Digital BW, The Print

Hi everybody,

I want to buy a MIS B&W System for my Epson 7600. 
I did a lot of research what System for me would be the best and I 
desided to take the MIS UT7. But now the new UT-3D is out. 
So I don't know what to buy again ...
Has anybody tested the UT-3D and compared it to the UT7?
I know there are some articles from Paul Roark, I read them... 
But to be honest, I don't understand all the features...
I use a RIP for Colour Printing and QTR for BW. 
PS CS2 for Editing. 
I think printing on matte and glossy paper is possible with both 
systems right?

I would be grateful if somebody could tell me his/her experiences in 
this case.

Thank you

Chers 

Florian

Florian,

>I want to buy a MIS B&W System for my Epson 7600.

There are a couple of issues that you need to decide up front. 

First, do you like to print sepia, or is carbon warm enough?  I included
sepia in the UT2 and UT7 inksets, but now tend to avoid it. It has
significant amounts of color pigments in it.  As such, it is just not as
fade resistant as the other inks.  Additionally, most printers seem to be
smoother if all the color channels are firing.  With the sepia installed,
most of the curves do not use that ink position.  The UT-3D inkset omits
sepia in part to have all the channels used regularly.  I, frankly, find
pure carbon on Silver Rag is as warm as I need to go, and it's the more
lightfast pigment there is.

Second, do you use your large format printer regularly?  My experience with
blended B&W inksets (all I've tried) is that they tend to have tone shifts
if the inks are left idle for more than a week.  As an individual
photographer (as opposed to a service bureau), I just do not use my large
format printer that much.  As such, when I did us it, I had to purge the
inks that were in the tubes connecting the cartridges to the head.  This is
time consuming and wastes ink.  As such, I'm moving away from blended
inksets (more than one pigment type in the same ink, like carbon plus color
pigments) for large format printers.  

See my Oct. 1 message #80202.  The same issues would apply to the 7600.  So
far the new approach is working very well.  It does require a rip, but you
already appear to have such.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

> Paul Roark wrote:

> time consuming and wastes ink.  As such, I'm moving away from blended
> inksets (more than one pigment type in the same ink, like 
> carbon plus color
> pigments) for large format printers.  

Paul, are you still using UT-3D in your smaller inkjets, and will you
continue to use and develop the inkset/profiles?

Terry.

Thank you Paul,

1st
I don't need Sepia on the 7600, I can do this with the 4800. 
2nd
I don't use my 7600 very often, maybe 5 to 10 prints a month, 
sometimes more ...

Is now the UT-3D the better choice for me ?

I cant find Oct. 1 message #80202 ... where is it ?


Thank you

Florian 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> Florian,
> 
> >I want to buy a MIS B&W System for my Epson 7600.
> 
> There are a couple of issues that you need to decide up front. 
> 
> First, do you like to print sepia, or is carbon warm enough?  I 
included
> sepia in the UT2 and UT7 inksets, but now tend to avoid it. It has
> significant amounts of color pigments in it.  As such, it is just 
not as
> fade resistant as the other inks.  Additionally, most printers 
seem to be
> smoother if all the color channels are firing.  With the sepia 
installed,
> most of the curves do not use that ink position.  The UT-3D inkset 
omits
> sepia in part to have all the channels used regularly.  I, 
frankly, find
> pure carbon on Silver Rag is as warm as I need to go, and it's the 
more
> lightfast pigment there is.
> 
> Second, do you use your large format printer regularly?  My 
experience with
> blended B&W inksets (all I've tried) is that they tend to have 
tone shifts
> if the inks are left idle for more than a week.  As an individual
> photographer (as opposed to a service bureau), I just do not use 
my large
> format printer that much.  As such, when I did us it, I had to 
purge the
> inks that were in the tubes connecting the cartridges to the 
head.  This is
> time consuming and wastes ink.  As such, I'm moving away from 
blended
> inksets (more than one pigment type in the same ink, like carbon 
plus color
> pigments) for large format printers.  
> 
> See my Oct. 1 message #80202.  The same issues would apply to the 
7600.  So
> far the new approach is working very well.  It does require a rip, 
but you

> already appear to have such.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Thank you Paul,

1st
I don't need Sepia on the 7600, I can do this with the 4800. 
2nd
I don't use my 7600 very often, maybe 5 to 10 prints a month, 
sometimes more ...

