Digital BW, The Print

I'm not sure RC paper have made the grade yet, but I like the surface and
price of the Ilford Smooth gloss and pearl papers.  They do seem to have a
few defects with Ultra Tone inks, however.

First, there does seem to be a little "dusting" in the deep shadows.  I was
curious if this was the paper or the UT pigs.  So, I mixed a UT inkset with
Epson UC coated pigs.  When used with Epson Photo K in the black cart, the
dusting completely disappeared.

The 100% black still has a different look, but it is much closer.  All thing
considered, the image looked excellent.

I left the UT toner as is, and there does not seem to be enough pigment in
that to make a difference.  I'm suspicious that the light gray is also so
weak that it could remain the stock MIS UT light gray.  So, I'll mix a batch
with just a cyan (quad) position ink the Epson mix and see if that gets rid
of the dusting.  That would be easy for us or MIS to mix if it cures the
dusting problems -- with the Epson Photo K.

I also noticed that this paper (perhaps like all RC papers) shows
fingerprints badly on the 100% black spot.  Interestingly, however, the
fingerprints even look deeper black.  So, I decided to rub my finger across
my face to get it extra oily.  Then I rubbed it on the 100% patch.  The dmax
leapt from about 2.05 to 2.6.  Whoa.

I did the same thing to an old Ilford Smooth Glossy test strip where the
black looked a bit veiled, even though it read about 1.8.  Again, the dmax
leapt to 2.6, and the veiling disappeared.  The depth of black was just
amazing.

I'm not sure what is going on here, but it makes me wonder if some easy
surface treatment could give spectacular results.  Perhaps there is a
residue on the surface that can easily be cleaned off with a cloth lightly
dampened with ... ?? oil??

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

I saw some of Paul's test strips yesterday with the Ilford Smooth gloss  
(before the finger rub downs :-)) and they were quite impressive...very  
little bronzing with the Ultratones.  In comparison I'm getting much  
more bronzing with the 2200 OEM.PK inks on the Ilford Smooth  
Pearl...however, most of that goes away with a light coat of Krylon  
spray.  The Smooth Gloss/Ultratone combo looked almost good enough to  
go without a spray coat.  Would be interested to hear about the  
Pictorico papers with the Ultratones as well.

Robert

On Sunday, June 22, 2003, at 11:49 PM, Paul Roark wrote:

> I'm not sure RC paper have made the grade yet, but I like the surface  
> and
> price of the Ilford Smooth gloss and pearl papers.  They do seem to  
> have a
> few defects with Ultra Tone inks, however.
>
> First, there does seem to be a little "dusting" in the deep shadows.   
> I was
> curious if this was the paper or the UT pigs.  So, I mixed a UT inkset  
> with
> Epson UC coated pigs.  When used with Epson Photo K in the black cart,  
> the
> dusting completely disappeared.
>
> The 100% black still has a different look, but it is much closer.  All  
> thing
> considered, the image looked excellent.
>
> I left the UT toner as is, and there does not seem to be enough  
> pigment in
> that to make a difference.  I'm suspicious that the light gray is also  
> so
> weak that it could remain the stock MIS UT light gray.  So, I'll mix a  
> batch
> with just a cyan (quad) position ink the Epson mix and see if that  
> gets rid
> of the dusting.  That would be easy for us or MIS to mix if it cures  
> the
> dusting problems -- with the Epson Photo K.
>
> I also noticed that this paper (perhaps like all RC papers) shows
> fingerprints badly on the 100% black spot.  Interestingly, however, the
> fingerprints even look deeper black.  So, I decided to rub my finger  
> across
> my face to get it extra oily.  Then I rubbed it on the 100% patch.   
> The dmax
> leapt from about 2.05 to 2.6.  Whoa.
>
> I did the same thing to an old Ilford Smooth Glossy test strip where  
> the
> black looked a bit veiled, even though it read about 1.8.  Again, the  
> dmax
> leapt to 2.6, and the veiling disappeared.  The depth of black was just
> amazing.
>
> I'm not sure what is going on here, but it makes me wonder if some easy
> surface treatment could give spectacular results.  Perhaps there is a
> residue on the surface that can easily be cleaned off with a cloth  
> lightly
> dampened with ... ?? oil??
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ---------------------~-->
> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important  
> Questions.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> 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/
>
>

