Digital BW, The Print

This is my 6-14 formula for the UC-VT (for the 2200) I recently tested.  It
is very similar in its behavior to UT7, but the formulas are different.
With sliders set to 0, the 50% patch of an EEM print had C,M,Y = .60, .61,
.60.

 

The base:  4 parts distilled water and 3 parts glycerol.  (I used Kic
technical grade.)

 

(In the past, I've had trouble finding a base that worked well with the UC
inks.  The simple base I used for this inkset does the job and anyone can
make it.)

 

Blue used in mixing:  50% UC M, 50% UC C.

 

K position:  I prefer Eboni.  Epson UC matte black would also work.

 

LK position:  UC LK, no changes.

 

C position:  70% UC PK, 30% UC LK.

 

LC position:  52% UC LK, 48% base.

 

M position:  30% blue, 40% LK, 30% PK.

 

LM position:  30% LK, 10% blue, 60% base.

 

Y position:  88% LC, 7% Y, 5% M.

 

This is not necessarily a final formula, but it's close and works.  I had no
clogging or other problems with these experimental inksets.  (Nor do I have
clogging problems with MIS inksets.)

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  



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

> The base:  4 parts distilled water and 3 parts glycerol.  (I used Kic
> technical grade.)

Paul,

What is the risk of technical grade glycerols bringing 
fungi/bacteria in the ink mix ?
A friend had that kind of trouble with MIS 7600 inks in two 
9600's at some point and we solved it by filtering with 9000 
damper sieves and adding some drops of fungicide.  I don't know 
whether that base was glycerol but it is likely to be similar.

Ernst

Ernst,

>> The base:  4 parts distilled water and 3 parts glycerol.  
>>(I used Kic technical grade.)

>What is the risk of technical grade glycerols bringing 
>fungi/bacteria in the ink mix?

I don't know.  I used it because for small volumes it was cheaper.  See
http://kicchemicals.com/995tech.htm for the description of their "technical
grade" glycerin.  They also have very high grade versions.

>A friend had that kind of trouble with MIS 7600 inks in two 
>9600's at some point and we solved it by filtering with 9000 
>damper sieves and adding some drops of fungicide.  I don't know 
>whether that base was glycerol but it is likely to be similar.


That is disappointing to hear.  I think most of these inks include some
agent to suppress fungus, etc.  I'm assuming that the amount of original
Epson ink in the mix will still have enough to do the job in most
circumstances.  After all, they must design the inks for the worst possible
storage and use situations.  

I made a batch with some isopropyl alcohol, which, among other things, is
supposed to help.  I found no differences in printing, except I didn't like
or want the smell.  If fungus is a problem, that might be one way to deal
with it, however.

I'm curious about the filtering.  The IB-FS mix is going to need better
high-shear mixing and filtering before it'll be acceptable for large format
printing.  (The desk-top printer carts are easy.  It's the large,
un-agitated carts where the problems are showing up.)  I'm hoping to try to
design ways of doing this that will open the total pigment market to
darkroom hackers like me (and artists who want to design their own color
palettes).  The commercially-available products I've found so far are not in
that category, in my view.  So, affordable 1 or 0.5 micron filters that
don't soak up lots of (costly in low volume batches) ink are on the list of
things to find.  The damper filters and MIS's large format CFS filters could
be possible solutions to this issue.  As a practical matter, I might just
recommend that every large format printer use a CFS for filtering and
agitation reasons.

Any thoughts on these issues are most welcomed.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I thought about using a syringe filter when drawing up bulk ink for 
re-filling carts (particularly bottom filling).  Something like these, 
which come in different filter areas and pore size:
http://www.hcl-intl.com/mall/more.asp?fmmore=12549
What would be the best pore size to use?

On Tuesday, July 20, 2004, at 12:56  PM, Paul Roark wrote:

> So, affordable 1 or 0.5 micron filters that
> don't soak up lots of (costly in low volume batches) ink are on the 
> list of
> things to find.  The damper filters and MIS's large format CFS filters 
> could
> be possible solutions to this issue.  As a practical matter, I might 
> just
> recommend that every large format printer use a CFS for filtering and
> agitation reasons.
>
> Any thoughts on these issues are most welcomed.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Paul Roark wrote:

> I'm curious about the filtering.  The IB-FS mix is going to need better
> high-shear mixing and filtering before it'll be acceptable for large format
> printing.  (The desk-top printer carts are easy.  It's the large,
> un-agitated carts where the problems are showing up.)  I'm hoping to try to
> design ways of doing this that will open the total pigment market to
> darkroom hackers like me (and artists who want to design their own color
> palettes).  The commercially-available products I've found so far are not in
> that category, in my view.  So, affordable 1 or 0.5 micron filters that
> don't soak up lots of (costly in low volume batches) ink are on the list of
> things to find.  The damper filters and MIS's large format CFS filters could
> be possible solutions to this issue.  As a practical matter, I might just
> recommend that every large format printer use a CFS for filtering and
> agitation reasons.

