Digital BW, The Print

I know this is a naive question, and one I should know the answer to, but what actually is 
in UltraChrome ink? Are they a hybred inkset composed of some dye and mostly pigment, 
or what? I think Nash Editions was going to call them pigment prints and I was about to do 
the same, but I'm wondering if that is really a good idea? I don't like do deceive people if I 
know better.

John

I don't think it's naïve.  How would you know?  Do you think Epson would
would really publish the exact formulation?

Not that it's tough for a chemist to disassemble or reverse engineer.

Seth

==-----Original Message-----
==From: john dean [mailto:deanwork2003@...] 
==
==
==I know this is a naive question, and one I should know the 
==answer to, but what actually is in UltraChrome ink? Are they 
==a hybred inkset composed of some dye and mostly pigment, or

It's not a dye or pigment or formulation.  Epson confuses the matter
by calling it "pigment" but they do that to distinguish it from
everything else that's out there.

A pigment is just a colorant, it's in dye and ink. 

What's distinctive about Ultrachrome is the pigment's encapsulation.
None of the competing products are encapsulated.

> would really publish the exact formulation?
>  y 
> ==a hybred inkset composed of some dye and mostly pigment, or

My interpretation of these terms was that they distinguish the size of the "colorant" 
molecules which in "dyes" are smaller and more fluid and break down more easily when 
exposed to uv and blue radiation, while "pigments", larger more stable molecules, have a 
much tighter bond. When you start to mix them that's when things become slippery. Not 
to beat a dead horse and it isn't that important really, but there must be some chemist 
who has written a description of the major products out there. Maybe not. I'm sure they all 
vary from company to company, sometimes probably quite a bit, like the encapsulation 
chemestry that Epson has a patent on , etc.  I'm sure all these companies play it close to 
the vest to protect their own hard work and r and d expenditures.

John



-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon" <westsidemaurice@y...> 
wrote:

> 
> It's not a dye or pigment or formulation.  Epson confuses the matter
> by calling it "pigment" but they do that to distinguish it from
> everything else that's out there.
> 
> A pigment is just a colorant, it's in dye and ink. 
> 
> What's distinctive about Ultrachrome is the pigment's encapsulation.
> None of the competing products are encapsulated.
> 
>  
> > would really publish the exact formulation?
> >  y 
> > ==a hybred inkset composed of some dye and mostly pigment, or

> ... what actually is in UltraChrome ink? 
>Are they a hybred inkset composed of some dye and mostly pigment,
> or what? ...

With the caveat that I'm making educated guesses here, since neither Epson
nor any other pigment company is about to disclose anything to me, let me
outline some of what I've been able to discern from various materials.

To start, the main distinction between a dye and a pigment is that pigments
are solid particles that are suspended in a fluid -- mostly water in our
case.  Dyes, on the other hand, are dissolved colorants -- like sugar in
water.  This leads to the main performance differences between them.  The
dyes go on as a liquid and then dry to become a thin crystalline coating on
the surface.  This makes for a nice even, high gamut coating, but the
crystals are very small.  Lightfastness increases with the size of the solid
crystal particle, the pigments are huge rocks compared to the dye crystals. 

(Note that with an average pigment particle size of about 0.1 micron, our 25
micron nozzles do not get plugged by these "rocks" in and of themselves.) 

The reason lightfastness is related to particle size is that most of fading
is oxidation.  The larger the particle, the less surface area it will have
relative to its mass.  Thus, with less surface exposed to the oxygen, the
colorant simply fades slower.

So, for lightfastness, we'd actually like the largest particles possible.
Unfortunately, the large particles would sink to the bottom of our carts.
While the pigments are selected, in part, based on their relatively low
specific gravities, they are all still heavier than the fluid carrier.  To
keep them in suspension the particles must be very small, the reasons being
the opposite of what we'd like for lightfastness -- the smaller particles
have more surface area to mass, thus increasing the effectiveness of
viscosity and Brownian motion to keep them from sinking immediately.

Chemically, the dye and pigment colors may be close to the same.  Some of
the pigments are "dye stacks" -- non-soluble, relatively large crystals of
dye.

The pigments that are probably used by Epson and the others are organic
compounds.  That is, they are based, in part, on carbon.  

(Epson's Material Safety Data Sheets are of little value here because they
just call almost everything, "proprietary dyes and pigments.")

The cyan pigment is probably a "phthalocyanine."  This elegant molecule
looks like a symmetrical snowflake, with 4 carbon rings linked into a flat
disk by carbon and nitrogen.  There is a copper atom in the middle.  This is
a very important and stable class of pigments for industry.  The RIT tests
that MIS has published also show the cyan to be extremely lightfast.  

The magenta is probably a "quinacridone."  This is composed of a linear
array of 5 carbon rings -- thus the "quin" -- with 2 pairs of oxygen and
hydrogen hanging off it.

The yellow is probably a "monoazo (arylide)."  This is a pair of carbon
rings joined by nitrogen to a central cluster of 4 carbons.  Colors are
controlled  by various atoms hanging asymmetrically off the sides.  While
this is only moderately lightfast, it also has the lowest specific gravity,
thus allowing the particles to be made larger.

What probably distinguishes the pigments from Epson and the others the most
is the surface treatment.  Epson uses an acrylic coating, whereas the others
use different surface attachments to help keep the materials in suspension
and dispersed, and help them stick to the paper.  There are arguments for
and against Epson's choice of acrylic.  Since it is not a good oxygen
barrier, it probably has little effect on lightfastness.  In fact, if it
makes the primary pigment particle smaller, its effect could be negative.

I would guess that UltraChrome inks are pure pigment, with no liquid dyes in
the fluid.  (A more interesting question is whether the acrylic coatings
have dyes impregnated in them, and I have no clue on this.)