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

From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
To: "DigitalB&WPrint"
<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 8:49 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Ilford Smooth Glossy


> I'm not sure RC paper have made the grade yet, but I like the
surface and
> price of the Ilford Smooth gloss and pearl papers.  They do
seem to have a
> few defects with Ultra Tone inks, however.
>
> First, there does seem to be a little "dusting" in the deep
shadows.  I was
> curious if this was the paper or the UT pigs.  So, I mixed a UT
inkset with
> Epson UC coated pigs.  When used with Epson Photo K in the
black cart, the
> dusting completely disappeared.
>
> The 100% black still has a different look, but it is much
closer.  All thing
> considered, the image looked excellent.
>
> I left the UT toner as is, and there does not seem to be enough
pigment in
> that to make a difference.  I'm suspicious that the light gray
is also so
> weak that it could remain the stock MIS UT light gray.  So,
I'll mix a batch
> with just a cyan (quad) position ink the Epson mix and see if
that gets rid
> of the dusting.  That would be easy for us or MIS to mix if it
cures the
> dusting problems -- with the Epson Photo K.
>
> I also noticed that this paper (perhaps like all RC papers)
shows
> fingerprints badly on the 100% black spot.  Interestingly,
however, the
> fingerprints even look deeper black.  So, I decided to rub my
finger across
> my face to get it extra oily.  Then I rubbed it on the 100%
patch.  The dmax
> leapt from about 2.05 to 2.6.  Whoa.
>
> I did the same thing to an old Ilford Smooth Glossy test strip
where the
> black looked a bit veiled, even though it read about 1.8.
Again, the dmax
> leapt to 2.6, and the veiling disappeared.  The depth of black
was just
> amazing.
>
> I'm not sure what is going on here, but it makes me wonder if
some easy
> surface treatment could give spectacular results.  Perhaps
there is a
> residue on the surface that can easily be cleaned off with a
cloth lightly
> dampened with ... ?? oil??
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

So changing from Eboni to Epson Photo Black isn't enough, the
darker grey has to be replaced as well ?

Did you try some wax too ?  It must be a better material than oil
in the long run.

Ernst

Any kind of oil is acidic, so it will ruin the print pretty soon.  It 
must be another solution.
After years of wet printing one knows that the archival wax helps 
saturate blacks.
It should work as well on the digital prints.
Jack

_________________________________________________
Jack M Kucy
JMK Gallery (www.jmk-gallery.com)
917-991-2096     jmk@...
Member of ASMP (www.asmp.org)
_________________________________________________
...a riveder le stelle


Ernst Dinkla wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
> To: "DigitalB&WPrint"
> <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 8:49 AM
> Subject: [Digital BW] Ilford Smooth Glossy
>
>
> > I'm not sure RC paper have made the grade yet, but I like the
> surface and
> > price of the Ilford Smooth gloss and pearl papers.  They do
> seem to have a
> > few defects with Ultra Tone inks, however.
> >
> > First, there does seem to be a little "dusting" in the deep
> shadows.  I was
> > curious if this was the paper or the UT pigs.  So, I mixed a UT
> inkset with
> > Epson UC coated pigs.  When used with Epson Photo K in the
> black cart, the
> > dusting completely disappeared.
> >
> > The 100% black still has a different look, but it is much
> closer.  All thing
> > considered, the image looked excellent.
> >
> > I left the UT toner as is, and there does not seem to be enough
> pigment in
> > that to make a difference.  I'm suspicious that the light gray
> is also so
> > weak that it could remain the stock MIS UT light gray.  So,
> I'll mix a batch
> > with just a cyan (quad) position ink the Epson mix and see if
> that gets rid
> > of the dusting.  That would be easy for us or MIS to mix if it
> cures the
> > dusting problems -- with the Epson Photo K.
> >
> > I also noticed that this paper (perhaps like all RC papers)
> shows
> > fingerprints badly on the 100% black spot.  Interestingly,
> however, the
> > fingerprints even look deeper black.  So, I decided to rub my
> finger across
> > my face to get it extra oily.  Then I rubbed it on the 100%
> patch.  The dmax
> > leapt from about 2.05 to 2.6.  Whoa.
> >
> > I did the same thing to an old Ilford Smooth Glossy test strip
> where the
> > black looked a bit veiled, even though it read about 1.8.
> Again, the dmax
> > leapt to 2.6, and the veiling disappeared.  The depth of black
> was just
> > amazing.
> >
> > I'm not sure what is going on here, but it makes me wonder if
> some easy
> > surface treatment could give spectacular results.  Perhaps
> there is a
> > residue on the surface that can easily be cleaned off with a
> cloth lightly
> > dampened with ... ?? oil??
> >
> > Paul
> > http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
> So changing from Eboni to Epson Photo Black isn't enough, the
> darker grey has to be replaced as well ?
>
> Did you try some wax too ?  It must be a better material than oil
> in the long run.
>
> Ernst
>
>





