Digital BW, The Print

I\ufffdve been using MIS Xtone inks for more then 2 years
first in refillable cartridges latter, on my Epson
1280 with CIS. The original quadtones I thought were
great inks but when I installed the CIS I was
recommended the FS inks. The only problem with FS was
that I had to spend time daily unclogging the black so
when it was time to buy a new set of inks I asked for
a more fluid mixture and was recommended (highly I
would add) the UltraTones.
It never made sense to me why people chose to colorize
(curves) B&W images before printing specially that
Photoshop allows for curves adjustments just before
printing (transfer functions) but I thought I should
try UT since i didn\ufffdt have a lot of choice anyway. At
the end of about 40 sheets of paper+ink and many hours
of testing I decided I\ufffdd rather run a cleaning cycle
on the printer daily and go back to FS inks. Of all
those 40 sheets of paper I got only one blueish (not
\ufffdcool\ufffd) fairly close to an acceptable print on Epson
Archival Matte. I tried all curves including the
dedicated one with Moab Fine Art Natural and the
results were from bad to worse.
It may sound as if I\ufffdm not being grateful to mr. Roark
for all the work he has put into creating this inkset
and curves for people to use without asking a penny in
return, not the case, I would admire such work even if
I wasn\ufffdt fully aware of what\ufffds involved. Could be a
bad set of inks or the paper or something.
What I don\ufffdt understand is why there isn\ufffdt a plain
Eboni based set of inks even if on the worm side
(change the paper and it could be on the green side).
Apparently the Ebony pigment/emulsion is superior to
the one used in FS. Why start the hard way with a new
ink specially that cool and worm shades can be so
subjective and depend on other factors besides the
ink. Does it make more sense trying to make a worm ink
look cool then perfecting a technique so that we get
best results with what is available?
I know the \ufffdone size fits all\ufffd sounds convenient and
despite my better judgment I went for it but given the
constant flow of new inks and papers and printers that
size can grow out of control. Somehow I feel the
constant state of experimenting (including the
expenses) is the goal, print making a byproduct.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

Hi
Has anyone experience from using MIS UT (Photo black) and Pictorico OHT?
Is the adhesion good enough (without spraying) for making digital negs?

Hans
-- 
Atelier Pictoform
Chia N-L�fqvist & Hans Nohlberg
Hed�sgatan 5
SE-412 53 G�teborg
SWEDEN

+46  (0)31181414

(Bes�k/visit Hed�sgatan 6)

www.artphotocollection.com

px3n120x@... wrote:

>... CIS ... FS was
>that I had to spend time daily unclogging the black ...

The co-solvent in the black ink evaporated through the CIS tubing -- a real
problem if not used very regularly.

>... was recommended (highly I would add) the UltraTones.

>It never made sense to me why people chose to colorize
>(curves) B&W images before printing specially that
>Photoshop allows for curves adjustments just before
>printing (transfer functions) ...

The Transfer Function is a crude control compared to the Photoshop Image
Adjustment curves.  They are, unfortunately, not the same.

>... about 40 sheets of paper+ink ...
>I got only one blueish (not \ufffdcool\ufffd) fairly
>close to an acceptable print ...

Sorry to hear that.  The system works very well for many of us.

>What I don\ufffdt understand is why there isn\ufffdt a plain
>Eboni based set of inks even if on the worm side ...

I tried.  The clear bases I have available to me do not appear to be
compatible with Eboni.  The resulting inksets would settle unpredictably.

So, I'm sticking to the MIS 7600/2200 inkset as an input.  That inkset was
carefully engineered as a set.  So, it's totally compatible.  There probably
will be some FS-like inksets coming out of my current efforts to make
"no-workflow," cheap systems for non-photographers -- so genealogists and
scrapbook makers can print archival B&W images.


> ... cool and worm shades can be so
>subjective and depend on other factors besides the
>ink.

That was a big reason for the variable-tone approach.  It's flexible.  I can
tame even the papers that print with different tones in the shadows and
highlights.  No single-hue inkset can deal with this.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Is their any reason why eboni would not work with the
full spectrum or FS neutral grey positions?  Seems
like a great combination.