Anyway, that is my long-winded, best guess as to the pigments that are in
both the Epson and third-party products.  There are many minor variations of
these basic pigment classes that alter the exact chemical structures and
colors.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

That was very nice Paul. That was the most straightforward description of this issue that 
I've ever heard. Thanks so much for the effort. You really seem to know your stuff.

John

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> 
wrote:

> > ... what actually is in UltraChrome ink? 
> >Are they a hybred inkset composed of some dye and mostly pigment,
> > or what? ...
> 
> With the caveat that I'm making educated guesses here, since neither Epson
> nor any other pigment company is about to disclose anything to me, let me
> outline some of what I've been able to discern from various materials.
> 
> To start, the main distinction between a dye and a pigment is that pigments
> are solid particles that are suspended in a fluid -- mostly water in our
> case.  Dyes, on the other hand, are dissolved colorants -- like sugar in
> water.  This leads to the main performance differences between them.  The
> dyes go on as a liquid and then dry to become a thin crystalline coating on
> the surface.  This makes for a nice even, high gamut coating, but the
> crystals are very small.  Lightfastness increases with the size of the solid
> crystal particle, the pigments are huge rocks compared to the dye crystals. 
> 
> (Note that with an average pigment particle size of about 0.1 micron, our 25
> micron nozzles do not get plugged by these "rocks" in and of themselves.) 
> 
> The reason lightfastness is related to particle size is that most of fading
> is oxidation.  The larger the particle, the less surface area it will have
> relative to its mass.  Thus, with less surface exposed to the oxygen, the
> colorant simply fades slower.
> 
> So, for lightfastness, we'd actually like the largest particles possible.
> Unfortunately, the large particles would sink to the bottom of our carts.
> While the pigments are selected, in part, based on their relatively low
> specific gravities, they are all still heavier than the fluid carrier.  To
> keep them in suspension the particles must be very small, the reasons being
> the opposite of what we'd like for lightfastness -- the smaller particles
> have more surface area to mass, thus increasing the effectiveness of
> viscosity and Brownian motion to keep them from sinking immediately.
> 
> Chemically, the dye and pigment colors may be close to the same.  Some of
> the pigments are "dye stacks" -- non-soluble, relatively large crystals of
> dye.
> 
> The pigments that are probably used by Epson and the others are organic
> compounds.  That is, they are based, in part, on carbon.  
> 
> (Epson's Material Safety Data Sheets are of little value here because they
> just call almost everything, "proprietary dyes and pigments.")
> 
> The cyan pigment is probably a "phthalocyanine."  This elegant molecule
> looks like a symmetrical snowflake, with 4 carbon rings linked into a flat
> disk by carbon and nitrogen.  There is a copper atom in the middle.  This is
> a very important and stable class of pigments for industry.  The RIT tests
> that MIS has published also show the cyan to be extremely lightfast.  
> 
> The magenta is probably a "quinacridone."  This is composed of a linear
> array of 5 carbon rings -- thus the "quin" -- with 2 pairs of oxygen and
> hydrogen hanging off it.
> 
> The yellow is probably a "monoazo (arylide)."  This is a pair of carbon
> rings joined by nitrogen to a central cluster of 4 carbons.  Colors are
> controlled  by various atoms hanging asymmetrically off the sides.  While
> this is only moderately lightfast, it also has the lowest specific gravity,
> thus allowing the particles to be made larger.
> 
> What probably distinguishes the pigments from Epson and the others the most
> is the surface treatment.  Epson uses an acrylic coating, whereas the others
> use different surface attachments to help keep the materials in suspension
> and dispersed, and help them stick to the paper.  There are arguments for
> and against Epson's choice of acrylic.  Since it is not a good oxygen
> barrier, it probably has little effect on lightfastness.  In fact, if it
> makes the primary pigment particle smaller, its effect could be negative.
> 
> I would guess that UltraChrome inks are pure pigment, with no liquid dyes in
> the fluid.  (A more interesting question is whether the acrylic coatings
> have dyes impregnated in them, and I have no clue on this.)
> 
> Anyway, that is my long-winded, best guess as to the pigments that are in
> both the Epson and third-party products.  There are many minor variations of
> these basic pigment classes that alter the exact chemical structures and
> colors.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

But arguably one could make a "dye" ink of very small carbon particles.  I
think the point of an earlier post was that pigment was a generic term
equally applicable to dye inks.  My understanding is the critical issues are
the size of the pigment particle and whether or how it is encapsulated.
Smaller particles sit better on or in paper but their mass to surface ratio
leads to faster oxidation, as you say.  I would like to hear from John
Edmunds on this.  The question is what might the optimum particle size
be...if one found a way to make markedly smaller encapsulated pigment
particles you would gain from their ability to soak into paper better and
from an overall greater saturation of pigment per ounce of ink and hence
better colour gamut.  But what about fade?

