Digital BW, The Print

Paul,

I read your post with the fade figures and had a few questions on 
interpretation.

You gave hour figures and though there was a difference between the 
two ink sets, the *absolute* amount of fading was quite minimal on 
the K3, or so it seemed to me.  So I'm wondering what you think the 
significance of this is over real time.  

Also your figures were for unglazed prints (I gather) and I'm 
wondering about the effect of glazing on both the absolute and the 
relative figures.  I notice in Wihelm figures that glazing provides a 
protection factor varying from about 1.4 to 1.8, which is a big 
difference between paper/ink combinations.

Finally I wonder about the assumption of linearity--that early 
results will be linearly extended over time.  I expect these are 
curves.

I think you also mentioned that any "toning" with the Epson controls 
increases the use of color inks, but I'm not sure this is true, at 
least for certain colors.  In using an ABW setting of -12 -16 for the 
USFA (which gives a pretty neutral gray), the usage of yellow in the 
4800 has dropped to about that of the cyan and magenta, which is say 
it is used mostly for cleaning cycles.  The light magenta and light 
cyan levels seem about what they are without tone adjustment.

Thanks,
Walt

Walt,

> I read your post with the fade figures and had a few questions on
> interpretation.
> 
> You gave hour figures and though there was a difference between the
> two ink sets, the *absolute* amount of fading was quite minimal on
> the K3, or so it seemed to me.  So I'm wondering what you think the
> significance of this is over real time.

I think all of the tested inksets are very good and would not have serious
fading in good display conditions for a very long time.  On the other hand,
we also know that in poor display conditions fading can be much faster.
It's not unusual for prints in real world display to get some occasional
direct sun.  Many are still skeptical that inkjet prints are really stable
enough.  So, the more lightfast the better as far as I'm concerned, and the
fact that the blended MIS inks had only 1/3 the fade of the k3 ABW, to me,
is significant. 

> Also your figures were for unglazed prints (I gather)

Yes.

> and I'm
> wondering about the effect of glazing on both the absolute and the
> relative figures.  I notice in Wihelm figures that glazing provides a
> protection factor varying from about 1.4 to 1.8, which is a big
> difference between paper/ink combinations.

I have no doubt the glazing helps.  I have no information as to whether the
relative rankings would change, but I frankly doubt it.


> Finally I wonder about the assumption of linearity--that early
> results will be linearly extended over time.  I expect these are
> curves.

All the information I have suggests the non-linearity is mostly at the
beginning of the process.  I doubt there is exact linearity, but I'm just
not going to worry about it for what I do. 

> I think you also mentioned that any "toning" with the Epson controls
> increases the use of color inks, but I'm not sure this is true, at
> least for certain colors.  In using an ABW setting of -12 -16 for the
> USFA (which gives a pretty neutral gray), the usage of yellow in the
> 4800 has dropped to about that of the cyan and magenta, which is say
> it is used mostly for cleaning cycles.  The light magenta and light
> cyan levels seem about what they are without tone adjustment.

I have not tried to quantify how much color is used for various settings.
The "neutral" ABW seemed like a logical one to use for comparative testing.
So, that is what I did.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that one inkset is better or worse than
another.  I do tests like this for my own purposes.  To the extent others
can glean useful information from them, all the better.  For my purposes,
the test answered the question of whether it was worth my time to make a
dedicated B&W inkset for the 2400.  It is.  So, I'll see what I can come up
with this next year.   

More, longer, and better testing would, of course, be even more helpful, but
life and resources are just too short to wait for such -- they just are not
going to happen.  So, I try to move forward with the best I can do within a
reasonable time.  

I think the more of these types of tests we have the better.  Sadly,
however, it appears some have become too concerned with pressure and threats
of litigation to keep their results on the web.  See
http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm   Many probably thought Livick's
rating of a coated UT2 print at 600+ years as off the wall, but it's rather
in the same league with the relative performances I've seen.  The third
party B&W pigments that I've tested -- specifically the MIS UTs and
Piezotones -- appear to be very lightfast.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hello Paul,

>the test answered the question of whether it was worth my time 
>to make a dedicated B&W inkset for the 2400.  It is.  So, I'll 
>see what I can come up with this next year.   

This is great news, I've been hoping to hear you say this.  With ABW
we got the kind of tool/workflow I had been hoping for "someday".  A
dedicated BW inkset will be the final piece in place for the killer
solution we could only dream of a few short years ago.  Thank you for
all that you do for the BW printing community.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Paul-

Thanks for the response on my questions.  I asked them because I too 
am uncomfortable, in principle, with the use of pure color inks in BW 
printing (as with the K3s).  What I wanted was a sense of the real 
world significance of a L* 0.70 difference in fade given your 
light/time exposure.  

This question arises for me partly because such an absolute 
difference is very small and almost within measurement-to-measurement 
error (at least with the i1) and well within print-to-print variation 
(with the 2400 or 4800).  To put it a little differently, this would 
be a density change in a "pure black" on PHP from something like 1.69 
to 1.66 (my conversion is not exact).  So if this were the difference 
between the two ink sets *over the display life* of a print, it 
wouldn't bother me.

The second reason the question arises is that I don't know what you 
estimate your exposure to be relative to the total display life of a 
print.  Is the difference you report just the "beginning of the 
story," (i.e., what would happen in the first year or two of display) 
or is it estimated performance over 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 years?   If 
the former, I would find this significant, if the latter I probably 
wouldn't.

Incidentally, what are you measuring?  A black patch, a 50% patch, an 
average of all, etc.?