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

on 6/23/2003 2:02 AM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> 
> I also noticed that this paper (perhaps like all RC papers) shows
> fingerprints badly on the 100% black spot.  Interestingly, however, the
> fingerprints even look deeper black.  So, I decided to rub my finger across
> my face to get it extra oily.  Then I rubbed it on the 100% patch.  The dmax
> leapt from about 2.05 to 2.6.  Whoa.
> 
> I did the same thing to an old Ilford Smooth Glossy test strip where the
> black looked a bit veiled, even though it read about 1.8.  Again, the dmax
> leapt to 2.6, and the veiling disappeared.  The depth of black was just
> amazing.
> 
> I'm not sure what is going on here, but it makes me wonder if some easy
> surface treatment could give spectacular results.  Perhaps there is a
> residue on the surface that can easily be cleaned off with a cloth lightly
> dampened with ... ?? oil??
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com


I've noticed the same effect printing with the original piezo inks onto
"Kodak Injet Photo Paper" (a glossy paper no longer made). The ink takes a
while to dry on this paper, but it does. And when it does, it does not rub
off.

But I have noticed the dusting/fingerprint phenomenon. I solve it by
spraying with Krylon acrylic crystal clear.

I was hoping with the new ink, I would no longer have to spray...
 
-Bruce

Visit my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr

I should qualify my earlier post by saying that on most RC papers, just
changing to the MIS Photo Black is all that is required to get good RC
prints.  However, on the Ilford Smooth Glossy I did notice some dust in the
deep shadows, and it appears that it could be due to the MIS RC solution
being not quite as good as the Epson coated pigs solution.  It may be that
using a different paper or a light spray is a better way to deal with the
issue than messing around with expensive Epson inks.

What waxes would be best to try for that approach?

With the sprays, are you seeing the dmax increase that I found with the
finger oil?

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

I used the Renaissance Wax (available from Light Impressions - link 
below)  on the BW fiber prints.
It increased dmax for sure.  Easy to apply, acid free.  I haven't tried 
it yet on the digital prints - I am
just setting up for BW printing.  I am going to try it soon.
http://www.lightimpressionsdirect.com/servlet/OnlineShopping?DSP=50000&PCR=30000:120000:123000:123200&IID=8282&R=8741
(the link may require copying and pasting if it gets split)
Jack

_________________________________________________
Jack M Kucy
JMK Gallery (www.jmk-gallery.com)
917-991-2096     jmk@...
Member of ASMP (www.asmp.org)
_________________________________________________
...a riveder le stelle


Paul Roark wrote:

> I should qualify my earlier post by saying that on most RC papers, just
> changing to the MIS Photo Black is all that is required to get good RC
> prints.  However, on the Ilford Smooth Glossy I did notice some dust 
> in the
> deep shadows, and it appears that it could be due to the MIS RC solution
> being not quite as good as the Epson coated pigs solution.  It may be that
> using a different paper or a light spray is a better way to deal with the
> issue than messing around with expensive Epson inks.
>
> What waxes would be best to try for that approach?
>
> With the sprays, are you seeing the dmax increase that I found with the
> finger oil?
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
>