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:31:30 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] What is actually in Ultrachrome inks?
> 
> 
>> ... what actually is in UltraChrome ink?
>> Are they a hybred inkset composed of some dye and mostly pigment,
>> or what? ...
> 
> With the caveat that I'm making educated guesses here, since neither Epson
> nor any other pigment company is about to disclose anything to me, let me
> outline some of what I've been able to discern from various materials.
> 
> To start, the main distinction between a dye and a pigment is that pigments
> are solid particles that are suspended in a fluid -- mostly water in our
> case.  Dyes, on the other hand, are dissolved colorants -- like sugar in
> water.  This leads to the main performance differences between them.  The
> dyes go on as a liquid and then dry to become a thin crystalline coating on
> the surface.  This makes for a nice even, high gamut coating, but the
> crystals are very small.  Lightfastness increases with the size of the solid
> crystal particle, the pigments are huge rocks compared to the dye crystals.
> 
> (Note that with an average pigment particle size of about 0.1 micron, our 25
> micron nozzles do not get plugged by these "rocks" in and of themselves.)
> 
> The reason lightfastness is related to particle size is that most of fading
> is oxidation.  The larger the particle, the less surface area it will have
> relative to its mass.  Thus, with less surface exposed to the oxygen, the
> colorant simply fades slower.
> 
> So, for lightfastness, we'd actually like the largest particles possible.
> Unfortunately, the large particles would sink to the bottom of our carts.
> While the pigments are selected, in part, based on their relatively low
> specific gravities, they are all still heavier than the fluid carrier.  To
> keep them in suspension the particles must be very small, the reasons being
> the opposite of what we'd like for lightfastness -- the smaller particles
> have more surface area to mass, thus increasing the effectiveness of
> viscosity and Brownian motion to keep them from sinking immediately.
> 
> Chemically, the dye and pigment colors may be close to the same.  Some of
> the pigments are "dye stacks" -- non-soluble, relatively large crystals of
> dye.
> 
> The pigments that are probably used by Epson and the others are organic
> compounds.  That is, they are based, in part, on carbon.
> 
> (Epson's Material Safety Data Sheets are of little value here because they
> just call almost everything, "proprietary dyes and pigments.")
> 
> The cyan pigment is probably a "phthalocyanine."  This elegant molecule
> looks like a symmetrical snowflake, with 4 carbon rings linked into a flat
> disk by carbon and nitrogen.  There is a copper atom in the middle.  This is
> a very important and stable class of pigments for industry.  The RIT tests
> that MIS has published also show the cyan to be extremely lightfast.
> 
> The magenta is probably a "quinacridone."  This is composed of a linear
> array of 5 carbon rings -- thus the "quin" -- with 2 pairs of oxygen and
> hydrogen hanging off it.
> 
> The yellow is probably a "monoazo (arylide)."  This is a pair of carbon
> rings joined by nitrogen to a central cluster of 4 carbons.  Colors are
> controlled  by various atoms hanging asymmetrically off the sides.  While
> this is only moderately lightfast, it also has the lowest specific gravity,
> thus allowing the particles to be made larger.
> 
> What probably distinguishes the pigments from Epson and the others the most
> is the surface treatment.  Epson uses an acrylic coating, whereas the others
> use different surface attachments to help keep the materials in suspension
> and dispersed, and help them stick to the paper.  There are arguments for
> and against Epson's choice of acrylic.  Since it is not a good oxygen
> barrier, it probably has little effect on lightfastness.  In fact, if it
> makes the primary pigment particle smaller, its effect could be negative.
> 
> I would guess that UltraChrome inks are pure pigment, with no liquid dyes in
> the fluid.  (A more interesting question is whether the acrylic coatings
> have dyes impregnated in them, and I have no clue on this.)
> 
> Anyway, that is my long-winded, best guess as to the pigments that are in
> both the Epson and third-party products.  There are many minor variations of
> these basic pigment classes that alter the exact chemical structures and
> colors.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See „Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines‰ in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE „OWNER‰ AND
> „MODERATORS‰ OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  „OWNER‰ AND „MODERATORS‰ OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

>
> I would guess that UltraChrome inks are pure pigment, with no liquid dyes in
> the fluid.  (A more interesting question is whether the acrylic coatings
> have dyes impregnated in them, and I have no clue on this.)
> 
> Anyway, that is my long-winded, best guess as to the pigments that are in
> both the Epson and third-party products.  There are many minor variations of
> these basic pigment classes that alter the exact chemical structures and
> colors.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Beatiful synopsis Paul...

I've read a bit about colour chemistry and I agree on most points. I did read 
somewhere on the net though, that the biggest difference between Epson's Archival 
inkset and the UltraChrome is that to improve the colour gamut they opted to add 
some dye to the yellow ink to improve colour space at the expense of longevity.
Yellow is the most ephemeral of all inks, even in lithography. If you put a litho in 
strong sunlight the yellow will go fast and then the magenta and lastly that stable 
Phthalocyanine you spoke of.
I've saved what you wrote as a nice summary for when I get asked these questions. 
You aren't long winded but I am!

Brian

Yes, that thing about the yellow channel being "re-engineered" for greater saturation and 
a more useful gamut in the reds is also something I heard when Ultrachome was first 
introduced. Now whether that yellow has "dye" in it I don't know, and we may not even be 
able to know without some chemist breaking it down methodically. Bottom line is it 
doesn't really matter except for semantic reasons. I was going to put on my website that I 
only work with pigments, no dyes, but I didn't say that ...... whatever.

I use both of these inksets and whatever they did to create UC works. Only if they made 
them for the 10K I already have. That printer is a much nicer machine all around, strong as 
an ox and significantly faster. I guess I'll have to go back to Lyson now for help.

That was great Paul, I'm printing it out for reference too.

John

What is dye made of?  Dye is "a usually soluble substance for staining or
colouring" but what substance?  One could make a dye of very finely ground
carbon.  A dye could well be the same materials mentioned  by Paul.  I don't
think dye or pigment are the right or adequate descriptors here.

> From: john dean <deanwork2003@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:13:36 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] What is actually in Ultrachrome inks?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that thing about the yellow channel being "re-engineered" for greater
> saturation and 
> a more useful gamut in the reds is also something I heard when Ultrachome was
> first 
> introduced. Now whether that yellow has "dye" in it I don't know, and we may
> not even be 
> able to know without some chemist breaking it down methodically. Bottom line
> is it 
> doesn't really matter except for semantic reasons. I was going to put on my
> website that I 
> only work with pigments, no dyes, but I didn't say that ...... whatever.
> 
> I use both of these inksets and whatever they did to create UC works. Only if
> they made 
> them for the 10K I already have. That printer is a much nicer machine all
> around, strong as
> an ox and significantly faster. I guess I'll have to go back to Lyson now for
> help.
> 
> That was great Paul, I'm printing it out for reference too.
> 
> John

> ... that thing about the yellow channel being "re-engineered" 
>for greater saturation and a more useful gamut in the reds is 
>also something I heard when Ultrachome was first introduced. 
>Now whether that yellow has "dye" in it I don't know, and we
> may not even be able to know without some chemist breaking it down...

