Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Gloss Optimizer as overcoat-report

Gloss Optimizer as overcoat-report

2004-12-05 by Steven Karafyllakis

Hello All;

I received the bottle of MIS Gloss Optimizer (GLOP) this past 
Thursday and have some results to report that anyone using UC inks 
on RC papers will find very interesting.

The first tests were done with MIS UC-clones in a 7600, with Eboni 
K. First tests indicate that the GLOP is NOT compatible with EBONI-
it not only doesn't help it in any way, but a heavy enough coat 
causes the ink to bead and craze and generally look very ugly.  I 
then took out the Eboni and replaced it with MIS Universal K, an ink 
I was not very pleased with when I first tried it. I will probably 
wind up using with MIS PK. As my final solution for RC papers. 

The first quick test I did was to put some in a cheap ($20.00) 
Badger air brush and spray it on a couple different papers, just to 
see if it was worth the effort to proceed.  Results: GLOP does less 
than nothing for matte papers-it actually hurts the DmaX a bit. On 
semi-matte RC paper, with the eboni ink, any area that was pure 
Eboni was basically un-affected with a light coat, but any other 
area showed an increase in Dmax, an major improvement in the clarity 
and depth of the image tones, and not even a hint of bronzing or 
differential glossing of the surface. Definitely worth pursuing 
further!

I then pulled out the old 1270, flushed the K head with ammonia 
window cleaner (Windex) and put a virgin cart filled with GLOP in it.
It took three cleaning cycles to get the old junker giving a clean 
nozzles test (you have to do it on glossy paper so you can see the 
change in reflectivity of the GLOP). I then set in on BO did a 
print, and discovered that ....the printer was useless. The C and M 
nozzles that had been misfiring in color would shut off in BO.

Well, 'in for a penny, in for a pound' I thought, and repeated the 
procedure with my 1280, which up until now has had nothing but dyes 
in it, and has very little wear. The nozzle check was good the first 
time, so I overprinted several pages of test images I had prepared 
the night before. The papers I tested were:

Epson Premium Glossy
Ilford Classic Gloss
Epson Premium Semi-matte-250
Proof-line Photo glossy DP
Oriental Graphica Lustre
Proof-line Semi-matte/DP
Proof-line Photo Lustre

The 'image' was a simple 100% black rectangle applied through 
the 'color controls' setting with only the black ink, at 1440 dpi 
and high speed on.

Results:

Glossy papers: The Epson PGPP and the PL glossy respond essentially 
the same way: a single average coat completely eliminated any hint 
of bronzing, and kicked up the Dmax and color saturation enough to 
make it worth the effort. One coat however did not even out the 
gloss, there was still an obvious difference between lightly inked 
highlights and heavier areas. It took a second pass through the 
printer to achieve even gloss, though I'm hard pressed to see any 
real improvement otherwise.
On these two papers and the semi-mattes, the GLOP dried as quickly 
as ink would, so running them through a second time was not a 
problem. The GLOP also reduced the overall shine of the paper 
considerably, to more of a smooth semi-gloss that looks much closer 
to air-dried Fiber-Based paper than anything else I've seen so far. 
This was especially true of the Epson PGPP

The Ilford Classic Glossy takes a long time (days) to really dry 
out, so waiting 12 hrs before coating it may not have been enough 
for a fair test. This paper takes UC inks without any bronzing at 
all, but the surface remains fragile even after ti has dried. When I 
cotaed it, the coating showed un-evenness in the form of lines 
parallel to print head travel, even though none of the other papers 
had that problem at the same settings. A heavier coating on the 
other half of the test sheet did not help much, and the entire sheet 
showed roller and pizza-wheel marks. Perhaps this would work in a 
wide-format printer where ther are no rollers after the head, but 
with the smaller printers I'm not optimistic. Too bad, since this 
kind of paper gets the best longevity ratings in the RC category.

