Digital BW, The Print

Is there any comparisons available that shows the longevity of Ultrachrome inks vs. 
Carbon Inks such as f.ex. MIS Quadtones?

>Is there any comparisons available that shows the longevity of 
>Ultrachrome inks vs. Carbon Inks such as f.ex. MIS Quadtones?

I don't know of any good, direct comparisons.  However, here is some
information that might help.  

My tests show that the black and light black inks of the UltraChrome inkset
and the MIS Ultra Tone inksets are virtually the same in terms of
light-fastness.  

The color pigments, however, are significantly less lightfast.  See the
Wilhelm 9600 tests (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ at the "Epson 9600
(UltraChrome)" link on the left side of the page).  Compare the first set of
tests with the "B&W" tests.  For example, the first paper shown is Epson
Premium Glossy Photo Paper.  It rates 85 years under glass with the color
inkset.  On page 3, in the "Black and White prints mad with the full-color
Epson UltraChrome inkset" Premium Glossy rates 135 years under glass.  

The difference is the higher black/light black content of the "B&W" image.
Still, however, the "B&W" UltraChrome images made with the Epson driver (not
IP5) contain a lot of color inks.  So, the difference would be more if the
inkset used just carbon or the least amount of color needed to achieve the
desired B&W tone.

Note that not all quad inksets or MIS inksets are equal.  The Ultra Tone
inkset is the MIS state-of-the-art inkset.  It is based on their 7600
UltraChrome clone inkset.  The older inksets are not as lightfast.

Hope this helps.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bjornaagedk" 
<reklamefoto@m...> wrote:
> Is there any comparisons available that shows the longevity of 
Ultrachrome inks vs. 
> Carbon Inks such as f.ex. MIS Quadtones?

Inkjet mall's website has a comparative analysis of Ultrachrome, 
various Piezotone (carbon) inks , Sundance and MIS-FS inks based on 
1000 hr xenon lamp tests.  It does not give actual time in years but 
does give relative fade and color shift data.  Here's the link:

http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/info/1000-hours.html


Hope this helps.

Dave Gordon
http://www.davegordonphotograph

>> Is there any comparisons available that shows the longevity of 
>>Ultrachrome inks vs. Carbon Inks such as f.ex. MIS Quadtones?

>Inkjet mall's website has a comparative analysis of Ultrachrome, 
>various Piezotone (carbon) inks , Sundance and MIS-FS inks based on 
>1000 hr xenon lamp tests.  ... Here's the link:

>http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/info/1000-hours.html

Well, let's think about this.  According to the InkJetMall test the UC Light
Black faded 6.02% whereas the PT WN dark gray faded only 0.84%.  So, it's
over 7 times better than an ink that is rated at over 100 years.

Is this believable?

My tests show the PT inks to be about like the UT inks and UC black & light
black inks.  They are so close I can't say one is better than the other.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I want to correct and expand on my original posting on this InkJetMall test.

The question was:

>> Is there any comparisons available that shows the longevity of 
>>Ultrachrome inks vs. Carbon Inks such as f.ex. MIS Quadtones?

>Inkjet mall's website has a comparative analysis of Ultrachrome, 
>various Piezotone (carbon) inks , Sundance and MIS-FS inks based on 
>1000 hr xenon lamp tests.  ... Here's the link:

>http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/info/1000-hours.html

I originally misread the test of Photo Black to be Light Black -- my
mistake.

However, my opinion of the credibility of the InkJetMall (IJM) test stands
-- I do not believe the results can be taken at face value.  

The IJM text following the numbers states, "UltraChrome inks have fade rates
from 4% - 17% in these Xenon tests.  PiezoTone inks with Museum Black have
fade rates from less than 1% to only 7.3%."