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

The sprays do increase the dmax.  I've gotten things as high as 2.5  
with the Epson photo black...but the dmax from the 2200 starts higher  
(around 2.3) than the dmax from  the older printers  
(1.9-2.1)...honestly from my experience with coating on matte  
papers...the coating dictates the final dmax more than the initial dmax  
of the paper.  In addition there is not much visual difference between  
2.3 and 2.6.  The key is get over 2.0.  The epson photo black is always  
over 2.0 on the gloss/luster papers with the 2200 (the MIS photo black  
in the older printers (1280) does not regularly break 2.0, however, but  
I think this is due to the printer technology, not necessarily the ink).

Robert

On Monday, June 23, 2003, at 08:17 AM, Paul Roark wrote:

> I should qualify my earlier post by saying that on most RC papers, just
> changing to the MIS Photo Black is all that is required to get good RC
> prints.  However, on the Ilford Smooth Glossy I did notice some dust  
> in the
> deep shadows, and it appears that it could be due to the MIS RC  
> solution
> being not quite as good as the Epson coated pigs solution.  It may be  
> that
> using a different paper or a light spray is a better way to deal with  
> the
> issue than messing around with expensive Epson inks.
>
> What waxes would be best to try for that approach?
>
> With the sprays, are you seeing the dmax increase that I found with the
> finger oil?
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ---------------------~-->
> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important  
> Questions.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> 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/
>
>

>The sprays do increase the dmax.  I've gotten things as high as 2.5
>with the Epson photo black...but the dmax from the 2200 starts higher
>(around 2.3) than the dmax from  the older printers

I just sprayed some Ilford Smooth Glossy with Grumbacher Tuffilm.  The dmax
went from 2.0 to 2.18 (Epson 1160) with the MIS Photo K.  The Epson Photo K
went from 2.02 to 2.15.  The MIS PK actually seems to look better.  The
Epson 100% patch seems to take on a bit of a dotty look.  I think maybe the
Grumbacher and the Epson coating don't get along all that well.

The surface of the Ilford Smooth glossy with the spray is about half way to
the look of the Epson Premium Luster, but with no bronzing or veiled 100%
black -- very nice.  Also the finger prints no longer show significantly.
Too bad spraying is a bit of a hassle.

I also tried some wax (Dorland -- just because I had some).  It rubbed off
the Eboni on the glossy paper, but the Photo K looked good.  I think the
spraying is going to be easier than waxing, however.  I also think it
protects the print from finger prints better.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

When I screened gloss/luster papers a year ago I came to the conclusion  
that luster/pearl papers were better to spray...because they are much  
less technique dependent to get a reproducible surface.  Try spraying  
some Ilford Smooth Pearl printed with the ultratones and let us know  
how the bronzing is.

Robert

On Monday, June 23, 2003, at 11:33 AM, Paul Roark wrote:

>> The sprays do increase the dmax.  I've gotten things as high as 2.5
>> with the Epson photo black...but the dmax from the 2200 starts higher
>> (around 2.3) than the dmax from  the older printers
>
> I just sprayed some Ilford Smooth Glossy with Grumbacher Tuffilm.  The  
> dmax
> went from 2.0 to 2.18 (Epson 1160) with the MIS Photo K.  The Epson  
> Photo K
> went from 2.02 to 2.15.  The MIS PK actually seems to look better.  The
> Epson 100% patch seems to take on a bit of a dotty look.  I think  
> maybe the
> Grumbacher and the Epson coating don't get along all that well.
>
> The surface of the Ilford Smooth glossy with the spray is about half  
> way to
> the look of the Epson Premium Luster, but with no bronzing or veiled  
> 100%
> black -- very nice.  Also the finger prints no longer show  
> significantly.
> Too bad spraying is a bit of a hassle.
>
> I also tried some wax (Dorland -- just because I had some).  It rubbed  
> off
> the Eboni on the glossy paper, but the Photo K looked good.  I think  
> the
> spraying is going to be easier than waxing, however.  I also think it
> protects the print from finger prints better.
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ---------------------~-->
> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important  
> Questions.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> 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/
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I'm not sure RC paper have made the grade yet, but I like the 
surface and
> price of the Ilford Smooth gloss and pearl papers.  They do seem to 
have a
> few defects with Ultra Tone inks, however.

