Digital BW, The Print

A further report and observations on overcoating with MIS gloss 
optimizer. Some bad news, I'm afraid, at least for those of us using 
the MIS UC inks.
 After switching my K from the 'Universal' to MIS PK and gloss-
coating with the 1280, I started getting some very good dmax, far 
better than I've gotten with matte K on Photorag. The problems 
however, started a few hours after making the prints, when the gloss 
coat really started to dry. The dark gray areas gradually lost their 
gloss, and in some cases actually bronzed up again, and looked very 
flat. Not the results I'd gotten with the full color prints.
The glossy papers hardly suffered at all, but the semi-matte showed 
the effect heavily, especially with low-key but not black areas. The 
problem seemd to involve only the dark grays, IOW the LK printed 
areas. I then did a full-page gray-scale, and coated 5 sections with 
5 different levels of glop, using the Epson driver sliders to 
control the lay-down. 
After dry-down, 2 things became obvious: 1) While the 100% K band 
retained the gloss, the bands from 95% to about 75% matted and 
bronzed again. 2) The heaviest glop coat retained the gloss most 
consistently. 20% may work if you're mixing it into the ink, but 
this way, you need more like 120% for a solid coat. 

A later test of the Epson Premium semi-gloss was more successful: a 
day later the surface felt dry, no visible dry-down effects, and a 
killer tonal range. So far with this ink combination, the Epson 
premium semi-gloss is the winner.

Other papers tested:

Epson PGPP
Epson Prem. semi-matte
Oriental Graphica luster
Proof-Line semimatte DP and Glossy DP
Kirkland Glossy (the Swiss-made) 

I'm hoping that this problem has to do with the MIS LK ink, so I've 
ordered a cart of the Epson to test; If the Epson ink is better, A 
much lighter coat might do the job.
This of course means switching and flushing the LK line, so I'd like 
to put out a request to those list members running QTR on PC who 
have an idea how to do this, for a curve that will run the LK 
channel only, at full tilt. Or a description of what it needs to 
look like at any rate, or a link to that info if it is already 
available.

Some further observations-

Drying the prints before gloss-coating does not seem to be 
neccessary. The prints I've had least trouble with, I dried quickly 
with a few seconds of hair drier blast, and fed right through the 
gloss coat stage. 

If you use a desktop printer for the gloss, the pizza-wheels MUST 
go. Even at the slowest feed setting the glop coat is too soft to 
take the abuse. This causes problems with last half-inch of paper if 
you're overcoating all the way out. Easy enough to allow for it with 
a border.

Nozzle checks need to be done on an instant-dry glossy or semi-gloss 
paper, so you can see the reflection on the pattern, and so the 
other ink colors don't get on your rollers and then on your next 
print. I had been using the back of RC paper-the zero absorption 
makes the gloss coat easy to see, but cost me a couple of otherwise 
good prints.

I've had the glop cart in the 1280 for a couple days now, no 
clogging problems yet, only the occasional cleaning cycle needed, so 
far so good. It hasn't been as trouble-free as running dyes, but 
easier than pigments.

The glop is easy to refill in the annoying 1280 carts. I've found I 
don't have to pull out the remaining ink/foam-I'm getting 10-15ml in 
the bottom with no BS. Wonderfull, considering these carts are small 
and coating an entire piece of paper eats the stuff up in a hurry. 
Good thing it's cheap in bulk.

QTR is working very well for this. So far I've used only the EEM 
profiles for all the RC papers I've tested, and I have no problem 
fine-tuning any given pair without-split-toning, crossover or 
visible metamerism. I do have to use the 1440 super and 
unidirectional printing to get as smooth and micro-banding free a 
print as I like, but I would use that setting regardless.
What the heck, I think I'll go ahead and pay for it...

Print protection being an issue, I tried waxing a couple of the 
prints that dried properly-it works well, the wax goes on smoothly 
and easily, and buffs up nicely. No more skid-marks or fingerprints, 
thank you. Very different from trying to wax a straight UC print. I 
don't know how much protection wax adds, but it's got to be good for 
something more than just smudge resistance.

That's it so far;
I'd be interested in hearing from others trying this out, 
particularly anyone using straight Epson UC inks; any problems?

Steve Karafyllakis

http://www.stevekphoto.com

Hi Steve,

What wax are you using to wax a print?

Thanks,

Scott


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:
> 
> A further report and observations on overcoating with MIS gloss 
> optimizer. Some bad news, I'm afraid, at least for those of us 
using 
> the MIS UC inks.
>  After switching my K from the 'Universal' to MIS PK and gloss-
> coating with the 1280, I started getting some very good dmax, far 
> better than I've gotten with matte K on Photorag. The problems 
> however, started a few hours after making the prints, when the 
gloss 
> coat really started to dry. The dark gray areas gradually lost 
their 
> gloss, and in some cases actually bronzed up again, and looked very 
> flat. Not the results I'd gotten with the full color prints.
> The glossy papers hardly suffered at all, but the semi-matte showed 
> the effect heavily, especially with low-key but not black areas. 
The 
> problem seemd to involve only the dark grays, IOW the LK printed 
> areas. I then did a full-page gray-scale, and coated 5 sections 
with 
> 5 different levels of glop, using the Epson driver sliders to 
> control the lay-down. 
> After dry-down, 2 things became obvious: 1) While the 100% K band 
> retained the gloss, the bands from 95% to about 75% matted and 
> bronzed again. 2) The heaviest glop coat retained the gloss most 
> consistently. 20% may work if you're mixing it into the ink, but 
> this way, you need more like 120% for a solid coat. 
> 
> A later test of the Epson Premium semi-gloss was more successful: a 
> day later the surface felt dry, no visible dry-down effects, and a 
> killer tonal range. So far with this ink combination, the Epson 
> premium semi-gloss is the winner.
> 
> Other papers tested:
> 
> Epson PGPP
> Epson Prem. semi-matte
> Oriental Graphica luster
> Proof-Line semimatte DP and Glossy DP
> Kirkland Glossy (the Swiss-made) 
> 
> I'm hoping that this problem has to do with the MIS LK ink, so I've 
> ordered a cart of the Epson to test; If the Epson ink is better, A 
> much lighter coat might do the job.
> This of course means switching and flushing the LK line, so I'd 
like 
> to put out a request to those list members running QTR on PC who 
> have an idea how to do this, for a curve that will run the LK 
> channel only, at full tilt. Or a description of what it needs to 
> look like at any rate, or a link to that info if it is already 
> available.
> 
> Some further observations-
> 
> Drying the prints before gloss-coating does not seem to be 
> neccessary. The prints I've had least trouble with, I dried quickly 
> with a few seconds of hair drier blast, and fed right through the 
> gloss coat stage. 
> 
> If you use a desktop printer for the gloss, the pizza-wheels MUST 
> go. Even at the slowest feed setting the glop coat is too soft to 
> take the abuse. This causes problems with last half-inch of paper 
if 
> you're overcoating all the way out. Easy enough to allow for it 
with 
> a border.
> 
> Nozzle checks need to be done on an instant-dry glossy or semi-
gloss 
> paper, so you can see the reflection on the pattern, and so the 
> other ink colors don't get on your rollers and then on your next 
> print. I had been using the back of RC paper-the zero absorption 
> makes the gloss coat easy to see, but cost me a couple of otherwise 
> good prints.
> 
> I've had the glop cart in the 1280 for a couple days now, no 
> clogging problems yet, only the occasional cleaning cycle needed, 
so 
> far so good. It hasn't been as trouble-free as running dyes, but 
> easier than pigments.
> 
> The glop is easy to refill in the annoying 1280 carts. I've found I 
> don't have to pull out the remaining ink/foam-I'm getting 10-15ml 
in 
> the bottom with no BS. Wonderfull, considering these carts are 
small 
> and coating an entire piece of paper eats the stuff up in a hurry. 
> Good thing it's cheap in bulk.
> 
> QTR is working very well for this. So far I've used only the EEM 
> profiles for all the RC papers I've tested, and I have no problem 
> fine-tuning any given pair without-split-toning, crossover or 
> visible metamerism. I do have to use the 1440 super and 
> unidirectional printing to get as smooth and micro-banding free a 
> print as I like, but I would use that setting regardless.
> What the heck, I think I'll go ahead and pay for it...
> 
> Print protection being an issue, I tried waxing a couple of the 
> prints that dried properly-it works well, the wax goes on smoothly 
> and easily, and buffs up nicely. No more skid-marks or 
fingerprints, 
> thank you. Very different from trying to wax a straight UC print. I 
> don't know how much protection wax adds, but it's got to be good 
for 