The Semi-matte/Lustre papers also responded similarly to each other 
as a group: They coated evenly with only one coat, gained in DMAX, 
color saturation and depth of tone, no longer showed any hint of 
bronzing, the gloss was perfectly even for all of them. In this 
case, instead of reducing the shine, the GLOP increased it, to the 
point that the only real difference between the semi-mattes and the 
glossies was a bit more 'tooth' in the former. And of course the 
second coat needed for the glossy paper. Of the four I tested, I 
preferred the final look of the Proof-Line and Epson semi-mattes-
Epson has the smoothest texture of the group, but the Proof-Line 
appears to give the best dmax, but the difference is subtle on both 
counts. As I don't have a densitometer I can't verify subtle Dmax 
differences, and I'm not sure I would even bother with the Universal 
K ink. With the coating it becomes almost acceptable, but I expect 
either Epson or MIS Photo K to be much better.

 The Proof-Line papers are part of some sample-packs from Adventure 
Cam Photo that I'm testing. At first blush they seem to be a very 
respectable group of papers, though I need to do more comparisons to 
really decide if any of them will replace what I'm currently using. 
If I can find a way to apply GLOP to a wide-format print with-out 
buying a third large printer, the PL semi-matte may become my medium 
of choice for the large display prints I need for my clients. 
Coated, and properly profiled, the overall look of the paper would 
be indistinguishable from the Fuji Lustre RA paper I used until 6 
months ago. 

So, to summarize: yes, despite speculation to the contrary, it works 
as an overcoat for glossy and particularly lustre papers, and it is 
well worth doing if you have a way to do it. Even spraying it on was 
relatively easy-it doesn't stink (though I would still avoid 
breathing it) and it is fairly easy to get a fine, even coat, at 
least with the model-maker's airbrush I used.

Now I'm looking for a large format GLOP solution

Steven Karafyllakis

http://www.stevekphoto.com

Re: Gloss Optimizer as overcoat-report

2004-12-05 by Steven Karafyllakis

One more note: after posting this, I took the GLOP cart out of the 
1280, flushed the head again and replaced the K dye ink I got a good 
nozzle check quickly, there don't seem to be any ill effects so far.

