Digital BW, The Print

Does anyone have substantial print permanene data on the new MIS black channel pigment 
ink apart from the in house MIS tests? Who can confirm their superiority to the UC matte 
black or Cone's black for that matter.

Take a look at Paul Roark's tests.  I don't have them, but I believe that those indicate not much difference in the MIS and UC blacks.  However, I could be wrong (again).
 
Tom Baker

john dean <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
Does anyone have substantial print permanene data on the new MIS black channel pigment 
ink apart from the in house MIS tests? Who can confirm their superiority to the UC matte 
black or Cone's black for that matter.




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







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

John,

>Does anyone have reliable info on the true permanence o UT7 pigment inkset
>by MIS? ...

See my latest fade test results.  UT7 is essentially the same as UT2 in
terms of longevity.

>I still need reliable confirmation in order to sell work for exhibitions
>and galleries, etc.

What I do is just compare to Epson and then use the Wilhelm numbers.  The
color pigments are not as lightfast as the black (carbon) pigments.  The
Wilhelm color v. "B&W" shows this, as do my tests.  Yet, the Wilhelm "B&W"
tests are of UC images that are still mostly color pigment.  Thus those
numbers put a very conservative floor on what these true B&W (predominantly
carbon) inksets can do.

Of course, no gallery cares what I say, so for marketing purposes a B&W
inkset that uses only Epson inks might be really help from a marketing point
of view.  That is why I'll publish at least a first draft of an Epson
UC-based variable-tone inkset.  Then any enterprising person or small
company can fine-tune and market it (no royalties to anyone).  I suspect a
commercial outfit other than MIS might mix and market such an inkset.  

I want competition and acceptance of our medium, and I think we're making
progress.

>I know from past experience there is a lot of misinformation out there from
>Cone's early proclamtions of "carbon pigment the oldest substance known to
>mankind" when they later addmitted to me they were realisticly rated at 50
>years in average daylight ..

The carbon is tough stuff.  It's the dye that was also in the inks that were
the problem.  I decided to do my own fade testing because of this type of
hype and misinformation.  Life is too short to wait for Wilhelm or RIT to
test everything, and they never will.

>Does anyone have substantial print permanene data on the new 
>MIS black channel pigment ink apart from the in house MIS tests? 
>Who can confirm their superiority to the UC matte 
>black or Cone's black for that matter.

My rather simple fluorescent light fade testing suggests that the Epson UC
Matte Black is perhaps a hair more lightfast that Eboni (the differences
were so small they might be testing artifacts), but it's also considerably
warmer.  Both are about the best inks I've ever tested.  The Cone Museum
black tests out as essentially the same as Eboni.  I think Eboni is the way
to go.

As to fade testing, I take with a grain of salt any "years of display"
rating. I'm also well aware of the pros and cons of the various light
sources and a number of other variables in the testing.  From my
perspective, however, the results are simply good enough to be useful
guides, especially when I find they correlate well with other published
tests. 

Why doesn't MIS hire Wilhelm?  Well, they did pay RIT once, and those
results were published and very useful.  Now I'd guess MIS just doesn't
think it's a good investment now, however.  

Having me out here is a mixed bag for them.  After all, if they paid, for
example, Wilhelm to test the UT7 inkset, they'd probably just be getting the
results only to find I published my initial results for a possible UT8
inkset that showed there might soon be an inkset that is considerably
better.  

The field is moving so fast, and MIS is so small, that it is hard for them
to get a return from any investment in a singe inkset.  Epson can sell a
thousand carts in a day.  MIS, on the other hand, might be stuck with a
large and expensive inventory of obsolete carts.  They have to do the
filling in high volume to get the cost per cart reasonable.  But if I
obsolete their inventory too fast, that and any other investment in any
particular inkset is just wasted.  

I doubt this will satisfy your galleries, but these inksets are good and
getting better.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

I really appreciate your taking the time to explain these practical 
issues of monochrome production and development to us. You 
are a busy guy and didn't have to be so thourough, but you were!

Although I have been regularly involved with piezzo output since 
the first Photo Stylus 700 printers came out, I have rarely run into 
anyone who is as candid and unguarded with his knowledge as 
you apper to be. One thing I know for sure is that there are a lot of 
people on this site who have a lot of admiration for what you are 
doing. 

