ink is great with EAM
>(about 1.75).  It is fair with photorag (mid 1.6's) and
>poor with other papers (low 1.5's and below).  Personally,
>I don't see the advantage of working with matte
>black unless the only paper you are going to print on is EAM.
>It doesn't seem like a good ink to base a quad black inkset on to me.

No, if Matte black can't do any better than the low 1.5's with most matte
papers, most people will have no interest in it -- especially given its
cost.  EAM still is a good paper for many things, but I'm not interested in
a quad that is only really good with EAM.

>The photo black ink gives you the advantage of being able to
>easily switch between matte and luster papers.

What does the Photo black give in dmax for EAM, Eclipse Satine, and PhotoRag
without coating?

> At this point everything I'm working with will be coated in
>the end...so the difference in uncoated dmax doesn't really matter to me.
>Photoblack on poor black papers like Somerset enhanced or
>Eclipse Satine can reach a dmax of 2 when coated...

I suspect that most will want a black ink that looks OK without coating.  At
this point I also think that the real "keepers" that I do will be coated.
I'd guess most will not take that extra step.

I'll be curious how the Museum black looks and tests.

Paul

> luster papers.  At this point everything I'm working with will be 
> coated in
> the end...so the difference in uncoated dmax doesn't really matter to me.
> Photoblack on poor black papers like Somerset enhanced or Eclipse 
> Satine can
> reach a dmax of 2 when coated...the prints are stunning...compared to
> uncoated prints matte black EAM prints.

what are you coating with Robert?

On 11/12/02 9:32 AM, "Tim Atherton" <tim@...> wrote:

>> luster papers.  At this point everything I'm working with will be
>> coated in
>> the end...so the difference in uncoated dmax doesn't really matter to me.
>> Photoblack on poor black papers like Somerset enhanced or Eclipse
>> Satine can
>> reach a dmax of 2 when coated...the prints are stunning...compared to
>> uncoated prints matte black EAM prints.
> 
> what are you coating with Robert?

I'm developing a coating for the purpose that will hopefully be commercially
available in the next month.  My product is a blend of acrylic polymers that
produces a sheen and dmax much like an air-dried silver prints using a
variety of different papers.  It works well with all of the major pigment
based quad inksets from Cone, MIS and Sundance.  You apply the coating in a
thin film using a Mayer rod (metering bar). Paul Roark has also recently
posted information on his recent experimentation with coating as well.  He's
using an aliphatic polyurethane.  I have traditionally stayed away from
these because of their toxicity and difficulty in handling (smell and dry
time).

If you would like more information contact me off list.

Robert

On 11/12/02 7:48 AM, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> Robert,
> 
>>> ...have you measured the UC Matte black density on Eclipse or other
>>> papers?
>> 
>> ...I was working off of numbers that Antonis
>> had generated with his 2200.  ...
>> The bottom line is that the matte black ink is great with EAM
>> (about 1.75).  It is fair with photorag (mid 1.6's) and
>> poor with other papers (low 1.5's and below).  Personally,
>> I don't see the advantage of working with matte
>> black unless the only paper you are going to print on is EAM.
>> It doesn't seem like a good ink to base a quad black inkset on to me.
> 
> No, if Matte black can't do any better than the low 1.5's with most matte
> papers, most people will have no interest in it -- especially given its
> cost.  EAM still is a good paper for many things, but I'm not interested in
> a quad that is only really good with EAM.
> 
>> The photo black ink gives you the advantage of being able to
>> easily switch between matte and luster papers.
> 
> What does the Photo black give in dmax for EAM, Eclipse Satine, and PhotoRag
> without coating?

Well EAM drops to 1.42 from about 1.73.  Other papers that don't do as well
with Matte black don't drop as much.  Somerset Enchanced gets about 1.48
with the Matte Black and gets 1.34 with the Photo Black.  Coated the
somerset comes up to 1.85.  To my eye it visually beats photoblack on Epson
semi-gloss paper...which technically has a higher dmax (1.95).  Obviously
you could do better using the MIS FS black.  My main interest in the
Ultrachromes is in a color solution...as far as I'm concerned the
Ultrachrome inks are not even in the league for BW work at this
point...unless you want to make RC prints...then Epson Semi-Gloss is a nice
option.
> 
>> At this point everything I'm working with will be coated in
>> the end...so the difference in uncoated dmax doesn't really matter to me.
>> Photoblack on poor black papers like Somerset enhanced or
>> Eclipse Satine can reach a dmax of 2 when coated...
> 
> I suspect that most will want a black ink that looks OK without coating.  At
> this point I also think that the real "keepers" that I do will be coated.
> I'd guess most will not take that extra step.
> 
I'm sure you are right.  Honestly, the only thing that I do that isn't
coated at this  point are proofs...which I do on EAM using the Piezotone
grays with MIS FSN black.

> I'll be curious how the Museum black looks and tests.
> 
Me too, I'm going to switch to it when it is available given that I'm using
the Piezotone grays.

Robert

> 
> 
> 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
> "flames."
> - 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/
> 
> 
>