Digital BW, The Print

SO I came back printing BW with UT-FSN inks on an Epson 1160. Using
photo black in both Matte and Ilford Smooth Pearl, with eather
QuadToneRip set to 1160-UT ou QImage, I get this annoying magenta
cast... Image were set to grayscale in QImage and gs and rgb in QTR...
How can it be? Any ideas on how to go back to neutral prints???

If the printer had been sitting idle for a while, there could have been some
separation.  Normal printing will agitate the ink in the cart reservoirs (if
easy-refill types), but some may need to be purged from the carts.

 

If the ink is a new batch, well. you understand one reason for the UT-3D
inkset and the new QC procedures MIS is trying to implement.  

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andre
Vallejo da Silva
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 7:29 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Magenta cast on UTFSN prints...

 

SO I came back printing BW with UT-FSN inks on an Epson 1160. Using
photo black in both Matte and Ilford Smooth Pearl, with eather
QuadToneRip set to 1160-UT ou QImage, I get this annoying magenta
cast... Image were set to grayscale in QImage and gs and rgb in QTR...
How can it be? Any ideas on how to go back to neutral prints???

 



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

Humm,I see...Does it mean that it's a known problem of this inkset?
Pity, 'cose I still have half a set of bottles in use and a whole new
one waiting...it will take some time till it runs out and I have to
buy new ones...
Do you think it could be nanaged by decreasing the magenta position
somehow in your curves for the EAM for example?
Thakns,
André


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> If the printer had been sitting idle for a while, there could have
been some
> separation.  Normal printing will agitate the ink in the cart
reservoirs (if

> easy-refill types), but some may need to be purged from the carts.
> 
>  
> 
> If the ink is a new batch, well. you understand one reason for the UT-3D
> inkset and the new QC procedures MIS is trying to implement.  
> 
>  
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  
> 
>

> Humm,I see...Does it mean that it's a known problem of this inkset?

No, it means I think there is a lot of room for improvement with the entire
inkjet industry.  Then again, color photo materials used to also require
that every batch be re-profiled, and of course, every film and paper had
it's own characteristics.

So, between ink variances and paper differences, it's difficult to get and
keep the exact look one prefers.

If a blended monotone or even variable-tone ink is too magenta or too green
for a certain paper, there is little one can do about it.  The 3D approach
was, in part, to allow one to adjust for these differences.

It's odd that the inkset at issue here is the UT-FSN.  It actually has the
least magenta mix of the toned grays.  (The issue is actually the ratio
between the cyan and R800 blue -- looks like grape juice -- that is used to
cool down the carbon.)  The glossy paper you're using may be the source of
the magenta look.  The older glossy papers were the worse that way.  If you
try a Kirkland glossy for drafts and a Crane Silver Rag for the final print,
I'd guess the look would be quite different.

One of the reasons the amount of "magenta" in the toned inks differ is that
I mix them to a specific set of papers.  That set of papers changes with
time.  Crane Silver Rag did not exist when the UT-FSN formula was made.  On
the other hand, the older glossy papers were becoming good enough to use.
Now, however, I think it is critical that an inkset print well on CSR, and I
recommend people move away from the older, acidic glossy paper technologies.


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

When UT-FSN was first released, I wanted to switch away from the 
original FSN I was using. With much trepidation, I made the switch to 
get better lightfast inkset. Alas, I found excatly the same thing; UT-
FSN was definitely magenta heavy. The regular FSN was better at the 
cool end of neutral. I spoke to Bob at MIS, and he was adamant that 
UT-FSN and FSN should have similar color. I just gave up at that 
point.

I think 3rd party solutions have become better in the 5 years I have 
been at it. But, it is still a crap-shoot. So my standard advice to 
newcomers is to get the Epson 2400. Personally, I like the ability to 
have greater control than ABW provides, so I mix my own inksets from 
the K3 and the R1800 inks. It is much more control than MIS seems 
capable of. The all-carbon (warm) inks from 3rd party sources are a 
better bet than the toned inks.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> > Humm,I see...Does it mean that it's a known problem of this 
inkset?
> 
> No, it means I think there is a lot of room for improvement with 
the entire
> inkjet industry.  Then again, color photo materials used to also 
require
> that every batch be re-profiled, and of course, every film and 
paper had
> it's own characteristics.
> 
> So, between ink variances and paper differences, it's difficult to 
get and
> keep the exact look one prefers.
> 
> If a blended monotone or even variable-tone ink is too magenta or 
too green
> for a certain paper, there is little one can do about it.  The 3D 
approach
> was, in part, to allow one to adjust for these differences.
> 
> It's odd that the inkset at issue here is the UT-FSN.  It actually 
has the
> least magenta mix of the toned grays.  (The issue is actually the 
ratio
> between the cyan and R800 blue -- looks like grape juice -- that is 
used to
> cool down the carbon.)  The glossy paper you're using may be the 
source of
> the magenta look.  The older glossy papers were the worse that 
way.  If you
> try a Kirkland glossy for drafts and a Crane Silver Rag for the 
final print,
> I'd guess the look would be quite different.
> 
> One of the reasons the amount of "magenta" in the toned inks differ 
is that
> I mix them to a specific set of papers.  That set of papers changes 
with
> time.  Crane Silver Rag did not exist when the UT-FSN formula was 
made.  On
> the other hand, the older glossy papers were becoming good enough 
to use.
> Now, however, I think it is critical that an inkset print well on 
CSR, and I
> recommend people move away from the older, acidic glossy paper 
technologies.