> something more than just smudge resistance.
> 
> That's it so far;
> I'd be interested in hearing from others trying this out, 
> particularly anyone using straight Epson UC inks; any problems?
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis
> 
> http://www.stevekphoto.com

In a 1280 the ink should flush out with a couple of purge pattern prints.
If you really want to mess with a QTR curve to just flush LK then simply
create a new curve with LIMIT_LK=100 and all other inks set at 0 and adjust
the partitioning to one ink etc - pretty straight forward.  You should try
using an RC QTR curve instead of EEM.  With levels as high as 120% you will
start to incur the tint of the glop - according to Carl it is not perfectly
clear.  Why don't you edit a curve and add the glop (15-20% flat coverage)
as the ink is laid down.

> From: Steven Karafyllakis <steve@stevekphoto.com>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:21:24 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] More on Glop overcoating
> 
> 
> 
> A further report and observations on overcoating with MIS gloss
> optimizer. Some bad news, I'm afraid, at least for those of us using
> the MIS UC inks.
>  After switching my K from the 'Universal' to MIS PK and gloss-
> coating with the 1280, I started getting some very good dmax, far
> better than I've gotten with matte K on Photorag. The problems
> however, started a few hours after making the prints, when the gloss
> coat really started to dry. The dark gray areas gradually lost their
> gloss, and in some cases actually bronzed up again, and looked very
> flat. Not the results I'd gotten with the full color prints.
> The glossy papers hardly suffered at all, but the semi-matte showed
> the effect heavily, especially with low-key but not black areas. The
> problem seemd to involve only the dark grays, IOW the LK printed
> areas. I then did a full-page gray-scale, and coated 5 sections with
> 5 different levels of glop, using the Epson driver sliders to
> control the lay-down.
> After dry-down, 2 things became obvious: 1) While the 100% K band
> retained the gloss, the bands from 95% to about 75% matted and
> bronzed again. 2) The heaviest glop coat retained the gloss most
> consistently. 20% may work if you're mixing it into the ink, but
> this way, you need more like 120% for a solid coat.
> 
> A later test of the Epson Premium semi-gloss was more successful: a
> day later the surface felt dry, no visible dry-down effects, and a
> killer tonal range. So far with this ink combination, the Epson
> premium semi-gloss is the winner.
> 
> Other papers tested:
> 
> Epson PGPP
> Epson Prem. semi-matte
> Oriental Graphica luster
> Proof-Line semimatte DP and Glossy DP
> Kirkland Glossy (the Swiss-made)
> 
> I'm hoping that this problem has to do with the MIS LK ink, so I've
> ordered a cart of the Epson to test; If the Epson ink is better, A
> much lighter coat might do the job.
> This of course means switching and flushing the LK line, so I'd like
> to put out a request to those list members running QTR on PC who
> have an idea how to do this, for a curve that will run the LK
> channel only, at full tilt. Or a description of what it needs to
> look like at any rate, or a link to that info if it is already
> available.
> 
> Some further observations-
> 
> Drying the prints before gloss-coating does not seem to be
> neccessary. The prints I've had least trouble with, I dried quickly
> with a few seconds of hair drier blast, and fed right through the
> gloss coat stage.
> 
> If you use a desktop printer for the gloss, the pizza-wheels MUST
> go. Even at the slowest feed setting the glop coat is too soft to
> take the abuse. This causes problems with last half-inch of paper if
> you're overcoating all the way out. Easy enough to allow for it with
> a border.
> 
> Nozzle checks need to be done on an instant-dry glossy or semi-gloss
> paper, so you can see the reflection on the pattern, and so the
> other ink colors don't get on your rollers and then on your next
> print. I had been using the back of RC paper-the zero absorption
> makes the gloss coat easy to see, but cost me a couple of otherwise
> good prints.
> 
> I've had the glop cart in the 1280 for a couple days now, no
> clogging problems yet, only the occasional cleaning cycle needed, so
> far so good. It hasn't been as trouble-free as running dyes, but
> easier than pigments.
> 
> The glop is easy to refill in the annoying 1280 carts. I've found I
> don't have to pull out the remaining ink/foam-I'm getting 10-15ml in
> the bottom with no BS. Wonderfull, considering these carts are small
> and coating an entire piece of paper eats the stuff up in a hurry.
> Good thing it's cheap in bulk.
> 
> QTR is working very well for this. So far I've used only the EEM
> profiles for all the RC papers I've tested, and I have no problem
> fine-tuning any given pair without-split-toning, crossover or
> visible metamerism. I do have to use the 1440 super and
> unidirectional printing to get as smooth and micro-banding free a
> print as I like, but I would use that setting regardless.
> What the heck, I think I'll go ahead and pay for it...
> 
> Print protection being an issue, I tried waxing a couple of the
> prints that dried properly-it works well, the wax goes on smoothly
> and easily, and buffs up nicely. No more skid-marks or fingerprints,
> thank you. Very different from trying to wax a straight UC print. I
> don't know how much protection wax adds, but it's got to be good for
> something more than just smudge resistance.
> 
> That's it so far;
> I'd be interested in hearing from others trying this out,
> particularly anyone using straight Epson UC inks; any problems?
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis
> 
> http://www.stevekphoto.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 ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² 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 ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² 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  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

Hi Scott;

Most people use Renaissance wax, I've been using a 
marine/aeronautical wax I found in a marine store 12-15 years ago 
(Ihave waxed prints that old with no sign of yellowing). It's called 
Collinite no 845, but has not worked well on inkjet prints of any 
flavor until the glop coat.

