Digital BW, The Print

Can i use epson heaveyweight matte on 2200 printer and if so what 
settings thanks

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "geminipucky" <geminipucky@y...> wrote:
> 
> Can i use epson heaveyweight matte on 2200 printer and if so what 
> settings thanks

I'd avoid it. Heavyweight Matte is coated to work well with dye ink printers like Epson 1270. Enhanced Matte is coated to work well with pigment ink printers like the 2200.

HM on a 2200 loses dmax and neutrality on B&W prints. Archival properties are unknown.

If you want to try it anyway, use the enhanced matte settings, boost ink 10%, and pray.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "koloshor"
<wiz@n...> wrote:
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "geminipucky"
<geminipucky@y...> wrote:
> > 
> > Can i use epson heaveyweight matte on 2200 printer and if so what 
> > settings thanks
> 
> I'd avoid it. Heavyweight Matte is coated to work well with dye ink
printers like Epson 1270. Enhanced Matte is coated to work well with
pigment ink printers like the 2200.

Can you state some reference for this asserted difference? I do not
think it is correct. As I recall, Enhanced Matte was brought out as a
renamed version of the not-so-Archival Matte, and that happened well
before the introduction of the pigment ink printers. Many people use
HWM with the 2200 and seem to find it performs as I have found, i.e.,
 results are nearly indistinguishable from Enhanced Matte. IMO, they
have the same coating, but the Enhanced matte incorporates optical
brighteners, which most knowledgeable users regard as a drawback to
Enhanced Matte since it causes a yellow stain within a fairly short
time (months).
> 
> HM on a 2200 loses dmax and neutrality on B&W prints. 

Not to a significant extent as far as I can tell from Dmax
measurements I've done on B&W prints I've made on HWM. Using QTRIP to
print B&W with Epson UC inks, I've measured Dmax right in the range
quoted by others for Enhanced Matte; furthermore the "neutrality"
achieved with HWM appears close to Enhanced Matte (although that's a
pretty subjective thing to be sure).

>Archival properties are unknown.

True.

> If you want to try it anyway, use the enhanced matte settings, boost
ink 10%, and pray.

IMHO, no "ink boost" is needed--nor is prayer (other than the one I
usually do whenever I print on _any_ paper ;-) 

Phil

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Rose" 
<pjrose@f...> wrote:
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "koloshor"
> <wiz@n...> wrote:
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "geminipucky"
> <geminipucky@y...> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Can i use epson heaveyweight matte on 2200 printer and if so 
what 
> > > settings thanks
> > 
> > I'd avoid it. Heavyweight Matte is coated to work well with dye 
ink
> printers like Epson 1270. Enhanced Matte is coated to work well with
> pigment ink printers like the 2200.
> 
> Can you state some reference for this asserted difference? I do not
> think it is correct. <...>

Here is a link to Epson's "Ink and Paper Compatibility Guide."  EEM 
seems to be indicated more for pigment-type inks (Durabrite, UC) and 
MatteHeavy isn't recommended for Ultrachrome, at least on the very 
simplistic grid.  (They do have it listed under the Durabrite and the 
R800 inkset, though.)

http://www.epson.com/cmc_upload/0/000/035/905/Ink_PprCompChrt_14505R5.
pdf

They also don't list the Heavyweight Matte/Ultrachrome pairing on 
the "permanence" page.

http://www.epson.com/cmc_upload/0/000/035/905/Ink_PprCompChrt_14505R5.
pdf

However, on the page for Matte Heavyweight, it does say "Guaranteed 
to work with ALL inkjet printers" (caps theirs).  Go figure...

(Not taking a stand, just providing some links...)

Eric

My experience mirrors Phil's where I find prints on HWM and EEM to be
virtually indistinguishable. It seems to make sense that the EEM has
OBA's while HWM doesn't although I've never read it before. This idea
is also supported by HWM's better archival rating than EEM.

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Rose"
<pjrose@f...> wrote:

> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "koloshor"
> <wiz@n...> wrote:
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "geminipucky"
> <geminipucky@y...> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Can i use epson heaveyweight matte on 2200 printer and if so what 
> > > settings thanks
> > 
> > I'd avoid it. Heavyweight Matte is coated to work well with dye ink
> printers like Epson 1270. Enhanced Matte is coated to work well with
> pigment ink printers like the 2200.
> 
> Can you state some reference for this asserted difference? I do not
> think it is correct. As I recall, Enhanced Matte was brought out as a
> renamed version of the not-so-Archival Matte, and that happened well
> before the introduction of the pigment ink printers. Many people use
> HWM with the 2200 and seem to find it performs as I have found, i.e.,
>  results are nearly indistinguishable from Enhanced Matte. IMO, they
> have the same coating, but the Enhanced matte incorporates optical
> brighteners, which most knowledgeable users regard as a drawback to
> Enhanced Matte since it causes a yellow stain within a fairly short
> time (months).
> > 
> > HM on a 2200 loses dmax and neutrality on B&W prints. 
> 
> Not to a significant extent as far as I can tell from Dmax
> measurements I've done on B&W prints I've made on HWM. Using QTRIP to
> print B&W with Epson UC inks, I've measured Dmax right in the range
> quoted by others for Enhanced Matte; furthermore the "neutrality"
> achieved with HWM appears close to Enhanced Matte (although that's a
> pretty subjective thing to be sure).
> 
> >Archival properties are unknown.
> 
> True.
> 
> > If you want to try it anyway, use the enhanced matte settings, boost
> ink 10%, and pray.
> 
> IMHO, no "ink boost" is needed--nor is prayer (other than the one I
> usually do whenever I print on _any_ paper ;-) 
> 
> Phil

If you look at Wihelm research's R800 report, HWM is listed to have a
longer archival rating than the EEM. And so it works with UC ink. I
think HWM just have less OBA so it's not as white (and thus doesn't
change as much).

However, the HWM is slightly thiner than the EEM (9 mil vs 10), and I
found it slightly "wet/soaked" once out of the R800. You have to put
it on a flat service right away to dry, otherwise your finger presses
will be there when the print's dry.

Michael 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Michaels"
<bob@b...> wrote:

> 
> My experience mirrors Phil's where I find prints on HWM and EEM to be
> virtually indistinguishable. It seems to make sense that the EEM has
> OBA's while HWM doesn't although I've never read it before. This idea
> is also supported by HWM's better archival rating than EEM.

You know it would be nice if Wilhelm would publish what he REALLY knows about OB's in 
general, and with the papers we all use in particular. But now that Epson has put him on as 
an employee no chance of that happening.

john




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Hung" <mhkhung@y...> 
wrote:

> 
> If you look at Wihelm research's R800 report, HWM is listed to have a
> longer archival rating than the EEM. And so it works with UC ink. I
> think HWM just have less OBA so it's not as white (and thus doesn't
> change as much).
> 
> However, the HWM is slightly thiner than the EEM (9 mil vs 10), and I
> found it slightly "wet/soaked" once out of the R800. You have to put
> it on a flat service right away to dry, otherwise your finger presses
> will be there when the print's dry.
> 
> Michael 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Michaels"
> <bob@b...> wrote:
> > 
> > My experience mirrors Phil's where I find prints on HWM and EEM to be
> > virtually indistinguishable. It seems to make sense that the EEM has
> > OBA's while HWM doesn't although I've never read it before. This idea
> > is also supported by HWM's better archival rating than EEM.