Digital BW, The Print

With all the well warranted talk of the value and quality of the Epson
2400, and its Epson K3 inks, I was hoping to see more reference to the
now, finally (finally) available MIS K4 ink alternatives. 

Would new profiles and much much testing, adjusting, compensating and
perhaps even compromise need to get the MIS version of the Epson 2400
inks to work ? (as had been the case with earlier MIS pigment
formulations)  I am speaking of all the colors of inks here. 

A concern is that perhaps MIS has not found a way to replicate or
actually match the economic might of Epson in the formulation of the
K4 inks. 

Microencapsulation is a process, as I have looked up, that is used for
a number of different chemical activities, quite apart from pigment
enhancement. This seems to be the salient element, or value, of the
Epson 2400 inkset.

If one were a conspiracy theorist one might look at the history of
Epson and see that when low cost generic plastic cartridges were
eventually manufactured, Epson switched to chipped cartridges. It took
longer to break through that barrier for the generics, but is it now
fully accomplished. I have no substantiation other than speculation,
but might Epson have given up on chips and decided that the toughest
component for imitators or generic manufacturers to emulate or
replicate could be a highly sophisticated ink formulation. Which would
be patentable at that. And might MIS not be in a position to be able
accomplish this, particularly as I have seen said here that the new K4
inks are just the 2200 inks with some newer blacks. 

In any event, and speaking of all the colors, as this is the only
qualified group that I know of, and in light of the paucity of info re
the MIS K4, all colors, inks - 
Would new profiles and much much testing, adjusting, compensating and
perhaps even compromise be needed to get the K4 MIS version of the
Epson K3 2400 inks to 95% of the end print success of the original
Epson 2400 K3 inks ?

Thanks,
Jerry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jerry78008"
<photo29@p...> wrote:
<particularly as I have seen said here that the new K4 inks are just
the 2200 inks with some newer blacks. 

Jerry: I have no first hand knowledge about K4 but MIS says their
latest 2200 color inks (MIS PRO)will not work in a 2400. I even called
and asked after reading it on their web site. I said that the MIS PRO
worked in a 1280 so why won't it work in a 2400. Pam said "trust us,
will not work". She also say their K4 will not work in a 2200. Now I
don't know her to be as smart as Bob Zeiss, but she is their customer
service rep now. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Michaels" 
<bob@b...> wrote:
> Pam said "trust us,
> will not work". She also say their K4 will not work in a 2200. Now I
> don't know her to be as smart as Bob Zeiss, but she is their 
customer
> service rep now. 
> 
> Bob Michaels
>

Well it won't work because of the extra light black, but that should 
be about the only thing that is different. Maybe the light magenta 
and the light cyan are different enough to make things difficult, but 
it's unlikely.

Jerry

I cannot answers your question with regards the K4 inks but I did recently do a 
comparison with MIS Pro vs Epson ink in a 2100.  My friends 2100 had MIS Pro ink and 
mine Epson ink. I  made profiles for Olmec Satin with my EyeOne using the same settings 
for each setup. We then printer the same test chart from each printer. Looking at the test 
print side by side it was hard to see much difference. The MIS print looked to us just as 
good as the Epson print. We were both very impressed by the MIS print. We also both 
thought that the MIS print exhibited less metamerism than the Epson print. Apart from 
making a custom profile there was no hassle in using the MIS ink. 

One of the reasons for doing the test is that I upgraded my printer recently to the 2400 
and like yourself I'm interested in the K4 inks. The result of our simple test has given me 
confidence to try the K4 inks when I have used up my stock of Epson ink.

Just for interest we also printed the same test print on my 2400 with K3 Epson inks. The 
2400 print was the clear winner. The print showed slightly more detail and saturation but 
the real difference was that there was no metamerism. It showed quite clearly why the 
2400 is so good at BW compared to the 2100. 

Hope this helps.

Regards Peter.