-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:
> 
> Hello All;
> 
> I received the bottle of MIS Gloss Optimizer (GLOP) this past 
> Thursday and have some results to report that anyone using UC inks 
> on RC papers will find very interesting.
> 
> The first tests were done with MIS UC-clones in a 7600, with Eboni 
> K. First tests indicate that the GLOP is NOT compatible with EBONI-
> it not only doesn't help it in any way, but a heavy enough coat 
> causes the ink to bead and craze and generally look very ugly.  I 
> then took out the Eboni and replaced it with MIS Universal K, an 
ink 
> I was not very pleased with when I first tried it. I will probably 
> wind up using with MIS PK. As my final solution for RC papers. 
> 
> The first quick test I did was to put some in a cheap ($20.00) 
> Badger air brush and spray it on a couple different papers, just 
to 
> see if it was worth the effort to proceed.  Results: GLOP does 
less 
> than nothing for matte papers-it actually hurts the DmaX a bit. On 
> semi-matte RC paper, with the eboni ink, any area that was pure 
> Eboni was basically un-affected with a light coat, but any other 
> area showed an increase in Dmax, an major improvement in the 
clarity 
> and depth of the image tones, and not even a hint of bronzing or 
> differential glossing of the surface. Definitely worth pursuing 
> further!
> 
> I then pulled out the old 1270, flushed the K head with ammonia 
> window cleaner (Windex) and put a virgin cart filled with GLOP in 
it.
> It took three cleaning cycles to get the old junker giving a clean 
> nozzles test (you have to do it on glossy paper so you can see the 
> change in reflectivity of the GLOP). I then set in on BO did a 
> print, and discovered that ....the printer was useless. The C and 
M 
> nozzles that had been misfiring in color would shut off in BO.
> 
> Well, 'in for a penny, in for a pound' I thought, and repeated the 
> procedure with my 1280, which up until now has had nothing but 
dyes 
> in it, and has very little wear. The nozzle check was good the 
first 
> time, so I overprinted several pages of test images I had prepared 
> the night before. The papers I tested were:
> 
> Epson Premium Glossy
> Ilford Classic Gloss
> Epson Premium Semi-matte-250
> Proof-line Photo glossy DP
> Oriental Graphica Lustre
> Proof-line Semi-matte/DP
> Proof-line Photo Lustre
> 
> The 'image' was a simple 100% black rectangle applied through 
> the 'color controls' setting with only the black ink, at 1440 dpi 
> and high speed on.
> 
> Results:
> 
> Glossy papers: The Epson PGPP and the PL glossy respond 
essentially 
> the same way: a single average coat completely eliminated any hint 
> of bronzing, and kicked up the Dmax and color saturation enough to 
> make it worth the effort. One coat however did not even out the 
> gloss, there was still an obvious difference between lightly inked 
> highlights and heavier areas. It took a second pass through the 
> printer to achieve even gloss, though I'm hard pressed to see any 
> real improvement otherwise.
> On these two papers and the semi-mattes, the GLOP dried as quickly 
> as ink would, so running them through a second time was not a 
> problem. The GLOP also reduced the overall shine of the paper 
> considerably, to more of a smooth semi-gloss that looks much 
closer 
> to air-dried Fiber-Based paper than anything else I've seen so 
far. 
> This was especially true of the Epson PGPP
> 
> The Ilford Classic Glossy takes a long time (days) to really dry 
> out, so waiting 12 hrs before coating it may not have been enough 
> for a fair test. This paper takes UC inks without any bronzing at 
> all, but the surface remains fragile even after ti has dried. When 
I 
> cotaed it, the coating showed un-evenness in the form of lines 
> parallel to print head travel, even though none of the other 
papers 
> had that problem at the same settings. A heavier coating on the 
> other half of the test sheet did not help much, and the entire 
sheet 
> showed roller and pizza-wheel marks. Perhaps this would work in a 
> wide-format printer where ther are no rollers after the head, but 
> with the smaller printers I'm not optimistic. Too bad, since this 
> kind of paper gets the best longevity ratings in the RC category.
> 
> The Semi-matte/Lustre papers also responded similarly to each 
other 
> as a group: They coated evenly with only one coat, gained in DMAX, 
> color saturation and depth of tone, no longer showed any hint of 
> bronzing, the gloss was perfectly even for all of them. In this 
> case, instead of reducing the shine, the GLOP increased it, to the 
> point that the only real difference between the semi-mattes and 
the 
> glossies was a bit more 'tooth' in the former. And of course the 
> second coat needed for the glossy paper. Of the four I tested, I 
> preferred the final look of the Proof-Line and Epson semi-mattes-
> Epson has the smoothest texture of the group, but the Proof-Line 
> appears to give the best dmax, but the difference is subtle on 
both 
> counts. As I don't have a densitometer I can't verify subtle Dmax 
> differences, and I'm not sure I would even bother with the 
Universal 
> K ink. With the coating it becomes almost acceptable, but I expect 
> either Epson or MIS Photo K to be much better.
> 
>  The Proof-Line papers are part of some sample-packs from 
Adventure 
> Cam Photo that I'm testing. At first blush they seem to be a very 
> respectable group of papers, though I need to do more comparisons 
to 
> really decide if any of them will replace what I'm currently 
using. 
> If I can find a way to apply GLOP to a wide-format print with-out 
> buying a third large printer, the PL semi-matte may become my 
medium 
> of choice for the large display prints I need for my clients. 
> Coated, and properly profiled, the overall look of the paper would 
> be indistinguishable from the Fuji Lustre RA paper I used until 6 
> months ago. 
> 
> So, to summarize: yes, despite speculation to the contrary, it 
works 
> as an overcoat for glossy and particularly lustre papers, and it 
is 
> well worth doing if you have a way to do it. Even spraying it on 
was 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> relatively easy-it doesn't stink (though I would still avoid 
> breathing it) and it is fairly easy to get a fine, even coat, at 
> least with the model-maker's airbrush I used.
> 
> Now I'm looking for a large format GLOP solution
> 
> Steven Karafyllakis
> 
> http://www.stevekphoto.com

Re: [Digital BW] Gloss Optimizer as overcoat-report

2004-12-05 by Steve Kale

Steve

Awesome!  I guess it works as promised and can be fired by a non R800
printer albeit with a little refinement.