Thanks again,
Walt

   


  

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
>
> Walt,
> 
> > I read your post with the fade figures and had a few questions on
> > interpretation.
> > 
> > You gave hour figures and though there was a difference between 
the
> > two ink sets, the *absolute* amount of fading was quite minimal on
> > the K3, or so it seemed to me.  So I'm wondering what you think 
the
> > significance of this is over real time.
> 
> I think all of the tested inksets are very good and would not have 
serious
> fading in good display conditions for a very long time.  On the 
other hand,
> we also know that in poor display conditions fading can be much 
faster.
> It's not unusual for prints in real world display to get some 
occasional
> direct sun.  Many are still skeptical that inkjet prints are really 
stable
> enough.  So, the more lightfast the better as far as I'm concerned, 
and the
> fact that the blended MIS inks had only 1/3 the fade of the k3 ABW, 
to me,
> is significant. 
> 
> > Also your figures were for unglazed prints (I gather)
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > and I'm
> > wondering about the effect of glazing on both the absolute and the
> > relative figures.  I notice in Wihelm figures that glazing 
provides a
> > protection factor varying from about 1.4 to 1.8, which is a big
> > difference between paper/ink combinations.
> 
> I have no doubt the glazing helps.  I have no information as to 
whether the
> relative rankings would change, but I frankly doubt it.
> 
> 
> > Finally I wonder about the assumption of linearity--that early
> > results will be linearly extended over time.  I expect these are
> > curves.
> 
> All the information I have suggests the non-linearity is mostly at 
the
> beginning of the process.  I doubt there is exact linearity, but 
I'm just
> not going to worry about it for what I do. 
> 
> > I think you also mentioned that any "toning" with the Epson 
controls
> > increases the use of color inks, but I'm not sure this is true, at
> > least for certain colors.  In using an ABW setting of -12 -16 for 
the
> > USFA (which gives a pretty neutral gray), the usage of yellow in 
the
> > 4800 has dropped to about that of the cyan and magenta, which is 
say
> > it is used mostly for cleaning cycles.  The light magenta and 
light
> > cyan levels seem about what they are without tone adjustment.
> 
> I have not tried to quantify how much color is used for various 
settings.
> The "neutral" ABW seemed like a logical one to use for comparative 
testing.
> So, that is what I did.
> 
> I'm not trying to convince anyone that one inkset is better or 
worse than
> another.  I do tests like this for my own purposes.  To the extent 
others
> can glean useful information from them, all the better.  For my 
purposes,
> the test answered the question of whether it was worth my time to 
make a
> dedicated B&W inkset for the 2400.  It is.  So, I'll see what I can 
come up
> with this next year.   
> 
> More, longer, and better testing would, of course, be even more 
helpful, but
> life and resources are just too short to wait for such -- they just 
are not
> going to happen.  So, I try to move forward with the best I can do 
within a
> reasonable time.  
> 
> I think the more of these types of tests we have the better.  Sadly,
> however, it appears some have become too concerned with pressure 
and threats
> of litigation to keep their results on the web.  See
> http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm   Many probably thought 
Livick's
> rating of a coated UT2 print at 600+ years as off the wall, but 
it's rather
> in the same league with the relative performances I've seen.  The 
third

> party B&W pigments that I've tested -- specifically the MIS UTs and
> Piezotones -- appear to be very lightfast.  
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Walt,

> ... I too am uncomfortable, in principle, with the use of 
> pure color inks in BW printing (as with the K3s).

I'd still like to see some double blind tests to see if people can sense the
difference visually.  I'm a bit skeptical about that.  So, if there had been
no significant fading difference, I might well have just gone with the
straight k3 approach.  There is no doubt that having color available
occasionally is useful even for strictly B&W guys like me.

>  What I wanted was a sense of the real
> world significance of a L* 0.70 difference in fade given your
> light/time exposure.
> 
> This question arises for me partly because such an absolute
> difference is very small...

Yes, all of absolute fade amounts were small.  The results are only
significant if put into the context of the relative fade rates.  There, in
the extreme case of the ABW mode k3 print v. the MIS UT dedicated B&W test
strip, there was a 3x difference.  On the other hand, the significance of
this fade rate difference depends on additional assumptions, such as whether
the rates we see in initial fading will continue.  So, there are some
variables here that are simply not completely known.  For my own purposes, I
think the results are significant, but I would never go so far as to say my
tests "prove" that the dedicated B&W inksets are three times as lightfast.
I've simply seen enough evidence, including but not limited to just this
fade test, that I think it's now worth my time to take the next step.

 
> ... I don't know what you estimate your exposure to be 
> relative to the total display life of a print.
> Is the difference you report just the "beginning of the
> story,"...

Clearly what I'm reporting is just the beginning of the story.  Based on my
best measure of how bright the light is, I've tried to give some equivalence
to "Wilhelm years" of display.  However, not only is my equivalence a rough
estimate, but also I'm not sure how many really trust that the "years"
Wilhelm uses are realistic.  (Then again Kodak assumes even less light
exposure for its calculations.)

Put in the setting of traditional collector's skepticism about inkjet
technology, I'm just trying to get the best performance I can relative the
Epson pigments, which Epson will promote using Wilhelm data.  I'll then
simply do the best I can to leverage off those numbers, trying to avoid the
issue of what the "life" of a print is.


> Incidentally, what are you measuring?

I use a 50% patch.  I do have some additional test strips in the fader with
a range of densities.  The 50% patch, however, seems to be representative of
the midtones, and the black patch is a separate ink.  In the past I've
tested the black inks, and the MIS and Epson versions are roughly equal and
very good -- being basically carbon (not the PKN).  A BO print is about as
good as it gets in this respect, which is one reason Clayton and some others
are such fans of that approach.


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

If anyone has an email to contact him, you might suggest that he 
contacts the E.F.F. http://www.eff.org If those threatening emails 
really did come from the corporate entities that he was debunking, 
they can help, and maybe even win some money for the mental strees 
they put him under. The entire reason the E.F.F. exists is to help 
people with problems like this!

Also for those that want to grab his info before it fades, his sight 
was available in several web archives as of this morning.

Greg,

Do you have URLs for the Livick test data?