> 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

I have the same experience with the FSN inks I bought for my 3000 printer.
The C is greenish, the M is purplish and has almost the same density as Y,
and Y is also too purplish, but much closer to neutral than M. Basically the
inkset as I received it is useless. I've told MIS about it, and I'm
returning them samples of the inks now so they can do some testing.

I have to agree with you, pure carbon inks seems like a better idea at this
point.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

> When UT-FSN was first released, I wanted to switch away from 
> the original FSN I was using. With much trepidation, I made 
> the switch to get better lightfast inkset. Alas, I found 
> excatly the same thing; UT- FSN was definitely magenta heavy. 
> The regular FSN was better at the cool end of neutral. I 
> spoke to Bob at MIS, and he was adamant that UT-FSN and FSN 
> should have similar color. I just gave up at that point.

>I have the same experience with the FSN inks I bought for my 3000 printer.
>The C is greenish, the M is purplish and has almost the same density as Y,
>and Y is also too purplish, but much closer to neutral than M.

UT-FSN-C uses more cyan to blue than do the M and Y.  This was intentional
due to the exaggerated response many papers have in the deep shadows.  This
was mostly the older glossy papers.  The R2 neutral C and M use a more
"normal" ratio.  I've abandoned the FSN-C in favor of the R2. 

My FSN-Y, by the way, is greenish on the papers I use, so I use R2 Neutral
light diluted 1:1.  (The my 7500 I then mix this with 25% warm UT-FS-Y to
get the hue I want.)  I use 2 spectros to measure these things, because
these spectros also don't read the same.  It's real hard to control things
as accurately as we'd like to in B&W. 

There is simply no way I am aware of with current technology to make a
neutral ink that will have the same Lab A on all papers. In general, I want
a positive Lab A in a "neutral" print.  But, I, too, have seen batches of
inks that are way more magenta than the original targets.  (Using the CMY
density readings, the target for "neutral" was C=Y, and M=C+0.01.  This was
taken from my lightly selenium tones silver prints -- Kodak Polymax Fine Art
developed in Dektol.)  

The closeness of the M to Y is the old PiezoBW formula.  The standard
mid-tone dilution for adjacent inks is 0.3.  But FS/Piezo Y=0.5 M, and up at
that dilution the curve is starting to get rather non-linear.  So, the M and
Y are just not that different.  The original UT-Y (lightest carbon) was half
way between the Y and M.

I've abandoned the old FS-M density for my 7500, which is the only printer I
have now that needs a super-light ink.  The middle densities are now the R2
N Light and UT7 LC (or UT2 LM).  This is a standard density that is half way
between C and Y. 

My frustration with the fixed-tone inks obviously goes way back.  The
variable tone inks give one axis control, but that is obviously not adequate
to take care of the Lab A being at a place you don't want it.  The UT-3D is
my hope to get full Lab control in the neutral range.  We'll see.  My
frustration with the fact that few of the inks actually reflect the original
design targets is also becoming obvious with my postings on the issue on
this forum.  Needless to say, sellers don't like to see any dirty laundry
being aired in public.  Again, we'll see if it gets results or backfires.


> pure carbon inks seems like a better idea at this point.

You'll notice the 2400 experiment I posted.  MIS pure carbon and Epson color
-- not blended -- may be the way I'll be with large format.  I have an
experiment going now to see if I can stop the large format separation
problem.  We'll see.