Strange enough you will find more about filters at the Schleicher 
und Schuell site, the company that owns Hahnemuhle.
http://www.schleicher-schuell.com
(they are now even in microarray technics I see)
The differences between the filters are size, particle size and 
their (non)hygroscopic behaviour. I only ordered some samples and 
they didn't work alright with inkjet inks. Can't tell you what 
you actually should use but there's an American S&S subsidiary 
that could. The Epson dampers were not that expensive and the 
inks were already filtered but contaminated later on (fungi, 
bacteria) so flow was not that difficult. That's stainless steel 
mesh, very tightly woven.

You probably need several filters after another with the 
possibility of backflush to get any results. We used a vacuumpump 
with an extra empty (wine) bottle in between to pull the liquid 
through. If you keep the feeding jar low and switch the pump off 
from time to time then there's some backflush. As a last step it 
may be better to use one of the Epson damper sieves as that's the 
final size you will encounter in practice.  Air has to be taken 
out as well, the vacuum can do this, additional nitrogen bubbles 
can take out the rest, don't know how serious this is but it has 
been mentioned before in inkjet ink manufacturing.  John 
Nollendorfs might help you with better information, he made the 
Wide Spectrum inks based on Ilford's Archiva dye. And he 
mentioned glycerol then.

CFS systems like the one I have made for the 9000 and the 5000 
(direct to the internal inklines) do not solve the pigment 
settling.  It can be better controlled if the tube in the bottles 
is 2 cm above the bottom but that's still no guarantee that it 
will work without problems. If gallons a year are used on one 
printer then it becomes different.  The big carts and especially 
the 9600 carts are better in practice with lower throughput, you 
can shake them regularly and the 9600 have seals that will not 
wear as fast from taking them out.  Micro organisms get into the 
CFS systems easier than in carts.  I wouldn't recommend an extra 
filter other than the original damper in any ink supply system. 
It could be different for the desktop printers where the 
filtering function in the cart is based on the content of one 
cart only and the larger sieves of the wide formats could act as 
a first filter in the CFS.  For that reason I once send a 9000 
damper to Eddie Matejowsky (Eddie's Chip Hack) for his 2200 CIS 
system. But the actual filtering should be done before printing 
time and not at printing time.

Ernst

Carl,

>I thought about using a syringe filter when drawing up bulk ink for 
>re-filling carts (particularly bottom filling).  Something like these, 
>which come in different filter areas and pore size:
>http://www.hcl-intl.com/mall/more.asp?fmmore=12549
>What would be the best pore size to use?

These could be perfect.  I think I'll order 0.4 and 1.2 micron sizes and see
what happens.

I'm told the Epson head and damper filters are "1 micron."  I'm not sure how
accurate these statements are.  I don't want to clog these filters.  So, if
the Epson filter size truly is 1 micron, then I'm favoring 0.4.  

It appears to me that 0.1 is a typical "disclosed" (query accuracy) target
size for many pigments.  Smaller particles are said to have higher gamut and
are easier to keep in suspension.  Larger particles are said to have higher
longevity, but they will descend faster.  I assume a bell-shaped curve with
a peak at about 0.1 micron.  

In addition to the filtering, high-shear mixing might be needed first to
separate agglomerations.  (But I'm also wondering if filters can do this.  I
sometimes use my darkroom filter funnel to catch and then grind the large
"clunker" crystals in dry-packaged photo chemicals.)  

For a high-shear mixer, a modified, cheap blender might actually be better
than most of the commercial units I've seen.  Foaming, mixing, and
dissolving air into the inks is a problem.  So, I might see if I can fashion
a floating lid for a cheap, small-volume blender.  This lid plus the use of
the standard one might also make mixing in a nitrogen atmosphere easier.
(Nitrogen is cheap, safe, and does not dissolve in water.  My chemist
brother says processing in a nitrogen atmosphere is rather common in the
larger chemical industry.  De-gassing and keeping air out of the ink in the
first place are issues.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 


_____________________

On Tuesday, July 20, 2004, at 12:56  PM, Paul Roark wrote:

> So, affordable 1 or 0.5 micron filters that
> don't soak up lots of (costly in low volume batches) ink are on the 
> list of
> things to find.  The damper filters and MIS's large format CFS filters 
> could
> be possible solutions to this issue.  As a practical matter, I might 
> just
> recommend that every large format printer use a CFS for filtering and
> agitation reasons.
>
> Any thoughts on these issues are most welcomed.
>
> 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