 -- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming" 
<scott_now_coming@y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> What wax are you using to wax a print?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
> Karafyllakis" <steve@s...> wrote:
> > 
> > A further report and observations on overcoating with MIS gloss 
> > optimizer. Some bad news, I'm afraid, at least for those of us 
> using 
> > the MIS UC inks.
> >  After switching my K from the 'Universal' to MIS PK and gloss-
> > coating with the 1280, I started getting some very good dmax, 
far 
> > better than I've gotten with matte K on Photorag. The problems 
> > however, started a few hours after making the prints, when the 
> gloss 
> > coat really started to dry. The dark gray areas gradually lost 
> their 
> > gloss, and in some cases actually bronzed up again, and looked 
very 
> > flat. Not the results I'd gotten with the full color prints.
> > The glossy papers hardly suffered at all, but the semi-matte 
showed 
> > the effect heavily, especially with low-key but not black areas. 
> The 
> > problem seemd to involve only the dark grays, IOW the LK printed 
> > areas. I then did a full-page gray-scale, and coated 5 sections 
> with 
> > 5 different levels of glop, using the Epson driver sliders to 
> > control the lay-down. 
> > After dry-down, 2 things became obvious: 1) While the 100% K 
band 
> > retained the gloss, the bands from 95% to about 75% matted and 
> > bronzed again. 2) The heaviest glop coat retained the gloss most 
> > consistently. 20% may work if you're mixing it into the ink, but 
> > this way, you need more like 120% for a solid coat. 
> > 
> > A later test of the Epson Premium semi-gloss was more 
successful: a 
> > day later the surface felt dry, no visible dry-down effects, and 
a 
> > killer tonal range. So far with this ink combination, the Epson 
> > premium semi-gloss is the winner.
> > 
> > Other papers tested:
> > 
> > Epson PGPP
> > Epson Prem. semi-matte
> > Oriental Graphica luster
> > Proof-Line semimatte DP and Glossy DP
> > Kirkland Glossy (the Swiss-made) 
> > 
> > I'm hoping that this problem has to do with the MIS LK ink, so 
I've 
> > ordered a cart of the Epson to test; If the Epson ink is better, 
A 
> > much lighter coat might do the job.
> > This of course means switching and flushing the LK line, so I'd 
> like 
> > to put out a request to those list members running QTR on PC who 
> > have an idea how to do this, for a curve that will run the LK 
> > channel only, at full tilt. Or a description of what it needs to 
> > look like at any rate, or a link to that info if it is already 
> > available.
> > 
> > Some further observations-
> > 
> > Drying the prints before gloss-coating does not seem to be 
> > neccessary. The prints I've had least trouble with, I dried 
quickly 
> > with a few seconds of hair drier blast, and fed right through 
the 
> > gloss coat stage. 
> > 
> > If you use a desktop printer for the gloss, the pizza-wheels 
MUST 
> > go. Even at the slowest feed setting the glop coat is too soft 
to 
> > take the abuse. This causes problems with last half-inch of 
paper 
> if 
> > you're overcoating all the way out. Easy enough to allow for it 
> with 
> > a border.
> > 
> > Nozzle checks need to be done on an instant-dry glossy or semi-
> gloss 
> > paper, so you can see the reflection on the pattern, and so the 
> > other ink colors don't get on your rollers and then on your next 
> > print. I had been using the back of RC paper-the zero absorption 
> > makes the gloss coat easy to see, but cost me a couple of 
otherwise 
> > good prints.
> > 
> > I've had the glop cart in the 1280 for a couple days now, no 
> > clogging problems yet, only the occasional cleaning cycle 
needed, 
> so 
> > far so good. It hasn't been as trouble-free as running dyes, but 
> > easier than pigments.
> > 
> > The glop is easy to refill in the annoying 1280 carts. I've 
found I 
> > don't have to pull out the remaining ink/foam-I'm getting 10-
15ml 
> in 
> > the bottom with no BS. Wonderfull, considering these carts are 
> small 
> > and coating an entire piece of paper eats the stuff up in a 
hurry. 
> > Good thing it's cheap in bulk.
> > 
> > QTR is working very well for this. So far I've used only the EEM 
> > profiles for all the RC papers I've tested, and I have no 
problem 
> > fine-tuning any given pair without-split-toning, crossover or 
> > visible metamerism. I do have to use the 1440 super and 
> > unidirectional printing to get as smooth and micro-banding free 
a 
> > print as I like, but I would use that setting regardless.
> > What the heck, I think I'll go ahead and pay for it...
> > 
> > Print protection being an issue, I tried waxing a couple of the 
> > prints that dried properly-it works well, the wax goes on 
smoothly 
> > and easily, and buffs up nicely. No more skid-marks or 
> fingerprints, 
> > thank you. Very different from trying to wax a straight UC 
print. I 

> > don't know how much protection wax adds, but it's got to be good 
> for 
> > something more than just smudge resistance.
> > 
> > That's it so far;
> > I'd be interested in hearing from others trying this out, 
> > particularly anyone using straight Epson UC inks; any problems?
> > 
> > Steve Karafyllakis
> > 
> > http://www.stevekphoto.com

Sorry Steve, I guess I haven't been clear enough: I'm running the 
glop in a 1280 with the Epson driver, but printing the UC inks in a 
7600 with QTR. I need to flush the LK in the 7600-without wasting 
the equivalent amount in all the other colors. Changing the K ink is 
not as expensive since you can do so with out flushing all the other 
lines, but the rest of the inks are a different story.

I'm taking this approach rather than blending it in for a couple 
reasons, not the least of which is -if it works, in the end I will 
need to be able to use it with the 7600, but retain color printing 
capability. I simply can't commit that machine to some exotic 
combination of greyscale inks. In all likelyhood, if it does work 
well enough, the glop will wind up in the 7500, either in the K 
channel, or blended in through one of the other channels as Carl 
Scoffield is doing with his 2200. I'm just not ready to commit to 
that without knowing I have a viable functioning system and a better 
option than the matte ink on watercolor papers. So far, as you can 
tell from my previous posts, the execution has been problematic and 
inconsistent-but the results! the prints I have that are flawless 
absolutely kick ass, pardon my Greek (I can say that, being Greek 
myself). Well worth a bit more effort to work out the bugs.

Thanks for the info, I'll work it out as soon as the Epson cart gets 
to me & post again on the results with Epson LK instead of MIS.

Steve Karafyllakis

http://www.stevekphoto.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> In a 1280 the ink should flush out with a couple of purge pattern 
prints.
> If you really want to mess with a QTR curve to just flush LK then 
simply
> create a new curve with LIMIT_LK=100 and all other inks set at 0 
and adjust
> the partitioning to one ink etc - pretty straight forward.  You 
should try
> using an RC QTR curve instead of EEM.  With levels as high as 120% 
you will
> start to incur the tint of the glop - according to Carl it is not 
perfectly
> clear.  Why don't you edit a curve and add the glop (15-20% flat 
coverage)
> as the ink is laid down.
> 
> 
> > From: Steven Karafyllakis <steve@s...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:21:24 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] More on Glop overcoating
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > A further report and observations on overcoating with MIS gloss
> > optimizer. Some bad news, I'm afraid, at least for those of us 
using
> > the MIS UC inks.
> >  After switching my K from the 'Universal' to MIS PK and gloss-
> > coating with the 1280, I started getting some very good dmax, far
> > better than I've gotten with matte K on Photorag. The problems
> > however, started a few hours after making the prints, when the 
gloss
> > coat really started to dry. The dark gray areas gradually lost 
their
> > gloss, and in some cases actually bronzed up again, and looked 
very
> > flat. Not the results I'd gotten with the full color prints.
> > The glossy papers hardly suffered at all, but the semi-matte 
showed
> > the effect heavily, especially with low-key but not black areas. 
The
> > problem seemd to involve only the dark grays, IOW the LK printed
> > areas. I then did a full-page gray-scale, and coated 5 sections 
with
> > 5 different levels of glop, using the Epson driver sliders to
> > control the lay-down.
> > After dry-down, 2 things became obvious: 1) While the 100% K band
> > retained the gloss, the bands from 95% to about 75% matted and
> > bronzed again. 2) The heaviest glop coat retained the gloss most
> > consistently. 20% may work if you're mixing it into the ink, but
> > this way, you need more like 120% for a solid coat.
> > 
> > A later test of the Epson Premium semi-gloss was more 
successful: a
> > day later the surface felt dry, no visible dry-down effects, and 
a
> > killer tonal range. So far with this ink combination, the Epson
> > premium semi-gloss is the winner.
> > 
> > Other papers tested:
> > 
> > Epson PGPP
> > Epson Prem. semi-matte
> > Oriental Graphica luster
> > Proof-Line semimatte DP and Glossy DP
> > Kirkland Glossy (the Swiss-made)
> > 
> > I'm hoping that this problem has to do with the MIS LK ink, so 
I've
> > ordered a cart of the Epson to test; If the Epson ink is better, 
A
> > much lighter coat might do the job.
> > This of course means switching and flushing the LK line, so I'd 
like
> > to put out a request to those list members running QTR on PC who
> > have an idea how to do this, for a curve that will run the LK
> > channel only, at full tilt. Or a description of what it needs to
> > look like at any rate, or a link to that info if it is already
> > available.
> > 
> > Some further observations-
> > 
> > Drying the prints before gloss-coating does not seem to be
> > neccessary. The prints I've had least trouble with, I dried 
quickly
> > with a few seconds of hair drier blast, and fed right through the
> > gloss coat stage.
> > 
> > If you use a desktop printer for the gloss, the pizza-wheels MUST
> > go. Even at the slowest feed setting the glop coat is too soft to
> > take the abuse. This causes problems with last half-inch of 
paper if
> > you're overcoating all the way out. Easy enough to allow for it 
with
> > a border.
> > 
> > Nozzle checks need to be done on an instant-dry glossy or semi-
gloss
> > paper, so you can see the reflection on the pattern, and so the
> > other ink colors don't get on your rollers and then on your next
> > print. I had been using the back of RC paper-the zero absorption
> > makes the gloss coat easy to see, but cost me a couple of 
otherwise
> > good prints.
> > 
> > I've had the glop cart in the 1280 for a couple days now, no
> > clogging problems yet, only the occasional cleaning cycle 
needed, so
> > far so good. It hasn't been as trouble-free as running dyes, but
> > easier than pigments.
> > 
> > The glop is easy to refill in the annoying 1280 carts. I've 
found I
> > don't have to pull out the remaining ink/foam-I'm getting 10-
15ml in
> > the bottom with no BS. Wonderfull, considering these carts are 
small
> > and coating an entire piece of paper eats the stuff up in a 
hurry.
> > Good thing it's cheap in bulk.
> > 
> > QTR is working very well for this. So far I've used only the EEM
> > profiles for all the RC papers I've tested, and I have no problem
> > fine-tuning any given pair without-split-toning, crossover or
> > visible metamerism. I do have to use the 1440 super and
> > unidirectional printing to get as smooth and micro-banding free a
> > print as I like, but I would use that setting regardless.
> > What the heck, I think I'll go ahead and pay for it...
> > 
> > Print protection being an issue, I tried waxing a couple of the
> > prints that dried properly-it works well, the wax goes on 
smoothly
> > and easily, and buffs up nicely. No more skid-marks or 
fingerprints,
> > thank you. Very different from trying to wax a straight UC 
print. I
> > don't know how much protection wax adds, but it's got to be good 
for
> > something more than just smudge resistance.
> > 
> > That's it so far;
> > I'd be interested in hearing from others trying this out,
> > particularly anyone using straight Epson UC inks; any problems?
> > 
> > Steve Karafyllakis
> > 
> > http://www.stevekphoto.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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> >