Is now the UT-3D the better choice for me ?

I cant find Oct. 1 message #80202 ... where is it ?


Thank you

Florian 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Terry Ritz" 
<t.ritz@...> wrote:
>
> > Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> > time consuming and wastes ink.  As such, I'm moving away from 
blended
> > inksets (more than one pigment type in the same ink, like 
> > carbon plus color
> > pigments) for large format printers.  
> 
> Paul, are you still using UT-3D in your smaller inkjets, and will 
you

> continue to use and develop the inkset/profiles?
> 
> Terry.
>

Terry,

>Paul, are you still using UT-3D in your smaller inkjets, 
>and will you continue to use and develop the inkset/profiles?

>> Paul Roark wrote:
>> ... I'm moving away from blended
>> inksets (more than one pigment type in the same ink, like 
>> carbon plus color pigments) for large format printers. 

My personal concerns about blended inks are mostly aimed at the large format
printers, where my infrequent printing habits have caused me to have trouble
with tone shifts.  It's too early to know whether the non-blended ink B&W
approach solves the problem, but I assume it will at least make a
significant improvement.  So, I just re-loaded my 220 with UT-3D inks. 

On the other hand, as technology moves forward, the writing may be on the
wall for most of the blended inksets.  The success of the k3 approach and
the entry of Canon and HP with similar printers may all be pointing the way
to the future.  I expect the 3800 to be a big success also, and it is a
"large format" printer when it comes to the blended inkset issues that I'm
concerned with.

Add to that the initial feedback that upcoming profiling software seems to
work with the 2400 Y=carbon approach, but the software does not work with
very low gamut blended inks like the UT-3D. There are other factors as well
that work against the blended inks.

So, while I think there will always be markets and uses for the blended B&W
inks, the percentage of B&W digital prints that are made with them will
probably decrease substantially in the next few years.  In fact, I believe
that is exactly what has happened since the introduction of the 2400.  As
the printers and drivers for such printers improve, dedicated B&W inksets
for the middle of the market become rather a moot point.

Still, I expect the EZ and R2 inksets to do well, and there will always be
enthusiasts that just do not want color dots, no matter how small and
invisible, in their B&W prints.  Doing something that improves on what the
big three can do is part of the game for some of us.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thank you Paul. This helps a great deal.

I'm exploring options for B&W on my 2200. I've had good success with K2 and
QTR, but wanted to step up the quality a notch. I've been testing a K7 set,
and like the smoothness and lack of metamerism. However, I can't use this on
Silver Rag. 

UT-7 and UT-3D are certainly alternatives (I don't mind swapping ink sets),
as is the new version of PrintFix Pro (already own it). PrintFix Pro means
I'm limited to K and LK, which takes me back to increased grain. I've been
thinking hard about pulling out the yellow cart and using that slot to add
LLK, and then developing new QTR curves. 

What's unclear to me is how you use EZW-4Y. You had suggested a while back
that I substitute it for the yellow, rather than LLK, in my 2200. Is EZW-4Y
a warm, but very light carbon, similar in density to LLK? Or, do you use
EZW-4Y as a very low gamut yellow in your 2400 to reduce the amount of
yellow pigment that ABW puts on the page?

Thanks again.

Terry.

> Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> My personal concerns about blended inks are mostly aimed at 
> the large format
> printers, where my infrequent printing habits have caused me 
> to have trouble
> with tone shifts.  It's too early to know whether the 
> non-blended ink B&W
> approach solves the problem, but I assume it will at least make a
> significant improvement.  So, I just re-loaded my 220 with 
> UT-3D inks. 
> 
> On the other hand, as technology moves forward, the writing 
> may be on the
> wall for most of the blended inksets.  The success of the k3 
> approach and
> the entry of Canon and HP with similar printers may all be 
> pointing the way
> to the future.  I expect the 3800 to be a big success also, 
> and it is a
> "large format" printer when it comes to the blended inkset 
> issues that I'm
> concerned with.
> 
> Add to that the initial feedback that upcoming profiling 
> software seems to
> work with the 2400 Y=carbon approach, but the software does 
> not work with
> very low gamut blended inks like the UT-3D. There are other 
> factors as well
> that work against the blended inks.
> 
> So, while I think there will always be markets and uses for 
> the blended B&W
> inks, the percentage of B&W digital prints that are made with 
> them will
> probably decrease substantially in the next few years.  In 
> fact, I believe
> that is exactly what has happened since the introduction of 
> the 2400.  As
> the printers and drivers for such printers improve, dedicated 
> B&W inksets
> for the middle of the market become rather a moot point.
> 
> Still, I expect the EZ and R2 inksets to do well, and there 
> will always be
> enthusiasts that just do not want color dots, no matter how small and
> invisible, in their B&W prints.  Doing something that 
> improves on what the
> big three can do is part of the game for some of us.

Terry,

>I'm exploring options for B&W on my 2200. ...

>UT-7 and UT-3D are certainly alternatives ...

Yes, and there are PS curves or other profiles out there for some papers.

>... I've been thinking hard about pulling out the yellow cart 
>and using that slot to add LLK, and then developing new QTR curves. 

That would work.

>What's unclear to me is how you use EZW-4Y.

That was for the 2400 with the Epson driver.  EZW-Y is a pure carbon ink,
but it is denser than LLK or the 3D/UT7 LC.  It works well in the 2400 with
Epson driver and ABW mode because the driver is also putting LLK into the
image, and the driver uses little of the EZW in the highlights.  If I were
to set up a printer that had LK in it and I wanted a lighter ink for the
highlights, I'd use LLK (1 part LK to 2 parts base) or 3D/UT7 LC (1 part LK
to 1 part base).  The normal dilution between midtone inks in the Epson
scheme of things is a 1/3 dilution -- the is, LK to LLK.  On the other hand,
I think LLK is lighter than needed in modern printers.  So, I tend to use
UT-C to LC (same dilution ratio but a bit more dense), which gives a better
dark gray to black transition.

As a practical matter, LLK makes a lot of sense for your use.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

<paul.roark@...> wrote: My experience with blended B&W inksets (all
I've tried) is that they tend to have tone shifts if the inks are left
idle for more than a week. 


Paul,

Am I right in assuming that UT-FS is NOT a blended ink-set? And if so,
is it entirely free of tone shifts due to infrequent use of the printer?
I can imagine that in pigment based inks -blended or not- the pigments
settle when they stand still for some time.

Greetings,

I g o r

The FSN is a blended carbon + color pigs inkset.  I used a variant of it in
my 7500, I called the FSN+ inkset.  It shows significant tone changes if the
printer sits very long without being used.  I'm now trying a non-blended
approach to see if it reduces the tone changes.  I have not measured the
tone shifts in the new approach yet.  So, it's too soon to see which
approach will be better.  (I'm betting on the non-blended approach.)

 

Paul

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

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Igor
Wesdorp
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 8:50 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] UT7 or UT-3D for my Epson 7600

 

<paul.roark@...> wrote: My experience with blended B&W inksets (all
I've tried) is that they tend to have tone shifts if the inks are left
idle for more than a week. 

Paul,

Am I right in assuming that UT-FS is NOT a blended ink-set? And if so,
is it entirely free of tone shifts due to infrequent use of the printer?
I can imagine that in pigment based inks -blended or not- the pigments
settle when they stand still for some time.

Greetings,

I g o r

 



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

That goes for the UT-FSN. But what about the UT-FS set?
Is it blended?
And are there tone or density shift when the printer is not used for
some time?

