Digital BW, The Print

Having had some fun (not!) totally ruining some sprayed prints on Epson semigloss by 
rubbing Renaissance Wax on them - I am using a colour MIS CFS (CFS-2200-UC) but with 
Eboni in the K position and QTR - I took a look through my saved group messages and 
reread some of those pertaining to blackless printing.  As a result I have a couple of 
questions.  Why is it the Eboni ink that is causing all the bronzing issues on RC paper and 
not the other UT7 inks as well?  I thought the various shades in the UT7 inks were in 
essence diluted K.  If the problem is Eboni then why can't the attributes in the other ink 
slots that prevent bronzing be introduced in an Eboni replacement?    I am reluctant to 
switch to UT7 because I would like to keep using my 2100 for both colour and B&W 
printing.

BTW re the Renaissance Wax (which I was trying because of the bronzing issue), while the 
post-sprayed pre-waxed prints seemed quite stable to the touch the wax seemed to cause 
the very dark areas of the print to smudge.  Perhaps I was a little over zealous with the 
wax but I doubt it could be buffed without this occurring.  Also I found it difficult to get a 
nice finish on the wax on the print (even ignoring the smudging).  Any tips would be 
appreciated.

Cheers

Steve

Steve,

>Having had some fun (not!) totally ruining some sprayed prints on 
>Epson semigloss by rubbing Renaissance Wax on them - 

I like PremierArt spray on Epson Premium Semigloss.

>I am using a colour MIS CFS (CFS-2200-UC) but with 
>Eboni in the K position ...

Eboni will not stick to gloss paper.  It is the MIS version of Epson UC
Matte black.

>... blackless printing. ..

??

Do you Black Only ("BO") printing?

>  Why is it the Eboni ink that is causing all the bronzing issues 
>on RC paper 

I don't think it "bronzes."  What I call what Eboni does is "dust."  It does
not stick, has a dull finish, and rubs off.

>and not the other UT7 inks as well?  I thought the various shades 
>in the UT7 inks were in essence diluted K.

MIS 7600 & 2200 Light black is the main ingredient in the UT inks, and that
is RC compatible.  Eboni is not used at all in the diluted or "color"
position inks in the UTs.

The UT inks do bronze on the micro porous RC papers like Epson Premium
Semigloss & Ilford Smooth Pearl.  They do not bronze on Epson Glossy Photo
Paper and similar papers using that (older, and dye-oriented) coating
technology.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

For UT2 & UT7 information, curves, and settings see:
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/

Hi Paul

I sprayed the prints with Lyson Print Guard, several coats, before trying
the Renaissance Wax to remove the remainder of the bronzing and leave a
coating so as to avoid glazing.  I thought this was a popular albeit
relatively new technique.  The spray seems to seal the Eboni (and other ink)
to the touch but I was dismayed when I then rubbed the wax on.  (BTW Eboni
sticks to RC much better than Epson UC matt black.)  I will try again.

By blackless printing I mean using UT2/7 but without the K (either thru
using your curves or QTR), using the ³colour position² inks only.

<<MIS 7600 & 2200 Light black is the main ingredient in the UT inks, and
that
is RC compatible.  Eboni is not used at all in the diluted or "color"
position inks in the UTs.>>

What I meant was that if to avoid/eliminate bronzing on RC paper one should
avoid the use of Eboni and use just the shades of ³MIS 2200 Light Black²
then it begs the question as to why MIS doesn¹t invent a K position ink with
LK attributes except of course that it is a dark black, ie a darker LK.
(Given the LK and lighter inks have no issues with both matt and RC papers.)

A while ago you had mentioned that the UT7 LK was a much more neutral LK
than the Epson UC LK.  Is just this ink alone enough to drive significant
dMax or is only when combined with the other colour position inks in the UT7
set that one can get enough dMax without the use of the K ink (Eboni)?  If
so then it might work for me to replace my MIS CFS-2200-UC LK with the UT7
LK and make QTR curves that just use this LK (cooled or warmed as necessary
by Y, LM, LC).