If you are using the 7600 and UC inks then use the M or C slot.  Tweaking
the QTR curve is not hard (Carl has given me a few lessons - thanks for your
patience Carl!).  Are you using the standard (ie provided) curves or your
own?  What platform?  I can send you a curve to flush the cart if you need
it but I do think you are better off using one of the other slots as
K,LK,LC,LM and Y are used by the QTR curves already.

BTW I took a walk through your website today - very nice stuff (and good
links section)

> From: Steven Karafyllakis <steve@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:55:45 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] More on Glop overcoating
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Steve, I guess I haven't been clear enough: I'm running the
> glop in a 1280 with the Epson driver, but printing the UC inks in a
> 7600 with QTR. I need to flush the LK in the 7600-without wasting
> the equivalent amount in all the other colors. Changing the K ink is
> not as expensive since you can do so with out flushing all the other
> lines, but the rest of the inks are a different story.
> 
> I'm taking this approach rather than blending it in for a couple
> reasons, not the least of which is -if it works, in the end I will
> need to be able to use it with the 7600, but retain color printing
> capability. I simply can't commit that machine to some exotic
> combination of greyscale inks. In all likelyhood, if it does work
> well enough, the glop will wind up in the 7500, either in the K
> channel, or blended in through one of the other channels as Carl
> Scoffield is doing with his 2200. I'm just not ready to commit to
> that without knowing I have a viable functioning system and a better
> option than the matte ink on watercolor papers. So far, as you can
> tell from my previous posts, the execution has been problematic and
> inconsistent-but the results! the prints I have that are flawless
> absolutely kick ass, pardon my Greek (I can say that, being Greek
> myself). Well worth a bit more effort to work out the bugs.
> 
> Thanks for the info, I'll work it out as soon as the Epson cart gets
> to me & post again on the results with Epson LK instead of MIS.
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis

Steve,

I've found that the print surface seems to look slightly "smoother" if 
the glop is applied with the other inks as the image is printed and if 
the glop ink limit is set at 10%.  Prints made with higher glop limits 
(I tried 10, 20, 50, 75, and 100) take longer to dry and don't look as 
smooth (slight gloss differential).  Limiting the glop application is 
of course also cost effective.  I also found that Epson Premium 
Semigloss looked very good, but Ilford Smooth Pearl, Epson Premium 
Semimatte, and Pictorico Gallery High Gloss White (not the film) also 
gave excellent results (the latter only if you like a high gloss 
finish).  Surprisingly, I did not get good results with IJA 
Microceramic Luster (bronzing was still visible after coating) so there 
are some RC papers that are problematic.  I've been doing these tests 
with a custom inkset in my 2200 consisting of the MIS UT-FSN quad inks 
plus the UT2 warm gray and sepia inks.  I use three QTR profiles for 
neutral, carbon, and sepia toned prints.  The glop is in the black 
cartridge slot because no black ink is needed with these profiles (the 
dark grays are sufficient to generate a dmax in the 2-2.2 range).  A 
flat toner curve is used in the profiles to apply the glop evenly 
across the print.  These are the first B&W prints I've made on RC 
papers that have absolutely no bronzing or gloss differential.  I put a 
Glop archive with the profiles (both .txt and .quad files) and toner 
curve on my filesharing site for anyone who wishes to try them.

I also made some neutral prints on Epson Premium semigloss using the 
Epson UC inks in my 4000 with two QTR profiles (one K-less and the 
other with PK ink) and then coated with glop in my 2200 with various 
glop levels using your BO overlay technique.  Unfortunately I could not 
get rid of the bronzing completely on either print with glop (even at 
levels of 120%).  I don't know if applying the glop with the UC inks 
(as I do with the MIS UT FSN/UT2 inks in the 2200) would make any 
difference or not.  I suspect that the glop just works better at 
eliminating bronzing with the MIS UT class inks than with the Epson UC 
inks.

Carl

http://homepage.mac.com/scho/FileSharing2.html

On Dec 20, 2004, at 9:21 PM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:

>
>
> A further report and observations on overcoating with MIS gloss
> optimizer. Some bad news, I'm afraid, at least for those of us using
> the MIS UC inks.
>  After switching my K from the 'Universal' to MIS PK and gloss-
> coating with the 1280, I started getting some very good dmax, far
> better than I've gotten with matte K on Photorag. The problems
> however, started a few hours after making the prints, when the gloss
> coat really started to dry. The dark gray areas gradually lost their
> gloss, and in some cases actually bronzed up again, and looked very
> flat. Not the results I'd gotten with the full color prints.
> The glossy papers hardly suffered at all, but the semi-matte showed
> the effect heavily, especially with low-key but not black areas. The
> problem seemd to involve only the dark grays, IOW the LK printed
> areas. I then did a full-page gray-scale, and coated 5 sections with
> 5 different levels of glop, using the Epson driver sliders to
> control the lay-down.
> After dry-down, 2 things became obvious: 1) While the 100% K band
> retained the gloss, the bands from 95% to about 75% matted and
> bronzed again. 2) The heaviest glop coat retained the gloss most
> consistently. 20% may work if you're mixing it into the ink, but
> this way, you need more like 120% for a solid coat.
>
> A later test of the Epson Premium semi-gloss was more successful: a
> day later the surface felt dry, no visible dry-down effects, and a
> killer tonal range. So far with this ink combination, the Epson
> premium semi-gloss is the winner.
>
> Other papers tested:
>
> Epson PGPP
> Epson Prem. semi-matte
> Oriental Graphica luster
> Proof-Line semimatte DP and Glossy DP
> Kirkland Glossy (the Swiss-made)
>
> I'm hoping that this problem has to do with the MIS LK ink, so I've
> ordered a cart of the Epson to test; If the Epson ink is better, A
> much lighter coat might do the job.
> This of course means switching and flushing the LK line, so I'd like
> to put out a request to those list members running QTR on PC who
> have an idea how to do this, for a curve that will run the LK
> channel only, at full tilt. Or a description of what it needs to
> look like at any rate, or a link to that info if it is already
> available.
>
> Some further observations-
>
> Drying the prints before gloss-coating does not seem to be
> neccessary. The prints I've had least trouble with, I dried quickly
> with a few seconds of hair drier blast, and fed right through the
> gloss coat stage.
>
> If you use a desktop printer for the gloss, the pizza-wheels MUST
> go. Even at the slowest feed setting the glop coat is too soft to
> take the abuse. This causes problems with last half-inch of paper if
> you're overcoating all the way out. Easy enough to allow for it with
> a border.
>
> Nozzle checks need to be done on an instant-dry glossy or semi-gloss
> paper, so you can see the reflection on the pattern, and so the
> other ink colors don't get on your rollers and then on your next
> print. I had been using the back of RC paper-the zero absorption
> makes the gloss coat easy to see, but cost me a couple of otherwise
> good prints.
>
> I've had the glop cart in the 1280 for a couple days now, no
> clogging problems yet, only the occasional cleaning cycle needed, so
> far so good. It hasn't been as trouble-free as running dyes, but
> easier than pigments.
>
> The glop is easy to refill in the annoying 1280 carts. I've found I
> don't have to pull out the remaining ink/foam-I'm getting 10-15ml in
> the bottom with no BS. Wonderfull, considering these carts are small
> and coating an entire piece of paper eats the stuff up in a hurry.
> Good thing it's cheap in bulk.
>
> QTR is working very well for this. So far I've used only the EEM
> profiles for all the RC papers I've tested, and I have no problem
> fine-tuning any given pair without-split-toning, crossover or
> visible metamerism. I do have to use the 1440 super and
> unidirectional printing to get as smooth and micro-banding free a
> print as I like, but I would use that setting regardless.
> What the heck, I think I'll go ahead and pay for it...
>
> Print protection being an issue, I tried waxing a couple of the
> prints that dried properly-it works well, the wax goes on smoothly
> and easily, and buffs up nicely. No more skid-marks or fingerprints,
> thank you. Very different from trying to wax a straight UC print. I
> don't know how much protection wax adds, but it's got to be good for
> something more than just smudge resistance.
>
> That's it so far;
> I'd be interested in hearing from others trying this out,
> particularly anyone using straight Epson UC inks; any problems?
>
> Steve Karafyllakis
>
> http://www.stevekphoto.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, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
Steven, once again: I can't put the gloss optimizer in the 7600, I 
need to keep it intact for standard color UC prints. All I need to 
do right now, is change over from MIS LK to Epson LK ink, to see if 
that fixes the re-bronzing after dry-down that I get with some 
papers. When I put glop in a big machine, it will be the 7500, which 
now has UT-1 inks in it. 
> If you are using the 7600 and UC inks then use the M or C slot.  
Tweaking
> the QTR curve is not hard (Carl has given me a few lessons - 
thanks for your
> patience Carl!).  Are you using the standard (ie provided) curves 
or your
> own?  What platform? 

I'm using the provided EEM curves so far, and they are working quite 
nicely on the 7600. My platform is WinXP.

 BTW I forgot to respond to an earlier point you made: the heavy 
glop coat does show a color tint, more on some papers than others. 
It shows a lot on the non-Epson papers, barely at all on PGPP and 
just a little on the E semi-gloss. Hopefully the Epson LK ink will 
bronze less, and allow me to cut back on the glop load- not only is 
it showing a bit, I'm going through it very quickly.

> BTW I took a walk through your website today - very nice stuff 
(and good
> links section)

Thanks, Steven.


Steve Karafyllakis
> 
> 
> > From: Steven Karafyllakis <steve@s...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:55:45 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] More on Glop overcoating
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Sorry Steve, I guess I haven't been clear enough: I'm running the
> > glop in a 1280 with the Epson driver, but printing the UC inks 
in a
> > 7600 with QTR. I need to flush the LK in the 7600-without wasting
> > the equivalent amount in all the other colors. Changing the K 
ink is
> > not as expensive since you can do so with out flushing all the 
other
> > lines, but the rest of the inks are a different story.
> > 
> > I'm taking this approach rather than blending it in for a couple
> > reasons, not the least of which is -if it works, in the end I 
will
> > need to be able to use it with the 7600, but retain color 
printing
> > capability. I simply can't commit that machine to some exotic
> > combination of greyscale inks. In all likelyhood, if it does work
> > well enough, the glop will wind up in the 7500, either in the K
> > channel, or blended in through one of the other channels as Carl
> > Scoffield is doing with his 2200. I'm just not ready to commit to
> > that without knowing I have a viable functioning system and a 
better
> > option than the matte ink on watercolor papers. So far, as you 
can
> > tell from my previous posts, the execution has been problematic 
and
> > inconsistent-but the results! the prints I have that are flawless
> > absolutely kick ass, pardon my Greek (I can say that, being Greek
> > myself). Well worth a bit more effort to work out the bugs.
> > 
> > Thanks for the info, I'll work it out as soon as the Epson cart 
gets

> > to me & post again on the results with Epson LK instead of MIS.
> > 
> > Steve Karafyllakis

Ok.  Well with the Mac version it is easy to edit the .txt files to make a
new "curve" that would accommodate GLOP on the 7600.  With Carl's help even
I can now do this.  And like I said you would best put the GLOP in the C or
M slots because with the UC inks loaded you need the other inks.  Flushing a
single slot with a QTR curve is easy also.  I just don't know how, even if
we did the curves, you get them up on the PC version for you to try.  But
hasn't the ability to edit and construct curves been added to the PC
version?  Perhaps someone like Roy or Steve (QTR GUI ?) could chime in here.
Of course your ink limits and linearization will be all out of whack because
you are using an EEM curve on RC paper but you will at least test the
bronzing issue.

> From: Steven Karafyllakis <steve@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:10:29 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: More on Glop overcoating
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Steven, once again: I can't put the gloss optimizer in the 7600, I
> need to keep it intact for standard color UC prints. All I need to
> do right now, is change over from MIS LK to Epson LK ink, to see if
> that fixes the re-bronzing after dry-down that I get with some
> papers. When I put glop in a big machine, it will be the 7500, which
> now has UT-1 inks in it.
>> If you are using the 7600 and UC inks then use the M or C slot.
> Tweaking
>> the QTR curve is not hard (Carl has given me a few lessons -
> thanks for your
>> patience Carl!).  Are you using the standard (ie provided) curves
> or your
>> own?  What platform?
> 
> I'm using the provided EEM curves so far, and they are working quite
> nicely on the 7600. My platform is WinXP.
> 
>  BTW I forgot to respond to an earlier point you made: the heavy
> glop coat does show a color tint, more on some papers than others.
> It shows a lot on the non-Epson papers, barely at all on PGPP and
> just a little on the E semi-gloss. Hopefully the Epson LK ink will
> bronze less, and allow me to cut back on the glop load- not only is
> it showing a bit, I'm going through it very quickly.
> 
>> BTW I took a walk through your website today - very nice stuff
> (and good
>> links section)
> 
> Thanks, Steven.
> 
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis

> 
>

Well if you have refillable cartridges and a QTR curve to flush the affected
slot at will you can simply pop the GLOP in when needed ie when you print
B&W.  OK you will consume some extra glop and ink in the swapped slot but it
gets you your GLOP workflow in large format today.  Are there not refillable
cartridges for the 7600 - perhaps this is what I am missing?  Seems to me
you are testing GLOP with different ink sets than you intend it to
ultimately work with.

> From: Steven Karafyllakis <steve@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:10:29 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: More on Glop overcoating
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Steven, once again: I can't put the gloss optimizer in the 7600, I
> need to keep it intact for standard color UC prints. All I need to
> do right now, is change over from MIS LK to Epson LK ink, to see if
> that fixes the re-bronzing after dry-down that I get with some
> papers. When I put glop in a big machine, it will be the 7500, which
> now has UT-1 inks in it.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
<scho@m...> wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> I've found that the print surface seems to look 
slightly "smoother" if 
> the glop is applied with the other inks as the image is printed 
and if 
> the glop ink limit is set at 10%.  Prints made with higher glop 
limits 
> (I tried 10, 20, 50, 75, and 100) take longer to dry and don't 
look as 
> smooth (slight gloss differential). 

They definitely need much more drying time-like overnight and longer 
>Limiting the glop application is 
> of course also cost effective. 

Agreed! I've gone through about 2.5 ounces of it already, and have 
ccoated only around 30-40 sheets of paper!