Thanks,

I g o r



And if so,
> is it entirely free of tone shifts due to infrequent use of the printer?
> I can imagine that in pigment based inks -blended or not- the pigments
> settle when they stand still for some time.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> The FSN is a blended carbon + color pigs inkset.  I used a variant
of it in
> my 7500, I called the FSN+ inkset.  It shows significant tone
changes if the

> printer sits very long without being used.  I'm now trying a non-blended
> approach to see if it reduces the tone changes.  I have not measured the
> tone shifts in the new approach yet.  So, it's too soon to see which
> approach will be better.  (I'm betting on the non-blended approach.)
> 
>  
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>   
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Igor
> Wesdorp
> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 8:50 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] UT7 or UT-3D for my Epson 7600
> 
>  
> 
> <paul.roark@> wrote: My experience with blended B&W inksets (all
> I've tried) is that they tend to have tone shifts if the inks are left
> idle for more than a week. 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Am I right in assuming that UT-FS is NOT a blended ink-set? And if so,
> is it entirely free of tone shifts due to infrequent use of the printer?
> I can imagine that in pigment based inks -blended or not- the pigments
> settle when they stand still for some time.
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> I g o r
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>... what about the UT-FS set?  Is it blended?

Yes, it has half the cyan and R800 blue in it as the FSN.

>And are there tone or density shift when the printer is not 
>used for some time?

What is noticeable is the tone shifts apparently caused by large format
tubes that connect the cartridges to the head.  Note that this issue does
not affect desktop 13" and letter size printers.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I always thought the UT-FS was pure carbon...

However, I did notice that my prints, on photo rag, get a lot warmer
after some weeks or months, and there is some change in the density
too. Even under very moderate and incidental artificial light. The
fresh print looks stunning, but after a while it gets too red.
Is there a way to avoid this?
And is there such a thing as pure carbon ink?

I g o r



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> >... what about the UT-FS set?  Is it blended?
> 
> Yes, it has half the cyan and R800 blue in it as the FSN.
> 
> >And are there tone or density shift when the printer is not 
> >used for some time?
> 
> What is noticeable is the tone shifts apparently caused by large format
> tubes that connect the cartridges to the head.  Note that this issue
does

> not affect desktop 13" and letter size printers.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Igor,

>I always thought the UT-FS was pure carbon...

No, it's a blend.  Carbon by itself is warm -- about half way to a sepia
tone.

>However, I did notice that my prints, on photo rag, get a lot warmer
>after some weeks or months, and there is some change in the density
>too. Even under very moderate and incidental artificial light. The
>fresh print looks stunning, but after a while it gets too red.

That surprises me.  The UT-FS inkset is about as archival and lightfast as
any.  In fact, the UT family is the most lightfast set of inks, overall,
that I've ever tested.

There is some warming that is normal with carbon inksets.  This has more to
do with carbon itself warming up.  It's not that much, however. 

With the original FSN I tried to avoid this by using a counter-warming
strategy that put some yellow dye into the mix.  This faded, shifting the
tone cool and offsetting the warming of the print.  However, with the UT
family of inks I decided not to use this approach both because I want no
dyes in the inks and the shift was within what I thought would be an
acceptable range.

I do not, however, usually us Photo Rag.  It makes me wonder if that paper
and perhaps the environment have something to do with the tone shifts.
Although I expect a slight warm shift from the carbon, most of the effects I
see from light are the burning out of the optical brighteners in the paper.
I avoid these.  When the exposure to light is enough to start fading the
pigments, the R 800 Blue is the first to go, which would shift the tone
warmer and greener.  The cyan is rather tough, but it can be faded via gas
attack.

>And is there such a thing as pure carbon ink?

Yes, the UT-R2-Warm is pure carbon.  Most of the variable-tone inksets have
a carbon channel and can print pure carbon with the right curves or
profiles.  Pure carbon will also warm a bit with age.  At first, the density
might actually increase, especially at the 100% black point.  You could also
do "black only" printing with Eboni and have a "pure carbon" image.  (There
are always non-image forming substances in the inks, but I do not find
visual affects from them to be significant.)