Thoughts?

Thanks

Steve








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

Steve,

>... By blackless printing I mean using UT2/7 but without the K (either thru
>using your curves or QTR), using the ³colour position² inks only.

<<MIS 7600 & 2200 Light black is the main ingredient in the UT inks, 
And that is RC compatible.  Eboni is not used at all in the diluted 
or "color" position inks in the UTs.>>

>What I meant was that if to avoid/eliminate bronzing on RC paper one should
>avoid the use of Eboni and use just the shades of ³MIS 2200 Light Black²
>then it begs the question as to why MIS doesn¹t invent a K position 
>ink with LK attributes except of course that it is a dark black, ie 
>a darker LK.  (Given the LK and lighter inks have no issues with both matt
>and RC papers.)

But the MIS does bronze.  The MIS PK is, in effect, the LK at twice the
load.

>A while ago you had mentioned that the UT7 LK was a much more neutral LK
>than the Epson UC LK.

I'm not sure that is the case.  The Eboni is the one that is much more
neutral than the MIS version.  I have a test inkset made with UC inks and
that inkset's "warm-carbon" curve seems to be more neutral than the MIS
version.  (Perhaps it's my new base -- real complex: distilled water and
glycerol.)

>Is just this ink alone enough to drive significant
>dMax or is only when combined with the other colour position 
>inks in the UT7 set that one can get enough dMax without the use 
>of the K ink (Eboni)? 

No, the LK is too light.  The cyan and magenta dark inks are darker than the
LK.  Also, the 2 inks together produce a better dmax than either one by
itself.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

For UT2 & UT7 information, curves, and settings see:
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/

<<But the MIS does bronze.  The MIS PK is, in effect, the LK at twice the
load.
>>

OK thanks.  Sorry I was under the impression that a UT7 ink set driven so
that the K (Eboni) ink was not used produced minimal bronzing and
differential reflectance (with any residual easily cured by spraying) and
that the main culprit for these was Eboni.

If this was the case, then if the LK, M,C, LC, LM and Y  slot inks do not
exhibit the characteristics that make Eboni so poor on RC ­ rub off,
differential reflectance and worsening of the bronzing ­ and given that
these inks are used for matt paper it would then beg the question why a K
ink could not be made for matt paper with similar properties that would also
port well to RC.  I guess you are saying that this ink would be MIS PK and
that it would not help the bronzing issue and differential reflectance, and
would not help dmax on matt paper.

So RC is still a no-go when Eboni is the key source of black and dmax?
Maybe I missed something but I thought that some people were using Eboni on
RC paper (either in conjunction with LK balanced by LC and LM or Black
Only), spraying this with Lyson Print Guard and then successfully applying
Renaissance Wax.  I will give this another go.

FYI from April:

>...Epson light black ...is very warm,
>is there another ink that could take its place in the UC set?
>That is, a more neutral light black that would be more consistent with
>Eboni and requiring less cooling.  ...

When it is released the UT7 LK is a cooled-down version of the warm MIS LK.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

For UT2 information, curves, and settings see:
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/


But I take the point that the LK is not dark enough.

Cheers

Steve




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

Steve,

>...
>So RC is still a no-go when Eboni is the key source of black and dmax?

Some do spray to hold it down.  I don't recommend it, however.  Eboni is
designed for matte paper, not glossy.

>FYI from April:

>>...Epson light black ...is very warm,
>>is there another ink that could take its place in the UC set?
>>That is, a more neutral light black that would be more consistent with
>>Eboni and requiring less cooling.  ...

>When it is released the UT7 LK is a cooled-down version of the warm MIS LK.

Yes, in the UT7 inkset I've cooled down the MIS LK.  This is not straight
MIS LK, however.  It is LK with some cyan and magenta added.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

For UT2 information, curves, and settings see:
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/

Paul Roark wrote:

> I'm not sure that is the case.  The Eboni is the one that is much more
> neutral than the MIS version.  I have a test inkset made with UC inks and
> that inkset's "warm-carbon" curve seems to be more neutral than the MIS
> version.  (Perhaps it's my new base -- real complex: distilled water and
> glycerol.)