> I also found that Epson Premium 
> Semigloss looked very good, but Ilford Smooth Pearl, Epson Premium 
> Semimatte, and Pictorico Gallery High Gloss White (not the film) 
also 
> gave excellent results (the latter only if you like a high gloss 
> finish).  Surprisingly, I did not get good results with IJA 
> Microceramic Luster (bronzing was still visible after coating) so 
there 
> are some RC papers that are problematic. 

The Kirkland (Costco) Glossy was a complete washout for me

>I've been doing these tests 
> with a custom inkset in my 2200 consisting of the MIS UT-FSN quad 
inks 
> plus the UT2 warm gray and sepia inks.  I use three QTR profiles 
for 
> neutral, carbon, and sepia toned prints.  The glop is in the black 
> cartridge slot 

Something like this in the 7500 would work for me, it would still 
allow me to overcoat the color & B&W 7600 ptints, while giving me a 
blended glop on this machine.

>because no black ink is needed with these profiles (the 
> dark grays are sufficient to generate a dmax in the 2-2.2 range).  

Are you getting a good dmax on matte papers as well?

 
> flat toner curve is used in the profiles to apply the glop evenly 
> across the print.  These are the first B&W prints I've made on RC 
> papers that have absolutely no bronzing or gloss differential.  I 
put a 
> Glop archive with the profiles (both .txt and .quad files) and 
toner 
> curve on my filesharing site for anyone who wishes to try them.
> 
> I also made some neutral prints on Epson Premium semigloss using 
the 
> Epson UC inks in my 4000 with two QTR profiles (one K-less and the 
> other with PK ink) and then coated with glop in my 2200 with 
various 
> glop levels using your BO overlay technique.  Unfortunately I 
could not 
> get rid of the bronzing completely on either print with glop (even 
at 
> levels of 120%).  I don't know if applying the glop with the UC 
inks 
> (as I do with the MIS UT FSN/UT2 inks in the 2200) would make any 
> difference or not.  I suspect that the glop just works better at 
> eliminating bronzing with the MIS UT class inks than with the 
Epson UC 
> inks.

This may turn out to be the case; after all MIS formulated it for 
their UC clones for the R800. And aside from that LK bronzing 
problem after dry-down, the MIS UC inks have worked well with the 
glop. I certainly hope I don't have to change all my UC inks back to 
Epson, then I'll actually have to start making some real money with 
these machines!

 
> Carl
> 
> http://homepage.mac.com/scho/FileSharing2.html
> 
> On Dec 20, 2004, at 9:21 PM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > A further report and observations on overcoating with MIS gloss
> > optimizer. Some bad news, I'm afraid, at least for those of us 
using

On Dec 21, 2004, at 1:43 PM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:

>> I've been doing these tests
>> with a custom inkset in my 2200 consisting of the MIS UT-FSN quad
> inks
>> plus the UT2 warm gray and sepia inks.  I use three QTR profiles
> for
>> neutral, carbon, and sepia toned prints.  The glop is in the black
>> cartridge slot
>
> Something like this in the 7500 would work for me, it would still
> allow me to overcoat the color & B&W 7600 ptints, while giving me a
> blended glop on this machine.
>
>> because no black ink is needed with these profiles (the
>> dark grays are sufficient to generate a dmax in the 2-2.2 range).
>
> Are you getting a good dmax on matte papers as well?

No, this only works with RC papers.  Need a black ink like Eboni and 
different profiles to use with the matte papers.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Well if you have refillable cartridges and a QTR curve to flush 
the affected
> slot at will you can simply pop the GLOP in when needed ie when 
you print
> B&W.  OK you will consume some extra glop and ink in the swapped 
slot but it
> gets you your GLOP workflow in large format today.  Are there not 
refillable
> cartridges for the 7600 - perhaps this is what I am missing?  
Seems to me
> you are testing GLOP with different ink sets than you intend it to
> ultimately work with.

No, I'm testing the glop with the MIS UC inks, with the possible 
exception of the LK which may wind up being Epson if it bronzes less 
and coats better. That is what the glop was designed for, and co-
incidentally most of the UT B&W inks are of the same family, so 
it'll work for those if it works for the color UC inks.There are 
(and I have them) refillable MIS carts, and chip resetters; what you 
are perhaps not familiar with is the length of the inklines in a 7x 
medium format printer. Each line and damper holds as much ink as an 
entire 2200 cart, so coming up with a cost effective way to flush 
and change one ink at a time is worth the effort. Daniel Staver has 
offered to help with this, he's on the PC platform, so I'm covered 
on that point, thanks.
> 
> > From: Steven Karafyllakis <steve@s...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:10:29 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: More on Glop overcoating
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> > <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> > Steven, once again: I can't put the gloss optimizer in the 7600, 
I
> > need to keep it intact for standard color UC prints. All I need 
to
> > do right now, is change over from MIS LK to Epson LK ink, to see 
if
> > that fixes the re-bronzing after dry-down that I get with some
> > papers. When I put glop in a big machine, it will be the 7500, 
which
> > now has UT-1 inks in it.

OK have fun.  

I have "MIS UC with GLOP" QTR curves good to go and will get my GLOP next
week.  I have also made an "overcoat" curve for colour work (but that is not
for this list) and a curve to flush the GLOP jet.

Carl has also been kind enough to share with me his UT2/FSN-GLOP curves.  I
have ordered a similar ink set and so will be shifting my B&W workflow to a
dedicated setup (which can be easily swapped back for colour).  Carl's QTR
curves are "K-less" though and so he is running GLOP in the K position.  I
will likely also make some using MIS PK and running the GLOP in the sepia
toner slot for neutral and warm (I will of course have to go K-less for
sepia).  I will post my results when I get the chance.

(As for what GLOP was designed, for yes I am aware of that.  As soon as the
R800 was announced many of us anticipated using QTR to apply it.  MIS has
finally made a replica of the Epson Gloss Optimiser intended for use with
their MIS replica ultrachromes and the improved refillable carts make toying
with it a practicality.  Pity it doesn't meet their standards but at least
they will likely be working hard on a replacement.  For now we get to play
around with the stuff that didn't pass muster.)

> From: Steven Karafyllakis <steve@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 22:33:32 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: More on Glop overcoating
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>> Well if you have refillable cartridges and a QTR curve to flush
> the affected
>> slot at will you can simply pop the GLOP in when needed ie when
> you print
>> B&W.  OK you will consume some extra glop and ink in the swapped
> slot but it
>> gets you your GLOP workflow in large format today.  Are there not
> refillable
>> cartridges for the 7600 - perhaps this is what I am missing?
> Seems to me
>> you are testing GLOP with different ink sets than you intend it to
>> ultimately work with.
> 
> No, I'm testing the glop with the MIS UC inks, with the possible
> exception of the LK which may wind up being Epson if it bronzes less
> and coats better. That is what the glop was designed for, and co-
> incidentally most of the UT B&W inks are of the same family, so
> it'll work for those if it works for the color UC inks.There are
> (and I have them) refillable MIS carts, and chip resetters; what you
> are perhaps not familiar with is the length of the inklines in a 7x
> medium format printer. Each line and damper holds as much ink as an
> entire 2200 cart, so coming up with a cost effective way to flush
> and change one ink at a time is worth the effort. Daniel Staver has
> offered to help with this, he's on the PC platform, so I'm covered
> on that point, thanks.

I should be receiving some glop and virgin empties within the next 
few days. I'm going to try the glop out first on the Epson UC color 
inkset coating color prints (then perhaps BW, if all goes well). I'm 
hoping that the problems Steven Karafyllakis has described are 
minimal with color work. I'll be happy if I can get consistent 
results -- i.e., removal of bronzing -- with one good paper. So far 
Epson Premium semi-gloss seems like the paper that's getting the best 
results. I'll try to let the list know how things work out.