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg
> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 1:02 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Livick - was: On Paul's MIS vs. K3 fade tests . . .
> 
> If anyone has an email to contact him, you might suggest that he
> contacts the E.F.F. http://www.eff.org If those threatening emails
> really did come from the corporate entities that he was debunking,
> they can help, and maybe even win some money for the mental strees
> they put him under. The entire reason the E.F.F. exists is to help
> people with problems like this!
> 
> Also for those that want to grab his info before it fades, his sight
> was available in several web archives as of this morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 found I have a 14 page Livick document archived on my computer.  It
includes the following:


"FIXATIVES AND JUST ONE CLEARSHIELD BRUSHED ON COATING


"OUR NEUTRAL GRAY BAND SHOWS 681 YEARS LONGEVITY WITH A 30% FADE.
(AND 227 YEARS LONGEVITY WITH JUST A 10% FADE OCCURRING)


"JUST ONE CLEARSHIELD COATING APPEARS TO GIVE THE BEST IN LONGEVITY. 


"Epson's Velvet Fine Art Paper, MIS WARM TONE, FADED 6.9 % 
(SENNELIER'S Fixatif Latour - Pour Pastal Tendre N135276 
( Meant For Pastels) )
(ONE Brushed On Coating Of Clearstar's Waterbased Clearshield)
( Mixture Of 3 Semi Gloss to 1 Matte)


"Epson's Velvet Fine Art Paper, MIS COOL TONE, FADED 1.3 % 
( SIMPLY GREAT LONGEVITY)
(SENNELIER'S Fixatif Latour - Pour Pastal Tendre N135276 
( Meant For Pastels) )
(ONE Brushed On Coating Of Clearstar's Waterbased Clearshield)
( Mixture Of 3 Semi Gloss to 1 Matte )


"Epson's Velvet Fine Art Paper, MIS NEUTRAL TONE, FADED 4.3 % 
(SENNELIER'S Fixatif Latour - Pour Pastal Tendre N135276 
( Meant For Pastels) )
(ONE Brushed On Coating Of Clearstar's Waterbased Clearshield)
( Mixture Of Semi Gloss to 1 Matte )"


He appears to have used UT2 in a 1280.  He was really looking for the best
coating combination.  He feels strongly that coating is necessary. He also
feels strongly that testing should be in sunlight, which of course, would
have lots of UV and make UV coatings much more important.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> Roark
> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 1:27 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Livick - was: On Paul's MIS vs. K3 fade tests .
> . .
> 
> Greg,
> 
> Do you have URLs for the Livick test data?
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 1:02 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Livick - was: On Paul's MIS vs. K3 fade tests . .
> .
> >
> > If anyone has an email to contact him, you might suggest that he
> > contacts the E.F.F. http://www.eff.org If those threatening emails
> > really did come from the corporate entities that he was debunking,
> > they can help, and maybe even win some money for the mental strees
> > they put him under. The entire reason the E.F.F. exists is to help
> > people with problems like this!
> >
> > Also for those that want to grab his info before it fades, his sight
> > was available in several web archives as of this morning.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

http://web.archive.org/web/20050305075607/http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm

I too would like to see how linear the rate of fade is.  I have no idea how
difficult it would be to record this sort of thing in your next set of
tests.  I seem to remember reading a Wilhelm article which discussed the
importance of the length of the stand-down period between printing and
starting the fade test.  I certainly understand chasing the best possible
but if the extra fade of Adv B&W K3/K4 is "acceptable" then I would find the
convenience of Adv B&W and colour printing retention to be hugely
beneficial.  So if the bulk of a 0.7L* fade differential occurred at the
beginning of the test and subsequent fading differential was trivial then
I'd be very happy with that.  We also have to remember that a 0.7L* fade
rate differential on a 50% patch is trivial at best.  You are talking about
density changes of around 0.01 to 0.02 only!

I also think it would be useful to run a test on the individual K3 vs K4
inks - ie a colour patch of each ink.  While we do of course print greyscale
which involves blending these inks I'd like a sense of whether or not MIS K4
is better across the board or whether certain inks perform better than
others.  (This would of course be extremely helpful for the colour guys as
well.)

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:16:22 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] On Paul's MIS vs. K3 fade tests . . .
> 
> Walt,
> 
>> ... I too am uncomfortable, in principle, with the use of
>> pure color inks in BW printing (as with the K3s).
> 
> I'd still like to see some double blind tests to see if people can sense the
> difference visually.  I'm a bit skeptical about that.  So, if there had been
> no significant fading difference, I might well have just gone with the
> straight k3 approach.  There is no doubt that having color available
> occasionally is useful even for strictly B&W guys like me.
> 
>>  What I wanted was a sense of the real
>> world significance of a L* 0.70 difference in fade given your
>> light/time exposure.
>> 
>> This question arises for me partly because such an absolute
>> difference is very small...
> 
> Yes, all of absolute fade amounts were small.  The results are only
> significant if put into the context of the relative fade rates.  There, in
> the extreme case of the ABW mode k3 print v. the MIS UT dedicated B&W test
> strip, there was a 3x difference.  On the other hand, the significance of
> this fade rate difference depends on additional assumptions, such as whether
> the rates we see in initial fading will continue.  So, there are some
> variables here that are simply not completely known.  For my own purposes, I
> think the results are significant, but I would never go so far as to say my
> tests "prove" that the dedicated B&W inksets are three times as lightfast.
> I've simply seen enough evidence, including but not limited to just this
> fade test, that I think it's now worth my time to take the next step.
> 
>  
>> ... I don't know what you estimate your exposure to be
>> relative to the total display life of a print.
>> Is the difference you report just the "beginning of the
>> story,"...
> 
> Clearly what I'm reporting is just the beginning of the story.  Based on my
> best measure of how bright the light is, I've tried to give some equivalence
> to "Wilhelm years" of display.  However, not only is my equivalence a rough
> estimate, but also I'm not sure how many really trust that the "years"
> Wilhelm uses are realistic.  (Then again Kodak assumes even less light
> exposure for its calculations.)
> 
> Put in the setting of traditional collector's skepticism about inkjet
> technology, I'm just trying to get the best performance I can relative the
> Epson pigments, which Epson will promote using Wilhelm data.  I'll then
> simply do the best I can to leverage off those numbers, trying to avoid the
> issue of what the "life" of a print is.
> 
> 
>> Incidentally, what are you measuring?
> 
> I use a 50% patch.  I do have some additional test strips in the fader with
> a range of densities.  The 50% patch, however, seems to be representative of
> the midtones, and the black patch is a separate ink.  In the past I've
> tested the black inks, and the MIS and Epson versions are roughly equal and
> very good -- being basically carbon (not the PKN).  A BO print is about as
> good as it gets in this respect, which is one reason Clayton and some others
> are such fans of that approach.
> 
> 
> 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 too would like to see how linear the rate of fade is.  