> From: Steven Karafyllakis <steve@...>
> 
> 
> 
> Hello All;
> 
> I received the bottle of MIS Gloss Optimizer (GLOP) this past
> Thursday and have some results to report that anyone using UC inks
> on RC papers will find very interesting.
> 
> The first tests were done with MIS UC-clones in a 7600, with Eboni
> K. First tests indicate that the GLOP is NOT compatible with EBONI-
> it not only doesn't help it in any way, but a heavy enough coat
> causes the ink to bead and craze and generally look very ugly.  I
> then took out the Eboni and replaced it with MIS Universal K, an ink
> I was not very pleased with when I first tried it. I will probably
> wind up using with MIS PK. As my final solution for RC papers.
> 
> The first quick test I did was to put some in a cheap ($20.00)
> Badger air brush and spray it on a couple different papers, just to
> see if it was worth the effort to proceed.  Results: GLOP does less
> than nothing for matte papers-it actually hurts the DmaX a bit.

Not surprising as the issue that it is meant to treat is the lack of
penetration into RC media by the pigment inks.


 
> Well, 'in for a penny, in for a pound' I thought, and repeated the
> procedure with my 1280, which up until now has had nothing but dyes
> in it, and has very little wear. The nozzle check was good the first
> time, so I overprinted several pages of test images I had prepared
> the night before. The papers I tested were:
> 
> Epson Premium Glossy
> Ilford Classic Gloss
> Epson Premium Semi-matte-250
> Proof-line Photo glossy DP
> Oriental Graphica Lustre
> Proof-line Semi-matte/DP
> Proof-line Photo Lustre
> 
> The 'image' was a simple 100% black rectangle applied through
> the 'color controls' setting with only the black ink, at 1440 dpi
> and high speed on.

You talk about "as an overcoat" at the end of your post.  So you printed the
image and then ran it through for gloss or did the gloss go on as part of
the weave?

MIS have pulled the gloss off their site.  I look forward to hen the sell
their version 2....

Steve

Re: [Digital BW] Gloss Optimizer as overcoat-report

2004-12-05 by Steven Karafyllakis

Steve
> 
> You talk about "as an overcoat" at the end of your post.  So you 
printed the
> image and then ran it through for gloss or did the gloss go on as 
part of
> the weave?

All of this was done as an overcoat: the tests were printed on the 
7600, and then glossed on a 1280 as a separate pass with the Black 
Only setting in the driver. I think weaving it in to fill the gloss 
gaps might not give you the full benefit: if you applied it only to 
the highlights were the gaps are, you would'nt get the kick in Dmax, 
or the complete elimination of the bronzing. It is well worth the 
extra pass for those benefits.


>> MIS have pulled the gloss off their site.  I look forward to hen 
the sell
> their version 2....

Well that figures... we find a use for it and they pull it off the 
market. I hope they do make a version 2, there's a lot of potential 
here. I'm hoping someone can come up with a curve set for either QTR 
or PRW (that's Paul Roark Workflow, add that to your list, I guess)
that accomplishes the printing with only 5 inks, leaving the K free 
for a BO gloss coat pass. Anybody need a project?

Steve

Re: [Digital BW] Gloss Optimizer as overcoat-report

2004-12-05 by Carl Schofield

The QTR UT2 profiles for some of the RC papers already do this - the K 
slot is not used and free for substitution with GLOP.  The UT2 dark 
gray inks are sufficient to generate a good dmax without using a black 
ink (should be even better with post GLOP application).  I believe that 
Paul's RGB curves do the same.

Carl
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Dec 5, 2004, at 3:31 PM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:

>
>
> Steve
>>
>> You talk about "as an overcoat" at the end of your post.  So you
> printed the
>> image and then ran it through for gloss or did the gloss go on as
> part of
>> the weave?
>
> All of this was done as an overcoat: the tests were printed on the
> 7600, and then glossed on a 1280 as a separate pass with the Black
> Only setting in the driver. I think weaving it in to fill the gloss
> gaps might not give you the full benefit: if you applied it only to
> the highlights were the gaps are, you would'nt get the kick in Dmax,
> or the complete elimination of the bronzing. It is well worth the
> extra pass for those benefits.
>
>
>>> MIS have pulled the gloss off their site.  I look forward to hen
> the sell
>> their version 2....
>
> Well that figures... we find a use for it and they pull it off the
> market. I hope they do make a version 2, there's a lot of potential
> here. I'm hoping someone can come up with a curve set for either QTR
> or PRW (that's Paul Roark Workflow, add that to your list, I guess)
> that accomplishes the printing with only 5 inks, leaving the K free
> for a BO gloss coat pass. Anybody need a project?
>
> Steve
>