I studied with Todd Walker, Esther Parada, and Will Larson 
among others at the U of Arizona and in Philadelphia when 
going for my BFA and MFA. in the 80's.  I  was brought up on the 
greatest black and white work of the 20th century at the Center in 
Tucson. All the great photographer/printmakers who were still 
living came out there. I think we are just now experiencing digital 
monochrome  as the new great medium we always hoped it 
would be. Thank you for pushing this forward at a faster rate than 
it would be moving if you were not around. But I still wish 
Wilhelm would help us out a little. I'm not too worried about what 
my clients think. I'm the one that's been overly concerned with 
stability. Honesty and straight talk is what is needed and you and 
some of the other guys on this site are providing that.

I do have one final question:

What do you think of the role of sprays as one of the big answers 
for longevity? I used to tell my clients, "don't worry one day there 
is going to be a miracle spray that will make things last for 
centuries". I'm starting to think that might actually happen.

I'll be looking out for your posts. I'm hooked now and can see 
why you have so many friends out here.

John Dean
Atlanta Ga.
imaging@...

John,

>...
>I studied with Todd Walker, ...

Todd (aka Hal) Walker was my Dad's high school darkroom and ham radio buddy.

>...I think we are just now experiencing digital 
>monochrome  as the new great medium we always hoped it 
>would be. 

I think it is getting there.  I'd really like it to be a medium that is not
dominated by large companies and is accessible to what would have been
darkroom workers in the past.

>...I still wish Wilhelm would help us out a little. ...

I agree, but it's a business for him, and I'm not sure the economics are
there for anyone to pay his fee at this point.

>What do you think of the role of sprays as one of the big answers 
>for longevity?

I think they could be very important, for both fading and physical
protection of the pigments.  The fade results with PremierArt spray on UC
inks are impressive.  Sadly, however, the dmax on matte paper is usually
decreased with the spray.  

It's a bit odd that the MIS inks are not helped that much.  It may be that
the MIS ink already has a substance that does whatever the PremierArt is
doing.  Perhaps it's the MIS UT binder.  I have noted that it is a bit on
the yellow side, so maybe there is a UV filter in it.

I have searched for a clear, archival coating that is also a really good
oxygen barrier. (Most fading is oxidation.)  It doesn't seem to exist at
this point.  Those that can stop oxygen don't last very long.  Also, many of
the otherwise most promising coatings yellow.  I think we'll see significant
progress in this area over the next decade.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Paul

People in the Digital BW Forum mentioned that you recommend Lascaux 
Fixative spray for greater archivability of UT2 inks matte papers.  
Would you recommend the Lascaux Fixative spray for usage with William 
Turner and PhotoRag paper with the UT2 inks (Eboni Black)?

Thanks
Ross



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> John,
> 
> >...
> >I studied with Todd Walker, ...
> 
> Todd (aka Hal) Walker was my Dad's high school darkroom and ham 
radio buddy.
> 
> >...I think we are just now experiencing digital 
> >monochrome  as the new great medium we always hoped it 
> >would be. 
> 
> I think it is getting there.  I'd really like it to be a medium 
that is not
> dominated by large companies and is accessible to what would have 
been
> darkroom workers in the past.
> 
> >...I still wish Wilhelm would help us out a little. ...
> 
> I agree, but it's a business for him, and I'm not sure the 
economics are
> there for anyone to pay his fee at this point.
> 
> >What do you think of the role of sprays as one of the big answers 
> >for longevity?
> 
> I think they could be very important, for both fading and physical
> protection of the pigments.  The fade results with PremierArt spray 
on UC
> inks are impressive.  Sadly, however, the dmax on matte paper is 
usually
> decreased with the spray.  
> 
> It's a bit odd that the MIS inks are not helped that much.  It may 
be that
> the MIS ink already has a substance that does whatever the 
PremierArt is
> doing.  Perhaps it's the MIS UT binder.  I have noted that it is a 
bit on
> the yellow side, so maybe there is a UV filter in it.
> 
> I have searched for a clear, archival coating that is also a really 
good
> oxygen barrier. (Most fading is oxidation.)  It doesn't seem to 
exist at
> this point.  Those that can stop oxygen don't last very long.  
Also, many of
> the otherwise most promising coatings yellow.  I think we'll see 
significant

> progress in this area over the next decade.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Ross,

>People in the Digital BW Forum mentioned that you recommend Lascaux 
>Fixative spray for greater archivability of UT2 inks matte papers.