I have a 600 hour read of the K3 ABW and UT7 test strips.  Consistent with
everything we've seen, the rate of fade at the beginning is typically not
the same as later.  I usually assume that the fade rate is higher at first,
but I've occasionally seen apparent increases in density initially, even
when the printing was done over a week prior to the fade test start.  This
might have happened for some of the UT7 samples.  (On the other hand, with
the small size of the UT7 EEM fade, spectrophotometer inconsistencies might
have affected the results.)

All test strips were aged over one week before being put in the fader.  The
4800 test strips were approximately one week older than the UT7 test strips.


Here are some results looking just at the change in Lab L* readings:

4800 ABW on EEM at 50%, 1st 600 hour fade rate:  0.0010 L/Hr.
From 600 hr. to 1944 hr. fade rate: 0.00053 L/Hr.

Here the fade rate was higher at first than later.


UT7 on EEM at 50%, 1st 600 hour fade rate: 0.00005 L/Hr.
From 600 hr. to 1944 hr. fade rate: 0.00015 L/Hr.

Here the best explanation of the results is probably that the UT7 actually
increased in density at the very beginning.


4800 ABW on Premier Art at 50%, 1st 600 hour fade rate: 0.0012 L/Hr.
From 600 hr. to 1944 hr. fade rate:  0.00033 L/hr.

UT7 on Premier Art at 50%, 1st 600 hour fade rate:  0.00032 L/Hr.
From 600 hr. to 1944 hr. fade rate:  0.00019 L/Hr.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 






I have no idea

> how
> difficult it would be to record this sort of thing in your next set of
> tests.  I seem to remember reading a Wilhelm article which discussed the
> importance of the length of the stand-down period between printing and
> starting the fade test.  I certainly understand chasing the best possible
> but if the extra fade of Adv B&W K3/K4 is "acceptable" then I would find
> the
> convenience of Adv B&W and colour printing retention to be hugely
> beneficial.  So if the bulk of a 0.7L* fade differential occurred at the
> beginning of the test and subsequent fading differential was trivial then
> I'd be very happy with that.  We also have to remember that a 0.7L* fade
> rate differential on a 50% patch is trivial at best.  You are talking
> about
> density changes of around 0.01 to 0.02 only!
> 
> I also think it would be useful to run a test on the individual K3 vs K4
> inks - ie a colour patch of each ink.  While we do of course print
> greyscale
> which involves blending these inks I'd like a sense of whether or not MIS
> K4
> is better across the board or whether certain inks perform better than
> others.  (This would of course be extremely helpful for the colour guys as
> well.)
> 
> 
> > From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:16:22 -0800
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] On Paul's MIS vs. K3 fade tests . . .
> >
> > Walt,
> >
> >> ... I too am uncomfortable, in principle, with the use of
> >> pure color inks in BW printing (as with the K3s).
> >
> > I'd still like to see some double blind tests to see if people can sense
> the
> > difference visually.  I'm a bit skeptical about that.  So, if there had
> been
> > no significant fading difference, I might well have just gone with the
> > straight k3 approach.  There is no doubt that having color available
> > occasionally is useful even for strictly B&W guys like me.
> >
> >>  What I wanted was a sense of the real
> >> world significance of a L* 0.70 difference in fade given your
> >> light/time exposure.
> >>
> >> This question arises for me partly because such an absolute
> >> difference is very small...
> >
> > Yes, all of absolute fade amounts were small.  The results are only
> > significant if put into the context of the relative fade rates.  There,
> in
> > the extreme case of the ABW mode k3 print v. the MIS UT dedicated B&W
> test
> > strip, there was a 3x difference.  On the other hand, the significance
> of
> > this fade rate difference depends on additional assumptions, such as
> whether
> > the rates we see in initial fading will continue.  So, there are some
> > variables here that are simply not completely known.  For my own
> purposes, I
> > think the results are significant, but I would never go so far as to say
> my
> > tests "prove" that the dedicated B&W inksets are three times as
> lightfast.
> > I've simply seen enough evidence, including but not limited to just this
> > fade test, that I think it's now worth my time to take the next step.
> >
> >
> >> ... I don't know what you estimate your exposure to be
> >> relative to the total display life of a print.
> >> Is the difference you report just the "beginning of the
> >> story,"...
> >
> > Clearly what I'm reporting is just the beginning of the story.  Based on
> my
> > best measure of how bright the light is, I've tried to give some
> equivalence
> > to "Wilhelm years" of display.  However, not only is my equivalence a
> rough
> > estimate, but also I'm not sure how many really trust that the "years"
> > Wilhelm uses are realistic.  (Then again Kodak assumes even less light
> > exposure for its calculations.)
> >
> > Put in the setting of traditional collector's skepticism about inkjet
> > technology, I'm just trying to get the best performance I can relative
> the
> > Epson pigments, which Epson will promote using Wilhelm data.  I'll then
> > simply do the best I can to leverage off those numbers, trying to avoid
> the
> > issue of what the "life" of a print is.
> >
> >
> >> Incidentally, what are you measuring?
> >
> > I use a 50% patch.  I do have some additional test strips in the fader
> with
> > a range of densities.  The 50% patch, however, seems to be
> representative of
> > the midtones, and the black patch is a separate ink.  In the past I've
> > tested the black inks, and the MIS and Epson versions are roughly equal
> and
> > very good -- being basically carbon (not the PKN).  A BO print is about
> as
> > good as it gets in this respect, which is one reason Clayton and some
> others
> > are such fans of that approach.
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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:

>>I too would like to see how linear the rate of fade is.  
>>    
>>
>
>I have a 600 hour read of the K3 ABW and UT7 test strips.  Consistent with
>everything we've seen, the rate of fade at the beginning is typically not
>the same as later.  I usually assume that the fade rate is higher at first,
>but I've occasionally seen apparent increases in density initially, even
>when the printing was done over a week prior to the fade test start. 
>
It's conceivable that the increases in density seen early on are the 
result of driving off the last of the glycols and glycerins. Even 
moderate levels of light can increase the temperature of the print. 
Increasing the print temperature helps these ink base components dissipate.