Don


> Apparently the Ebony pigment/emulsion is superior to
> the one used in FS. Why start the hard way with a
> new
> ink specially that cool and worm shades can be so
> subjective and depend on other factors besides the
> ink. Does it make more sense trying to make a worm
> ink
> look cool then perfecting a technique so that we get


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> The Transfer Function is a crude control compared to the Photoshop Image
> Adjustment curves.  They are, unfortunately, not the same.

Certainly they are not the same, the functions are much more limited. Adjusting them 
fits better a WYSIWYG approach to the transition from a digital image to print and 
they should be used for fine tuning only.

> 
> >... about 40 sheets of paper+ink ...
> >I got only one blueish (not "cool") fairly
> >close to an acceptable print ...
> 
> Sorry to hear that.  The system works very well for many of us.
> 
> >What I don't understand is why there isn't a plain
> >Eboni based set of inks even if on the worm side ...
> 
> I tried.  The clear bases I have available to me do not appear to be
> compatible with Eboni.  The resulting inksets would settle unpredictably.

So I understand the Eboni clear base is not available.

> 
> So, I'm sticking to the MIS 7600/2200 inkset as an input.  That inkset was
> carefully engineered as a set.  So, it's totally compatible.  There probably
> will be some FS-like inksets coming out of my current efforts to make
> "no-workflow," cheap systems for non-photographers -- so genealogists and
> scrapbook makers can print archival B&W images.
> 
> 
> > ... cool and worm shades can be so
> >subjective and depend on other factors besides the
> >ink.
> 
> That was a big reason for the variable-tone approach.  It's flexible.  I can
> tame even the papers that print with different tones in the shadows and
> highlights.  No single-hue inkset can deal with this.

The problem I have with the variable tone (UT) is that I can only adjust curves blindly 
and in RGB since I ca not tell how the colors are going to translate into grays, how 
they mix and so on. Multiply that by a number of papers and/or other variables.

Regards, Andu

> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "D. Hill" <hill14701@y...> 
wrote:
> Is their any reason why eboni would not work with the
> full spectrum or FS neutral grey positions?  Seems
> like a great combination.

I will let you know how that works when I'll get the FS set, I thought of trying that 
myself.

Regards, Andu

> 
> Don
> 
> 
> > Apparently the Ebony pigment/emulsion is superior to
> > the one used in FS. Why start the hard way with a
> > new
> > ink specially that cool and worm shades can be so
> > subjective and depend on other factors besides the
> > ink. Does it make more sense trying to make a worm
> > ink
> > look cool then perfecting a technique so that we get
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com

* -----Original Message-----
* From: D. Hill [mailto:hill14701@...] 
* Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:24 AM
* To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
* Subject: Re: [Digital BW] UT comments
* 
* 
* Is their any reason why eboni would not work with the
* full spectrum or FS neutral grey positions?  Seems
* like a great combination.
* 
Don,

I had been using the FSN black with the Selenium PiezoTone gray inks and
switched over to Eboni without any problems. Should work fine with the FS
and FSN ink sets as well.

Martin Wesley
http://www.carolyn.cc/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html

Hans,

You asked:

>Has anyone experience from using MIS UT (Photo black)
>and Pictorico OHT?

>Is the adhesion good enough (without spraying) for making digital negs?

I just printed a 21-step test file onto a Pictorico film with my 1280 and
MIS UT inks with MIS Photo Black.  I used the standard UT80-N (Neutral)
curve, but increased the printing DPI to 2880.

It looks like the pigments are sticking fine (no "dusting", or other obvious
artifacts that I'd associate with lack of adhesion).

However, I have not actually used a negative made this way.

I don't know how to test whether the adhesion is enough for printing.  Every
fingerprint or touch of any RC surface -- digital or wet print technology --
seems to leave some kind of mark.  With the Pictorico film/UT ink
combination, when I rub my finger across the corner of the dark end of the
21-step test strip, it leaves a "fingerprint" or some type of rub mark.  Ink
does not come off onto my finger.  When I try to rub this fingerprint off
with a facial tissue, it feels like it is sticking a bit.  The surface looks
marred, and with backlighting I can see that tiny bits of pigment were
rubbed off.  The tissue does not look to have any significant ink on it,
however.