I'm not so sure any more.  I always reserve the right to change my mind.

After the last test, I'd have to say that Lascaux (B72) is good for some
physical protection, but it did not help at all with respect to
lightfastness.  In the past it had no effect on this issue.  This time it
looked like it might actually lower the lightfastness slightly.  (This could
be a random error it was so small.  However, it was enough to raise a yellow
caution flag in my mind.)

I do think that matte prints need some physical protection.  Putting them
under glass is great, but who wants to do this with most shots?  So, among
the other ways to protect the image somewhat, B72 seemed like a relatively
good way to go.  It *was* neutral in lightfastness, has a great reputation
in the conservation field, has about the least effect on dmax (matte dmax
often decreases with light sprays), and is easy to use.

Bottom line, it is probably a good idea if the print is otherwise
unprotected.  However, we really need a better spray for matte prints.  I
have not tested many papers, but PremierArt (which increased lightfastness
in the last test and is great on glossy paper) lowers the dmax unacceptably
on some matte paper.  So, be sure to test a small test strip before using it
or any other spray.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Out of frustration with a print that was mostly black, and difficult
to avoid flaking or streaking from pre-brushing, I tried Golden
"Archival Varnish". I don't what what lightfastness qualities it may
have, but I was a bit disappointed with the plasticy sheen it put on
the print, and the appearance of lower dmax particularly with multiple
coats.
Another slightly disappointing possibility.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Ross,
> 
> >People in the Digital BW Forum mentioned that you recommend Lascaux 
> >Fixative spray for greater archivability of UT2 inks matte papers.
> 
> I'm not so sure any more.  I always reserve the right to change my mind.
> 
> After the last test, I'd have to say that Lascaux (B72) is good for some
> physical protection, but it did not help at all with respect to
> lightfastness.  In the past it had no effect on this issue.  This
time it
> looked like it might actually lower the lightfastness slightly. 
(This could
> be a random error it was so small.  However, it was enough to raise
a yellow
> caution flag in my mind.)
> 
> I do think that matte prints need some physical protection.  Putting
them
> under glass is great, but who wants to do this with most shots?  So,
among
> the other ways to protect the image somewhat, B72 seemed like a
relatively
> good way to go.  It *was* neutral in lightfastness, has a great
reputation
> in the conservation field, has about the least effect on dmax (matte
dmax
> often decreases with light sprays), and is easy to use.
> 
> Bottom line, it is probably a good idea if the print is otherwise
> unprotected.  However, we really need a better spray for matte
prints.  I
> have not tested many papers, but PremierArt (which increased
lightfastness
> in the last test and is great on glossy paper) lowers the dmax
unacceptably
> on some matte paper.  So, be sure to test a small test strip before
using it

> or any other spray.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Livick claims great things from Clearstar
(http://www.clearstarcorp.com/coatings.asp), and he and some others also
like Sennelier's 
(see http://www.jerrysartarama.com/art-supply/catalogs/0047696000000)

Have you ever tried any of these products?

Livick often does thick coats of water-based, which I got a bit fed up with
when doing my Hydrocote and Mayer (wire-rod) experiments.

I see ClearStar also has solvent-based aerosol cans of a solvent-based mix
that might be closer to what I'd like.

I've thought the fade results Livick gets with his coated samples may be
materially affected by UV absorbing character of some of the coatings and
his apparent outside sun light source for testing.  I think this light
source overstates the usefulness of UV absorbers for those of us doing
indoor display.  (Unfiltered sunlight has high intensity, short wavelength
UV, the worst of which glass windows largely absorb).  I also wonder if all
his test results are truly comparable, for example, being done at the same
time.  If not, how is the light source (not to mention other variables)
consistency controlled?  But, these sprays are something that may warrant
further exploration.