I say this because I've noticed a fairly marked improvement in Dmax on 
my prints when I dry them with a hairdryer. Even days later - you can 
smell the glycols coming off the print and see the Dmax increase. For 
reference I'm using PiezoTones mostly on HPR. I've seen the same effect 
when drying UltraChromes however - not as marked, but a subtle increase 
in Dmax and a slight increase in gamut.
--
Bruce Watson

Having read through the following I find it interesting that we have, on
this forum, feared the use of yellow ink.  I thought that this was due to
its perceived longevity weakness.  Yet the below suggests that this is not
the case (of course, only in the case of the particular pigment ink tested).
The article also highlights the issue of using diluted ink formulations
rather than normal density formulations of lighter coloured pigments.

http://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/sub_pages/inkjet_stability_72dpi.pdf

A test of the fade rates of individual inks rather than composites would
highlight whether a manufacturer's inks are relatively strong across the
board or whether they are, say, strong in some colours and weaker in others.
I'd really like to see MIS K4 vs Epson K3 (and even the new Nanochromes) on
this basis.  As opposed to Barbara Voigt, we know how to easily print the
pure colour strips with QTR or IJC/OPM.  How much room do you have in your
test facility Paul?  Maybe we should all pitch in and help you build a
bigger one....  ;-)

> From: <hogarth@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:51:01 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] On Paul's MIS vs. K3 fade tests . . .
> 
> Paul Roark wrote:
> 
>>> I too would like to see how linear the rate of fade is.
>>>    
>>> 
>> 
>> I have a 600 hour read of the K3 ABW and UT7 test strips.  Consistent with
>> everything we've seen, the rate of fade at the beginning is typically not
>> the same as later.  I usually assume that the fade rate is higher at first,
>> but I've occasionally seen apparent increases in density initially, even
>> when the printing was done over a week prior to the fade test start.
>> 
> It's conceivable that the increases in density seen early on are the
> result of driving off the last of the glycols and glycerins. Even
> moderate levels of light can increase the temperature of the print.
> Increasing the print temperature helps these ink base components dissipate.
> 
> I say this because I've noticed a fairly marked improvement in Dmax on
> my prints when I dry them with a hairdryer. Even days later - you can
> smell the glycols coming off the print and see the Dmax increase. For
> reference I'm using PiezoTones mostly on HPR. I've seen the same effect
> when drying UltraChromes however - not as marked, but a subtle increase
> in Dmax and a slight increase in gamut.
> --
> Bruce Watson

I too have observed this. It seems to be the rule rather than the
exception in my case.

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@s... wrote:

> >
> It's conceivable that the increases in density seen early on are the 
> result of driving off the last of the glycols and glycerins. Even 
> moderate levels of light can increase the temperature of the print. 
> Increasing the print temperature helps these ink base components
dissipate.

> 
> I say this because I've noticed a fairly marked improvement in Dmax on 
> my prints when I dry them with a hairdryer. Even days later - you can 
> smell the glycols coming off the print and see the Dmax increase. For 
> reference I'm using PiezoTones mostly on HPR. I've seen the same effect 
> when drying UltraChromes however - not as marked, but a subtle increase 
> in Dmax and a slight increase in gamut.
> --
> Bruce Watson
>

Steve,

I've read Voigt's work a couple of times.  What page is the yellow pigment
fade information on?

This RIT test for MIS is what most of us have probably seen: 
http://www.inksupply.com/rit.cfm

My view has been that yellow is weak, but magenta is the real problem.  This
is, in part, because I need it, as opposed the yellow.  

I think it's generally agreed that the colors are more lightfast than the
carbon.  In the old MIS test, note that that black ink was probably a
hybrid.  

The cyan fade -- or lack of it -- is most impressive in the MIS test.

As to the light ink fade problem that was much more of a problem with dyes.
The pigment particles are the same size regardless of dilution.  The
difference in the pigmented inks is that the dilute inks do not benefit from
the protection they seem to enjoy when in piles.  