Yellow dye definitely has its uses.

My old FSN was the first B&W ink I know of that had almost no warm shift (on
EEM).  Yellow dye was a critical component of that mix.  I used the
different relative fade rates of yellow dye and cyan pigment to handle the
underlying poor delta e (color shifting) of the inks of the time.  I
intentionally matched the yellow fade rate with the warming rate, but, of
course, going in opposite directions.  So they cancelled each other out.  I
used rock-solid cyan to offset the yellow dye's visual impact on the inkset.
This cyan was so tough even back then that it improved the lightfastness of
the overall inkset, even with the yellow fading away. 

The general lesson is that to hold down delta e, dyes -- particularly yellow
-- can have a useful roll.  

The nice thing about yellow dye is that while it is high in gamut, it is low
in visual density.  So, while it fades, its impact on color is more
significant than its impact on density.  The bottom line was that my
original FSN had a much lower delta e than the existing quads of the time,
yet it also faded less.  That's not a bad combination.

With the advent of the higher-load and more lightfast carbon inks used in
the UT inks, I agonized over whether to also build in a counter-shift to
hold down the delta e. I opted not to, in part, as a matter of principle.  I
wanted to be able to print as pure a carbon image as possible.  The carbon
does warm shift a bit, and I could control that with yellow dye.  But, in
the case of the UT family, the pure-carbon & pure pigment goals won.  The
warm shifting of the carbon is so much less than the older inks' warm
shifting, that it just is not a big enough deal to resort to adding dyes.

Epson, might have made some different decisions in this regard. 

Epson's UC MSDS's suggest that those pigments are only partially carbon.

A UC-based quad inkset I made had the lowest delta e I've measured, but it
also had a slightly higher initial fade rate.  Maybe these are all
connected, but I'm speculating.




Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
 










 methodically. Bottom

> line is it
> doesn't really matter except for semantic reasons. I was going to put on
> my website that I
> only work with pigments, no dyes, but I didn't say that ...... whatever.
> 
> I use both of these inksets and whatever they did to create UC works. Only
> if they made
> them for the 10K I already have. That printer is a much nicer machine all
> around, strong as
> an ox and significantly faster. I guess I'll have to go back to Lyson now
> for help.
> 
> That was great Paul, I'm printing it out for reference too.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

> But arguably one could make a "dye" ink of very small carbon particles....

My understanding is that dyes are soluble and pigments are not.  Only if you
consider molecules to be particles do the two meet. 

I believe the carbon that is used in the black ink is mostly graphite.
Graphite is insoluble in water.  See
http://www.hummelcroton.com/data/grph_d.html


But, it is true that the particle size is probably the most important
distinction.  

It is also my understanding that the dye printers can use low loads of very
finely ground pigment.

Apparently one thing that limits the non-Epson desktop printers in this
regard is the viscosity of the inks.  The piezo-electric head that Epson has
rather well protected with patents may be the only one that can pump the
high-viscosity base needed to keep high loads of larger particles in
suspension.  So, for example, the dye inkset blacks may well have carbon
particles in them.  But, there will be a relatively low load (relative
amount of pigment per volume or weight), and the particles have to be very
finely ground.  (The smaller the particle, the lower the viscosity needed to
keep it in suspension.)  The good dmax they get comes from the dyes that are
added, and the composition of these is unknown to me.  They used to be color
pigments, particularly cyan.  (That is where the PKN concept came from.)


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

So, does that mean that other patented head configurations, like the Iris for example, are 
incapable of using the high-stability pigment inksets? HP is certainly doing something 
interesting with pigments in their thermal printers to achieve such ratings.

John




-Apparently one thing that limits the non-Epson desktop printers in this
regard is the viscosity of the inks. The piezo-electric head that Epson has
rather well protected with patents may be the only one that can pump the
high-viscosity base needed to keep high loads of larger particles in
suspension.

John,

The normal simple meaning of the terms is that a dye ink is a solution of 
molecules that possess color, while a pigment ink is a suspension of large 
aggregates of insoluble molecules that possess color.

But these terms were invented by humans a long time ago, and we now have 
colored chemicals that don't fall cleanly into either of these categories. 
As with most terminology and nomenclature, the terms/names/categories are 
not absolute, but have to be changed as our knowledge increases.

With the Ultrachromes, Epson also coated the pigment aggregates with resin, 
and with the new Higloss Ultrachromes they have apparently changed the resin 
to make the particles more glossy.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "john dean" <deanwork2003@...>





My interpretation of these terms was that they distinguish the size of the 
"colorant"
molecules which in "dyes" are smaller and more fluid and break down more 
easily when
exposed to uv and blue radiation, while "pigments", larger more stable 
molecules, have a
much tighter bond.

> So, does that mean that other patented head configurations, 
>like the Iris for example, are incapable of using the 
>high-stability pigment inksets?

I've been lead to believe that it is one of the major factors.

The Iris used rather fast-fading dyes.  That is why among some high end
galleries I spoke with, the "Giclee," which is associated with the Iris, got
a bad reputation.  That is one of the many reasons I avoid the use of that
term.

> HP is certainly doing something interesting with pigments in their 
>thermal printers to achieve such ratings.

It may be that the main factor is currently the swellable paper.  What that
does is pull the dye down into a chamber, where dries in more of a
particulate form and is also protected by the paper emulsion.   It's, in
effect, an encapsulated quasi-pigment particle (my terminology).

Ultimately, the chemistry of mordants -- the substances that absorb or react
with the dyes to make these quasi-pigments -- also holds great promise.
Consider a 2-component, epoxy-like rock embedded in an emulsion that has
also become very hard.  I think the potential is immense.  (I'm so glad to
see Carly get fired.  Go to it HP inkjet tech guys!) 