I have used IGS Glossy and Pearl on colour prints (Epson 2100OEM 
inks) and far prefer the pearl finish.  To me the glossy has a veiled 
milky look.  

I have tried Black Only on the pearl but find the green hue 
unacceptable in daylight.  With very myopic eyesight, I could see no 
dots with my glasses off and my nose close to the print.  I used the 
Pettit 100 step wedge with aletrnate rows reversed so that I could 
judge the steps (no densitometer).  I was able to improve shadow 
detail with a curve that I made into an action.

Before it was withdrawn, I downloaded Cathy Stratton's profile for 
IGSP and am finding black and white prints show some promise. 
Unfortunately my PC went on strike at the weekend and I have not 
ventured further.

I would like to know what hues the black ultratone displays under 
different lighting conditions?

Colin

Colin,

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
>> I'm not sure RC papers have made the grade yet,
>>but I like the surface and
>> price of the Ilford Smooth gloss and pearl papers.
>>They do seem to have a few defects with Ultra Tone inks, however.
>> [UT dusts in the deep shadows.]


>...
>I have tried [UC 2100 ink] Black Only on the pearl but find the green hue
>unacceptable in daylight.  ...

>I would like to know what hues the black ultratone displays under
>different lighting conditions?

I carried some test strips of the Ilford Smooth Glossy around to several
light sources, including bright, sunny daylight (but less than direct sun),
and I saw no green tint or metamerism.  This was also true of the Ultra Tone
that I mixed using the Epson UC Photo and Light black inks to make the
cyan-position dark gray ink that avoids the MIS shadow area dusting.  For
this approach, I also used the Epson Photo K.  Still, I see no green tint.

I thought the green tint/metamerism was coming from the Epson UC color inks
that are in the "B&W" 2100/2200 prints.  Does the green you see appear in
the shadows or midtones?

The specific RC paper seems to make a big difference in which inks are best.
With the cheap Epson Glossy Photo Paper (sold, for example, at our "big box"
stores like "Costco" over here) the MIS pigs are far better than Epson's.
The stock Ultra Tone has no bronzing and a (MIS Photo black) dmax of over
1.8, while the Epson-based UT version with Epson Photo K has a (pathetic)
dmax of 1.4 and bronzes.  On the other hand, for Ilford and Epson Premium
Luster, the Epson pigs do better.  But for spraying, even with these papers,
the MIS pigs seem to have a slight edge.  They seem to absorb the acrylic
spray better, at least in the 100% black areas.

It may be that people will want to find a paper they like, and then select
the inks based on that.

For now, I'm thinking the UT cyan and Photo black positions are all matter
in this regard.  That is, if the paper of choice dusts with stock UT, the
Epson-based cyan (dark gray) and Photo K are the ones that seem to take care
of the problem.  (I have not tested this on a hextone printer.)  The
high-load of the pigment seems to be the issue.  With the low-load light
inks, the MIS pigs seem as good as the Epson pigs even on the Ilford and
Epson Premium Luster papers.

The Epson-based cyan mix ratio for now (that is, my best guess based on
extrapolation of current data points) is 55% Epson Photo K and 45% Epson
Light black.  The mixing is not that critical, given the relatively close
densities of the two inks.  So, anyone could do this without super-accurate
scales.  I may try a 50/50 mix to see if that is close enough.  Then one
could just buy 7600 carts and pour them together -- bingo, a UT cyan &
inkset that doesn't dust.  If many people are interested in this MIS would
probably buy 10600 carts cheap and do the job for us.  The Epson-UC-based
cyan is not quite as warm as the MIS UT cyan, so the shadows are a bit
cooler -- not bad for the "selenium" neutral look.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 
> I thought the green tint/metamerism was coming from the Epson UC 
color inks
> that are in the "B&W" 2100/2200 prints.  Does the green you see 
appear in
> the shadows or midtones?
>

Thanks, for your interest, Paul.