I think MIS is doing tests of the individual colors of its inks, but I have
not seen any results.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve
> Kale
> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 11:42 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] On Paul's MIS vs. K3 fade tests . . .
> 
> Having read through the following I find it interesting that we have, on
> this forum, feared the use of yellow ink.  I thought that this was due to
> its perceived longevity weakness.  Yet the below suggests that this is not
> the case (of course, only in the case of the particular pigment ink
> tested).
> The article also highlights the issue of using diluted ink formulations
> rather than normal density formulations of lighter coloured pigments.
> 
> http://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/sub_pages/inkjet_stability_72dpi.p
> df
> 
> A test of the fade rates of individual inks rather than composites would
> highlight whether a manufacturer's inks are relatively strong across the
> board or whether they are, say, strong in some colours and weaker in
> others.
> I'd really like to see MIS K4 vs Epson K3 (and even the new Nanochromes)
> on
> this basis.  As opposed to Barbara Voigt, we know how to easily print the
> pure colour strips with QTR or IJC/OPM.  How much room do you have in your
> test facility Paul?  Maybe we should all pitch in and help you build a
> bigger one....  ;-)
> 
> 
> > From: <hogarth@...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:51:01 -0500
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] On Paul's MIS vs. K3 fade tests . . .
> >
> > Paul Roark wrote:
> >
> >>> I too would like to see how linear the rate of fade is.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I have a 600 hour read of the K3 ABW and UT7 test strips.  Consistent
> with
> >> everything we've seen, the rate of fade at the beginning is typically
> not
> >> the same as later.  I usually assume that the fade rate is higher at
> first,
> >> but I've occasionally seen apparent increases in density initially,
> even
> >> when the printing was done over a week prior to the fade test start.
> >>
> > It's conceivable that the increases in density seen early on are the
> > result of driving off the last of the glycols and glycerins. Even
> > moderate levels of light can increase the temperature of the print.
> > Increasing the print temperature helps these ink base components
> dissipate.
> >
> > I say this because I've noticed a fairly marked improvement in Dmax on
> > my prints when I dry them with a hairdryer. Even days later - you can
> > smell the glycols coming off the print and see the Dmax increase. For
> > reference I'm using PiezoTones mostly on HPR. I've seen the same effect
> > when drying UltraChromes however - not as marked, but a subtle increase
> > in Dmax and a slight increase in gamut.
> > --
> > Bruce Watson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 don't know if it's the glycol or something else that causes the initial
changes.  What I notice regularly is that the dmax increases slight on matte
papers the next day, whether or not I've used a hair drier on the sample.  I
usually don't see much density change in the 50% patch, however.  There I
sometimes see a tone change the first day.  After the first day or so,
things usually seem relatively stable with matte papers.  So, I thought that
waiting a week before the fade test would take care of whatever is causing
these initial effects, but perhaps not.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> dlruckus
> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 12:06 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: On Paul's MIS vs. K3 fade tests . . .
> 
> I too have observed this. It seems to be the rule rather than the
> exception in my case.
> 
> Regards
> Duane
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@s... wrote:
> 
> > >
> > It's conceivable that the increases in density seen early on are the
> > result of driving off the last of the glycols and glycerins. Even
> > moderate levels of light can increase the temperature of the print.
> > Increasing the print temperature helps these ink base components
> dissipate.
> >
> > I say this because I've noticed a fairly marked improvement in Dmax on
> > my prints when I dry them with a hairdryer. Even days later - you can
> > smell the glycols coming off the print and see the Dmax increase. For
> > reference I'm using PiezoTones mostly on HPR. I've seen the same effect
> > when drying UltraChromes however - not as marked, but a subtle increase
> > in Dmax and a slight increase in gamut.
> > --
> > Bruce Watson
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>

Yes. What I notice is what I would call a slight veiling of the
overall tones with it being more evident in the lower values, a sort
of haze that is more visible at an oblique. It seems to take 4 or 5
days to completely disappear visualy. I haven't bothered to measure it
beyond a couple of days but do consider it when making test scales and
profiles etc.
Your week is probably sufficient but significant change would be easy
to test for.

Regards
Duane
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
>
> I don't know if it's the glycol or something else that causes the
initial
> changes.  What I notice regularly is that the dmax increases slight
on matte
> papers the next day, whether or not I've used a hair drier on the
sample.  I
> usually don't see much density change in the 50% patch, however. 
There I
> sometimes see a tone change the first day.  After the first day or so,
> things usually seem relatively stable with matte papers.  So, I
thought that
> waiting a week before the fade test would take care of whatever is
causing

> these initial effects, but perhaps not.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
>

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:43:34 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] On Paul's MIS vs. K3 fade tests . . .
> 
> Steve,
> 
> I've read Voigt's work a couple of times.  What page is the yellow pigment
> fade information on?

Pg 49

> 
> This RIT test for MIS is what most of us have probably seen:
> http://www.inksupply.com/rit.cfm
> 
> My view has been that yellow is weak, but magenta is the real problem.  This
> is, in part, because I need it, as opposed the yellow.

Yes she found the same.
> 
> I think it's generally agreed that the colors are more lightfast than the
> carbon.  In the old MIS test, note that that black ink was probably a
> hybrid.  
> 
> The cyan fade -- or lack of it -- is most impressive in the MIS test.
> 
> As to the light ink fade problem that was much more of a problem with dyes.
> The pigment particles are the same size regardless of dilution.  The
> difference in the pigmented inks is that the dilute inks do not benefit from
> the protection they seem to enjoy when in piles.

Read the conclusion on pg 50.

I find it interesting that these tests are 6 years old on an ink set I
suspect not many use anymore - that's a period during which significant
change has occurred.  I wonder when they added the postscript re the yellow
ink (likely Sep 2000) and where the new results are.  Are there no tests on
their current or even more recent inks?  The poor guys at InkVillage got
slaughtered on the wide format forum for not yet having longevity test
results despite saying that they expect results early in the New Year.  It's
interesting that MIS is given a huge break even when the only results they
have made available are rather appalling....



 
>> This RIT test for MIS is what most of us have probably seen:
>> http://www.inksupply.com/rit.cfm

They're only appalling in retrospect. At the time of their
introduction they looked pretty good against anything Epson had. With
the better yellow and used with Eboni as the black they aren't all
that bad even now. I suspect many of us don't expect or care if our
own prints are coveted beyond a normal lifetime. Besides, the relative
results reported by Paul and others are quite sufficient for
comparative purposes. It's all more or less based on prophesy anyway.

I have a feeling the vitriol on the wide format forum is based more on
the vaperware type announcements over the last year or more from
Futures and the fuss over the "blue wool" archival testing method than
anything else. Printers seem to be a somewhat bilious group when
excercised ;-)

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
>
> I find it interesting that these tests are 6 years old on an ink set I
> suspect not many use anymore - that's a period during which significant
> change has occurred.  I wonder when they added the postscript re the
yellow
> ink (likely Sep 2000) and where the new results are.  Are there no
tests on
> their current or even more recent inks?  The poor guys at InkVillage got
> slaughtered on the wide format forum for not yet having longevity test
> results despite saying that they expect results early in the New
Year.  It's
> interesting that MIS is given a huge break even when the only
results they

> have made available are rather appalling....
> 
> 
> 
>  
> >> This RIT test for MIS is what most of us have probably seen:
> >> http://www.inksupply.com/rit.cfm
>

Steve,

I have a little trouble understanding all of Vogt's conclusions and why her
results seem at odds with others.  For example is one looks at p. 50 of
http://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/sub_pages/inkjet_stability_72dpi.pdf
it looks like cyan is about the most unstable pigment.  However, just above
the table the article says that while pigments were more stable than dyes,
when fading occurred "the pigments showed the same fading behavior as the
dyes."  On page 37, relating to dyes, the section on cyan starts out by
saying that the cyan was the most stable in visible light and behind glass.

