Digital BW, The Print

After a few months of tracking postings in a number of forums 
adressing Epson's Ultrachrome(UC) Pigment versus Photo-Dye ink sets, 
I have compiled a list of issues/concerns that I post below for 
further discussion:

1. The "bronzing" and/or "gloss differential" effect of Ultrachrome 
inks on glossy/coated papers which is quite evident as you look at a 
print a various angles.

2. The "hazy veil" that seems to exist in front of Ultrachrome prints 
(obvious when viewed side-by-side to a dye print of the same image). 

3. A "lack of punch" of B&W Ultrachrome images (as compared to their 
dye counterpart).

4. The lower DMAX of the Ultrachrome black ink ( compared to its dye 
counterpart).

5, The fragility - tendency to flaking and scuffing - of the 
Ultrachrome inks. 

As much as I have been lusting for an Ultrachrome 7600 printer for 
the last months, the above issues suggest that it may be wiser to 
wait for yet-another-generation of improvements before jumping into 
the pigmented inks bandwagon. 

In a nutshell, the dilema is how much "fun" one is willing to give up 
for the sake of a "longer life". 

What good is a long life if is dull from the start ?!?!?! 

Miguel Angel Aleman

on 23/11/02 12:01 am, Richard Prull at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Having used an Epson 2200 for a number of weeks now, I believe that Miguel's
> list of issues and concerns is dead on. Unless changes are made, I
> personally would not print on anything other than matt paper. Increasing the
> contrast of the image restores much of the "punch" that you see in the dye
> based prints, but it's not a perfect solution. The only solution I see to
> the issue of fragility is to recognize it and handle the prints accordingly.

I too have been using a 2100 (UK designation for 2200) for a few weeks and
would also agree with Miguel Aleman's list or problems with the Ultrachrome
inks. I would however add a few observations. The 'lack of punch' mentioned
was a big disappointment but I immediately profiled the printer for both
Epson semi-gloss and archival matte using a 729 patch and the ColorSavvy
Colour Mouse (part of the Pantone ColorVision system).

Looking at the 729 patches from the 2100 (printed without profile or printer
colour management from the Adobe RGB space) you could see a finer tonal
gradation than with either of my other dye printers (I also use a 950 and an
older 1200). 

Once profiled I could see I was dealing with a wide gamut printer as I could
print highlight detail and shadows that did not print without blowing out or
blocking up on the 950 dye inks (similarly profiled).

Can't argue with the 'bronzing' comments - it's ugly. The 'haze' is largely
dissipated by profiling (I get very different results using Epson's supplied
profiles - but shouldn't). I've accepted a trade between perceived 'lack of
punch' for better shadow and highlight detail (particularly on matte paper).
I think the lower Dmax of the inks contributes to the perceived lack of
'punch'. I've not experienced any problems with flaking.

My major criticism is the complete lack of compatibility with any of my
preferred paper stock - I do not want to be limited to the unpleasant white
of Epson Archival Matte. Any experiments found a good sating, pearl of
semi-gloss paper or a good white matte paper?

--
Regards
David Prakel

Centre of Britain PhotoWorkshops Partnership

Hello Richard and David (and others)

I also posted my "UltraChrome Issues and Concerns" note at the Epson 
9000 Forum where, with the exception of a few replies, it was largely 
ignored. As you well know, the same seems to be happening on this 
forum. 

I don't know how to interpret the silence, but I venture to guess 
it meant that within the context of the available options, 
UltraChrome users are quite happy with the performance they are 
getting from this ink set.

Having said tht, let me share me share what I learned from the 
replies I did get regarding "bronzing/gloss differential":

- it is the worst on Epson Premium Glossy paper (which happens to be 
the paper used in two sample images I had an Epson Pro Dealer print 
for me)

- is not as bad on Epson Semigloss

- it does not occur on Epson Glossy Photo (and other cast-coated 
papers)

- it does not occur on Pictorico papers

- and, of course, it does not occur at all in Matte papers

- and of course, is not existent

Please comment if your experience differs from the above observations.