I wish we had totally lightfast pigments, but such do not exist.  One
independent tester rated the early UT2 inks, with a UV coating, at over 600
years of display.  That's about as good as it gets.  Even silver prints
deteriorate.  But, frankly, I suspect the warming you're seeing is not
fading from light, but some other effect.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thank you Paul.

I think the easiest scenario to try is UT7-LC since I can pick up a
pre-loaded 2200 cartridge. My question is, would it be worth also getting
one loaded with UT7-C, and then using QTR to mix either K / LK / UT7-C /
UT7-LC or K / UT7-C / UT7-LC?

Terry.

> Paul Roark wrote:
> Sent: October 5, 2006 8:44 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] UT7 or UT-3D for my Epson 7600
> 
> If I were
> to set up a printer that had LK in it and I wanted a lighter 
> ink for the
> highlights, I'd use LLK (1 part LK to 2 parts base) or 3D/UT7 
> LC (1 part LK
> to 1 part base).  The normal dilution between midtone inks in 
> the Epson
> scheme of things is a 1/3 dilution -- the is, LK to LLK.  On 
> the other hand,
> I think LLK is lighter than needed in modern printers.  So, I 
> tend to use
> UT-C to LC (same dilution ratio but a bit more dense), which 
> gives a better
> dark gray to black transition.
> 
> As a practical matter, LLK makes a lot of sense for your use.

Terry,

>I think the easiest scenario to try is UT7-LC since I can pick up a
>pre-loaded 2200 cartridge. 


If you're using the LK still, then the spread between the LK and UT7-LC is a
bit less than usual, but with QTR you'll be able to profile it fine.

>My question is, would it be worth also getting
>one loaded with UT7-C, and then using QTR to mix either
> K / LK / UT7-C / UT7-LC or K / UT7-C / UT7-LC?

The UT7-C is a bit denser than the LK.  I'm not sure there is much point in
having both in a system.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,


> There is some warming that is normal with carbon inksets. This has
more to do with carbon itself warming up. It's not that much, however.

Take a look at http://members.ams.chello.nl/iwesdorp/ut-fs/index.htm 
Here you will see a scan showing 2 small prints: UT-FS on photo rag.
They were printed 4 1/2 months ago on the same sheet of paper. Then I
cut them loose. The print on the right was stored away, in darkness,
in an acid-free sleeve. The one on the left I keep in a drawer, not
framed, no sleeve. I took it out every now and then and it was exposed
to moderate artificial light (25 watt lightbulb. 7 1/2 LW, says my
Lunasix light meter).
The scan shows quite accurate the difference. The print on the left is
quite a lot warmer, and the dark tones has become somewhat lighter.
Maybe this will not occur if framed behind glass; I don't know, yet.


> I do not, however, usually us Photo Rag. It makes me wonder if that
paper and perhaps the environment have something to do with the tone
shifts.

For me that is a very important question. But can you recommend a
paper that has the same looks as photo rag, but is not prone to those tone
shifts?


> One independent tester rated the early UT2 inks, with a UV coating,
at over 600 years of display.

The tone shift I described took place in months. I did not use any UV
coating, allright, but on the other hand, the print was only
occasionally exposed to light for some hours.

Btw, can glass be considered as a UV coating?


With kind regards,

I g o r


ps. Paul, you are not only a photographer: you're a scientist as well!

Igor,

>> There is some warming that is normal with carbon inksets. 
>>This has more to do with carbon itself warming up. 
>>It's not that much, however.

>Take a look at http://members.ams.chello.nl/iwesdorp/ut-fs/index.htm
>Here you will see a scan showing 2 small prints: 
>UT-FS on photo rag.  They were printed 4 1/2 months ago on 
>the same sheet of paper.

>The print on the right was stored away, in darkness,
>in an acid-free sleeve. 

There is some blotchiness in the print on the right.  Is that on the print
or a scanning artifact.  It does not appear to be on the print on the left.
I'm wondering what would cause that. 