Greg: I asked MIS if I could buy just the LK and the LLK and use my
existing MIS PRO (2200 ink) and Eboni in a 2400. They said no that
their 2200 clone color (MIS PRO) would not work in a 2400, even with
custom profiles. I asked the direct question and got a direct answer. 
Again, this wasn't Bob Zeiss, it was Pam. So possibly she is wrong. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:

>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Michaels" 
> <bob@b...> wrote:
> > Pam said "trust us,
> > will not work". She also say their K4 will not work in a 2200. Now I
> > don't know her to be as smart as Bob Zeiss, but she is their 
> customer
> > service rep now. 
> > 
> > Bob Michaels
> >
> 
> Well it won't work because of the extra light black, but that should 
> be about the only thing that is different. Maybe the light magenta 
> and the light cyan are different enough to make things difficult, but 
> it's unlikely.
>

Peter: my excellent experience with the MIS PRO matches yours. I use
it in a 1280. That's why I was hoping the MIS PRO and the K4 were the
same. Unfortunately, MIS says the MIS PRO is not usable in a 2400. 

Anyone got a report on how the K4 does?

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwbonkers"
<PeterDLevis@a...> wrote:
>
> Jerry
> 
> I cannot answers your question with regards the K4 inks but I did
recently do a 
> comparison with MIS Pro vs Epson ink in a 2100.  My friends 2100 had
MIS Pro ink and 
> mine Epson ink. I  made profiles for Olmec Satin with my EyeOne
using the same settings 
> for each setup. We then printer the same test chart from each
printer. Looking at the test 
> print side by side it was hard to see much difference. The MIS print
looked to us just as 
> good as the Epson print. We were both very impressed by the MIS
print. We also both 
> thought that the MIS print exhibited less metamerism than the Epson
print. Apart from 
> making a custom profile there was no hassle in using the MIS ink. 
> 
> One of the reasons for doing the test is that I upgraded my printer
recently to the 2400 
> and like yourself I'm interested in the K4 inks. The result of our
simple test has given me 
> confidence to try the K4 inks when I have used up my stock of Epson ink.
> 
> Just for interest we also printed the same test print on my 2400
with K3 Epson inks. The 
> 2400 print was the clear winner. The print showed slightly more
detail and saturation but 
> the real difference was that there was no metamerism. It showed
quite clearly why the 

> 2400 is so good at BW compared to the 2100. 
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Regards Peter.
>

Bob

I guess what you wanted to do was just buy the extra K4 LLK ink + your 
existing MIS Pro inks for use in your 2400. Save you having two sets of 
inks. I cannot see why it shouldn't work providing you make a custom 
profile. I guess most people who buy from MIS just want an exact 
replacement ink so they can use generic Epson profiles. Maybe thats why 
they told you it wouldn't work. I think you should press them further. 
I find it hard to believe that PK MIS Pro ink is different to PK K4 
ink. I bet Eboni ink is the same in both ink sets. Maybe the LC/LM are 
different in K4 because they would be formulated to neutralise PK (or 
Eboni),LK and LLK for B&W work. However I'm just guessing. 

Lets us know if you find out anymore.

Peter.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwbonkers" 
<PeterDLevis@a...> wrote:
>
> Bob
> 
> I guess what you wanted to do was just buy the extra K4 LLK ink + 
your 
> existing MIS Pro inks for use in your 2400. Save you having two 
sets of 
> inks. I cannot see why it shouldn't work providing you make a 
custom 
> profile. I guess most people who buy from MIS just want an exact 
> replacement ink so they can use generic Epson profiles. Maybe thats 
why 
> they told you it wouldn't work. I think you should press them 
further. 
> I find it hard to believe that PK MIS Pro ink is different to PK K4 
> ink. I bet Eboni ink is the same in both ink sets. Maybe the LC/LM 
are 
> different in K4 because they would be formulated to neutralise PK 
(or 
> Eboni),LK and LLK for B&W work. However I'm just guessing. 
> 
> Lets us know if you find out anymore.
> 
> Peter.
>

I'm sure the PK is different, and I'm guessing that the LC and LM 
might be the problem too. You might be able to use the 2400 set in 
the older printers. I'm sure Eboni would work to a certain degree. I 
just find it hard to believe that the MIS Pro is so much different 
from the K42 or whatever they want to call it. If you flush out the 
old ink with cleaning fluid, it should be safe enough to try. Flush 
again to switch back. 

Other than that, I don't have much more to offer since I don't use 
MIS inks anymore.