Paul,

Is that all, distilled water and glycerol ?   I have  a 10000CF 
now and it will be converted to MIS 7600 but I think a cleaning 
has to be done in between. If that base would do the trick then 
I'm less worried.

John Nollendorfs mentioned glycerol as a component of the Ilford 
Archiva inks ages ago. It has the thixotropy and the retarder 
qualities to keep pigments suspended and nozzles open.


Ernst

Ernst,

If you look at the material safety data sheets, the UC inks often have
mostly water and glycerol in them.  Some have glycols and probably all have
"proprietary organic materials" in addition to the "proprietary dyes and
pigments."  My goal was to make a bare-bones supplemental base that would at
least not be incompatible with the existing Epson base (which they will not
provide to us hackers).

The main things that are missing in the simple glycerol water base appear to
be wetting agents and binders.  With the Epson pigs, however, the acrylic
coating is the main binder, so that is not missing.  (That would not be the
case with an Eboni diluting, for example.)  For a cleaning fluid, a binder
is also not helpful.  

I experimented with wetting agents and even some de-foamers that are said to
be better than glycol (like isopropyl alcohol), and I could not tell that
there was any difference in the Epson ink dilutions (except the alcohol in
some of the mixes smelled bad).  I used to prefer Kodak Photo Flo -- a
glycol & alcohol mix similar to what is often used in the inksets -- and it
looks like whatever Epson is using also works just fine at half the strength
they use.  

From my perspective, the benefit of not putting anything more in the mix is
that the risk of incompatibility is virtually eliminated.  All I'm adding is
a chemical that is already a major part of the mix.  

If you are interested in a cleaning solution, a bit of Photo Flo (try 0.2%)
could be added to give the base the wetting agent characteristics.

I'll be curious how the fade test of my UC-based mixes looks.  If one is
close to competitive, I'll refine it and publish the formula.  That way
there will be an Epson-based inkset out there that would always be available
to everyone.  Some who think that third party pigs are somehow inferior
might prefer an Epson-based formula.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
______________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Ernst Dinkla [mailto:E.Dinkla@...] 
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:08 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Blackless printing

Paul Roark wrote:

> I'm not sure that is the case.  The Eboni is the one that is much more
> neutral than the MIS version.  I have a test inkset made with UC inks and
> that inkset's "warm-carbon" curve seems to be more neutral than the MIS
> version.  (Perhaps it's my new base -- real complex: distilled water and
> glycerol.)

Paul,

Is that all, distilled water and glycerol ?   I have  a 10000CF 
now and it will be converted to MIS 7600 but I think a cleaning 
has to be done in between. If that base would do the trick then 
I'm less worried.

John Nollendorfs mentioned glycerol as a component of the Ilford 
Archiva inks ages ago. It has the thixotropy and the retarder 
qualities to keep pigments suspended and nozzles open.


Ernst

This is so funny, 

We are shifting from film to digital, and one of the main complaints 
about film is the necessity to use toxic chemicals that stink to high 
heaven. How do we end up? Mixing toxic chemicals that stink to high 
heaven. LOL! LOL.

Ain't life just grand though?

Cheers and where can I get some glycerol?