Chris Hargens

  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> OK have fun.  
> 
> I have "MIS UC with GLOP" QTR curves good to go and will get my 
GLOP next
> week.  I have also made an "overcoat" curve for colour work (but 
that is not
> for this list) and a curve to flush the GLOP jet.
> 
> Carl has also been kind enough to share with me his UT2/FSN-GLOP 
curves.  I
> have ordered a similar ink set and so will be shifting my B&W 
workflow to a
> dedicated setup (which can be easily swapped back for colour).  
Carl's QTR
> curves are "K-less" though and so he is running GLOP in the K 
position.  I
> will likely also make some using MIS PK and running the GLOP in the 
sepia
> toner slot for neutral and warm (I will of course have to go K-less 
for
> sepia).  I will post my results when I get the chance.
> 
> (As for what GLOP was designed, for yes I am aware of that.  As 
soon as the
> R800 was announced many of us anticipated using QTR to apply it.  
MIS has
> finally made a replica of the Epson Gloss Optimiser intended for 
use with
> their MIS replica ultrachromes and the improved refillable carts 
make toying
> with it a practicality.  Pity it doesn't meet their standards but 
at least
> they will likely be working hard on a replacement.  For now we get 
to play
> around with the stuff that didn't pass muster.)
> 
> 
> 
> > From: Steven Karafyllakis <steve@s...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 22:33:32 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: More on Glop overcoating
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> > <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> >> Well if you have refillable cartridges and a QTR curve to flush
> > the affected
> >> slot at will you can simply pop the GLOP in when needed ie when
> > you print
> >> B&W.  OK you will consume some extra glop and ink in the swapped
> > slot but it
> >> gets you your GLOP workflow in large format today.  Are there not
> > refillable
> >> cartridges for the 7600 - perhaps this is what I am missing?
> > Seems to me
> >> you are testing GLOP with different ink sets than you intend it 
to
> >> ultimately work with.
> > 
> > No, I'm testing the glop with the MIS UC inks, with the possible
> > exception of the LK which may wind up being Epson if it bronzes 
less
> > and coats better. That is what the glop was designed for, and co-
> > incidentally most of the UT B&W inks are of the same family, so
> > it'll work for those if it works for the color UC inks.There are
> > (and I have them) refillable MIS carts, and chip resetters; what 
you
> > are perhaps not familiar with is the length of the inklines in a 
7x
> > medium format printer. Each line and damper holds as much ink as 
an
> > entire 2200 cart, so coming up with a cost effective way to flush
> > and change one ink at a time is worth the effort. Daniel Staver 
has
> > offered to help with this, he's on the PC platform, so I'm covered
> > on that point, thanks.

All sounds very interesting, I look forward to hearing how it goes 
for you.Perhaps when there are 8 or 10 of us trying this out, we 
could do a glop print exchange to get a direct comparison.

Steve Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> OK have fun.  
> 
> I have "MIS UC with GLOP" QTR curves good to go and will get my 
GLOP next
> week.  I have also made an "overcoat" curve for colour work (but 
that is not
> for this list) and a curve to flush the GLOP jet.
> 
> Carl has also been kind enough to share with me his UT2/FSN-GLOP 
curves.  I
> have ordered a similar ink set and so will be shifting my B&W 
workflow to a
> dedicated setup (which can be easily swapped back for colour).  
Carl's QTR
> curves are "K-less" though and so he is running GLOP in the K 
position.  I
> will likely also make some using MIS PK and running the GLOP in 
the sepia
> toner slot for neutral and warm (I will of course have to go K-
less for
> sepia).  I will post my results when I get the chance.
> 
> (As for what GLOP was designed, for yes I am aware of that.  As 
soon as the
> R800 was announced many of us anticipated using QTR to apply it.  
MIS has
> finally made a replica of the Epson Gloss Optimiser intended for 
use with
> their MIS replica ultrachromes and the improved refillable carts 
make toying
> with it a practicality.  Pity it doesn't meet their standards but 
at least
> they will likely be working hard on a replacement.  For now we get 
to play
> around with the stuff that didn't pass muster.)
> 
> 
> 
> > From: Steven Karafyllakis <steve@s...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 22:33:32 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: More on Glop overcoating
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> > <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> >> Well if you have refillable cartridges and a QTR curve to flush
> > the affected
> >> slot at will you can simply pop the GLOP in when needed ie when
> > you print
> >> B&W.  OK you will consume some extra glop and ink in the swapped
> > slot but it
> >> gets you your GLOP workflow in large format today.  Are there 
not
> > refillable
> >> cartridges for the 7600 - perhaps this is what I am missing?
> > Seems to me
> >> you are testing GLOP with different ink sets than you intend it 
to
> >> ultimately work with.
> > 
> > No, I'm testing the glop with the MIS UC inks, with the possible
> > exception of the LK which may wind up being Epson if it bronzes 
less
> > and coats better. That is what the glop was designed for, and co-
> > incidentally most of the UT B&W inks are of the same family, so
> > it'll work for those if it works for the color UC inks.There are
> > (and I have them) refillable MIS carts, and chip resetters; what 
you
> > are perhaps not familiar with is the length of the inklines in a 
7x
> > medium format printer. Each line and damper holds as much ink as 
an
> > entire 2200 cart, so coming up with a cost effective way to flush
> > and change one ink at a time is worth the effort. Daniel Staver 
has
> > offered to help with this, he's on the PC platform, so I'm 
covered
> > on that point, thanks.

Theoretically applying Glop after the print has dried for some 
time would give less bleeding of the inks if compared to adding 
extra medium (Glop) while printing.  Any indication of that in 
the proofs so far ?

Ernst

I saw some bleeding and posterization when the glop limit was set at 
100%, but not with limits < 50%.  I've settled on a 10% limit for the 
semigloss and semimatte papers I'm using now and there are no 
artifacts.

On Dec 22, 2004, at 4:54 AM, Ernst Dinkla wrote:

>
> Theoretically applying Glop after the print has dried for some
> time would give less bleeding of the inks if compared to adding
> extra medium (Glop) while printing.  Any indication of that in
> the proofs so far ?
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Since I am unable to use QTR presently (I'm a Win98/linux user; 
QTR doesn't work on 98, and, for a variety of reasons, including the 
need to call M$ when i make hardware changes, I'm disinclined to 
move to XP. I also have not quite succeeded in getting QTR to run 
on linux), I'm wondering about an alternative approach to applying 
GLOP.

It seems that one could load an older printer, ie a 1200, with GLOP, 
and run it as an overcoat. It would have the disadvantage of not 
being applied at the same time as ink, which seems to affect some 
papers, but would be better than a spray.  Does this seem viable?
--
Matt Haber
dance, portrait and fashion photography
http://www.matthaber.com

I see no reason why you couldn't try it.  For an overcoat though you don't
need QTR.  Just try using the K slot and use Black Only with the Epson
driver and reduce the Saturation.  May work.

> From: Matt Haber <matt@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:03:39 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: More on Glop overcoating
> 
> 
> Since I am unable to use QTR presently (I'm a Win98/linux user;
> QTR doesn't work on 98, and, for a variety of reasons, including the
> need to call M$ when i make hardware changes, I'm disinclined to
> move to XP. I also have not quite succeeded in getting QTR to run
> on linux), I'm wondering about an alternative approach to applying
> GLOP.
> 
> It seems that one could load an older printer, ie a 1200, with GLOP,
> and run it as an overcoat. It would have the disadvantage of not
> being applied at the same time as ink, which seems to affect some
> papers, but would be better than a spray.  Does this seem viable?
> --
> Matt Haber
> dance, portrait and fashion photography
> http://www.matthaber.com

Matt;

If you check back through the last two days of messages you'll find 
my most recent report on doing just that. Look it up, it might save 
you some time. 

It can be done, but there are mechanical problems that make it 
frustrating with a desktop printer; I have now officially given up 
on running it through my 1280, and am about to load the glop in the 
K cart of my 7500. I simply got too frustrated by having otherwise 
perfect prints marred at the last minute by roller tracks, pizza-
wheel tracks, head scrapes, etc. But by all means, take a crack at 
it, trying it is cheap. The best papers I've found so far are Epson 
Premium semi-gloss, amd premium semi-matte. I would offer you a 
sample, but it'll be several days before I get the change-over done.