I've been using the MIS k4 inks in my 2400, both with MK (Eboni) and  
PK (mostly the latter).  I provided some comparisons of Epson k3 and  
MIS k4  density measurements  in an earlier thread (see links below),  
but the bottom line is that Epson k3 PK dmax is slightly higher  
compared to MIS PK4 on the same papers.  Dmax differences between  
Epson k3 MK and MIS Eboni are dependant on the paper, in some cases  
Eboni exhibits higher dmax on 3rd party papers and Epson k3 MK does  
better on Epson papers (VFA in particular).  On the RC papers with  
MIS k4 inks surface gloss is noticeably less compared to Epson k3  
inks on the same papers (a plus in my book) and on my two favorite RC  
papers (Epson Premium Semimatte and Pictorico Premium Photo Glossy)  
there is no bronzing or gloss differential as well.  The MIS R2-PKN  
can also be used if you want a cooler black and slightly higher  
dmax.  I've only made a few color prints on Epson Premium Semimatte  
(I made my own profile) with the k4 inks, but they look great and I  
see no difference compared to Epson k3, other than less gloss and  
slightly lower dmax.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/70576
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/70648

Carl

On Dec 12, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Bob Michaels wrote:

> Peter: my excellent experience with the MIS PRO matches yours. I use
> it in a 1280. That's why I was hoping the MIS PRO and the K4 were the
> same. Unfortunately, MIS says the MIS PRO is not usable in a 2400.
>
> Anyone got a report on how the K4 does?
>
> Bob Michaels
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwbonkers"
> <PeterDLevis@a...> wrote:
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> I cannot answers your question with regards the K4 inks but I did
> recently do a
>> comparison with MIS Pro vs Epson ink in a 2100.  My friends 2100 had
> MIS Pro ink and
>> mine Epson ink. I  made profiles for Olmec Satin with my EyeOne
> using the same settings
>> for each setup. We then printer the same test chart from each
> printer. Looking at the test
>> print side by side it was hard to see much difference. The MIS print
> looked to us just as
>> good as the Epson print. We were both very impressed by the MIS
> print. We also both
>> thought that the MIS print exhibited less metamerism than the Epson
> print. Apart from
>> making a custom profile there was no hassle in using the MIS ink.
>>
>> One of the reasons for doing the test is that I upgraded my printer
> recently to the 2400
>> and like yourself I'm interested in the K4 inks. The result of our
> simple test has given me
>> confidence to try the K4 inks when I have used up my stock of  
>> Epson ink.
>>
>> Just for interest we also printed the same test print on my 2400
> with K3 Epson inks. The
>> 2400 print was the clear winner. The print showed slightly more
> detail and saturation but
>> the real difference was that there was no metamerism. It showed
> quite clearly why the
>> 2400 is so good at BW compared to the 2100.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Regards Peter.
>
>

I've been using the MIS k4 inks in my 2400, both with MK (Eboni) and PK (mostly the 
latter).  I provided some comparisons of Epson k3 and MIS k4  density measurements  in 
an earlier thread (see links below), but the bottom line is that Epson k3 PK dmax is slightly 
higher compared to MIS PK4 on the same papers.  Dmax differences between Epson k3 MK 
and MIS Eboni are dependant on the paper, in some cases Eboni exhibits higher dmax on 
3rd party papers and Epson k3 MK does better on Epson papers (VFA in particular).  On the 
RC papers with MIS k4 inks surface gloss is noticeably less compared to Epson k3 inks on 
the same papers (a plus in my book) and on my two favorite RC papers (Epson Premium 
Semimatte and Pictorico Premium Photo Glossy) there is no bronzing or gloss differential 
as well.  The MIS R2-PKN can also be used if you want a cooler black and slightly higher 
dmax.  I've only made a few color prints on Epson Premium Semimatte (I made my own 
profile) with the k4 inks, but they look great and I see no difference compared to Epson 
k3, other than less gloss and slightly lower dmax.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/70576
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/70648