(I lost, I think, an earlier reply in the ether, so if there are two 
posts, I apologize.)

While I understand the question, in my ignorance I do not understand 
the thought process behind it.  This is because the green hue I am 
seeing in daylight is from the Ultrachrome photo black ink only, as I 
am printing in black only mode.  I would have thought that as there 
is but the one ink, the only difference would be in the amount laid 
down.  

Be that as it may, with black as zero and white as 100 on my modified 
Pettit wedge, the `noticeability' commences at around 22 and recedes 
at about 78 with prominence between 35 and 70 -  at least to my 
eyes.  I would have thought that this effect, which you indeed 
anticipated, relates to eye/brain function, but I don't know.

Were it not for this green hue, I think I would be satisfied with 
black only printing on my 2100 with IGSP and similar papers.  This 
makes me consider the equivalent Ultratone photo black with the other 
five Ultrachromes in place for colour printing.

If anyone has Ultratones fitted to their 2100/2200 I would be pleased 
to hear of their experiences printing black only on IGSP.  I 
appreciate that others may see the dots or dislike the dither, but it 
is mainly the hue issue in varying lights (and bronzing) for which I 
wish to find a solution.

Colin

><paul.roark@v...> wrote:
>> ...
>> I thought the green tint/metamerism was coming from the
>>Epson UC color inks that are in the "B&W" 2100/2200 prints. ...

Colin wrote:

>... the green hue I am
>seeing in daylight is from the Ultrachrome photo black ink only,
>as I am printing in black only mode.

That is what confused me.  I have not heard of or seen the green in the UC
black.  However, for me, with the Ultra Tone inkset the black is just the
very dark end of the ramp.

I tried a black-only Epson PK on Premium Luster and Ilford Smooth Glossy,
and what I see is a warm grayscale.  On the Premium Luster there is what I'd
call a golden-colored bronzing.  With Ilford smooth the bronzing is much
better controlled, but there is still some.

So, it is possible this is the same thing you're noticing.

>I would have thought that as there
>is but the one ink, the only difference would be in the
>amount laid down.

That could be a major factor.

I see tone changes in most RC prints with either the Epson or Ultra Tone
inks used.  With a lot of the RC paper's I've tried, these tone changes
include the visual effects of "bronzing" and "dusting."  Other tone changes
are not reflective and seem to relate to how the ink is absorbed.  I have
not felt that metamerism is a serious factor with the black and gray inks
I've been using.  But the other color-related defects always seem to
eventually surface with almost all RC papers, and in many of my prints the
defects are fatal.

The UT inkset with cheap Epson Glossy Photo Paper may be the most free of
these defects, but it also has a more modest dmax (about 1.8).

Matte under acrylic (display or snapshot holder) or in a mylar sleeve (for
archival, family albums) is hard to beat for my tastes.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 
> 
> ><paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> >> ...
> 
> I tried a black-only Epson PK on Premium Luster and Ilford Smooth 
Glossy,
> and what I see is a warm grayscale.  On the Premium Luster there is 
what I'd
> call a golden-colored bronzing.  With Ilford smooth the bronzing is 
much
> better controlled, but there is still some.
> 
> So, it is possible this is the same thing you're noticing.
> 
Thanks for responding Paul,

On Friday night I tried printing black and white from a grayscale 
converted to RGB on IGSP with the profile that Cathy Stratton 
provided free, when she started her profiling business – free 
profiles now withdrawn.  I nudged a curve to open up the deep shadows 
and will set this curve before printing as an action.  The bronzing 
was a problem until I sprayed horizontally and the vertically with 
Print Guard, one continuous action.  I let the spray dry for a few 
minutes, and repeated the spraying.  Unless I look at a ridiculously 
oblique angle so that light reflects off the surface, the bronzing is 
acceptable to me and so is the print.  I'm going to call a halt to 
messing about with glossy papers, even though I have some Pictorico 
for which I can't raise the media settings on a 2100 (as against, I 
presume the 2200) and a box of Epson Professional Glossy that I 
bought in the US last month.  (As an aside with regard to Dmax, I 
learnt long ago that a print on matt black mat always appears to have 
a good Dmax in comparison.)