I think we'll benefit greatly by these big guys competing fiercely.  Canon
is also not to be counted out.  These are some impressive players, and we
benefit.

One thing I like about the pigment approach, however, is the ability to use
the traditional cellulose papers.  I still think carbon on cotton is the
combination to beat.  That may not always be the case.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Apparently one thing that limits the non-Epson desktop printers in this
> regard is the viscosity of the inks. The piezo-electric head that Epson
> has
> rather well protected with patents may be the only one that can pump the
> high-viscosity base needed to keep high loads of larger particles in
> suspension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

> From: Djon [mailto:westsidemaurice@...]
>
> It's not a dye or pigment or formulation.  Epson confuses the matter
> by calling it "pigment" but they do that to distinguish it from
> everything else that's out there.
>
> A pigment is just a colorant, it's in dye and ink.
>
> What's distinctive about Ultrachrome is the pigment's encapsulation.
> None of the competing products are encapsulated.

As I understand it, the colorants in a dye ink are completely dissolved, so
they're floating around at the molecular level. In a pigment ink, the
colorants are solid particles much, much larger than a molecule, suspended
in a liquid. I've also read that the UC inks are not just solid particles of
a single color, but have a more complex structure, as you suggest. But
they're definitely not dye inks.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Bob, Paul,

I'm gettig a much better understanding of this situaton now. We are moving beyond the 
era of "colorants" as we once thought of them traditionally in art and photography, and 
into the world of new chemical inventions, and that is why is so difficult to find anything 
clear written about them, because it is all held so close to the vest.


.......think we'll benefit greatly by these big guys competing fiercely. Canon
is also not to be counted out. These are some impressive players, and we
benefit. One thing I like about the pigment approach, however, is the ability to use
the traditional cellulose papers. I still think carbon on cotton is the
combination to beat. That may not always be the case.- Paul


I agree that competition is what is going to make color imaging work the best for us. 
The thing that doesn't appeal to me at all about HP's approach is the way you are 100% 
dependent on their media-ink combination as a "system". Good marketing, bad art. I don't 
like systems. I like diversity and uniqueness. That is why I think it is so silly for Epson to 
be marketing this "system" of theirs where we are all trained to use only their appropriate 
and apporoved substrates. They are trying to kill the best thing about their own printers, 
but that dog won't hunt for them or us. People like diversity and uniqueness.

I have one final question before getting back to work. Why in the world if the yellow 
channel is the PRIMARY ( though certainly not total) change in the Epson pigment inkset 
from Archival CF to UltraChrome, is it not possible to just replace that yellow ink with the 
Ultrachrome equivilent and remake profiles and the driver for everything, with much 
improved results. I just don't get it. I am completely satisfied with the CF inks rendition of 
all colors except the ones such as yellow, red, and orange, where intensity is needed in 
these hues. The blues and greens are just beautuful to me and so much nicer than 
anything we had to work with in chemical color printing. Of course the black component is 
different but that's a different problem with different solutions.

John

I can't speak to Iris, but Epson piezo-electric heads work much differently
than other printers.  When I went to the Epson inkjet repair school it was
explained pretty well, though technologies change.

Canon Bubblejet (they dropped the name so I don't know if they dropped the
system) rather than squirt the ink, heated an ink bubble that burst and
layed down.  Actually, you could see the uneven spatter under magnification.
Basically, it farted on the paper.

HP was using just a plain old airbrush approach, though more refined.

This is another reason "universal" refill kits for desktops is bull.

Each head technology has its own limitations and pluses.

"Son of EP," small company that it is has managed to kick the big boys
(Canon and HP) for some time now.

Seth

==-----Original Message-----


==
==> So, does that mean that other patented head configurations, 
==like the 
==>Iris for example, are incapable of using the high-stability pigment 
==>inksets?
==

Actually, bubble jet heads are in essence a network of mini-resistors,
an electric pulse will heat the ink up to a bubble and then sudden cooling
will make it burst (roughly, this is what is taking place, in layman's terms).
I own both Epson and Canon printers (the latter for color only) and I think
that if you move into "dye" ink territory, it is wide open as far as which
printhead technology has the edge. It would of course be counterproductive
to launch a discussion as to which tool is the best overall, depending on the
task and the results you expect some are more apt than others.


Regards

Andrei

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Seth 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 11:19 AM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] What is actually in Ultrachrome inks?


  I can't speak to Iris, but Epson piezo-electric heads work much differently
  than other printers.  When I went to the Epson inkjet repair school it was
  explained pretty well, though technologies change.

  Canon Bubblejet (they dropped the name so I don't know if they dropped the
  system) rather than squirt the ink, heated an ink bubble that burst and
  layed down.  Actually, you could see the uneven spatter under magnification.
  Basically, it farted on the paper.

  HP was using just a plain old airbrush approach, though more refined.

  This is another reason "universal" refill kits for desktops is bull.

  Each head technology has its own limitations and pluses.

  "Son of EP," small company that it is has managed to kick the big boys
  (Canon and HP) for some time now.

  Seth

  ==-----Original Message-----


  ==
  ==> So, does that mean that other patented head configurations, 
  ==like the 
  ==>Iris for example, are incapable of using the high-stability pigment 
  ==>inksets?
  ==



  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 Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

I'll try again asking this to you ink and printer experts.
Sorry to be repetative this is an issue that is haunting me and I think someone 
out there may know the answer. Paul?:

I have one final question before getting back to work. Why in the world if the
yellow channel is the PRIMARY ( though certainly not total) change in the 
Epson pigment inkset from Archival CF to UltraChrome, is it not possible to 
just replace that yellow ink with theUltrachrome equivilent and, remake 
profiles and the driver for everything, with much improved results. I just don't 
get it. I am completely satisfied with the CF inks rendition of all colors except 
the ones such as yellow, red, and orange, where intensity is needed in these 
hues.  This CF yellow also has much worse metamerism.The blues and 
greens are just beautuful to me and so much nicer than anything we had to 
work with in chemical color printing just as in Ultrachrome. Yea the Magenta 
may be a little weaker also but it is the yellow that is the big limitaion of this 
inkset for color control. Of course the black component is different but that's a 
different problem with different solutions.