Jules



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Ernst,
> 
> If you look at the material safety data sheets, the UC inks often 
have
> mostly water and glycerol in them.  Some have glycols and probably 
all have
> "proprietary organic materials" in addition to the "proprietary 
dyes and
> pigments."  My goal was to make a bare-bones supplemental base that 
would at
> least not be incompatible with the existing Epson base (which they 
will not
> provide to us hackers).
> 
> The main things that are missing in the simple glycerol water base 
appear to
> be wetting agents and binders.  With the Epson pigs, however, the 
acrylic
> coating is the main binder, so that is not missing.  (That would 
not be the
> case with an Eboni diluting, for example.)  For a cleaning fluid, a 
binder
> is also not helpful.  
> 
> I experimented with wetting agents and even some de-foamers that 
are said to
> be better than glycol (like isopropyl alcohol), and I could not 
tell that
> there was any difference in the Epson ink dilutions (except the 
alcohol in
> some of the mixes smelled bad).  I used to prefer Kodak Photo Flo --
 a
> glycol & alcohol mix similar to what is often used in the inksets --
 and it
> looks like whatever Epson is using also works just fine at half the 
strength
> they use.  
> 
> From my perspective, the benefit of not putting anything more in 
the mix is
> that the risk of incompatibility is virtually eliminated.  All I'm 
adding is
> a chemical that is already a major part of the mix.  
> 
> If you are interested in a cleaning solution, a bit of Photo Flo 
(try 0.2%)
> could be added to give the base the wetting agent characteristics.
> 
> I'll be curious how the fade test of my UC-based mixes looks.  If 
one is
> close to competitive, I'll refine it and publish the formula.  That 
way
> there will be an Epson-based inkset out there that would always be 
available
> to everyone.  Some who think that third party pigs are somehow 
inferior
> might prefer an Epson-based formula.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> ______________________________
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ernst Dinkla [mailto:E.Dinkla@c...] 
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:08 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Blackless printing
> 
> Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure that is the case.  The Eboni is the one that is much 
more
> > neutral than the MIS version.  I have a test inkset made with UC 
inks and
> > that inkset's "warm-carbon" curve seems to be more neutral than 
the MIS
> > version.  (Perhaps it's my new base -- real complex: distilled 
water and

> > glycerol.)
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Is that all, distilled water and glycerol ?   I have  a 10000CF 
> now and it will be converted to MIS 7600 but I think a cleaning 
> has to be done in between. If that base would do the trick then 
> I'm less worried.
> 
> John Nollendorfs mentioned glycerol as a component of the Ilford 
> Archiva inks ages ago. It has the thixotropy and the retarder 
> qualities to keep pigments suspended and nozzles open.
> 
> 
> Ernst

Jules,

>...
> How do we end up? 
>Mixing toxic chemicals that stink to high heaven. 

>... and where can I get some glycerol?

It's readily available.  Even Photographer's Formulary has it.  See
http://www.photoformulary.com/DesktopModules/StoreSearchResult.aspx?Search=g
lycerol&tabindex=2&tabid=9&mid=37&langId=0 

And don't worry, it doesn't smell bad.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
________________





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Ernst,
> 
> If you look at the material safety data sheets, the UC inks often 
have
> mostly water and glycerol in them.  Some have glycols and probably 
all have
> "proprietary organic materials" in addition to the "proprietary 
dyes and
> pigments."  My goal was to make a bare-bones supplemental base that 
would at
> least not be incompatible with the existing Epson base (which they 
will not
> provide to us hackers).
> 
> The main things that are missing in the simple glycerol water base 
appear to
> be wetting agents and binders.  With the Epson pigs, however, the 
acrylic
> coating is the main binder, so that is not missing.  (That would 
not be the
> case with an Eboni diluting, for example.)  For a cleaning fluid, a 
binder
> is also not helpful.  
> 
> I experimented with wetting agents and even some de-foamers that 
are said to
> be better than glycol (like isopropyl alcohol), and I could not 
tell that
> there was any difference in the Epson ink dilutions (except the 
alcohol in
> some of the mixes smelled bad).  I used to prefer Kodak Photo Flo --
 a
> glycol & alcohol mix similar to what is often used in the inksets --
 and it
> looks like whatever Epson is using also works just fine at half the 
strength
> they use.  
> 
> From my perspective, the benefit of not putting anything more in 
the mix is
> that the risk of incompatibility is virtually eliminated.  All I'm 
adding is
> a chemical that is already a major part of the mix.  
> 
> If you are interested in a cleaning solution, a bit of Photo Flo 
(try 0.2%)
> could be added to give the base the wetting agent characteristics.
> 
> I'll be curious how the fade test of my UC-based mixes looks.  If 
one is
> close to competitive, I'll refine it and publish the formula.  That 
way
> there will be an Epson-based inkset out there that would always be 
available
> to everyone.  Some who think that third party pigs are somehow 
inferior
> might prefer an Epson-based formula.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> ______________________________
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ernst Dinkla [mailto:E.Dinkla@c...] 
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:08 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Blackless printing
> 
> Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure that is the case.  The Eboni is the one that is much 
more
> > neutral than the MIS version.  I have a test inkset made with UC 
inks and
> > that inkset's "warm-carbon" curve seems to be more neutral than 
the MIS
> > version.  (Perhaps it's my new base -- real complex: distilled 
water and
> > glycerol.)
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Is that all, distilled water and glycerol ?   I have  a 10000CF 
> now and it will be converted to MIS 7600 but I think a cleaning 
> has to be done in between. If that base would do the trick then 
> I'm less worried.
> 
> John Nollendorfs mentioned glycerol as a component of the Ilford 
> Archiva inks ages ago. It has the thixotropy and the retarder 
> qualities to keep pigments suspended and nozzles open.
> 
> 
> Ernst