Saturday was out photographing and a wasted Sunday trying to clear a 
massive G4 yellow clog on my 1290.  

As ever the 1160 with MIS FS worked like a dream, no clogs (Shhh 
shouldna said that!)  You warned me off the Ultratones with the 1160 
and no funds for awhile for another 1290.


Colin
Thank goodness I don't make my living from DIY digital printing!

Colin,

You wrote, in part:

>...
>I'm going to call a halt to messing about with glossy papers, ...

I'm holding off on doing much more either.  Overall, the RC papers seem to
have way too many problems.  Matte paper in some frame with acrylic, in a
mylar sleeve, or just lightly sprayed with an acrylic protective coating
just looks better and is much more reliable to use, in my view.

> I learnt long ago that a print on matt black mat always
>appears to have a good Dmax in comparison.

That is one of the ironies of all this.  The densitometers give the RC
papers an advantage, but in real viewing with most lighting, the reflections
usually make the matte papers look better, with deeper blacks.

>...  You warned me off the Ultratones with the 1160 ...

I did?  I think the Ultra Tones on the 1160 and, now, 1280 are great.  The
RC papers just are not up to the job for any pigments, in my opinion.  The
only thing those switching to the UT inkset need to know is that if dyes
were used in the printer, they probably should wash the parking pad with
Windex to stop any possible dye-Eboni reaction that might cause nuisance
clogs.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

> The only thing those switching to the UT inkset need to know is 
that if dyes
> were used in the printer, they probably should wash the parking pad 
with
> Windex to stop any possible dye-Eboni reaction that might cause 
nuisance
> clogs.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,
If I were to swith from a CIS feed MIS-FS inkset to the the UT's, can 
I just replace the bottles or do I need to get a fresh set of 
cartridges and wash all the tubing in the CIS ?
Thanks,
Andre

>If I were to swith from a CIS feed MIS-FS inkset to the the UT's, can 
>I just replace the bottles or do I need to get a fresh set of 
>cartridges and wash all the tubing in the CIS ?

I'd replace the cartridges. 

Paul

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Colin,
> 

> 
> I did?  
>...  In response to my statement "You warned me off the Ultratones 
with the 1160 ..."

In message 29094 you wrote <<The 1290 will print smoother than an 
1160. Part of this improvement is the
lack of any dots in the highlights from the toner. Part of the 
improvement
is smoother shadow tones.>>  It's the smoother shadow tones that I am 
interested in for figure studies.

Colin

Colin,

<<The 1290 will print smoother than an
1160. Part of this improvement is the
lack of any dots in the highlights from the toner.
Part of the improvement is smoother shadow tones.>>

> It's the smoother shadow tones that I am interested in for figure studies.

The 1290 may still be smoother than the 1160 in the shadows due to it being
a more modern printer, but with Ultra Tone inks and the new 1160 curves, it
could be the other way around.  The comparison above was before the new
curves and UT inks.  Not having seen a 1290 UT output, I can't say how good
that combination will be.

It is true that the old 1160 curves with the Eboni, Museum, or the Epson UC
matte black (the high-load matte black inks) showed more roughness than the
old vm K. This in combination with the 1160's older design made for some
rough shadow tones.  However, with the new curves I was able to push the
black starting point so low that the problem disappeared on the 1160.  I
also pushed the cyan (dark gray ink) starting point way down, so the dots in
the highlights were greatly reduced or eliminated for most viewers.