John

John,

> ... Why in the world if the
> yellow channel is the PRIMARY ( though certainly not total) change in the
> Epson pigment inkset from Archival CF to UltraChrome, is it not possible
> to
> just replace that yellow ink with theUltrachrome equivilent and, remake
> profiles and the driver for everything, with much improved results.

I think one of the primary changes between the Archival and UC inksets was
the pigment load.  The UC inks have, I believe, a higher load of pigment
particles.

By the way, in my initial fade tests of B&W inksets made with UC LK and UC
or Archival color pigs added to neutralize the warmth of the LK, the UC
performed better than the Archival.


>...I am completely satisfied with the CF inks rendition of all colors
> except
> the ones such as yellow, red, and orange, where intensity is needed in
> these
> hues.  This CF yellow also has much worse metamerism.The blues and
> greens are just beautuful to me and so much nicer than anything we had to
> work with in chemical color printing just as in Ultrachrome. Yea the
> Magenta
> may be a little weaker also but it is the yellow that is the big limitaion
> of this
> inkset for color control. 

I suspect you could just use the UC yellow and not do any harm to anything.

>Of course the black component is different but that's a
> different problem with different solutions.

The archival K tests out just like the old MIS VM.  I suspect it is a hybrid
black.  The UC MK and PK are much stronger.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

( Sorry to clogging up this site talking about color pigments, it is just that this is the most 
intelligent and useful sites I've encountered. I'll try to end this topic now)


 "I suspect you could just use the UC yellow and not do any harm to anything."
Paul R.

 I guess that is the million dollar question for me right now.

 Paul this is what I would like to do to avoid changing the inkset altogether. Maybe I 
could use the Ultrachrome M Black or Ebony as well. But my primary challenge is not 
permanence beyond Ultrachrome or the original CF K ink, but reducing metamerism in the 
warm colors while also giving much greater saturation in those colors that contain yellow. I 
would have to come up with a chipped 10K cart and fill it with UC yellow which wouldn't 
be easy of course.

I guess what I don't understand at all is why I haven't heard others talking about this 
change. There are thousands of us out there that have fine running stable 10K machines 
that perform outstandingly except in this yellow channel oddity and Epson only 
"retrofitted" these machines for a very short period of time to Uc. Now they want you to 
replace the printer. They are so much faster than the 9600.

The short of the long of it is I would like not to have to completely change over to Lyson's 
Cave Paint, though that is a very strong possibility. Now that I work with the 9600 I just 
can't live with these CF reds anylonger, especially on rc media with skintones.

But if I end up wrecking my heads on a printer that is out of warranty, that would be worse 
than leaving the Epson inks behind altogether in favor of Cave Paints.

Is there any place that I can check to see if anyone has tried substituting the yellow or 
even the black channel on this inkset and leaving the others in place? I bet someone has.

Thanks again,

John

Can't make a dye of anything larger than a molecule of carbon. Get 2
of them and it becomes a clump and -that-- is a pigment.
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> What is dye made of?  Dye is "a usually soluble substance for
staining or
> colouring" but what substance?  One could make a dye of very finely
ground
> carbon.  A dye could well be the same materials mentioned  by Paul.
 I don't

> think dye or pigment are the right or adequate descriptors here.
> 
> 
> >

John,

I can't imagine you'd damage your printer by trying the UC yellow.  I run
MIS, UC and Archival inks through all the smaller printers, and they all
seem very similar and compatible.  I would guess the downside is simply that
it won't give you the reds you want due to the Archival magenta still being
there.

I wonder what Epson did when they "retrofitted" the printers for the UC inks
-- besides make money on the process.  The UC inks carry a higher load of
pigs, so the viscosity might be a bit higher.  However, from my
measurements, all these inks are fairly close.  The only higher viscosity
ink I've run into was the magenta.  The MIS 7600 M was a bit too high for
the 1280, thus the "GP" inkset.  It didn't damage the printers as far as I
know.  The yellow is not that likely to have too high a viscosity because it
is the lightest (specific gravity) of the bunch.

I'm not familiar with the 10000, so I don't know what problems you might
have with chips, etc.

Good luck with the experiment.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: john dean [mailto:deanwork2003@...]
> Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 3:25 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Substituting the Yellow CF ink in 10K for Yellow UC
> or Lyson CP
> 
> 
> 
> ( Sorry to clogging up this site talking about color pigments, it is just
> that this is the most
> intelligent and useful sites I've encountered. I'll try to end this topic
> now)
> 
> 
>  "I suspect you could just use the UC yellow and not do any harm to
> anything."
> Paul R.
> 
>  I guess that is the million dollar question for me right now.
> 
>  Paul this is what I would like to do to avoid changing the inkset
> altogether. Maybe I
> could use the Ultrachrome M Black or Ebony as well. But my primary
> challenge is not
> permanence beyond Ultrachrome or the original CF K ink, but reducing
> metamerism in the
> warm colors while also giving much greater saturation in those colors that
> contain yellow. I
> would have to come up with a chipped 10K cart and fill it with UC yellow
> which wouldn't
> be easy of course.
> 
> I guess what I don't understand at all is why I haven't heard others
> talking about this
> change. There are thousands of us out there that have fine running stable
> 10K machines
> that perform outstandingly except in this yellow channel oddity and Epson
> only
> "retrofitted" these machines for a very short period of time to Uc. Now
> they want you to
> replace the printer. They are so much faster than the 9600.
> 
> The short of the long of it is I would like not to have to completely
> change over to Lyson's
> Cave Paint, though that is a very strong possibility. Now that I work with
> the 9600 I just
> can't live with these CF reds anylonger, especially on rc media with
> skintones.
> 
> But if I end up wrecking my heads on a printer that is out of warranty,
> that would be worse
> than leaving the Epson inks behind altogether in favor of Cave Paints.
> 
> Is there any place that I can check to see if anyone has tried
> substituting the yellow or
> even the black channel on this inkset and leaving the others in place? I
> bet someone has.
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Thanks Paul, I always appreciate your honesty and experience.

