Digital BW, The Print

Clayton,

Correction:

I misstated the MIS Matte black warming & fading on the last post.  The 100%
spot only warmed 0.02 units.  The fade was 0.07 units.  The 0.02 warming at
the 100% black spot after the length of time it was in this fader is not a
significant issue.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
____________________________________

>>At 300 hours in my new 3100 lumens fader, the Epson Matte Black and
>>Archival black, as expected, looked excellent, with no measurable
fade

>... What about color shifting, anything you can report about that?

At the 100% black spot warming has to be fairly bad to be seen, and the fade
is what I consider the problem there.  The MIS Matte black, which faded 0.08
units, warmed 0.07 units, which is substantial.  The Archival black did warm
0.02 units, but it did not fade and the warming is not visible.  The FS and
Epson Matte black didn't warm at all, but the FS black did fade, and that is
what I'm really concerned about.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Paul,

Here is a summary of these numbers.  Can you verify them to make sure
I got it right, and also fill in the missing info (FS Black warming,
whether the MIS results were from BO printing, and BO Dmax for FS
Black)?  This is important to me for comparison because I'm doing BO
printing with FS black, and with the missing numbers the others will
have some meaning.  The numbers don't mean much to me by themselves,
but I know how BO FS Black looks and warms...

Many thanks,
Clayton

                     300 HOURS TEST RESULTS

2200 Ink            Fade   Warm    EEM Dmax
--------------------------------------------------------------
Epson Matte Black     0      0     1.73 1160/BO

Epson Archival Black  0     .02    1.48 1160/BO

MIS Matte Black      .07    .02    1.58/1.51  is this BO?
                                   if not, what is BO Dmax?

-----------  Non 2200 Ink for comparison
MIS FS Black         .02     ?     1.61/1.59 1160/not BO
                                       what is BO Dmax?

Clayton,

>Here is a summary of these numbers.

I've double-checked my numbers and added the missing ones to the table.

>... BO Dmax for FS Black?

Assume it is about 0.04 to 0.05 higher than the RGB printing dmax.

Note that all the fade testing of the group was on a relatively late batch
of EAM, not the new EEM.

One problem with the dmax readings is that EAM and EEM from the various
batches I have are so different.  For example, the latest batch of EEM has
that nice white surface, but the dmax has dropped badly.  With the new EEM
(letter size) batch, the FS-K dmax is only 1.59 with Black-Only printing.
It's 1.54 with RGB printing.  (Both of these are for the 1160 and Heavy
Weight Matte paper setting and "no color adjustment.")  Printer types also
make a difference.  My 3000 with the "good old EAM" consistently produced an
RGB dmax of 1.68 (plus or minus 0.01).


                     300 HOURS TEST RESULTS

2200 Ink            Fade   Warm    EAM Dmax
--------------------------------------------------------------
Epson Matte Black     0      0     1.73 1160/BO

Epson Archival Black  0     .02    1.48 1160/BO

MIS Matte Black      .07    .02    1.58/1.51 BO


-----------  Non 2200 Ink for comparison
MIS FS Black         .02     0     1.61/1.59 1160/not BO


Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

> I've double-checked my numbers and added the missing ones to the
table.

>                      300 HOURS TEST RESULTS
> 
> 2200 Ink            Fade   Warm    EAM Dmax
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Epson Matte Black     0      0     1.73 1160/BO
> 
> Epson Archival Black  0     .02    1.48 1160/BO
> 
> MIS Matte Black      .07    .02    1.58/1.51 BO
> 
> 
> -----------  Non 2200 Ink for comparison
> MIS FS Black         .02     0     1.61/1.59 1160/not BO


You entered 0 for the warming amount for the MIS FS black - how can
that be?  I use that ink in my BO printing and it definitely warms,
though not nearly as bad as the full ink set.  Is this a mistake?


>One problem with the dmax readings is that EAM and EEM 
>from the various batches I have are so different.  
>Note that all the fade testing of the group was on a 
>relatively late batch of EAM, not the new EEM.

Understood, but that's ok because I've been using the old EAM and that
gives me a good value to compare with.  For me it's all relative.  The
numbers don't mean much except if it's higher or lower than EAM then I
have a realistic comparison.  I'm using an 870 which I like very much.
 I'm not in a hurry, but someday I'll probably upgrade to a 1280 or
2200.  It just depends on the inks.

So it looks like the Epson Matte Black is top dog - wasn't the
Archival supposed to be better?

Regards, - cj