Re: [Digital BW] Gloss Optimizer as overcoat-report

2004-12-06 by Steven Karafyllakis

Steve;

I just checked the MIS website; the gloss optimizer is still there. 
Did you talk to them and were told it was going to be pulled? I hope 
not!  My thanks to Roy for the quick fix on the 7600/9600 QTR; not 
only is it running, but the 2880 dpi setting is working too! So now 
I've tested the GLOP with a UC B&W image also, though I sprayed it 
on rather than using the printer. A very light coat did wonders for 
both the RC and Glossy papers. I think I'm in love with the glossy 
look, it gets rid of that hard plastic shine and looks much more 
acceptable as a fine-art gallery print! I hope MIS don't screw it up 
by making it super shiny!

Steven Karafyllakis


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Steve
> 
> Awesome!  I guess it works as promised and can be fired by a non 
R800
> printer albeit with a little refinement.
> 
> 
> 
> > From: Steven Karafyllakis <steve@s...>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hello All;
> > 
> > I received the bottle of MIS Gloss Optimizer (GLOP) this past
> > Thursday and have some results to report that anyone using UC 
inks
> > on RC papers will find very interesting.
> > 
> > The first tests were done with MIS UC-clones in a 7600, with 
Eboni
> > K. First tests indicate that the GLOP is NOT compatible with 
EBONI-
> > it not only doesn't help it in any way, but a heavy enough coat
> > causes the ink to bead and craze and generally look very ugly.  I
> > then took out the Eboni and replaced it with MIS Universal K, an 
ink
> > I was not very pleased with when I first tried it. I will 
probably
> > wind up using with MIS PK. As my final solution for RC papers.
> > 
> > The first quick test I did was to put some in a cheap ($20.00)
> > Badger air brush and spray it on a couple different papers, just 
to
> > see if it was worth the effort to proceed.  Results: GLOP does 
less
> > than nothing for matte papers-it actually hurts the DmaX a bit.
> 
> Not surprising as the issue that it is meant to treat is the lack 
of
> penetration into RC media by the pigment inks.
> 
> 
>  
> > Well, 'in for a penny, in for a pound' I thought, and repeated 
the
> > procedure with my 1280, which up until now has had nothing but 
dyes
> > in it, and has very little wear. The nozzle check was good the 
first
> > time, so I overprinted several pages of test images I had 
prepared
> > the night before. The papers I tested were:
> > 
> > Epson Premium Glossy
> > Ilford Classic Gloss
> > Epson Premium Semi-matte-250
> > Proof-line Photo glossy DP
> > Oriental Graphica Lustre
> > Proof-line Semi-matte/DP
> > Proof-line Photo Lustre
> > 
> > The 'image' was a simple 100% black rectangle applied through
> > the 'color controls' setting with only the black ink, at 1440 dpi
> > and high speed on.
> 
> You talk about "as an overcoat" at the end of your post.  So you 
printed the
> image and then ran it through for gloss or did the gloss go on as 
part of
> the weave?
> 
> MIS have pulled the gloss off their site.  I look forward to hen 
the sell
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> their version 2....
> 
> Steve

Re: [Digital BW] Gloss Optimizer as overcoat-report

2004-12-06 by Steve Kale

Yes they told me that they were pulling it. Any page on their site to do
with the R800 is now "under construction".
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Steven Karafyllakis <steve@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 04:25:51 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Gloss Optimizer as overcoat-report
> 
> 
> 
> Steve;
> 
> I just checked the MIS website; the gloss optimizer is still there.
> Did you talk to them and were told it was going to be pulled? I hope
> not!  My thanks to Roy for the quick fix on the 7600/9600 QTR; not
> only is it running, but the 2880 dpi setting is working too! So now
> I've tested the GLOP with a UC B&W image also, though I sprayed it
> on rather than using the printer. A very light coat did wonders for
> both the RC and Glossy papers. I think I'm in love with the glossy
> look, it gets rid of that hard plastic shine and looks much more
> acceptable as a fine-art gallery print! I hope MIS don't screw it up
> by making it super shiny!
> 
> Steven Karafyllakis