I'm not certain how the 1290 will print with the UT inks, but the new 1280
curves are very similar to the 1290 curves, and the 1280 with these new
curves and UT ink is very smooth, slightly better than the 1160 with it's
new curves.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Colin,
> 
> <<The 1290 will print smoother than an
> 1160. Part of this improvement is the
> lack of any dots in the highlights from the toner.
> Part of the improvement is smoother shadow tones.>>
> 
> > It's the smoother shadow tones that I am interested in for figure 
studies.
> 
> The 1290 may still be smoother than the 1160 in the shadows due to 
it being
> a more modern printer, but with Ultra Tone inks and the new 1160 
curves, it
> could be the other way around.  The comparison above was before the 
new
> curves and UT inks.  Not having seen a 1290 UT output, I can't say 
how good
> that combination will be.
> 
> It is true that the old 1160 curves with the Eboni, Museum, or the 
Epson UC
> matte black (the high-load matte black inks) showed more roughness 
than the
> old vm K. This in combination with the 1160's older design made for 
some
> rough shadow tones.  However, with the new curves I was able to 
push the
> black starting point so low that the problem disappeared on the 
1160.  I
> also pushed the cyan (dark gray ink) starting point way down, so 
the dots in
> the highlights were greatly reduced or eliminated for most viewers.
> 
> I'm not certain how the 1290 will print with the UT inks, but the 
new 1280
> curves are very similar to the 1290 curves, and the 1280 with these 
new
> curves and UT ink is very smooth, slightly better than the 1160 
with it's
> new curves.



Your comments in post 29094 were on 14 April and you also wrote:  "if 
I can find time to improve the 1160 curves some of the differences 
can be minimized, but some quality differences will still be visible 
to perfectionists."

Your latest curves were posted on 8 May by Martin when I was in the 
US, and not on quite the spending spree that I thought I would be 
because I forewent the Ultratone option.  Am I correct in assuming 
that these posted new curves were developed after you expressed your 
concerns over smoothness in the shadows on an 1160?

If I am going to order for my (spare) 1160, I might as well go for a 
CFS: from your earlier post I had discarded this option and am still 
wondering if I should buy a 1290 for black and white ultratones 
only.  Two questions arise: any idea when the caveat emptor will be 
lifted by MIS on the ultratones and, second, could I not buy a 6 line 
CFS and use it on the 1160 with two black lines (Pk and Ebony), the 
three colours and one redundant, placing the second black cart not 
being used on the ledge in a cradle?  Or is refilling cartridges the 
way to go?

Colin

One of the paper rollers on my 1160 - part of the long line that sits just
behind the print head as it moves back and forth - seems to have taken to
sticking out ever so slightly more than the rest.

When it does this it seems to catch the print head very slightly and attract
some ink which it then deposits via the roller on the paper...

any ideas of a fix to get it to sit "back in line"?

tim

Colin,

>...
>Your latest curves were posted on 8 May ...  Am I correct in assuming
>that these posted new curves were developed after you expressed your
>concerns over smoothness in the shadows on an 1160?

Yes, I found the time to re-write the 1160 curves to cure the shadow
roughness problem.  On matte paper it looks as smooth as the hextone
printers.  On Pictorico transparency film the 1280 advantage is still
clearly there.  However, this transparency film shows every minute artifact,
and on close examination, I doubt any printer can be perfect on it.

>... any idea when the caveat emptor will be lifted by MIS on the ultratones

No.  I have not seen any defects that I think warrant special care except
for printers that have had dye in them.  Fortunately, washing the parking
pad seemed to cure the clogs on my 1280.  Once I rinsed it thoroughly with
Windex and also wiped the head with a Windex-soaked paper towel, the clogs
disappeared.

>  could I not buy a 6 line CFS and use it on the 1160 with
>two black lines (Pk and Ebony), the
>three colours and one redundant, placing the second black cart not
>being used on the ledge in a cradle?  ...

That is an interesting idea.  Why don't you run it by MIS and see if they
have or will give it a try.

I once had separate lines for my 1160 CIS, and found that only 3 lines made
the CIS tubes rather unpredictably floppy. I was afraid of them getting
caught on parts of the printer.  I used tape to put the black line back on,
but it was never the same.  Maybe MIS could figure out a way to stabilize
the tubes.  I also hear that the MIS tubes may be a different material that
react more predictably.  I just don't know.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that you might save yourself a potential
headache if MIS did some experimenting first.  I think they have an interest
in figuring out an efficient way to switch black inks, and they know the
field so well that they may be able to find clips or other accessories that
would make the system work.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com