Carl

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

>
> Peter: my excellent experience with the MIS PRO matches yours. I use
> it in a 1280. That's why I was hoping the MIS PRO and the K4 were the
> same. Unfortunately, MIS says the MIS PRO is not usable in a 2400. 
> 
> Anyone got a report on how the K4 does?
> 
> Bob Michaels
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwbonkers"
> <PeterDLevis@a...> wrote:
> >
> > Jerry
> > 
> > I cannot answers your question with regards the K4 inks but I did
> recently do a 
> > comparison with MIS Pro vs Epson ink in a 2100.  My friends 2100 had
> MIS Pro ink and 
> > mine Epson ink. I  made profiles for Olmec Satin with my EyeOne
> using the same settings 
> > for each setup. We then printer the same test chart from each
> printer. Looking at the test 
> > print side by side it was hard to see much difference. The MIS print
> looked to us just as 
> > good as the Epson print. We were both very impressed by the MIS
> print. We also both 
> > thought that the MIS print exhibited less metamerism than the Epson
> print. Apart from 
> > making a custom profile there was no hassle in using the MIS ink. 
> > 
> > One of the reasons for doing the test is that I upgraded my printer
> recently to the 2400 
> > and like yourself I'm interested in the K4 inks. The result of our
> simple test has given me 
> > confidence to try the K4 inks when I have used up my stock of Epson ink.
> > 
> > Just for interest we also printed the same test print on my 2400
> with K3 Epson inks. The 
> > 2400 print was the clear winner. The print showed slightly more
> detail and saturation but 
> > the real difference was that there was no metamerism. It showed
> quite clearly why the 
> > 2400 is so good at BW compared to the 2100. 
> > 
> > Hope this helps.
> > 
> > Regards Peter.
> >
>

I am planning to use Semi-Matte paper with my 2400. I have also
purchased the MIS K4 inkset but after reading your comments on R2-PKN
versus K4-PK, I am questioning whether I bought the right PK.

Is the ink load on the R2-PKN and K4-PK the same? Why do you think you
getting higher DMAX on the R2-PKN versus K4-PK?

Is the tone on Semi-Matte more neutral with the R2-PKN or just higher
DMAX or both when compared to K4-PK?

Also is the lack of bronzing and metamerism that you noticed with
K4-PKN, the same with R2-PKN?

Thanks.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
<scho@m...> wrote:

>
> I've been using the MIS k4 inks in my 2400, both with MK (Eboni) and  
> PK (mostly the latter).  I provided some comparisons of Epson k3 and  
> MIS k4  density measurements  in an earlier thread (see links below),  
> but the bottom line is that Epson k3 PK dmax is slightly higher  
> compared to MIS PK4 on the same papers.  Dmax differences between  
> Epson k3 MK and MIS Eboni are dependant on the paper, in some cases  
> Eboni exhibits higher dmax on 3rd party papers and Epson k3 MK does  
> better on Epson papers (VFA in particular).  On the RC papers with  
> MIS k4 inks surface gloss is noticeably less compared to Epson k3  
> inks on the same papers (a plus in my book) and on my two favorite RC  
> papers (Epson Premium Semimatte and Pictorico Premium Photo Glossy)  
> there is no bronzing or gloss differential as well.  The MIS R2-PKN  
> can also be used if you want a cooler black and slightly higher  
> dmax.  I've only made a few color prints on Epson Premium Semimatte  
> (I made my own profile) with the k4 inks, but they look great and I  
> see no difference compared to Epson k3, other than less gloss and  
> slightly lower dmax.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/70576
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/70648
> 
> Carl
> 
> On Dec 12, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Bob Michaels wrote:
> 
> > Peter: my excellent experience with the MIS PRO matches yours. I use
> > it in a 1280. That's why I was hoping the MIS PRO and the K4 were the
> > same. Unfortunately, MIS says the MIS PRO is not usable in a 2400.
> >
> > Anyone got a report on how the K4 does?
> >
> > Bob Michaels
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwbonkers"
> > <PeterDLevis@a...> wrote:
> >>
> >> Jerry
> >>
> >> I cannot answers your question with regards the K4 inks but I did
> > recently do a
> >> comparison with MIS Pro vs Epson ink in a 2100.  My friends 2100 had
> > MIS Pro ink and
> >> mine Epson ink. I  made profiles for Olmec Satin with my EyeOne
> > using the same settings
> >> for each setup. We then printer the same test chart from each
> > printer. Looking at the test
> >> print side by side it was hard to see much difference. The MIS print
> > looked to us just as
> >> good as the Epson print. We were both very impressed by the MIS
> > print. We also both
> >> thought that the MIS print exhibited less metamerism than the Epson
> > print. Apart from
> >> making a custom profile there was no hassle in using the MIS ink.
> >>
> >> One of the reasons for doing the test is that I upgraded my printer
> > recently to the 2400
> >> and like yourself I'm interested in the K4 inks. The result of our
> > simple test has given me
> >> confidence to try the K4 inks when I have used up my stock of  
> >> Epson ink.
> >>
> >> Just for interest we also printed the same test print on my 2400
> > with K3 Epson inks. The
> >> 2400 print was the clear winner. The print showed slightly more
> > detail and saturation but
> >> the real difference was that there was no metamerism. It showed
> > quite clearly why the
> >> 2400 is so good at BW compared to the 2100.
> >>
> >> Hope this helps.
> >>
> >> Regards Peter.
> >
> >
>