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Ernst,

I forgot to mention the glycerol mixing ratio to get the viscosity right:
it's 4 parts water to 3 parts glycerol.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
__________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...] 
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 4:50 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Simple base (was Blackless printing)

Ernst,

If you look at the material safety data sheets, the UC inks often have
mostly water and glycerol in them.  Some have glycols and probably all have
"proprietary organic materials" in addition to the "proprietary dyes and
pigments."  My goal was to make a bare-bones supplemental base that would at
least not be incompatible with the existing Epson base (which they will not
provide to us hackers).

The main things that are missing in the simple glycerol water base appear to
be wetting agents and binders.  With the Epson pigs, however, the acrylic
coating is the main binder, so that is not missing.  (That would not be the
case with an Eboni diluting, for example.)  For a cleaning fluid, a binder
is also not helpful.  

I experimented with wetting agents and even some de-foamers that are said to
be better than glycol (like isopropyl alcohol), and I could not tell that
there was any difference in the Epson ink dilutions (except the alcohol in
some of the mixes smelled bad).  I used to prefer Kodak Photo Flo -- a
glycol & alcohol mix similar to what is often used in the inksets -- and it
looks like whatever Epson is using also works just fine at half the strength
they use.  

From my perspective, the benefit of not putting anything more in the mix is
that the risk of incompatibility is virtually eliminated.  All I'm adding is
a chemical that is already a major part of the mix.  

If you are interested in a cleaning solution, a bit of Photo Flo (try 0.2%)
could be added to give the base the wetting agent characteristics.

I'll be curious how the fade test of my UC-based mixes looks.  If one is
close to competitive, I'll refine it and publish the formula.  That way
there will be an Epson-based inkset out there that would always be available
to everyone.  Some who think that third party pigs are somehow inferior
might prefer an Epson-based formula.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
______________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Ernst Dinkla [mailto:E.Dinkla@...] 
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:08 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Blackless printing

Paul Roark wrote:

> I'm not sure that is the case.  The Eboni is the one that is much more
> neutral than the MIS version.  I have a test inkset made with UC inks and
> that inkset's "warm-carbon" curve seems to be more neutral than the MIS
> version.  (Perhaps it's my new base -- real complex: distilled water and
> glycerol.)

Paul,

Is that all, distilled water and glycerol ?   I have  a 10000CF 
now and it will be converted to MIS 7600 but I think a cleaning 
has to be done in between. If that base would do the trick then 
I'm less worried.

John Nollendorfs mentioned glycerol as a component of the Ilford 
Archiva inks ages ago. It has the thixotropy and the retarder 
qualities to keep pigments suspended and nozzles open.


Ernst

Paul Roark wrote:
> Ernst,
> 
> I forgot to mention the glycerol mixing ratio to get the viscosity right:
> it's 4 parts water to 3 parts glycerol.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 

Paul, thank you.