I worry, among other things, that my accelerated fade testing may not pick
up long term yellowing, which has been a serious problem with coatings
historically used.  As such, acrylics and materials going through some
accelerated ageing that goes further than I go are rather persuasive to me.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Tyler Boley [mailto:tyler@...] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:05 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Thank You Paul For Being Here

Out of frustration with a print that was mostly black, and difficult
to avoid flaking or streaking from pre-brushing, I tried Golden
"Archival Varnish". I don't what what lightfastness qualities it may
have, but I was a bit disappointed with the plasticy sheen it put on
the print, and the appearance of lower dmax particularly with multiple
coats.
Another slightly disappointing possibility.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Ross,
> 
> >People in the Digital BW Forum mentioned that you recommend Lascaux 
> >Fixative spray for greater archivability of UT2 inks matte papers.
> 
> I'm not so sure any more.  I always reserve the right to change my mind.
> 
> After the last test, I'd have to say that Lascaux (B72) is good for some
> physical protection, but it did not help at all with respect to
> lightfastness.  In the past it had no effect on this issue.  This
time it
> looked like it might actually lower the lightfastness slightly. 
(This could
> be a random error it was so small.  However, it was enough to raise
a yellow
> caution flag in my mind.)
> 
> I do think that matte prints need some physical protection.  Putting
them
> under glass is great, but who wants to do this with most shots?  So,
among
> the other ways to protect the image somewhat, B72 seemed like a
relatively
> good way to go.  It *was* neutral in lightfastness, has a great
reputation
> in the conservation field, has about the least effect on dmax (matte
dmax
> often decreases with light sprays), and is easy to use.
> 
> Bottom line, it is probably a good idea if the print is otherwise
> unprotected.  However, we really need a better spray for matte
prints.  I
> have not tested many papers, but PremierArt (which increased
lightfastness
> in the last test and is great on glossy paper) lowers the dmax
unacceptably
> on some matte paper.  So, be sure to test a small test strip before
using it
> or any other spray.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com




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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Livick claims great things from Clearstar
> (http://www.clearstarcorp.com/coatings.asp), and he and some others also
> like Sennelier's 
> (see http://www.jerrysartarama.com/art-supply/catalogs/0047696000000)
> 
> Have you ever tried any of these products?

I haven't. In fact I've done very little with sprays or coatings of
any kind. I'd really like to stay away from it if possible since it
requires a whole different sort of setup here. Spray booths, masks,
ventilation concerns, etc..
I wanted to get away from this sort of thing, as chemicals in the
darkroom were no fun either, even dumping them down the drain bothered me.

I can avoid flaking with careful brushing and handling, even
occassional spotting. But if a print has large areas of smooth dark
tones, Prag and German Etching show the brush strokes easily. William
Turner has enough tooth to hide brush strokes. I even tried wiping
Prag pretty hard with a smooth cloth, but you take away the coating,
lower dmax considerably and probably unevenly. I've gotten to the
point where I'm very reluctant to accept print jobs with those kinds
of images on Prag.
Print Guard was the only other one I tried, and reduced dmax was
dissapointing particulaly since the kinds of images that will flake
and show brush strokes are also the ones needing good dmax.
Sometimes I think those kinds of images should just be done in the
darkroom, they look great that way anyway.

snip...
...I think this light
> source overstates the usefulness of UV absorbers for those of us doing
> indoor display.  (Unfiltered sunlight has high intensity, short
wavelength
> UV, the worst of which glass windows largely absorb).

UV seems less of a concern to me too. Framing under glass or plexi
will block some of it, and anyone hanging a framed piece of any kind
of art in direct sun deserves what they get.
Beyond that it's storage, which generally will be out of the light
anyway. The only prints I've seen having significant failure, were a
few with the old Piezo ink that were left for many months unprotected
face up to the bright daylight. Other, older prints with the same ink
well taken care of are still fine, and they are very old in digital years.
Also, Concorde Rag failed miserably, even in the dark. The prints look
etched, never seen that elsewhere.

> I worry, among other things, that my accelerated fade testing may
not pick
> up long term yellowing, which has been a serious problem with coatings
> historically used.  As such, acrylics and materials going through some
> accelerated ageing that goes further than I go are rather persuasive
to me.

Some of this we'll only know in the real world future, like newer
revelations about traditional silver.
Tyler

Tyler,

>...
>I can avoid flaking with careful brushing and handling, even
>occassional spotting. But if a print has large areas of smooth dark
>tones, Prag and German Etching show the brush strokes easily. William
>Turner has enough tooth to hide brush strokes. I even tried wiping
>Prag pretty hard with a smooth cloth, but you take away the coating,
>lower dmax considerably and probably unevenly. ...

(I assume "Prag" = PhotoRag.)

I've had fair luck just using air to blow the flakes & dust off of the
paper.  Even a large hand bulb (no risk of condensation) seems to do a fair
job.  I've never really done a controlled comparison of air v. brush v.
wiping, but I like the idea of not touching the surfaces at all.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com