Perhaps the key here is the effects of the air flow.  It appears that while
cyan is very stable behind glass, air flow and perhaps some UV that is
filtering out by the glass makes the difference.  In this respect, note on
page 29 that is appears to keep the temperature down the samples had air
flow of 1.3 m/s.  That strikes me as quick a lot of air flow.

I suspect part of what all this points out is that we can't be too sure just
how stable our materials are in different circumstances.  I'll just use the
best materials I can and protect them as much as possible.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve
> Kale
> Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:15 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] On Paul's MIS vs. K3 fade tests . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:43:34 -0800
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] On Paul's MIS vs. K3 fade tests . . .
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > I've read Voigt's work a couple of times.  What page is the yellow
> > pigment fade information on?
> 
> Pg 49
> 
> >
> > This RIT test for MIS is what most of us have probably seen:
> > http://www.inksupply.com/rit.cfm
> >
> > My view has been that yellow is weak, but magenta is the real 
> > problem.  This
> > is, in part, because I need it, as opposed the yellow.
> 
> Yes she found the same.
> >
> > I think it's generally agreed that the colors are more lightfast 
> > than the carbon.  In the old MIS test, note that that black ink 
> > was probably a hybrid.
> >
> > The cyan fade -- or lack of it -- is most impressive in the MIS test.
> >
> > As to the light ink fade problem that was much more of a problem with
> dyes.
> > The pigment particles are the same size regardless of dilution.  The
> > difference in the pigmented inks is that the dilute inks do not benefit
> from
> > the protection they seem to enjoy when in piles.
> 
> Read the conclusion on pg 50.
> 
> 
> 
>

> From: dlruckus <dlruckus@...>

> 
> They're only appalling in retrospect. At the time of their
> introduction they looked pretty good against anything Epson had. With
> the better yellow and used with Eboni as the black they aren't all
> that bad even now.

Agreed that time casts a heavy lens over the results but where are the tests
for the new inks and what happened to the results of the tests for the then
new yellow?

>I suspect many of us don't expect or care if our
> own prints are coveted beyond a normal lifetime.

And even if we do, how many others do?  I think the practical aspect alluded
to here doesn't filter people's responses on the topic enough.  But then it
makes sense for us all to use the best available materials we can afford.

>Besides, the relative
> results reported by Paul and others are quite sufficient for
> comparative purposes.

To the best of my recollection, the results just recently posted by Paul are
the first with the colour inks.  Haven't all prior tests been for greyscale
ink sets?  I'd still like to see tests of the individual inks (including,
actually, fade tests for the Epson K3s).

>It's all more or less based on prophesy anyway.

I ignore the prophecy side of things and like Paul only look to the relative
performance.  I actually Wilhelm tests are garbage in the sense that they
are not side-by-side tests of relative strength.

> 
> I have a feeling the vitriol on the wide format forum is based more on
> the vaperware type announcements over the last year or more from
> Futures and the fuss over the "blue wool" archival testing method than
> anything else. Printers seem to be a somewhat bilious group when
> excercised ;-)

Agreed.  But then it's also nice to see someone with a real passion for
innovation in the area rather than a copycat attitude.  I doubt we would
have the same respect for MIS were it not for the fact that, largely due to
Paul, they have actually innovated in the greyscale niche market.
Personally, I'm prepared to cut the Infu6/Futures guys some slack re their
"pre-marketing" on the basis that it was really just a genuine passion for
what they were achieving.  I also understand very well the delays that a new
business venture, particularly one dealing with pure innovation, can
experience. A setback of a year or two is not at all extraordinary.  I think
they were a little naïve in their management/use of "beta testers" for
genuine product development assistance rather than "marketing" a la Epson.
Nonetheless I hope that their innovations in inks and "coatings" (infused or
otherwise) continue.  I don't know but I wouldn't mind betting that the
extra performance Epson is gaining from Velvet Fine Art is a (very) direct
result of the work done by these guys.  We need to encourage companies like
MIS and Infu6/Futures to be successful and to continue to innovate.  As has
been noted on this forum many times before, the "innovation" the big
manufacturers have brought to the table has been, in many respects, a result
of these smaller new companies nipping at their heals.


Happy New Year

Steve

Agreed. I think the responses were a bit over the top as well.

As they don't have tests available that satisfy the critics, what they
 might do to calm things would be to give info regarding the patents
alluded to in one of the e'mails. It is public knowledge at some point
anyway and could go a long way toward demonstrating the innovation
spoken of. Fear of dyes of any variety seems to also be a part of the
reactions. So if the inks aren't dyes then say directly what they are
in ordinary speech as opposed to techno/marketing speak. They would be
well served by a practical approach wherein someone says---"OK
guys.Listen up.Here is what we've done.We whip up in big pot a batch
of Teflon or whatever and before it's set up we stir in chemicals that
react right within the mix to precipitate out the colorant(preferably
recognised long life types).Then we blast the mix out of a shot tower
under heat and pressure so it sets up(polymerises) into tiny beads of
color. Because the color is protected by the whatever and encompassed
by a solid it is less likely to fade than the normal techniques allow
etc. and so on."-- Critics might still attack the process but it would
be an arguable thing at that point. Infu6 doesn't mean much as yet.It
will have to become ubiquitous first.

And a happy new year to you and all as well.