In viewing the transparency film before the above damage, the limiting
factors of image quality depend on the viewing method.  The film is
extremely sharp.  My 7.2 line-pair/mm resolution target is well separated on
the 360 ppi test file.  One step up, with a 720 ppi test file, the film
clearly separates the horizontal, 1 pixel wide, 14.4 lp/mm resolution test
chart.  The vertical 14.4 lp/mm test is barely separated; it looks more like
a solid bar at any reasonable magnification.  (At normal viewing distance
many consider 5 lp/mm to be the normal limits of what our eyes can
separate.)

This this kind of sharpness, when viewed as a transparency at very close
range or with magnification, this medium shows defects and artifacts that
would not show on a matte print.  The famous Epson "pizza wheel" tracks are
very apparent, for example, and I can see very fine banding.  So, when
viewed as a transparency, I can't say I like what I see.

With a piece of paper behind the film, however, the image quality is quite
good.  In normal viewing -- distance and light -- I think the file quality
would be the limiting factor.  Artifacts are not obvious.  This may be a
closer approximation of what a contact print would look like.  I do not
think the negative would hold up well with magnification, but for large
contact prints, this might be an interesting solution.

I hope this is helpful to you.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:58:53 +0200, you wrote:

>Hi
>Has anyone experience from using MIS UT (Photo black) and Pictorico OHT?
>Is the adhesion good enough (without spraying) for making digital negs?
>
>Hans

I've tried this (with Eboni black) and an 1160 and didn't find any
problems with adhesion (though I did leave it a couple of weeks after
printing before trying to use it - accidental rather than planned). It
does seem to have enough contrast for vandyke brown (and silver
gelatin too), but the 'pizza wheel marks are clearly visible on both
hand coated vandyke and gloss silver (Ilford Cooltone RC). In
addition, microbanding is visible in both prints, more clearly in the
Ilford Cooltone print, but still visible in the vandyke. You may find
these less of a problem on newer printers; I don't have any to test!

mike

Don't mess with a good thing.  Don't fix it if it isn't broken.  I was
getting excellent prints out of my 1280 using MIS VM and matte paper.
And never once a clog.  But stupid me wanted it all, and decided to try
the new UT B&W inks so I could print on glossy paper.  I just installed
the cartridges.  It took 6 cleaning cycles to get a good test (1/8 of
the ink in the cartridges).  And I've printed two test prints thus far
using Ilford Smooth Pearl and Paul's new UT neutral and medium warm
curves.  The results are horrible, with complete solarization.

I'll sit on it tonight and work on it again tomorrow, but needless to
say this is very disappointing.

Thanks,
Ed
http://lightandsilver.com

Sorry to hear that Ed. I'm hoping it's the opposite for me. I'll be 
getting my 3rd printer and thought I would try the UT set to see if I 
can get something different than what I have been. One thing, are you 
using the Eboni black or a different black in the UT set? As I 
understand it the Eboni is made for only matte stock. 

PS. I would really like to do that exchange we talked about before, 
but haha, I haven't had the best of luck getting a functioning 
printer. 

matt

>Don't mess with a good thing.  Don't fix it if it isn't broken.  I 
was
> getting excellent prints out of my 1280 using MIS VM and matte 
paper.
> And never once a clog.  But stupid me wanted it all, and decided to 
try
> the new UT B&W inks so I could print on glossy paper.  I just 
installed
> the cartridges.  It took 6 cleaning cycles to get a good test (1/8 
of
> the ink in the cartridges).  And I've printed two test prints thus 
far
> using Ilford Smooth Pearl and Paul's new UT neutral and medium warm
> curves.  The results are horrible, with complete solarization.
> 
> I'll sit on it tonight and work on it again tomorrow, but needless 
to

> say this is very disappointing.
> 
> Thanks,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Betea [mailto:mbetea@...] 
<snip>
 One thing, are you 
> using the Eboni black or a different black in the UT set? As I 
> understand it the Eboni is made for only matte stock. 

