Digital BW, The Print

I am presently printing B/W images on Mac OS9.2, Open Printmaker, 
Epson 2200 and Epson UC inks.  

Are there any advantages to converting to MIS Ultratone inks?  From 
bits and pieces that I've read, both UC (matt and light black) and (UT 
black and gray inks) are carbon so the longevity should be similar.  
And the MIS UT color pigment inks used for tinting are supposedly 
similar to the UC color inks.  

One potential advantage of MIS UT could be smoother tones resulting 
from using 4 inks (1 black and 3 grays) instead of 2 inks (matte black 
and light black) used with UC and OPM.

The last time I checked the MIS website, it says you need either OPM 
(OS9) or QTR (OSX) to use the UT inks on a 2200. 

Has anyone out there used both the OEM UC inks and the MIS UT inks on 
a 2200?  And if so, is it worth converting to the UT inks?  What are 
the advantages?  And if conversion to UT is worthwhile, are there any 
IJC/OPM (or QTR) profiles (for 2200) available for UT on various 
papers?

Thanks,

Dave Gordon
http://www.davegordonpho

Dave,

I made some UT profiles for QTR (beta8) that are in an archive on my 
filesharing site.  There are also some "hybrid" profiles that use the 
UC inks and just the UT Y and M ink positions.  The tones are a bit 
smoother with the UT inks, but visually I have difficulty seeing any 
dramatic differences except in high key images with smooth tonal 
gradients.  I think that MIS or Bowhaus may have a few OPM profiles for 
the UT inks, but I don't know if they will release them.  If you decide 
to go with the UT inks (or a subset) with QTR you will need to be 
running OS X.  The QTR beta8 profiles would probably also need some 
slight modifications and re-linearization to run under the latest QTR 
beta9 release.

Carl
http://homepage.mac.com/scho/FileSharing2.html

On Saturday, January 10, 2004, at 08:39  AM, dave08g wrote:

> I am presently printing B/W images on Mac OS9.2, Open Printmaker,
> Epson 2200 and Epson UC inks.
>
> Are there any advantages to converting to MIS Ultratone inks?  From
> bits and pieces that I've read, both UC (matt and light black) and (UT
> black and gray inks) are carbon so the longevity should be similar.
> And the MIS UT color pigment inks used for tinting are supposedly
> similar to the UC color inks.
>
> One potential advantage of MIS UT could be smoother tones resulting
> from using 4 inks (1 black and 3 grays) instead of 2 inks (matte black
> and light black) used with UC and OPM.
>
> The last time I checked the MIS website, it says you need either OPM
> (OS9) or QTR (OSX) to use the UT inks on a 2200.
>
> Has anyone out there used both the OEM UC inks and the MIS UT inks on
> a 2200?  And if so, is it worth converting to the UT inks?  What are
> the advantages?  And if conversion to UT is worthwhile, are there any
> IJC/OPM (or QTR) profiles (for 2200) available for UT on various
> papers?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave Gordon
> http://www.davegordonpho

Carl,

Thanks for your advice.  I think for the time being I'll stick with 
IJC/OPM and UC inks.  There doesn't seem to be a huge advantage to 
making a switch to UT right now.  Perhaps I'll experiment with UT and 
QTR when I upgrade to OSX.