I will try it first on the Epson 10000CF black > Eboni.  With 
good profiling I can use the rest of the Epson Archival inks till 
they have to be replaced. So far with ink changes on 9000's and 
9600's the Eboni was the most problematic to get running but the 
density it delivers must be better than the Archival black does.

BTW, I tested a silkscreen varnish that a befriended manufacturer 
delivered. Explained the qualities of the Hydrocote. He got me a 
UV curing aliphatic polyurethane. As I understand it this isn't 
new but an existing formula. It is water clear on gloss papers 
and hardly visible on matte papers. Good gloss. I'm not so sure 
whether it adheres well on gloss papers (PPGP).
Deepens the colors on matte but it is difficult to harden the 
coat then as it penetrates too much. The smell then stays which 
isn't a nice one..  The advantages are the longer time one can 
use for applying (in case of one or few prints I use a foam 
roller), there's no solvent in it so the layer applied stays as 
thick, probably no water in it either but I saw some dissolving 
effects on dye inks. The crosslinking of the urethane should be 
better than with dispersions, so a true skin. Needs a UV curer. 
So a mixed bag.

Ernst

Ernst,

The Epson Archival black in the CF (called "Archival" in the U.S.) inkset is
clearly the one that should be replaced first.  My fade testing suggests it
is not a 100% pigment ink.  It tests out almost exactly like the old PiezoBW
and MIS FS & VM black inks.  Eboni and Epson UC Matte black appear to be
much more lightfast.

In my current fade test I have not only a UC-based B&W inkset, but also one
that uses the UC Photo and Light black pigs with the Epson Archival color
pigs to cool them down.  It should be interesting to see which one does
better. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
__________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Ernst Dinkla [mailto:E.Dinkla@chello.nl] 
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 12:29 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Simple bases (was Blackless printing)

Paul Roark wrote:
> Ernst,
> 
> I forgot to mention the glycerol mixing ratio to get the viscosity right:
> it's 4 parts water to 3 parts glycerol.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 

Paul, thank you.

I will try it first on the Epson 10000CF black > Eboni.  With 
good profiling I can use the rest of the Epson Archival inks till 
they have to be replaced. So far with ink changes on 9000's and 
9600's the Eboni was the most problematic to get running but the 
density it delivers must be better than the Archival black does.

BTW, I tested a silkscreen varnish that a befriended manufacturer 
delivered. Explained the qualities of the Hydrocote. He got me a 
UV curing aliphatic polyurethane. As I understand it this isn't 
new but an existing formula. It is water clear on gloss papers 
and hardly visible on matte papers. Good gloss. I'm not so sure 
whether it adheres well on gloss papers (PPGP).
Deepens the colors on matte but it is difficult to harden the 
coat then as it penetrates too much. The smell then stays which 
isn't a nice one..  The advantages are the longer time one can 
use for applying (in case of one or few prints I use a foam 
roller), there's no solvent in it so the layer applied stays as 
thick, probably no water in it either but I saw some dissolving 
effects on dye inks. The crosslinking of the urethane should be 
better than with dispersions, so a true skin. Needs a UV curer. 
So a mixed bag.

Ernst



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND
MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  OWNER AND
MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Thanks Paul.