John



-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <
paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> John,
> 
> I can't imagine you'd damage your printer by trying the UC yellow.  I run
> MIS, UC and Archival inks through all the smaller printers, and they all
> seem very similar and compatible.  I would guess the downside is simply 
that
> it won't give you the reds you want due to the Archival magenta still being
> there.
> 
> I wonder what Epson did when they "retrofitted" the printers for the UC inks
> -- besides make money on the process.  The UC inks carry a higher load of
> pigs, so the viscosity might be a bit higher.  However, from my
> measurements, all these inks are fairly close.  The only higher viscosity
> ink I've run into was the magenta.  The MIS 7600 M was a bit too high for
> the 1280, thus the "GP" inkset.  It didn't damage the printers as far as I
> know.  The yellow is not that likely to have too high a viscosity because it
> is the lightest (specific gravity) of the bunch.
> 
> I'm not familiar with the 10000, so I don't know what problems you might
> have with chips, etc.
> 
> Good luck with the experiment.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: john dean [mailto:deanwork2003@y...]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 3:25 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Substituting the Yellow CF ink in 10K for Yellow UC
> > or Lyson CP
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ( Sorry to clogging up this site talking about color pigments, it is just
> > that this is the most
> > intelligent and useful sites I've encountered. I'll try to end this topic
> > now)
> > 
> > 
> >  "I suspect you could just use the UC yellow and not do any harm to
> > anything."
> > Paul R.
> > 
> >  I guess that is the million dollar question for me right now.
> > 
> >  Paul this is what I would like to do to avoid changing the inkset
> > altogether. Maybe I
> > could use the Ultrachrome M Black or Ebony as well. But my primary
> > challenge is not
> > permanence beyond Ultrachrome or the original CF K ink, but reducing
> > metamerism in the
> > warm colors while also giving much greater saturation in those colors that
> > contain yellow. I
> > would have to come up with a chipped 10K cart and fill it with UC yellow
> > which wouldn't
> > be easy of course.
> > 
> > I guess what I don't understand at all is why I haven't heard others
> > talking about this
> > change. There are thousands of us out there that have fine running stable
> > 10K machines
> > that perform outstandingly except in this yellow channel oddity and Epson
> > only
> > "retrofitted" these machines for a very short period of time to Uc. Now
> > they want you to
> > replace the printer. They are so much faster than the 9600.
> > 
> > The short of the long of it is I would like not to have to completely
> > change over to Lyson's
> > Cave Paint, though that is a very strong possibility. Now that I work with
> > the 9600 I just
> > can't live with these CF reds anylonger, especially on rc media with
> > skintones.
> > 
> > But if I end up wrecking my heads on a printer that is out of warranty,
> > that would be worse
> > than leaving the Epson inks behind altogether in favor of Cave Paints.
> > 
> > Is there any place that I can check to see if anyone has tried
> > substituting the yellow or
> > even the black channel on this inkset and leaving the others in place? I
> > bet someone has.
> > 
> > Thanks again,
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >

Paul Roark wrote:

>John,
>
>I can't imagine you'd damage your printer by trying the UC yellow.  I run
>MIS, UC and Archival inks through all the smaller printers, and they all
>seem very similar and compatible.  I would guess the downside is simply that
>it won't give you the reds you want due to the Archival magenta still being
>there.
>
>  
>

>I wonder what Epson did when they "retrofitted" the printers for the UC inks
>-- besides make money on the process.  
>
To my knowledge Epson never retrofitted the 10K with UC inks, at least 
not the ones that were already delivered. There's no 10600 firmware 
either that can be uploaded to a 10K. This time Epson made money by 
selling new 10600's :-)

I don't think that exchanging the yellow only resolves much of the 
issues with the CF inks. Blues and reds are horrible if compared to the 
MIS 7600 inks, black has a low Dmax.

I'm running MIS 7600 inks in the 10K here.  There's a trick that you 
need to know when you want to refill the 10K cartridges and you also 
need the chip resetter. Mediastreet has empty 10K compatible carts 
though. But if you intend to use the 10600 inks + carts you need to 
replace the chip and it is very difficult to get them off the carts 
without damaging them.

I've used the left over yellow and lightmagenta 10K CF inks to mix a 
sepia for the Eposn 9000 last Friday and get no clogging so far.

Ernst

Paul Roark wrote:

>
>
>The Iris used rather fast-fading dyes.  That is why among some high end
>galleries I spoke with, the "Giclee," which is associated with the Iris, got
>a bad reputation.  That is one of the many reasons I avoid the use of that
>term.
>  
>

You are right on that. Pity though that Epson has a new concept for 
quality guarantee in inkjet printing that gets the name UltraGiclee. We 
will live with that name for another decade.