Thanks,

Dave Gordon
davegordonphotography.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
<scho@m...> wrote:
> Dave,
> 
> I made some UT profiles for QTR (beta8) that are in an archive on my 
> filesharing site.  There are also some "hybrid" profiles that use 
the 
> UC inks and just the UT Y and M ink positions.  The tones are a bit 
> smoother with the UT inks, but visually I have difficulty seeing any 
> dramatic differences except in high key images with smooth tonal 
> gradients.  I think that MIS or Bowhaus may have a few OPM profiles 
for 
> the UT inks, but I don't know if they will release them.  If you 
decide 
> to go with the UT inks (or a subset) with QTR you will need to be 
> running OS X.  The QTR beta8 profiles would probably also need some 
> slight modifications and re-linearization to run under the latest 
QTR 
> beta9 release.
> 
> Carl
> http://homepage.mac.com/scho/FileSharing2.html
> 
> On Saturday, January 10, 2004, at 08:39  AM, dave08g wrote:
> 
> > I am presently printing B/W images on Mac OS9.2, Open Printmaker,
> > Epson 2200 and Epson UC inks.
> >
> > Are there any advantages to converting to MIS Ultratone inks?  
From
> > bits and pieces that I've read, both UC (matt and light black) and 
(UT
> > black and gray inks) are carbon so the longevity should be 
similar.
> > And the MIS UT color pigment inks used for tinting are supposedly
> > similar to the UC color inks.
> >
> > One potential advantage of MIS UT could be smoother tones 
resulting
> > from using 4 inks (1 black and 3 grays) instead of 2 inks (matte 
black
> > and light black) used with UC and OPM.
> >
> > The last time I checked the MIS website, it says you need either 
OPM
> > (OS9) or QTR (OSX) to use the UT inks on a 2200.
> >
> > Has anyone out there used both the OEM UC inks and the MIS UT inks 
on
> > a 2200?  And if so, is it worth converting to the UT inks?  What 
are
> > the advantages?  And if conversion to UT is worthwhile, are there 
any

> > IJC/OPM (or QTR) profiles (for 2200) available for UT on various
> > papers?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dave Gordon
> > http://

Dave,

since you are already using OPM under OS 9 you would have some interesting choices 
if you also used IJC and made your own profiles.

Some of the reasons to use UT inks:

- can be available in bulk if you need a CFS
- you can selectively use a UT gray of your choice to replace just a single color 
position in the UC lineup. Useful if you like everything else but object to slight 
dottiness in places where black begins, for example. Also makes it easier to restore 
the printer back to color.
- A cool toner (of the UT set) available in 2 dilutions is more manageable dot-wise 
than using pure cyan and magenta from the original inks (unless of course you like 
your prints the original color of UC/UT black and grays).

Reasons to keep (some of) the UC inks:

- You can push to even warmer tones by using magenta and yellow. This is less trivial 
than it seems - I have made prints using extreme sepia profiles that I liked a lot.


The nice thing about the 2200 is you can mix and match. One caveat, though: while 
the Epson OEM carts have a proprietary valve that allows them to be removed and 
replaced without damage, the aftermarket ones don't. If you remove them before they 
are empty you pretty much give up on using the remaining ink.


As for which inkset produces the deepest black and on what papers, I don't have my 
own data, but I doubt there will be a significant difference. I know Paul has done the 
homework; you may search the archives for that. Just keep in mind that IJC would give 
you ways to maximize the capabilities of the black ink by allowing you to minimize 
what other inks may also hit the deep black end of the scale.  

Antonis


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dave08g" <dave08g@y...> 
wrote:

> I am presently printing B/W images on Mac OS9.2, Open Printmaker, 
> Epson 2200 and Epson UC inks.  
> 
> Are there any advantages to converting to MIS Ultratone inks?

Antonis,

Thanks for your help.  I have considered buying the IJC SW but have 
held off because I have to close OPM and re-open it after each time I 
print or it crashes and I have to re-start my MAC.  And I'm 
procrastinating whether to buy OSX in which case I might try QTR first 
before buying IJC.

But I do like your idea of selectively using UT gray.  I can see more 
smoothness with prints made with the Epson driver than with OPM and 2 
UC inks.  I just hate the color shifts and metamerism.  And I am doing 
just enough color work right now for it to be a bit of a hassle to 
switch back and forth.  

I'm curious as to how much 2200 UT ink business MIS will get with 
OPM/IJC and QTR being the only solutions available right now for the 
2200.  And both of these seem to require more advanced skills to use 
them.

At some point, I may just keep the 2200 for color and buy a 1280 for 
b/w and use UT - it seems like a simpler path.