Jules

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Jules,
> 
> >...
> > How do we end up? 
> >Mixing toxic chemicals that stink to high heaven. 
> 
> >... and where can I get some glycerol?
> 
> It's readily available.  Even Photographer's Formulary has it.  See
> http://www.photoformulary.com/DesktopModules/StoreSearchResult.aspx?
Search=g
> lycerol&tabindex=2&tabid=9&mid=37&langId=0 
> 
> And don't worry, it doesn't smell bad.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
> ________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
> <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> > Ernst,
> > 
> > If you look at the material safety data sheets, the UC inks often 
> have
> > mostly water and glycerol in them.  Some have glycols and 
probably 
> all have
> > "proprietary organic materials" in addition to the "proprietary 
> dyes and
> > pigments."  My goal was to make a bare-bones supplemental base 
that 
> would at
> > least not be incompatible with the existing Epson base (which 
they 
> will not
> > provide to us hackers).
> > 
> > The main things that are missing in the simple glycerol water 
base 
> appear to
> > be wetting agents and binders.  With the Epson pigs, however, the 
> acrylic
> > coating is the main binder, so that is not missing.  (That would 
> not be the
> > case with an Eboni diluting, for example.)  For a cleaning fluid, 
a 
> binder
> > is also not helpful.  
> > 
> > I experimented with wetting agents and even some de-foamers that 
> are said to
> > be better than glycol (like isopropyl alcohol), and I could not 
> tell that
> > there was any difference in the Epson ink dilutions (except the 
> alcohol in
> > some of the mixes smelled bad).  I used to prefer Kodak Photo 
Flo --
>  a
> > glycol & alcohol mix similar to what is often used in the 
inksets --
>  and it
> > looks like whatever Epson is using also works just fine at half 
the 
> strength
> > they use.  
> > 
> > From my perspective, the benefit of not putting anything more in 
> the mix is
> > that the risk of incompatibility is virtually eliminated.  All 
I'm 
> adding is
> > a chemical that is already a major part of the mix.  
> > 
> > If you are interested in a cleaning solution, a bit of Photo Flo 
> (try 0.2%)
> > could be added to give the base the wetting agent characteristics.
> > 
> > I'll be curious how the fade test of my UC-based mixes looks.  If 
> one is
> > close to competitive, I'll refine it and publish the formula.  
That 
> way
> > there will be an Epson-based inkset out there that would always 
be 
> available
> > to everyone.  Some who think that third party pigs are somehow 
> inferior
> > might prefer an Epson-based formula.
> > 
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com 
> > ______________________________
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ernst Dinkla [mailto:E.Dinkla@c...] 
> > Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 1:08 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Blackless printing
> > 
> > Paul Roark wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm not sure that is the case.  The Eboni is the one that is 
much 
> more
> > > neutral than the MIS version.  I have a test inkset made with 
UC 
> inks and
> > > that inkset's "warm-carbon" curve seems to be more neutral than 
> the MIS
> > > version.  (Perhaps it's my new base -- real complex: distilled 
> water and
> > > glycerol.)
> > 
> > Paul,
> > 
> > Is that all, distilled water and glycerol ?   I have  a 10000CF 
> > now and it will be converted to MIS 7600 but I think a cleaning 
> > has to be done in between. If that base would do the trick then 
> > I'm less worried.
> > 
> > John Nollendorfs mentioned glycerol as a component of the Ilford 
> > Archiva inks ages ago. It has the thixotropy and the retarder 
> > qualities to keep pigments suspended and nozzles open.
> > 
> > 
> > Ernst
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages 
to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
Owner and
> Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files 
section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR 
EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF 
THE  "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED 
OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE 
INABILITY
> TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED 
ACCESS TO OR
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR 
CONDUCT OF ANY
> THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY 
OTHER

> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links

I need some help with printer specs for B&W printing. From this list, it
seems that people are getting good results using a variety of printers. The
4000 and 2200 seem to be considered the current big guns.

When I look at the Epson Specs(reference at the bottom), the R800 has the
highest resolution and the smallest droplet print head. It would seem to me
that the R800 would provide the smoothest gradations and the finest
patterns.

I am sure there is more to fine B&W printing than the specs would indicate.
If black only works well I would be most interested as it would seem easier,
but I am not opposed to multi-ink configurations.

Could someone explain what I should be looking for or direct me to a proper
website?