I agree that the current best black and gray inks are more lightfast than
the UltraChrome color pigments.  However, I can't say how much better they
are, and, unfortunately, I don't believe the IJM test shows that either.
So, I still would rely on the Wilhelm test of the UltraChrome 9600 inks,
comparing the color to B&W (which still has color in it) as the most
reliable.  See http://www.wilhelm-research.com/.  That test understates the
differences, but at least I have some confidence that the test was
responsibly conducted.

Of more concern to me is the implication of the IJM test that the PT gray
inks are vastly superior to Epson UC black and gray inks and the UC inkset
in general.

My tests show the PiezoTone (PT) gray and Museum black inks to be about like
the MIS Ultra Tone (UT) inks and UltraChrome (UC) black & light black inks.
They are so close I can't say one is better than the other.  

All three of these inksets are much better than the old quads, including the
PiezoBW (Sundance) and MIS FS inks.  

Let me point out a few things about the IJM test that should raise some
eyebrows.  Starting with the first numbers given in the IJM tests,
UltraChrome Photo Black is said to have an optical density of 1.73 on
PhotoRag -- higher than the matte black.  This is just not believable.
There would be no need for matte black ink if Photo black inks could reach
this density on matte papers.  Typical of what can be expected of Photo
Black is what MIS PK gets of PhotoRag -- 1.38 ("visual density" read by my
X-Rite Digital Swatchbook, Black only printing with a 1280). 

Next, look at the optical densities of the PiezoTone cyan-position (dark
gray) inks.  They are listed as about 0.7.  Yet, if the cyan ink is in the
black position and printed in BO mode, it is over 1.3 on EEM (and I'm quite
sure this is also true for PhotoRag which was used in the IJM test).  If it
is in the color position and printed at full strength, it is just under 1.3
on EEM with an 1160.

So, what did IJM do here?  The IJM notes state, "All of the monochromatic
inks were printed in patches of gray or black.  The color inks were printed
in patches of their full hue."

So, they appear to have printed the Epson black inks at full strength and
printed the PT gray inks at closer to 50%.  IJM omitted testing the Epson UC
Light black ink, which would have been the most similar to the PT dark gray.
To be blunt, this deck appears to have been stacked against Epson.

Now let's consider the light.  This type of extremely bright Xenon light is
heavily used in industry because its brightness speeds up the testing, and
its spectrum is close to that of the sun.  When testing outdoor paints, the
light might be used unfiltered, but to emulate indoor lighting a glass
filter is used to cut the UV and make the light similar to what comes in
through the windows of a house.

The IJM Xenon light was not filtered.  So the light source was
representative of outdoor lighting at best.  It was not representative of
indoor lighting.  Like the sun, the Xenon spectrum has significant amounts
of short UV unless a glass filter is put over it.  Normal glass filters out
the most damaging, short-wavelength UV light.  I'm not sure what affects
this inappropriate light has on the results, but I suspect the UV affected
the color pigments most.  For example, the relative fade rates of the Epson
color pigments are not what I see in my tests or most other tests of color
pigments.  See, for example, the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT)
test results for MIS Archival pigments at
http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/rit.html.  

Yet, IJM tries to discredit the light sources used by Wilhelm and RIT,
probably the most reputable photographic testers in the world.  

But the UV content is probably not the worst problem.  This light source is
probably so bright that the samples were heated significantly.  Most
importantly, they would be heated in proportion to their density.  I suggest
that this is why the PiezoTone grays were printed at about 50%, the Epson
light black omitted, and the Epson pigs printed at 100%.  The blacker the
ink is, the greater the heat problem.  Heat as well as light will accelerate
the oxidation/fading of pigments.  So, the heat probably disproportionately
affected the Epson inks relative to the PT light gray inks.  

Speaking of light gray inks, the light gray PiezoTone selenium actually had
a negative fade after 1000 hours of this intense bombardment.  That's quite
a trick.  