Thanks, Miguel Angel Aleman

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Miguel Angel Aleman" 
<alemanma@b...> wrote:
> Hello Richard and David (and others)
> 
> I also posted my "UltraChrome Issues and Concerns" note at the Epson 
> 9000 Forum where, with the exception of a few replies, it was 
largely 
> ignored. As you well know, the same seems to be happening on this 
> forum.


No, hardly at all, Miguel!

I read the thread and printed out both of your posts and have them 
here for reference. Just because I (or others) don't reply doesn't 
always mean I'm not listening. A few times I'm just too busy and 
important messages do sneak past me.


I was debating switching to glossy with the 2200. Your experiences 
will help guide me in selecting what if any papers to test.


There are two papers listed here:

http://www.inkjetart.com/EpsonStylusPhoto2200/media.html


one is Micro ceramic luster (supposed to be similar to Epson Premium 
Luster). One is "Epson Professional Glossy paper"...only available in 
13x19 sheets, and is  a little known paper.
I don't know if in your reply you have already tested this last paper 
as Epson names their papers confusionly. But the word "professional" 
is how it is distinguished.
Do you have any comments on these papers?

 
> 
> I don't know how to interpret the silence, but I venture to guess 
> it meant that within the context of the available options, 
> UltraChrome users are quite happy with the performance they are 
> getting from this ink set.

If one is willing to live with lower Dmax and matte though wouldn't 
this be true? I haven't gotten my 2200 yet, so this is a sincere 
question: I want to be able to fall back on a matte solution and be 
happy with it as long as I am willing to sacrifice Dmax.

I don't think you were using IP5 btw were you? Probably wouldn't make 
a difference for what your looking at unless the driver dithers black 
signifigantly different(?)
Jim H.

> 
> Having said tht, let me share me share what I learned from the 
> replies I did get regarding "bronzing/gloss differential":
> 
> - it is the worst on Epson Premium Glossy paper (which happens to be 
> the paper used in two sample images I had an Epson Pro Dealer print 
> for me)
> 
> - is not as bad on Epson Semigloss
> 
> - it does not occur on Epson Glossy Photo (and other cast-coated 
> papers)
> 
> - it does not occur on Pictorico papers
> 
> - and, of course, it does not occur at all in Matte papers
> 
> - and of course, is not existent
> 
> Please comment if your experience differs from the above 
observations.
> 
> Thanks, Miguel Angel Aleman

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "jim hayes" <jimhayes@f...> 
wrote:
> 
> I was debating switching to glossy with the 2200. Your experiences 
> will help guide me in selecting what if any papers to test.
> 
> 

Hello Jim

I do not have first hand experience printing with the UltraChrome 
inks, and I hope I made that clear on my previous postings. I think I 
did.

Like many others, I am still trying to decide if is time to jump into 
the "UltraChrome Inks" bandwagon ... in the hope of a "longer life".
 
TO help me made the decision, I lurked for a few months in a number 
of inkjet-related forums while compiling the list of "Issues and 
Concerns" I highlighted in my original post. In addition, I got a few 
of my images printed by three different Epson Pro dealers so that I 
could directly compared UltraChrome prints against their dye 
counterparts. Unfortunately, in all cases, the prints I got back from 
the dealers suffered from the "Ultrachrome sins". 

It was then that I decided to "come out of the lurker's closet" and 
post for the very first time. Out of "youthfull ignorance", I 
simultaneusly posted in 3 different forums, which I later learned 
is "not cool".

Anyway, the "bronzing" related remarks/recommendations paper I made 
on my very last posting are not my own, but rather, they are a 
compilation of some of the responses elicited by my original posting.

Unless is also "uncool" to provide feedback obtained from other 
forums, I will continue to post what I hear/learn along the way.

Still trying to learn the unwritten rules, Miguel Angel Aleman

Miguel,

> Unless is also "uncool" to provide feedback obtained from other 
> forums, I will continue to post what I hear/learn along the way.
> 
> Still trying to learn the unwritten rules, Miguel Angel Aleman

I have been following the thread with interest and appreciated the
helpful information you provided.  I for one am glad you did.  Thanks
very much.