However, the flip side of all this is that I'm also getting almost perfect
C88 prints with the simple MIS EZ inks.  The MIS inks are just un-beatable
bargains for lots of people.  The C88 Crane SR prints I'm getting with High
Speed checked are only matched by the 2400 at RPM.  No other printer and ink
combo I've see can match these two under a loupe.  I'm not even sure a
silver print can match this output.  And the C88 and MIS EZ inks are dirt
cheap.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks a lot.I'll save this for further reference...
André


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> > Humm,I see...Does it mean that it's a known problem of this inkset?
> 
> No, it means I think there is a lot of room for improvement with the
entire
> inkjet industry.  Then again, color photo materials used to also require
> that every batch be re-profiled, and of course, every film and paper had
> it's own characteristics.
> 
> So, between ink variances and paper differences, it's difficult to
get and
> keep the exact look one prefers.
> 
> If a blended monotone or even variable-tone ink is too magenta or
too green
> for a certain paper, there is little one can do about it.  The 3D
approach
> was, in part, to allow one to adjust for these differences.
> 
> It's odd that the inkset at issue here is the UT-FSN.  It actually
has the
> least magenta mix of the toned grays.  (The issue is actually the ratio
> between the cyan and R800 blue -- looks like grape juice -- that is
used to
> cool down the carbon.)  The glossy paper you're using may be the
source of
> the magenta look.  The older glossy papers were the worse that way.
 If you
> try a Kirkland glossy for drafts and a Crane Silver Rag for the
final print,
> I'd guess the look would be quite different.
> 
> One of the reasons the amount of "magenta" in the toned inks differ
is that
> I mix them to a specific set of papers.  That set of papers changes with
> time.  Crane Silver Rag did not exist when the UT-FSN formula was
made.  On
> the other hand, the older glossy papers were becoming good enough to
use.
> Now, however, I think it is critical that an inkset print well on
CSR, and I
> recommend people move away from the older, acidic glossy paper
technologies.

> 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Some have wondered why the "neutral" inksets tend to have dark inks that
have a less magenta or more greenish (which I try to avoid) bias than the
lighter inks.  My response has been that most papers tend to print more
magenta in the shadows.  This can be seen in the tones of the C88, which has
only one midtone ink density and tone.  See graph #4 in this PDF regarding
that inkset: http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/C88_EZ_CSR_SPECTRO.pdf

When the inkset is profiled to give an equal Lab B through the midtones, Lab
A rises as the densities increase, even though there are no cross-overs to a
different toned ink in the midtones.  Whether this is good or bad may be
subjective, but if one wants the Lab A & B curves to both be flat, the ratio
of cyan to R800 blue (or magenta) in the toned (blended) ink must increase
with increasing density.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

For what it's worth, I'm using the utfsn with innova fiba gloss and  
so far have not detected any color cast. It does appear to print  
neutral. A little light, but I'm attributing that to the curve I'm  
using which is not specifically for this paper.

Mike
On Aug 29, 2006, at 12:25 PM, Paul Roark wrote:

>
>
> Some have wondered why the "neutral" inksets tend to have dark inks  
> that
> have a less magenta or more greenish (which I try to avoid) bias  
> than the
> lighter inks. My response has been that most papers tend to print more
> magenta in the shadows. This can be seen in the tones of the C88,  
> which has
> only one midtone ink density and tone. See graph #4 in this PDF  
> regarding
> that inkset: http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/C88_EZ_CSR_SPECTRO.pdf
>
> When the inkset is profiled to give an equal Lab B through the  
> midtones, Lab
> A rises as the densities increase, even though there are no cross- 
> overs to a
> different toned ink in the midtones. Whether this is good or bad  
> may be
> subjective, but if one wants the Lab A & B curves to both be flat,  
> the ratio
> of cyan to R800 blue (or magenta) in the toned (blended) ink must  
> increase
> with increasing density.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
> 



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

I also have found the MIS FSN inks now to be useless.

From my post of June 3, 2006:

Epson 4000, FSN C, M, Y on the left side, FS C, M, Y
on the right side (in the LC, LM, LK positions), Eboni
Black. Using QTR. Hahnemuehle Photo Rag 308.

QTR ink separation page printed at 100%.
Eye One spectro.
100% densities read:

Eboni 1.71
FSN-C 1.24 Lab a=-0.5 b=-0.2
FSN-M  .53 Lab a=0.3 b=-6.7
FSN-Y  .36 Lab a=0.2 b=-4.4
FS-C  1.31
FS-M   .49
FS-Y   .36

I've used FSN and FS on this machine before with no
problem. What seems wrong is:

The FSN-M and Y seem too blue (note high negative b
numbers) while the FSN-C is close to neutral.

The dark grays for both FSN and FS should be darker
(density around 1.5?). Also for both FSN and FS it
seems there should be more of a density difference
between the light grays and middle grays (M and Y).

-----

I contacted MIS after having sent them samples of the
ink. They told me everything was normal. My main
concern here was the visible (and measured) blueness
of the M and Y inks in the FSN.