>  
>
>>HP is certainly doing something interesting with pigments in their 
>>thermal printers to achieve such ratings.
>>    
>>
>
>It may be that the main factor is currently the swellable paper.  What that
>does is pull the dye down into a chamber, where dries in more of a
>particulate form and is also protected by the paper emulsion.   It's, in
>effect, an encapsulated quasi-pigment particle (my terminology).
>
>Ultimately, the chemistry of mordants -- the substances that absorb or react
>with the dyes to make these quasi-pigments -- also holds great promise.
>Consider a 2-component, epoxy-like rock embedded in an emulsion that has
>also become very hard.  I think the potential is immense.  (I'm so glad to
>see Carly get fired.  Go to it HP inkjet tech guys!) 
>
>I think we'll benefit greatly by these big guys competing fiercely.  Canon
>is also not to be counted out.  These are some impressive players, and we
>benefit.
>
>One thing I like about the pigment approach, however, is the ability to use
>the traditional cellulose papers.  I still think carbon on cotton is the
>combination to beat.  That may not always be the case.
>  
>
Not related to the recent HP dye-coating technology but:
The first pigment inks were used in Encads etc GO type ink, HP has used 
black pigment in many inkjets and full CcMmYK pigment sets in the wide 
formats. So the use of pigment inks isn't limited to piezo heads. They 
all didn't have the gamut we like and which is available in the Epson UC 
and third party clones.  Piezo heads seem to be more suited for 
"thicker" inks in general, that includes sublimation inks for textiles, 
UV curing resin inks, heavier pigmented inks, etc

Competition between the big boys is a good thing. If compared to what 
almost a 100 years of analogue color photography has delivered in terms 
of fade resistance then we shouldn't complain too much. At least the 
biggest boy pays attention to that aspect, something the biggest boy in 
analogue photography used to neglect. Where HP will be in the printing 
industry in five years is hard to say. The competition isn't from Japan 
only, Dell wants a share and you may expect Chinese companies to join 
the Korean ones soon. The sign industry is already surprised by the 
number of Chinese Wide Format (up to 5 meter) printers that were brought 
to the market last year. Based on Xaar or Spectra piezo heads (UK) but 
nevertheless.

Ernst

Ernst:

> To my knowledge Epson never retrofitted the 10K with UC inks, at least 
> not the ones that were already delivered. There's no 10600 firmware 
> either that can be uploaded to a 10K. This time Epson made money by 
> selling new 10600's :-)
>  
 Actually Ernst they did offer a retrofit for a short period. If was a very slick 
move though. I had recently paid 10 grand for my 10KCF and Wilhelm was 
raving about how this inkset had changed photography forever. UC had just 
been revealed and all we knew or sure was that they had redeveloped the 
yellow to give greater gamut but that it cut the longevity in half.  Of course that 
was kind of a myth because the whole set was new. We also knew that it 
would lack the two black channel configuration and  so the 6 ink UC wouldn't 
help with any monochrome content. That didn't seem like a good move for me 
to pay them a grand or two, whatever they were charging then, for a change 
that I was totally  unclear about.   It was probably only for about 6 months that 
it was offered and not broadcast very loudly. Shortly after I remembr talking to 
an Epson rep on the phone about something else and he told me that it cost 
them too much to offer this program so they were stopping it. And then they 
gave you the nice opotion of retiring you new machine and buying the new 
model. So much for top of the line service.

> I don't think that exchanging the yellow only resolves much of the 
> issues with the CF inks. Blues and reds are horrible if compared to the 
> MIS 7600 inks, black has a low Dmax.
> 

You and Paul are probably correct here. I think it would definitely help some 
but the best solution is too change inksets altogether and begin anew. Did 
you know that Epson doesn't offer an OSX driver for their 10600 machine with 
Archival or even the dye inkst? I personally think they want to discourage the 
use of these inksets and retire them. Why else would they do that?

> I'm running MIS 7600 inks in the 10K here.  There's a trick that you 
> need to know when you want to refill the 10K cartridges and you also 
> need the chip resetter. Mediastreet has empty 10K compatible carts 
> though. But if you intend to use the 10600 inks + carts you need to 
> replace the chip and it is very difficult to get them off the carts 
> without damaging them.
> 

Ernst, How have your MIS 7600 pigments worked out for you? When I do very 
large things I just love the speed of this big machine.  What options for third 
party inksets do I have? Have you compared the pros and cons of each? The 
two people I've discussed the Cave Paints with rave about them and say they 
equal or surpass UC. I guess my options are MIS 7600, the Media street 
pigment, or the Cave Paint. I don't know anything about the permenence tests 
on any of these. Lyson's own pr and information on their own product is so 
bad I have to find out through the grapevine about them, but I think they are 
good. None of these third party offerings have the polymer encaptulation 
pigments that Epson patented. The one very fine thing about that original CF 
inkset is the lack of cloggs. My machine has been trouble free for 3.5 years 
with daily useage and not one single clog. I never shaked the carts. They did 
that right.

Thanks guys,

John

john dean wrote:

>
>Ernst, How have your MIS 7600 pigments worked out for you? When I do very 
>large things I just love the speed of this big machine.  What options for third 
>party inksets do I have? Have you compared the pros and cons of each? The 
>two people I've discussed the Cave Paints with rave about them and say they 
>equal or surpass UC. I guess my options are MIS 7600, the Media street 
>pigment, or the Cave Paint. I don't know anything about the permenence tests 
>on any of these. Lyson's own pr and information on their own product is so 
>bad I have to find out through the grapevine about them, but I think they are 
>good. None of these third party offerings have the polymer encaptulation 
>pigments that Epson patented. The one very fine thing about that original CF 
>inkset is the lack of cloggs. My machine has been trouble free for 3.5 years 
>with daily useage and not one single clog. I never shaked the carts. They did 
>that right.
>  
>
At the time the chip resetter became available, MIS had its inks ready 
too. MIS also had the quad inks. Most of the time a friend orders and I 
get my ink from him, sometimes it goes the other way around. It is 
expensive for us to buy from several US suppliers. He has two 9600 
running the MIS 7600.
There were some other clone producers but their price wasn't as nice. 
Mediastreet's clone wasn't there yet but my experience with their 
Generations ink has always been good. They have 10K carts. I am no fan 
of Lyson for a long time, for several reasons but that's an old story.

I'm using the MIS 7600 inks in the 10K a friend uses them for about a 
year I guess in two 9600's. They are not without problems but that's 
mainly the heads getting filthy at the paper side.  Enough printing 
helps to keep the pigments from settling. The higher pigment load has an 
influence on the stability of the total system. It could well be the 
same with the 10600. So strictly comparing it with a 10KCF isn't correct.

Ernst