It seems to me that if Epson could only come out with a couple more 
gray inks that could be substituted for color positions (and the 
driver modified to support it) it could potentially eliminate the need 
for anyone to use 3rd party inks on the 2200 (or on a second printer 
dedicated to b/w).  But everyone knows that'll never happen.

Thanks again,

Dave Gordon
davegordonphotography.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis Ricos" 
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> Dave,
> 
> since you are already using OPM under OS 9 you would have some 
interesting choices 
> if you also used IJC and made your own profiles.
> 
> Some of the reasons to use UT inks:
> 
> - can be available in bulk if you need a CFS
> - you can selectively use a UT gray of your choice to replace just a 
single color 
> position in the UC lineup. Useful if you like everything else but 
object to slight 
> dottiness in places where black begins, for example. Also makes it 
easier to restore 
> the printer back to color.
> - A cool toner (of the UT set) available in 2 dilutions is more 
manageable dot-wise 
> than using pure cyan and magenta from the original inks (unless of 
course you like 
> your prints the original color of UC/UT black and grays).
> 
> Reasons to keep (some of) the UC inks:
> 
> - You can push to even warmer tones by using magenta and yellow. 
This is less trivial 
> than it seems - I have made prints using extreme sepia profiles that 
I liked a lot.
> 
> 
> The nice thing about the 2200 is you can mix and match. One caveat, 
though: while 
> the Epson OEM carts have a proprietary valve that allows them to be 
removed and 
> replaced without damage, the aftermarket ones don't. If you remove 
them before they 
> are empty you pretty much give up on using the remaining ink.
> 
> 
> As for which inkset produces the deepest black and on what papers, I 
don't have my 
> own data, but I doubt there will be a significant difference. I know 
Paul has done the 
> homework; you may search the archives for that. Just keep in mind 
that IJC would give 
> you ways to maximize the capabilities of the black ink by allowing 
you to minimize 
> what other inks may also hit the deep black end of

Dave,

>I have considered buying the IJC SW but have 
> held off because I have to close OPM and re-open it after each time I 
> print or it crashes and I have to re-start my MAC. 


Sorry to hear that. OPM hasn't behaved like that on my machines, so I imagine it's 
other issues like memory, extensions etc. Would be worth reporting to bowhaus, 
though they are now putting all their efforts to completing the OS X version.


> 
> But I do like your idea of selectively using UT gray.  I can see more 
> smoothness with prints made with the Epson driver than with OPM and 2 
> UC inks.  I just hate the color shifts and metamerism.  And I am doing 
> just enough color work right now for it to be a bit of a hassle to 
> switch back and forth. 


You sound like an ideal candidate for ImagePrint, though I guess that means moving 
to OS X.



> At some point, I may just keep the 2200 for color and buy a 1280 for 
> b/w and use UT - it seems like a simpler path.

Having both, I think this is by far the better way to go. The 1280 will seem a bit slow 
if you are used to the 2200, but it's a cheaper option to a second 2200. Also - you'll 
have to decide on a CIS vs carts. The latter can get expensive, the former will need 
priming if it sits idle too long.


> 
> It seems to me that if Epson could only come out with a couple more 
> gray inks

I wonder why not, sometimes. It's not like they don't know what we are doing with 
their printers. By now they should be able to afford to throw a bone or two to niche 
markets like ours. 

Antonis

>...
>I'm curious as to how much 2200 UT ink business MIS will get with 
>OPM/IJC and QTR being the only solutions available right now for the 
>2200.  And both of these seem to require more advanced skills to use 
>them.

>At some point, I may just keep the 2200 for color and buy a 1280 for 
>b/w and use UT - it seems like a simpler path.

The 2200 is next up for the UT2 inkset.  (The loaner I'm going to use is so
full of waste ink, however, that it's probably going to have to be serviced
before it's shipped.)  I hope to have the UT2 inkset and 2200 going in a
month or so.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com