Regards, - cj

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Miguel Angel Aleman" 
<alemanma@b...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "jim hayes" 
<jimhayes@f...> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > I was debating switching to glossy with the 2200. Your experiences 
> > will help guide me in selecting what if any papers to test.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Hello Jim
> 
> I do not have first hand experience printing with the UltraChrome 
> inks, and I hope I made that clear on my previous postings. I think 
I 
> did.


I thought that might be the case but that you had seen first hand 
printed samples by others. But I wasn't sure.

> 
> Like many others, I am still trying to decide if is time to jump 
into 
> the "UltraChrome Inks" bandwagon ... in the hope of a "longer life".

In my case I am more or less getting forced into it after fighting ink 
breakdown/clogging issues with both the old piezo inks and the MIS 
inks. Probably because of the environment or climate, it is not very 
practical to run pigment inks through 1160 or 1280 printers here. Or I 
could be doing something wrong. So I'm ready to opt out for ink that 
is "supposed" to be in the printer. My other option is to use the 
standard MIS black instead of VM black, but tired of all the hijinks, 
I just want a system where I can call up Epson and scream at them if 
need be, if THEIR inks are clogging my 2200...

>  
> TO help me made the decision, I lurked for a few months in a number 
> of inkjet-related forums while compiling the list of "Issues and 
> Concerns" I highlighted in my original post. In addition, I got a 
few 
> of my images printed by three different Epson Pro dealers so that I 
> could directly compared UltraChrome prints against their dye 
> counterparts. Unfortunately, in all cases, the prints I got back 
from 
> the dealers suffered from the "Ultrachrome sins".


Yes, I got TSS photo to print some of my files on Eclipse paper with 
both photo black and matte black on 7600. But not any glossy or semi. 
This was with default Epson driver settings and they did have "geenish 
in daylight" problems. Ignoring the hue of the prints, the prints 
weren't too bad at all. I expected a low Dmax anyway, having used 
Eclipse in the past. But it certainly isn't worth crowing about. I 
also got some color and B&W prints from Epson on different papers.

I'm not sure it's fair to compare dye inksets to any pigment inkset 
since you trade in longevity and get higher Dmax and, in the case of 
color, richer tones. It's like you can't have everything- you have to 
compromise. Trading longevity for vibrancy in this case.

In my case with the 2200 I will trade "no more ink clogging hassles" 
(assumed since inks were MADE to go in printer) for some print 
quality. I also get some longevity as a bonus. I'll find a paper I 
like best, but my fall back is Eclipse...and live with the lower Dmax.
 
> 
> It was then that I decided to "come out of the lurker's closet" and 
> post for the very first time. Out of "youthfull ignorance", I 
> simultaneusly posted in 3 different forums, which I later learned 
> is "not cool".
> 
> Anyway, the "bronzing" related remarks/recommendations paper I made 
> on my very last posting are not my own, but rather, they are a 
> compilation of some of the responses elicited by my original 
posting.
> 
> Unless is also "uncool" to provide feedback obtained from other 
> forums, I will continue to post what I hear/learn along the way.

Okay, but I'm curious as to how many folks were happy with UC on 
glossy/semi vs not happy, as in rough percentage? Everyone sees things 
with different eyes.
Jim H.

> 
> Still trying to learn the unwritten rules, Miguel Angel Aleman

I realize this post is a little unorthodox, but this list seems the 
most likely to benefit, so...

I am considering parting with my Epson 1280 w/CIS and Piezography BW 
system. Any prospective purchaser would acquire a new-condition 1280 in 
box w/all parts, Piezography 6.0.2 software CD, full CIS from 
NoMoreCarts, and a BRAND NEW unopened set of PiezoTone inks (your 
choice of tones if you specify before I order replacements for my 
original ink, which has turned green).

If you are interested at all, email me directly at 
eddie@... and we can negotiate from there.

Thanks for tolerating this mild abuse of the list, but hopefully 
someone lurking and wanting to try this technology will benefit and be 
happy as a result.

Regards,
/eddie