Duane





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:

> Personally, I'm prepared to cut the Infu6/Futures guys some slack re
their
> "pre-marketing" on the basis that it was really just a genuine
passion for
> what they were achieving.  I also understand very well the delays
that a new
> business venture, particularly one dealing with pure innovation, can
> experience. A setback of a year or two is not at all extraordinary.
 I think
> they were a little naïve in their management/use of "beta testers" for
> genuine product development assistance rather than "marketing" a la
Epson.
> Nonetheless I hope that their innovations in inks and "coatings"
(infused or
> otherwise) continue.  I don't know but I wouldn't mind betting that the
> extra performance Epson is gaining from Velvet Fine Art is a (very)
direct
> result of the work done by these guys.  We need to encourage
companies like
> MIS and Infu6/Futures to be successful and to continue to innovate.
 As has
> been noted on this forum many times before, the "innovation" the big
> manufacturers have brought to the table has been, in many respects,
a result

> of these smaller new companies nipping at their heals.
> 
> 
> Happy New Year
> 
> Steve
>

What I've been told by the guys there is that they are essentially taking
pigment and "grinding" it to substantially smaller particle sizes using the
latest nanotechnology - hence the brand Nanochromes.  If one can get a
higher density solution of much smaller (less light scattering) pigment
particles that can still be placed on paper via inkjet technology then it's
not surprising you can get better densities/chroma.  I think quite a lot of
insight to the issues at hand can be gleaned from Vogt's thesis beginning on
pg 12 under "Colorants for Ink Jet Inks".  While an overview only, I suspect
it's a useful introduction for non chemists like myself.  At the end of the
day, though, the proof is in the pudding and we'll have to see how they
perform.  I look forward to receiving some of their ink next week.

> From: dlruckus <dlruckus@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 21:56:47 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: On Paul's MIS vs. K3 fade tests . . .
> 
> Agreed. I think the responses were a bit over the top as well.
> 
> As they don't have tests available that satisfy the critics, what they
>  might do to calm things would be to give info regarding the patents
> alluded to in one of the e'mails. It is public knowledge at some point
> anyway and could go a long way toward demonstrating the innovation
> spoken of. Fear of dyes of any variety seems to also be a part of the
> reactions. So if the inks aren't dyes then say directly what they are
> in ordinary speech as opposed to techno/marketing speak. They would be
> well served by a practical approach wherein someone says---"OK
> guys.Listen up.Here is what we've done.We whip up in big pot a batch
> of Teflon or whatever and before it's set up we stir in chemicals that
> react right within the mix to precipitate out the colorant(preferably
> recognised long life types).Then we blast the mix out of a shot tower
> under heat and pressure so it sets up(polymerises) into tiny beads of
> color. Because the color is protected by the whatever and encompassed
> by a solid it is less likely to fade than the normal techniques allow
> etc. and so on."-- Critics might still attack the process but it would
> be an arguable thing at that point. Infu6 doesn't mean much as yet.It
> will have to become ubiquitous first.
> 
> And a happy new year to you and all as well.
> 
> Duane

Steve Kale wrote:
> What I've been told by the guys there is that they are essentially taking
> pigment and "grinding" it to substantially smaller particle sizes using the
> latest nanotechnology - hence the brand Nanochromes.  If one can get a
> higher density solution of much smaller (less light scattering) pigment
> particles that can still be placed on paper via inkjet technology then it's
> not surprising you can get better densities/chroma.  I think quite a lot of
> insight to the issues at hand can be gleaned from Vogt's thesis beginning on
> pg 12 under "Colorants for Ink Jet Inks".  While an overview only, I suspect
> it's a useful introduction for non chemists like myself.  At the end of the
> day, though, the proof is in the pudding and we'll have to see how they
> perform.  I look forward to receiving some of their ink next week.


Steve,

Grinding down pigment particles usually results in lower
coloring quality. The pigments used in inkjet printing are a
kind of knotted up color dye molecules and have very small
sizes already, doubt that the technology is just a new
grinding process that makes even smaller particles. The nano
term is thrown in for its hype factor I think.

Speculation part:
I can't place the infusion part (so often referred to) in what
you describe. I got the impression it is more like a nanosize
(but all inkjet ink particles fall in that category) ball size
plastic "granulate" (the resin) that gets colored by immersion
in a dye bath. Much like the way they color plastic parts
after injection molding. The last is done to keep the
injection molding batches large and the white products get a
long lasting color in smaller batches so can be custom
colored. This technology is related to the sublimation
ink process used for textile but also used for plastics and
even ceramic tiles.

Bayer has pages on their plastic parts coloring by infusion,
Google with Bayer + Aura + Fantasia

I guess John recognised the inkjet ink possibilities of that
technology. Much depends now on how much better a particle
like that behaves to light than the knotted up color dye
molecules we know as inkjet pigment and the last with an
acrylic coating like the UC. The properties of the resin
particles will be a deciding factor in the gloss quality. The
size of the particles and penetration of the dye in the layer
is important for the gamut and the fade properties. It could
well be that the penetration is total. All together there must
have been quite some work gone in that technology.

Their R&D is probably much better than the way they try to get
this product on the market. You may argue that we should help
them more. I don't think so. A good product as revolutionary
as they describe it deserves a good introduction and not the
haphazard statements, horrible presentation of an unfinished
product on the Photokina, promised dates, we have seen so far
over the last two years culminating in the Nanochrome page
with the test contradiction. Less money would have been lost
if they had devoted their time on the product and the
introduction + a good test (Q-Lab would have been good too
with the right procedure) and announced it for the first time
today with everything ready. And be more transparent on what
it is based on. That would have given us a lot of confidence.
Now we have 3 promoters for the same product on more than one
list and their talk is obscure.

What I wrote above about the technology is pure
speculation on my part based on the terms used so far, I could
be totally wrong and the whole product could also still be a 
hype.
I'll wait and be happy when it turns out to be a good thing
after all. Duane expressed the sentiment in the wide format
list quite right but it wasn't as B&W as he sketched it.


                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

Paul,

Only just seem this post of yours, but thought I should point out that this 
work was published five years ago, which means it was probably done six or 
seven years ago, and it used an Epson 1270 and an Epson 2000P. Both printers 
and their inks are several generations out-of-date now. However, there is a 
lot of useful general information in the paper, even if the results are 
possibly out-of-date.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>

I have a little trouble understanding all of Vogt's conclusions and why her
results seem at odds with others.  For example is one looks at p. 50 of
http://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/sub_pages/inkjet_stability_72dpi.pdf
it looks like cyan is about the most unstable pigment.  However, just above
the table the article says that while pigments were more stable than dyes,
when fading occurred "the pigments showed the same fading behavior as the
dyes."  On page 37, relating to dyes, the section on cyan starts out by
saying that the cyan was the most stable in visible light and behind glass.