I was thinking that if there is anything useful coming out of this IJM
"test" it might be the relative fading of the Epson black and color inks.
But, those results are also suspect.  In addition to the UV light problem,
the optical density numbers don't make sense.  The optical density of yellow
is listed as 1.14.  Yet, yellow has the characteristic that it has very high
gamut, but very low density.  With my X-Rite I get a "visual" density of
only 0.07 for a 100% patch of Epson Archival yellow. 

Maybe I'm just misreading the IJM test results, but too many of the numbers
just don't make sense to me.  When that is combined with a test design that
seems to be stacked against Epson, I must say that the test tells me more
about IJM that about the relative merits of the inks.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 23:16, Paul Roark wrote:

> I want to correct and expand on my original posting on this InkJetMall test.
> 
> The question was:
> 
> >> Is there any comparisons available that shows the longevity of 
> >>Ultrachrome inks vs. Carbon Inks such as f.ex. MIS Quadtones?
> 
> >Inkjet mall's website has a comparative analysis of Ultrachrome, 
> >various Piezotone (carbon) inks , Sundance and MIS-FS inks based on 
> >1000 hr xenon lamp tests.  ... Here's the link:
> 
> >http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/info/1000-hours.html


<Really large snip>

I tend to trust IJMs numbers more than Whilhelm's myself, just because
IJM is so over the top with the xenon lights. You can't say that are
holding back the light! But neither test is likely to represent the real
world in any significant way.

Your argument sounds like an argument for an actual standardized test,
and actual standardized testing. What a concept! ASTM would be my
choice. I wonder if they are even looking at it?


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I want to correct and expand on my original posting on this InkJetMall test.
> 
> The question was:
> 
> >> Is there any comparisons available that shows the longevity of 
> >>Ultrachrome inks vs. Carbon Inks such as f.ex. MIS Quadtones?
> 
> >Inkjet mall's website has a comparative analysis of Ultrachrome, 
> >various Piezotone (carbon) inks , Sundance and MIS-FS inks based on 
> >1000 hr xenon lamp tests.  ... Here's the link:
> 
> >http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/info/1000-hours.html
> 
> I originally misread the test of Photo Black to be Light Black -- my
> mistake.
> 
> However, my opinion of the credibility of the InkJetMall (IJM) test stands
> -- I do not believe the results can be taken at face value.  
> 
...
> 
> Maybe I'm just misreading the IJM test results, but too many of the numbers
> just don't make sense to me.  When that is combined with a test design that
> seems to be stacked against Epson, I must say that the test tells me more
> about IJM that about the relative merits of the inks.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

I have to agree that the IJM test results for Ultrachrome don't make much
sense.  It's especially wierd if you look at the LAB values given.

First off, Photo Black and Cyan have identical LAB values to 3 significant digits,
both before and after the test period.   Next, both of the blacks have extreme 
blue components (the b of Lab).  And to top it off, every single one of the 
L values went DOWN after the test -- this means the density increased!

It looks to me like whoever measured values jumbled the data.  I wonder
if Cone could be convinced to re-measure and analyze the data (if possible).

Roy

(snip)

I was thinking that if there is anything useful coming out of
this IJM
"test" it might be the relative fading of the Epson black and
color inks.
But, those results are also suspect.  In addition to the UV light
problem,
the optical density numbers don't make sense.  The optical
density of yellow
is listed as 1.14.  Yet, yellow has the characteristic that it
has very high
gamut, but very low density.  With my X-Rite I get a "visual"
density of
only 0.07 for a 100% patch of Epson Archival yellow.

Maybe I'm just misreading the IJM test results, but too many of
the numbers
just don't make sense to me.  When that is combined with a test
design that
seems to be stacked against Epson, I must say that the test tells
me more
about IJM that about the relative merits of the inks.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

You know that I agree with your opinion on those
"daylight"/"xenon" tests. The "Livick test" falls in the same
category.
The published test results of manufacturers/distributors like
Lyson and Inkjetmall are biased. The last not only stacked
against Epson but also against MIS as the test could have used
the new MIS inks instead of the older type.

Ernst