Digital BW, The Print

OK so before I ever got the UT7s to give me a good nozzle check the
2200 decided not to recognize most of them as even being there.

I can't do another test or clean or check because the printer thinks
they are empty or heaven forbid 3rd party and it won't recognize them.

At first it liked them in there, now not so much.

Where do I go from here.  Maybe return them to MIS but why did they do
it?  The chips are on the carts. Removing and reinstalling them makes
no difference. Putting the OE carts back in and them reinstalling MIS
makes no difference. It likes the OE carts but not the UT7s.

Ideas?

Thanks

Neil

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "neilsphoto" <neilsphoto@y...> 
wrote:
> 
> OK so before I ever got the UT7s to give me a good nozzle check the
> 2200 decided not to recognize most of them as even being there.
> 
> I can't do another test or clean or check because the printer thinks
> they are empty or heaven forbid 3rd party and it won't recognize them.
> 
> At first it liked them in there, now not so much.
> 
> Where do I go from here.  Maybe return them to MIS but why did they do
> it?  The chips are on the carts. Removing and reinstalling them makes
> no difference. Putting the OE carts back in and them reinstalling MIS
> makes no difference. It likes the OE carts but not the UT7s.
> 
> Ideas?

Why can't this industry get black and white right???!!!  It seems so obvious to me as a 
frustrated power user what needs to be done.  The good ideas that are out there simply 
need to be properly implemented and combined with the right materials:

Cone and MIS have the right idea about creating quad, hex or septone prints with carbon 
pigment inks, but they cannot get the manufacturing of those inks right at all.  There is no 
reason that a serious, high-production printmaker should have to battle constant 
clogging, run humidifiers, do rain dances and cancel important museum shows for the 
privilege of using their faulty inks.

Epson clearly knows how to manufacture pigment inks that do not clog, but they have too 
much of a big corporate one-size-fits-all mentality to bother with B&W.  Are you listening 
Epson???!!!  All they would have to do is create various dilutions of their "light black" ink, 
which is nearly the same as Cone's "Carbon Sepia."  For a cool tone set, a little dye or 
another pigment would just have to be added.

Lyson also has an excellent concept with their "Daylight Darkroom," a quad set plus low-
gamut CMY for variable toning (I used to make Iris prints with Omnitone low-gamut CMYK 
and it is an excellent solution for variable toning B&W).  Unfortunately, Lyson is using 
inferior dye inks that exhibit metamerism and do poorly in fade tests (I have tested them 
myself).  Why can't they figure out the obvious: take the same concept and do it with 
pigment inks???!!!  Can't they see the metamerism???!!!  I could see it within 60 seconds of 
opening their package of sample prints!  How could they invest all that time and money in 
Daylight Darkroom and not notice that the inks have metamerism and fade quickly???!!!

Or why doesn't Epson take Lyson's idea and do it with their own pigment inks that do not 
clog???!!!

Why don't these companies get master photographers and printmakers involved in the 
R&D process???!!!

Good luck trying to get MIS to reimburse you for their faulty cartridges!

Absolutely right on, Bro. I second your rant. Your first clue that 
something is amiss is that lack of a positive "click" on insertion. 

The UT7 tech guy I spoke with about this problem of (my words 
here...) "cheapo, junky-designed" cartridges that will or will not
mate 
their chips properly in the ink chamber depending on what voodoo 
incantation is chanted, offered me his only solution:  He said to jam
a 
piece of mat board down the front of the installed cartridge to push
it 
back into its proper seat. Amazing. (But it worked for me.)

Hmm, I'll bet ALL commercial print houses are climate controlled.

Why doesn't Lyson change THEIR ink to last like Epson's?  It's all
rhetorical.  If it all worked out of the box without need help, this list
might go away.  THEN who would we talk to <GGG>?

Seth


==-----Original Message-----
==From: joelpickford [mailto:joelpickford@...] 
==
==Cone and MIS have the right idea about creating quad, hex or 
==septone prints with carbon pigment inks, but they cannot get 
==the manufacturing of those inks right at all.  There is no 
==reason that a serious, high-production printmaker should have 
==to battle constant clogging, run humidifiers, do rain dances 
==and cancel important museum shows for the privilege of using 
==their faulty inks.
==
--snip--
==
==Lyson also has an excellent concept with their "Daylight 
==Darkroom," a quad set plus low- gamut CMY for variable toning 
==(I used to make Iris prints with Omnitone low-gamut CMYK and 
==it is an excellent solution for variable toning B&W).  
==Unfortunately, Lyson is using inferior dye inks that exhibit 
==metamerism and do poorly in fade tests (I have tested them 
==myself).  Why can't they figure out the obvious: take the 
--snip--
==
==Or why doesn't Epson take Lyson's idea and do it with their 
==own pigment inks that do not clog???!!!
==

Joel,

Because so few people would buy them, Epson would not sell enough of them or 
of their inks to make a profit. Quite simple!

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joelpickford" <joelpickford@...>

Why can't this industry get black and white right???!!!  It seems so obvious 
to me as a
frustrated power user what needs to be done.  The good ideas that are out 
there simply
need to be properly implemented and combined with the right materials:


Epson clearly knows how to manufacture pigment inks that do not clog, but 
they have too
much of a big corporate one-size-fits-all mentality to bother with B&W.  Are 
you listening
Epson???!!!  All they would have to do is create various dilutions of their 
"light black" ink,
which is nearly the same as Cone's "Carbon Sepia."  For a cool tone set, a 
little dye or
another pigment would just have to be added.

I might add that I published a formula for a UC-based UT7 clone.  One small
company evaluated it and concluded they could not make money with it.

If I thought it was the Holy Grail of inks, I'd be using it.  When the inks
are purchased in the largest carts available, the costs are not outrageous.
But, the MIS pigs did significantly better in my fade tests unless the
UC-based quad prints were sprayed with PremierArt Print Shield, which lowers
the dmax of matte prints.  (The MIS inks act like their base already has
some UV absorbing and/or sealing characteristics.)

So, since I really don't have any significant trouble with MIS inks, for me
they are better and easier than the Epson inks -- not to mention much
cheaper.

On the other hand, for someone who is just not comfortable with third party
inks, UC-based inksets are definitely possible.  If there was enough demand
from them, one of the companies would mix them.  Any one can do the mixing,
and the ink can be filtered as it is loaded into carts (really only relevant
for large format printers).

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

>> From: Bob Frost [mailto:bob@...]
> 
>> Because so few people would buy them, Epson would 
>>not sell enough of them or
>> of their inks to make a profit. Quite simple!


> From: "joelpickford" <joelpickford@...>
> 
> Why can't this industry get black and white right???!!!  
>It seems so obvious to me as a
> frustrated power user what needs to be done.  
>The good ideas that are out there simply
> need to be properly implemented and combined with the right materials:
> 
> 
> Epson clearly knows how to manufacture pigment inks that do not clog, 
>but they have too
> much of a big corporate one-size-fits-all mentality to bother with B&W.
> Are you listening Epson???!!!  
>All they would have to do is create various dilutions of their
> "light black" ink,
> which is nearly the same as Cone's "Carbon Sepia."  
>For a cool tone set, a little dye or
> another pigment would just have to be added.
>