I am using the MIS K4 PK ink with semi-matte.  I had some trouble  
getting smooth tonal transition with the R2-PKN so I switched back to  
the K4 PK ink.  All of the semi-matte profiles I posted are for use  
with the K4 PK.

http://homepage.mac.com/scho/FileSharing3.html

On Dec 25, 2005, at 7:34 AM, mambo445 wrote:

> I am planning to use Semi-Matte paper with my 2400. I have also
> purchased the MIS K4 inkset but after reading your comments on R2-PKN
> versus K4-PK, I am questioning whether I bought the right PK.
>
> Is the ink load on the R2-PKN and K4-PK the same? Why do you think you
> getting higher DMAX on the R2-PKN versus K4-PK?
>
> Is the tone on Semi-Matte more neutral with the R2-PKN or just higher
> DMAX or both when compared to K4-PK?
>
> Also is the lack of bronzing and metamerism that you noticed with
> K4-PKN, the same with R2-PKN?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
> <scho@m...> wrote:
>>
>> I've been using the MIS k4 inks in my 2400, both with MK (Eboni) and
>> PK (mostly the latter).  I provided some comparisons of Epson k3 and
>> MIS k4  density measurements  in an earlier thread (see links below),
>> but the bottom line is that Epson k3 PK dmax is slightly higher
>> compared to MIS PK4 on the same papers.  Dmax differences between
>> Epson k3 MK and MIS Eboni are dependant on the paper, in some cases
>> Eboni exhibits higher dmax on 3rd party papers and Epson k3 MK does
>> better on Epson papers (VFA in particular).  On the RC papers with
>> MIS k4 inks surface gloss is noticeably less compared to Epson k3
>> inks on the same papers (a plus in my book) and on my two favorite RC
>> papers (Epson Premium Semimatte and Pictorico Premium Photo Glossy)
>> there is no bronzing or gloss differential as well.  The MIS R2-PKN
>> can also be used if you want a cooler black and slightly higher
>> dmax.  I've only made a few color prints on Epson Premium Semimatte
>> (I made my own profile) with the k4 inks, but they look great and I
>> see no difference compared to Epson k3, other than less gloss and
>> slightly lower dmax.
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/ 
>> 70576
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/ 
>> 70648
>>
>> Carl
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Bob Michaels wrote:
>>
>>> Peter: my excellent experience with the MIS PRO matches yours. I use
>>> it in a 1280. That's why I was hoping the MIS PRO and the K4 were  
>>> the
>>> same. Unfortunately, MIS says the MIS PRO is not usable in a 2400.
>>>
>>> Anyone got a report on how the K4 does?
>>>
>>> Bob Michaels
>>>
>>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwbonkers"
>>> <PeterDLevis@a...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>>
>>>> I cannot answers your question with regards the K4 inks but I did
>>> recently do a
>>>> comparison with MIS Pro vs Epson ink in a 2100.  My friends 2100  
>>>> had
>>> MIS Pro ink and
>>>> mine Epson ink. I  made profiles for Olmec Satin with my EyeOne
>>> using the same settings
>>>> for each setup. We then printer the same test chart from each
>>> printer. Looking at the test
>>>> print side by side it was hard to see much difference. The MIS  
>>>> print
>>> looked to us just as
>>>> good as the Epson print. We were both very impressed by the MIS
>>> print. We also both
>>>> thought that the MIS print exhibited less metamerism than the Epson
>>> print. Apart from
>>>> making a custom profile there was no hassle in using the MIS ink.
>>>>
>>>> One of the reasons for doing the test is that I upgraded my printer
>>> recently to the 2400
>>>> and like yourself I'm interested in the K4 inks. The result of our
>>> simple test has given me
>>>> confidence to try the K4 inks when I have used up my stock of
>>>> Epson ink.
>>>>
>>>> Just for interest we also printed the same test print on my 2400
>>> with K3 Epson inks. The
>>>> 2400 print was the clear winner. The print showed slightly more
>>> detail and saturation but
>>>> the real difference was that there was no metamerism. It showed
>>> quite clearly why the
>>>> 2400 is so good at BW compared to the 2100.
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>
>>>> Regards Peter.