-John

--- Daniel Staver <daniel@...> wrote:

> I have the same experience with the FSN inks I
> bought for my 3000 printer.
> The C is greenish, the M is purplish and has almost
> the same density as Y,
> and Y is also too purplish, but much closer to
> neutral than M. Basically the
> inkset as I received it is useless. I've told MIS
> about it, and I'm
> returning them samples of the inks now so they can
> do some testing.
> 
> I have to agree with you, pure carbon inks seems
> like a better idea at this
> point.
> 
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no
> 
> 
> > When UT-FSN was first released, I wanted to switch
> away from 
> > the original FSN I was using. With much
> trepidation, I made 
> > the switch to get better lightfast inkset. Alas, I
> found 
> > excatly the same thing; UT- FSN was definitely
> magenta heavy. 
> > The regular FSN was better at the cool end of
> neutral. I 
> > spoke to Bob at MIS, and he was adamant that
> UT-FSN and FSN 
> > should have similar color. I just gave up at that
> point.
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

>... Hahnemuehle Photo Rag 308.

>QTR ink separation page printed at 100%.
>Eye One spectro.
>100% densities read:

>Eboni 1.71
>FSN-C 1.24 Lab a=-0.5 b=-0.2
>FSN-M .53 Lab a=0.3 b=-6.7
>FSN-Y .36 Lab a=0.2 b=-4.4
>FS-C 1.31
>FS-M .49
>FS-Y .36

>I've used FSN and FS on this machine before with no
>problem. What seems wrong is:

>The FSN-M and Y seem too blue (note high negative b
>numbers) while the FSN-C is close to neutral.

>The dark grays for both FSN and FS should be darker
>(density around 1.5?). Also for both FSN and FS it
>seems there should be more of a density difference
>between the light grays and middle grays (M and Y).

The blueness is probably the same issue that is plaguing the 3D inkset.  I
just received a new beta batch today for testing.

The main problem I found is that the LK from the supplier is too light.  MIS
has been relying on the supplier for a standard LK.  The light inks are the
most affected because they use only the LK as the carbon input.  The C and M
are affected to a lesser extent because they also use PK.  To get the
too-light LK up to snuff, PK has to be added to it.  Needless to say, doing
this for every batch is time consuming.  I don't know how far back the
problem goes. It's possible I'll be able to come up with a correction
procedure for existing inks, but no guarantees there.  I'm not sure they
have the information to know how far off the various back batches were. 

The closeness of the M and Y harks back to the Piezo days.  All inksets I've
been involved with since the UT2 have corrected this.

If the FS-C has too low a Lab A for you, use the R2-N C or M (the same ink).
That is what I now use in my 7500 instead of the FSN-C.

MIS is in the middle on this one.  The too-light LK is from the supplier.
MIS is now going to have to QC every input and take corrective steps.  I'm
not sure how they can to that and not raise prices, but they say they will
try.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks, Paul, for that information.
-John

--- Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> >... Hahnemuehle Photo Rag 308.
> 
> >QTR ink separation page printed at 100%.
> >Eye One spectro.
> >100% densities read:
> 
> >Eboni 1.71
> >FSN-C 1.24 Lab a=-0.5 b=-0.2
> >FSN-M .53 Lab a=0.3 b=-6.7
> >FSN-Y .36 Lab a=0.2 b=-4.4
> >FS-C 1.31
> >FS-M .49
> >FS-Y .36
> 
> >I've used FSN and FS on this machine before with no
> >problem. What seems wrong is:
> 
> >The FSN-M and Y seem too blue (note high negative b
> >numbers) while the FSN-C is close to neutral.
> 
> >The dark grays for both FSN and FS should be darker
> >(density around 1.5?). Also for both FSN and FS it
> >seems there should be more of a density difference
> >between the light grays and middle grays (M and Y).
> 
> The blueness is probably the same issue that is
> plaguing the 3D inkset.  I
> just received a new beta batch today for testing.
> 
> The main problem I found is that the LK from the
> supplier is too light.  MIS
> has been relying on the supplier for a standard LK. 
> The light inks are the
> most affected because they use only the LK as the
> carbon input.  The C and M
> are affected to a lesser extent because they also
> use PK.  To get the
> too-light LK up to snuff, PK has to be added to it. 
> Needless to say, doing
> this for every batch is time consuming.  I don't
> know how far back the
> problem goes. It's possible I'll be able to come up
> with a correction
> procedure for existing inks, but no guarantees
> there.  I'm not sure they
> have the information to know how far off the various
> back batches were. 
> 
> The closeness of the M and Y harks back to the Piezo
> days.  All inksets I've
> been involved with since the UT2 have corrected
> this.
> 
> If the FS-C has too low a Lab A for you, use the
> R2-N C or M (the same ink).
> That is what I now use in my 7500 instead of the
> FSN-C.
> 
> MIS is in the middle on this one.  The too-light LK
> is from the supplier.
> MIS is now going to have to QC every input and take
> corrective steps.  I'm
> not sure how they can to that and not raise prices,
> but they say they will
> try.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com