Thanks so much

4000
17inch
7-color individual ink cartridges
2880 x 1440 dpi resolution
3.5-picoliter ink droplets

2200
13inch
7-color individual ink cartridges
2880 x 1440 dpi resolution
4-picoliter ink droplets

R800
8inch
8-color individual ink cartridges
5760 x 1440 dpi resolution
1.5-picoliter ink droplets

1280
13inch
6-color 2 ink cartridges
2880 x 720 dpi resolution
4-picoliter ink droplets

I have R800. IMO it does not give neutral BW prints on a consistent
basis and there is major league metamerism. It is fine for sepia toned
prints and noncritical viewing under glass (ie the problems make no
difference for the image displayed, for most viewers). If you want
neutral prints for the critical observer, this is not the way to go.
Disregard opinions based on a small number of prints with R800 and the
results vary.

                    Stuart
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, SMuncy
<smuncy@n...> wrote:
> I need some help with printer specs for B&W printing. From this list, it
> seems that people are getting good results using a variety of
printers. The
> 4000 and 2200 seem to be considered the current big guns.
> 
> When I look at the Epson Specs(reference at the bottom), the R800
has the
> highest resolution and the smallest droplet print head. It would
seem to me
> that the R800 would provide the smoothest gradations and the finest
> patterns.
> 
> I am sure there is more to fine B&W printing than the specs would
indicate.
> If black only works well I would be most interested as it would seem
easier,
> but I am not opposed to multi-ink configurations.
> 
> Could someone explain what I should be looking for or direct me to a
proper

> website?
> 
> Thanks so much
> 
> 4000
> 17inch
> 7-color individual ink cartridges
> 2880 x 1440 dpi resolution
> 3.5-picoliter ink droplets
> 
> 2200
> 13inch
> 7-color individual ink cartridges
> 2880 x 1440 dpi resolution
> 4-picoliter ink droplets
> 
> R800
> 8inch
> 8-color individual ink cartridges
> 5760 x 1440 dpi resolution
> 1.5-picoliter ink droplets
> 
> 1280
> 13inch
> 6-color 2 ink cartridges
> 2880 x 720 dpi resolution
> 4-picoliter ink droplets

I'm assuming you really want good prints instead of a good spec'd
printer. If so:

Having over a hundred prints from others, I belive print quality is a
funtion of
1) user skill in capture, scanning and printing
way behind is 2nd place:
2) camera optics and film
way farther behind that is:
3) scanner and printer hardware selection

Any of the printers you mention will do. Instead emphasize lots of
time shooting, developing, scanning and printing while concentrating
on learning along the way. Just make sure your dollar (and time)
budget leaves lots of room for film, developer, paper and ink. 

One suggestion: buy the printer that most people have success with.
You want to be making good prints using established easy workflows
instead of helping develop them for the latest printer model. 

FWIW, I wouldn't trade my 1280 for anything on your list. It just
makes very good prints for me. But others do well with other models.

Bob Michaels
 
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, SMuncy
<smuncy@n...> wrote:
> I need some help with printer specs for B&W printing. From this list, it
> seems that people are getting good results using a variety of
printers. The
> 4000 and 2200 seem to be considered the current big guns.
> 
> When I look at the Epson Specs(reference at the bottom), the R800
has the
> highest resolution and the smallest droplet print head. It would
seem to me
> that the R800 would provide the smoothest gradations and the finest
> patterns.
> 
> I am sure there is more to fine B&W printing than the specs would
indicate.
> If black only works well I would be most interested as it would seem
easier,
> but I am not opposed to multi-ink configurations.
> 
> Could someone explain what I should be looking for or direct me to a
proper

> website?
> 
> Thanks so much
> 
> 4000
> 17inch
> 7-color individual ink cartridges
> 2880 x 1440 dpi resolution
> 3.5-picoliter ink droplets
> 
> 2200
> 13inch
> 7-color individual ink cartridges
> 2880 x 1440 dpi resolution
> 4-picoliter ink droplets
> 
> R800
> 8inch
> 8-color individual ink cartridges
> 5760 x 1440 dpi resolution
> 1.5-picoliter ink droplets
> 
> 1280
> 13inch
> 6-color 2 ink cartridges
> 2880 x 720 dpi resolution
> 4-picoliter ink droplets