I'm using the PK black for glossy paper.

<snip>
> PS. I would really like to do that exchange we talked about before, 
> but haha, I haven't had the best of luck getting a functioning 
> printer.

I haven't forgotten about that.  I've got about 3 or 4 prints to send to
you now, some coated with a rod and PUR.   I was hoping to include a new
UT print also, but it looks like that might not happen. :(

Ed

Thanks Paul and Mike for your info regarding UT and Pictorico.

I will give it a try with Photo black, Eboni was just pooling.

The best neg I ever got was with the 2000p, 360/1440 dpi, Epson ink 
and super microweave checked.
However is this printer now only for color work (MIS CFS) but my 1290 
is loaded with MIS UT (Eboni) so I have
to do some arrangements for switching blacks.

Banding in the printer head direction is one thing you can understand.
But I have had a very mysterios banding in the paper (film) direction.
It's a very softedged banding coming in regular intervals along the whole film.
Got it on a 1270 some years ago and then it suddenly also popped up 
on the 2000p.
The grey rubber wheels are clean. To lower the printer head doesn't 
help, thought
it could depend on the distance between nozzles and film.
You can't see it on paper but the Pictorico is completely nonforgiving.
Negativs with this kind of banding works mostly for gumprinting
but not for carbon or platinum.

Anyone any idea?

Hans


>Hans,
>
>You asked:
>
>>Has anyone experience from using MIS UT (Photo black)
>>and Pictorico OHT?
>
>>Is the adhesion good enough (without spraying) for making digital negs?
>
>I just printed a 21-step test file onto a Pictorico film with my 1280 and
>MIS UT inks with MIS Photo Black.  I used the standard UT80-N (Neutral)
>curve, but increased the printing DPI to 2880.
>
>It looks like the pigments are sticking fine (no "dusting", or other obvious
>artifacts that I'd associate with lack of adhesion).
>
>However, I have not actually used a negative made this way.
>
>I don't know how to test whether the adhesion is enough for printing.  Every
>fingerprint or touch of any RC surface -- digital or wet print technology --
>seems to leave some kind of mark.  With the Pictorico film/UT ink
>combination, when I rub my finger across the corner of the dark end of the
>21-step test strip, it leaves a "fingerprint" or some type of rub mark.  Ink
>does not come off onto my finger.  When I try to rub this fingerprint off
>with a facial tissue, it feels like it is sticking a bit.  The surface looks
>marred, and with backlighting I can see that tiny bits of pigment were
>rubbed off.  The tissue does not look to have any significant ink on it,
>however.
>
>In viewing the transparency film before the above damage, the limiting
>factors of image quality depend on the viewing method.  The film is
>extremely sharp.  My 7.2 line-pair/mm resolution target is well separated on
>the 360 ppi test file.  One step up, with a 720 ppi test file, the film
>clearly separates the horizontal, 1 pixel wide, 14.4 lp/mm resolution test
>chart.  The vertical 14.4 lp/mm test is barely separated; it looks more like
>a solid bar at any reasonable magnification.  (At normal viewing distance
>many consider 5 lp/mm to be the normal limits of what our eyes can
>separate.)
>
>This this kind of sharpness, when viewed as a transparency at very close
>range or with magnification, this medium shows defects and artifacts that
>would not show on a matte print.  The famous Epson "pizza wheel" tracks are
>very apparent, for example, and I can see very fine banding.  So, when
>viewed as a transparency, I can't say I like what I see.
>
>With a piece of paper behind the film, however, the image quality is quite
>good.  In normal viewing -- distance and light -- I think the file quality
>would be the limiting factor.  Artifacts are not obvious.  This may be a
>closer approximation of what a contact print would look like.  I do not
>think the negative would hold up well with magnification, but for large
>contact prints, this might be an interesting solution.
>
>I hope this is helpful to you.
>
>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 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/


-- 
Atelier Pictoform
Chia N-Löfqvist & Hans Nohlberg
Hedåsgatan 5
SE-412 53 Göteborg
SWEDEN

+46  (0)31181414

(Besök/visit Hedåsgatan 6)

www.artphotocollection.com