Re: [Digital BW] Gloss Optimizer as overcoat-report

2004-12-06 by Steve Kale

And with the UC (colour) inks, neither Cyan or Magenta are used so you have
two free slots there.  So there is room.   We just need version 2 of the
GLOP.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Carl Schofield <scho@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 15:45:20 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Gloss Optimizer as overcoat-report
> 
> 
> The QTR UT2 profiles for some of the RC papers already do this - the K
> slot is not used and free for substitution with GLOP.  The UT2 dark
> gray inks are sufficient to generate a good dmax without using a black
> ink (should be even better with post GLOP application).  I believe that
> Paul's RGB curves do the same.
> 
> Carl
> 
> On Dec 5, 2004, at 3:31 PM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
>

Re: Gloss Optimizer as overcoat-report

2004-12-06 by Chris Hargens

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:
> 
> The first quick test I did was to put some in a cheap ($20.00) 
> Badger air brush and spray it on a couple different papers, just to 
> see if it was worth the effort to proceed.  Results: GLOP does less 
> than nothing for matte papers-it actually hurts the DmaX a bit. On 
> semi-matte RC paper, with the eboni ink, any area that was pure 
> Eboni was basically un-affected with a light coat, but any other 
> area showed an increase in Dmax, an major improvement in the 
clarity 
> and depth of the image tones, and not even a hint of bronzing or 
> differential glossing of the surface. Definitely worth pursuing 
> further!

A few questions (for anyone). How does the GLOP compare to sprays 
such as Print Shield or Print Guard? Could the Epson GLOP be removed 
from a cart and applied as a spray. I ask this because I've 
seen "compatible" GLOP carts sold at fairly low prices --
http://www.inkjetcartridge.com/t054020.html
Finally, I recently tried some Krylon Protect It! (gloss), using a 
2200 loaded with UC inks, including the matte black and printing on 
_matte_ paper. It also has the effect of improving the depth and 
clarity of image tones with no bronzing except in those areas of the 
paper where the matte black was used. Perhaps with PK a uniform 
effect would be obtained. Has anyone else tried this product? How 
about on glossy paper?

Chris Hargens

Re: Gloss Optimizer as overcoat-report

2004-12-06 by Chris Hargens

The Krylon Gloss spray I was referring to is called Preserve It! 
rather than Protect It! Interestingly, the spray had a different 
effect on PR than on the Illuminata Alphasmooth on which I had 
originally tried it. Both examples were color prints. On the 
Alphasmooth, after three light coatings, the print surface became 
somewhat glossy with an increase in richness in the color and light 
bronzing (unnoticeable unless you carefully tilt the print to see it) 
in the black and dark grey areas of the print; with PR, however, the 
print seems to become darker overall but remains matte. After the 
third application of spray splatter blotches started to appear.

Chris Hargens


 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Hargens" 
<chargens@s...> wrote:
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
> Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:
> > 
> > The first quick test I did was to put some in a cheap ($20.00) 
> > Badger air brush and spray it on a couple different papers, just 
to 
> > see if it was worth the effort to proceed.  Results: GLOP does 
less 
> > than nothing for matte papers-it actually hurts the DmaX a bit. 
On 
> > semi-matte RC paper, with the eboni ink, any area that was pure 
> > Eboni was basically un-affected with a light coat, but any other 
> > area showed an increase in Dmax, an major improvement in the 
> clarity 
> > and depth of the image tones, and not even a hint of bronzing or 
> > differential glossing of the surface. Definitely worth pursuing 
> > further!
> 
> A few questions (for anyone). How does the GLOP compare to sprays 
> such as Print Shield or Print Guard? Could the Epson GLOP be 
removed 
> from a cart and applied as a spray. I ask this because I've 
> seen "compatible" GLOP carts sold at fairly low prices --
> http://www.inkjetcartridge.com/t054020.html
> Finally, I recently tried some Krylon Protect It! (gloss), using a 
> 2200 loaded with UC inks, including the matte black and printing on 
> _matte_ paper. It also has the effect of improving the depth and 
> clarity of image tones with no bronzing except in those areas of 
the 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> paper where the matte black was used. Perhaps with PK a uniform 
> effect would be obtained. Has anyone else tried this product? How 
> about on glossy paper?
> 
> Chris Hargens

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.