>The one on the left I keep in a drawer, not
>framed, no sleeve. I took it out every now and then and 
>it was exposed to moderate artificial light (25 watt lightbulb. 
>7 1/2 LW, says my Lunasix light meter).

Is the drawer a wooden one?  What else is in the cabinet?  Wood and the
finish on wood can be a problem if it is out gassing something that the
pigments are affected by.  If there is out gassing, the blotchiness of the
print on the right that was in a sleeve might explain the blotchy affect.

I've had silver prints in metal cabinets be attacked apparently by air-borne
acids that were outgases from other papers in the same cabinet.

>The scan shows quite accurate the difference. The print on the 
>left is quite a lot warmer, and the dark tones has become 
>somewhat lighter. Maybe this will not occur if framed behind 
>glass; I don't know, yet.

>For me that is a very important question. But can you 
>recommend a paper that has the same looks as photo rag, 
>but is not prone to those tone shifts?

I'm not sure what is going on with your prints.  I'm guessing the cyan
pigment and/or paper is being attacked by a gas.  

I don't have great information on the relative resistance of papers to gas
attack, but my perception from what I've read is that Photo Rag is
relatively susceptible and Epson UltraSmooth is more resistant.  I
understand why people love the look of Photo Rag, but I use UltraSmooth and
the Premier Art papers that apparently use the same coating -- Premier Art
Fine Art Hot Press 205 and 325.  For example, I'm just starting another
museum preservation project, and I'm recommending Premier Art 325 for that
one.

> can glass be considered as a UV coating?

It blocks the shortest UV wave lengths, which are the most damaging.  That
is why indoor display has much less of a UV problem than outdoor display.  

The UV sprays still do some good.  In my tests the Epson UC inks under
fluorescent lights get about a 30% better life, and MIS inks about a 10%
better life with something like a Premier Art Print Shield.  The spray
basically brings the UC pigs up to the MIS level, making be believe the MIS
base (which is a light yellow) already includes some UV protection in it.

I don't know if the sprays are effective at stopping gas attacks.  I'd guess
they would at least slow it down.  For the museum project, I'm spraying the
prints, more for physical protection than light or gas, however.

I would avoid storing photos in wooden drawers or with any non-buffered
papers.  Gas attack is a significant problem in some environments, and I'd
guess that is what you're dealing with.

You might want to take a look at the Art Care products.  See
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/waac/wn/wn18/wn18-1/wn18-106.html,
http://www.nielsen-bainbridge.com/Bainbridge/4NB-ACEndorsements.html, and
http://www.inkjetart.com/misc/artcare/. 

Hope this helps.  It's sad to see your photos deteriorate like that. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

> There is some blotchiness in the print on the right. Is that on the
print or a scanning artifact.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean, but I think this blotchiness is
applied by me on purpose, being part of my style.

 
> Is the drawer a wooden one? What else is in the cabinet?

Pine tree, lacquered about 20 years ago. There are inkjet prints
(Photo Rag and Epson Archival Matte) and pencildrawings on ordinary
sketching paper in that drawer.


> If there is out gassing, the blotchiness of the print on the right
that was in a sleeve might explain the blotchy affect.

The print on the right was not in that drawer, but in a cupboard,
inside an acid free plastic (=can hardly be penetrated by gas) sleeve
with some similar prints. Thatls probably the reason it was preserved
that well.


> It's sad to see your photos deteriorate like that.

The prints in that drawer are just small prints (up to A4) for my
personal reference, I can replace them if necessairy. I just don't
want the same thing to happen with the larger and framed prints I hang
in galleries and sell. But since they are behind glass, I suppose they
are safer(?).

I will have a look at those links. And I will try the papers you
mentioned. Thanks.

I g o r

Igor,

>> There is some blotchiness in the print on the right. 

>I'm not 100% sure what you mean...

Look just left of the second block from the top on the photo on the right.
There are some more neutral areas in that photo that do not appear in the
photo on the left.  

>> Is the drawer a wooden one? What else is in the cabinet?

>Pine tree, lacquered about 20 years ago. ...