Keep us posted-

Steven Karafyllakis

http://www.stevekphoto.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Haber" 
<matt@m...> wrote:
> Since I am unable to use QTR presently (I'm a Win98/linux user; 
> QTR doesn't work on 98, and, for a variety of reasons, including 
the 
> need to call M$ when i make hardware changes, I'm disinclined to 
> move to XP. I also have not quite succeeded in getting QTR to run 
> on linux), I'm wondering about an alternative approach to applying 
> GLOP.
> 
> It seems that one could load an older printer, ie a 1200, with 
GLOP, 

> and run it as an overcoat. It would have the disadvantage of not 
> being applied at the same time as ink, which seems to affect some 
> papers, but would be better than a spray.  Does this seem viable?
> --
> Matt Haber
> dance, portrait and fashion photography
> http://www.matthaber.com

As far as applying it afterwards goes the best results I've gotten 
is giving the prints about half an hour, and then a 30-second hair 
drier blast just before feeding it in. The only time I've gotten 
visible bleeding and some very interesting posterization, has been 
with the Swiss-made Costo glossy paper.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:

> Theoretically applying Glop after the print has dried for some 
> time would give less bleeding of the inks if compared to adding 
> extra medium (Glop) while printing.  Any indication of that in 
> the proofs so far ?
> 
> Ernst

I just did some more testing with glop on UC prints.  I printed a B&W 
image on Epson Premium Semimatte, Epson Premium Semigloss, and Ilford 
Smooth Pearl using the Epson Ultrachrome inks in my Epson 4000 printer 
with a QTR neutral profile that uses no black ink.  Each print was 
subsequently printed over with glop in my Epson 2200 by overlaying a 
100% black rectangle the size of the image and then printed BO with 
glop in the K slot.  As I reported earlier, there was still residual 
bronzing in both the Epson Premium Semimatte and Epson Premium 
Semigloss prints, but not a trace of bronzing remained in the Ilford 
Smooth Pearl print after the glop overcoat.  This was surprising since 
the Ilford Smooth Pearl print had the worst bronzing of the three 
prints prior to the glop overcoat but came out the best.  So, there is 
hope for using the Epson Ultrachromes with a glop overcoat if you use 
the right paper.  The Ilford Smooth Pearl also had the highest dmax of 
the 3 papers.

Carl

On Dec 22, 2004, at 2:14 PM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:

>
>
> Matt;
>
> If you check back through the last two days of messages you'll find
> my most recent report on doing just that. Look it up, it might save
> you some time.
>
> It can be done, but there are mechanical problems that make it
> frustrating with a desktop printer; I have now officially given up
> on running it through my 1280, and am about to load the glop in the
> K cart of my 7500. I simply got too frustrated by having otherwise
> perfect prints marred at the last minute by roller tracks, pizza-
> wheel tracks, head scrapes, etc. But by all means, take a crack at
> it, trying it is cheap. The best papers I've found so far are Epson
> Premium semi-gloss, amd premium semi-matte. I would offer you a
> sample, but it'll be several days before I get the change-over done.
>
> Keep us posted-
>
> Steven Karafyllakis
>
> http://www.stevekphoto.com
>

Carl;

I didn't have anything from Ilford except Printasia glossy, which 
work failry well; Once Xmas is out of the way I'll put some glop in 
the 7500 and try the two you mentioned. It's good you're trying both 
methods; I'd be curious to know which looks the best in a couple 
days after they all dry properly.

Steve Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
<scho@m...> wrote:
> I just did some more testing with glop on UC prints.  I printed a 
B&W 
> image on Epson Premium Semimatte, Epson Premium Semigloss, and 
Ilford 
> Smooth Pearl using the Epson Ultrachrome inks in my Epson 4000 
printer 
> with a QTR neutral profile that uses no black ink.  Each print was 
> subsequently printed over with glop in my Epson 2200 by overlaying 
a 
> 100% black rectangle the size of the image and then printed BO 
with 
> glop in the K slot.  As I reported earlier, there was still 
residual 
> bronzing in both the Epson Premium Semimatte and Epson Premium 
> Semigloss prints, but not a trace of bronzing remained in the 
Ilford 
> Smooth Pearl print after the glop overcoat.  This was surprising 
since 
> the Ilford Smooth Pearl print had the worst bronzing of the three 
> prints prior to the glop overcoat but came out the best.  So, 
there is 
> hope for using the Epson Ultrachromes with a glop overcoat if you 
use 
> the right paper.  The Ilford Smooth Pearl also had the highest 
dmax of 
> the 3 papers.
> 
> Carl
> 
> On Dec 22, 2004, at 2:14 PM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Matt;
> >
> > If you check back through the last two days of messages you'll 
find
> > my most recent report on doing just that. Look it up, it might 
save
> > you some time.
> >
> > It can be done, but there are mechanical problems that make it
> > frustrating with a desktop printer; I have now officially given 
up
> > on running it through my 1280, and am about to load the glop in 
the
> > K cart of my 7500. I simply got too frustrated by having 
otherwise
> > perfect prints marred at the last minute by roller tracks, pizza-
> > wheel tracks, head scrapes, etc. But by all means, take a crack 
at
> > it, trying it is cheap. The best papers I've found so far are 
Epson
> > Premium semi-gloss, amd premium semi-matte. I would offer you a
> > sample, but it'll be several days before I get the change-over 
done.

> >
> > Keep us posted-
> >
> > Steven Karafyllakis
> >
> > http://www.stevekphoto.com
> >

Steve,

I'll keep an eye on them and report back.  Atlex has pretty good prices 
for Ilford Smooth Pearl and it is also available in rolls:

http://www.atlex.com/ilford/ilford-galerie-smooth-pearl-paper.htm

Carl Schofield

On Dec 22, 2004, at 10:12 PM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:

>
>
> Carl;
>
> I didn't have anything from Ilford except Printasia glossy, which
> work failry well; Once Xmas is out of the way I'll put some glop in
> the 7500 and try the two you mentioned. It's good you're trying both
> methods; I'd be curious to know which looks the best in a couple
> days after they all dry properly.
>
> Steve Karafyllakis
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
> <scho@m...> wrote:
>> I just did some more testing with glop on UC prints.  I printed a
> B&W
>> image on Epson Premium Semimatte, Epson Premium Semigloss, and
> Ilford
>> Smooth Pearl using the Epson Ultrachrome inks in my Epson 4000
> printer
>> with a QTR neutral profile that uses no black ink.  Each print was
>> subsequently printed over with glop in my Epson 2200 by overlaying
> a
>> 100% black rectangle the size of the image and then printed BO
> with
>> glop in the K slot.  As I reported earlier, there was still
> residual
>> bronzing in both the Epson Premium Semimatte and Epson Premium
>> Semigloss prints, but not a trace of bronzing remained in the
> Ilford
>> Smooth Pearl print after the glop overcoat.  This was surprising
> since
>> the Ilford Smooth Pearl print had the worst bronzing of the three
>> prints prior to the glop overcoat but came out the best.  So,
> there is
>> hope for using the Epson Ultrachromes with a glop overcoat if you
> use
>> the right paper.  The Ilford Smooth Pearl also had the highest
> dmax of
>> the 3 papers.
>>
>> Carl
>>
>> On Dec 22, 2004, at 2:14 PM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt;
>>>
>>> If you check back through the last two days of messages you'll
> find
>>> my most recent report on doing just that. Look it up, it might
> save
>>> you some time.
>>>
>>> It can be done, but there are mechanical problems that make it
>>> frustrating with a desktop printer; I have now officially given
> up
>>> on running it through my 1280, and am about to load the glop in
> the
>>> K cart of my 7500. I simply got too frustrated by having
> otherwise
>>> perfect prints marred at the last minute by roller tracks, pizza-
>>> wheel tracks, head scrapes, etc. But by all means, take a crack
> at
>>> it, trying it is cheap. The best papers I've found so far are
> Epson
>>> Premium semi-gloss, amd premium semi-matte. I would offer you a
>>> sample, but it'll be several days before I get the change-over
> done.
>>>
>>> Keep us posted-
>>>
>>> Steven Karafyllakis
>>>
>>> http://www.stevekphoto.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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>