> >If there is out gassing, the blotchiness of the print on 
>>the right that was in a sleeve might explain the blotchy affect.

>The print on the right was not in that drawer, but in a cupboard,
>inside an acid free plastic (=can hardly be penetrated by gas) sleeve
>with some similar prints. That's probably the reason it was preserved
>that well.

Was the sleeve a zip-lock that could keep out the air?

I don't know what would cause the discoloration, but when the light exposure
seems too little to be the cause, air pollution is the logical next
candidate, I would think.  Some coatings seem to be more susceptible to
discoloration or to promote gas fade more than others, but I don't know of
any testing with pigments that would tell us which coatings are best in this
regard.  My best guess is that Epson UltraSmooth and Premier Art Hot Press
are among the better coatings for longevity.  On the other hand, anecdotal
stories about Photo Rag suggest it may be rather sensitive to air
pollutants, but I don't know if this also means it would promote gas fade of
the pigments.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

> Look just left of the second block from the top on the photo on the
right.

I see, no, that must be due to the scanning.


> Was the sleeve a zip-lock that could keep out the air?

No. But I thought it would have kept the gas outside to a sufficient
degree anyway. Well, maybe not. But my complaints do not concern this
print: it's fine. It is the other one, the one in the drawer without a
sleeve or anything, that made me worry. But if it is gas, the prints
that are framed behind glass should be relatively save, I reckon, I hope.


I g o r

Paul-  

In confirmation of your observations on the EUSFA/Premier, for the last 
year or so I've had several prints on Velvet Fine Art, Photo Rag and 
the Ultrasmooth around the house, unframed, tacked to the walls, 
including in the kitchen (a torture test).  The Ultrasmooth shows a 
remarkable resistance to discoloration compared to the other two.  The 
Rag and Velvet begin to yellow rather quickly, starting at the edges of 
the print.  The Ultrasmooth still looks like a fresh sheet from the box.

We had this discussion a while ago, but are you finding the Premier, in 
sheets, acceptable in terms of quality control?  The Ultrasmooth is 
excellent in this regard, but on the one occasion I tried a few hundred 
sheets of the Premier (Super A), the quality was quite poor, 
particularly in terms of scratches in the coating.

Good wishes,
Walt


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
My best guess is that Epson UltraSmooth and Premier Art Hot Press
> are among the better coatings for longevity.  On the other hand, 
anecdotal
> stories about Photo Rag suggest it may be rather sensitive to air
> pollutants, but I don't know if this also means it would promote gas 
fade of

> the pigments.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Walt,

 

I have not noticed a quality control issue with Premier Art.  What I did
notice with the last roll of Hot Press 205 that I purchased is that the
profile it needed was quite different than the sheets I've been using.  It
did not seem able to take as much ink, but the dmax might have been a bit
better.

 

Paul

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

 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wwodets
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 7:27 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: UT7 or UT-3D for my Epson 7600

 

Paul- 

In confirmation of your observations on the EUSFA/Premier, for the last 
year or so I've had several prints on Velvet Fine Art, Photo Rag and 
the Ultrasmooth around the house, unframed, tacked to the walls, 
including in the kitchen (a torture test). The Ultrasmooth shows a 
remarkable resistance to discoloration compared to the other two. The 
Rag and Velvet begin to yellow rather quickly, starting at the edges of 
the print. The Ultrasmooth still looks like a fresh sheet from the box.

We had this discussion a while ago, but are you finding the Premier, in 
sheets, acceptable in terms of quality control? The Ultrasmooth is 
excellent in this regard, but on the one occasion I tried a few hundred 
sheets of the Premier (Super A), the quality was quite poor, 
particularly in terms of scratches in the coating.

Good wishes,
Walt

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
My best guess is that Epson UltraSmooth and Premier Art Hot Press
> are among the better coatings for longevity. On the other hand, 
anecdotal
> stories about Photo Rag suggest it may be rather sensitive to air
> pollutants, but I don't know if this also means it would promote gas 
fade of
> the pigments.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

 



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