Digital BW, The Print

For those of you interested in printers using Epson's Claria inkset, a
wide-format printer utilizing the inkset may be available soon:
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?pfp=srch1&Ntt=sp+1400&N=0&Dx=mode+matchall&Nty=1&D=sp+1400&Ntk=All&product_code=344193#ts

Chris Hargens

Excellent.  Now all we need are the carts.  Kiss the 1280 good bye -
finally.

 

Has anyone seen a good technical write-up of the Claria dye that explains
its excellent lightfastness?

 

Paul

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

 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
tzinzunzan2006
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 9:37 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Claria on wide format

 

For those of you interested in printers using Epson's Claria inkset, a
wide-format printer utilizing the inkset may be available soon:
http://www.compusa.
<http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?pfp=srch1&Ntt=sp+1400&N=0&
Dx=mode+matchall&Nty=1&D=sp+1400&Ntk=All&product_code=344193#ts>
com/products/product_info.asp?pfp=srch1&Ntt=sp+1400&N=0&Dx=mode+matchall&Nty
=1&D=sp+1400&Ntk=All&product_code=344193#ts

Chris Hargens

 



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

By the way, if anyone has a 260 and an empty cart or 2 that they'd like to
donate to the cause, I have an idea on re-using those chips that is worth
checking out.

 

Paul

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

 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Roark
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:34 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Claria on wide format

 

Excellent. Now all we need are the carts. Kiss the 1280 good bye -
finally.

Has anyone seen a good technical write-up of the Claria dye that explains
its excellent lightfastness?

Paul

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

_____ 

From: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
tzinzunzan2006
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 9:37 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Claria on wide format

For those of you interested in printers using Epson's Claria inkset, a
wide-format printer utilizing the inkset may be available soon:
http://www.compusa.
<http://www.compusa.
<http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?pfp=srch1&Ntt=sp+1400&N=0&
> com/products/product_info.asp?pfp=srch1&Ntt=sp+1400&N=0&
Dx=mode+matchall&Nty=1&D=sp+1400&Ntk=All&product_code=344193#ts>
com/products/product_info.asp?pfp=srch1&Ntt=sp+1400&N=0&Dx=mode+matchall&Nty
=1&D=sp+1400&Ntk=All&product_code=344193#ts

Chris Hargens

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

 



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

Paul,

Do you have some B&W dye based inks in the works for use in these new  
1.5 pl printers?

Carl

On Jan 2, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Paul Roark wrote:

> By the way, if anyone has a 260 and an empty cart or 2 that they'd  
> like to
> donate to the cause, I have an idea on re-using those chips that is  
> worth
> checking out.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>

Carl,

>Do you have some B&W dye based inks in the works for use in 
>these new 1.5 pl printers?

No, I want to use pigments.  I expect the standard pigs to work just fine in
the new series.  The R800 has 1.5 pl dots and isn't a problem.  The 220 dye
printer works fine.  So, with luck, our standard pigs will be just fine in
these new printers and we'll have a great 13" printer for B&W.  I'm very
curious what 1.5 pl dots and 5 dot sizes can do.

However, there are currently no third party carts or chips.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 


Carl

On Jan 2, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Paul Roark wrote:

> By the way, if anyone has a 260 and an empty cart or 2 that they'd 
> like to
> donate to the cause, I have an idea on re-using those chips that is 
> worth
> checking out.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> By the way, if anyone has a 260 and an empty cart or 2 that they'd
like to
> donate to the cause, I have an idea on re-using those chips that is
worth
> checking out.
> 
>  
> 

I have something, but haven't had the time to look at them. You might
want one of the larger carts for testing though, I think I only have
what was originally packaged with the printer.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:

>  
> 
> Has anyone seen a good technical write-up of the Claria dye that
explains
> its excellent lightfastness?
> 


I have window tests going right now if that's what you are looking
for. It's dark and dreary so it might be a while. They were printed on
a 260.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
 
> Has anyone seen a good technical write-up of the Claria dye that
explains
> its excellent lightfastness?

Try -- http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/tech_news/tnl0611single.pdf

Not very detailed, but it gives a general idea of what makes the
inkset an improvement over previous dye inks.

Chris Hargens

> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> tzinzunzan2006
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 9:37 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Claria on wide format
> 
>  
> 
> For those of you interested in printers using Epson's Claria inkset, a
> wide-format printer utilizing the inkset may be available soon:
> http://www.compusa.
>
<http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?pfp=srch1&Ntt=sp+1400&N=0&
> Dx=mode+matchall&Nty=1&D=sp+1400&Ntk=All&product_code=344193#ts>
>
com/products/product_info.asp?pfp=srch1&Ntt=sp+1400&N=0&Dx=mode+matchall&Nty

> =1&D=sp+1400&Ntk=All&product_code=344193#ts
> 
> Chris Hargens
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

> 
> Try -- http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/tech_news/tnl0611single.pdf
> 
> Not very detailed, but it gives a general idea of what makes the
> inkset an improvement over previous dye inks.
> 
> Chris Hargens

So it is in the ink's molecule structure and not a better 
combination of ink and paper coating. That more dense 
clustered molecule is a step to a pigment particle, like the 
K3s are probably a step from pigment particle to dye if 
compared to other pigment inks. The improvement in the ink 
itself should make the paper choices less restricted.

Interesting to see that the black is considered to be more 
black than other dye blacks are. There was a message here in 
this list that said the Dmax was low.  Wonder whether Paul's 
third party pigment ink will give a better Dmax with the same 
printer and driver.


Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Very impressive. This new Claria ink seems to surpass HP's Vivera by a
great distance. Claria's longevity on matte paper is 97 years vs. HP's
21 years according to Wilhelm. Maybe there will be less of a need for
coating prints with this new ink.

--nick

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tzinzunzan2006"
<tzinzunzan2006@...> wrote:

>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> <paul.roark@> wrote:
>  
> > Has anyone seen a good technical write-up of the Claria dye that
> > explains its excellent lightfastness?
> 
> Try -- http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/tech_news/tnl0611single.pdf
> 
> Not very detailed, but it gives a general idea of what makes the
> inkset an improvement over previous dye inks.
> 
> Chris Hargens

Other than continuous tone printing on gloss, I don’t see any advantage of
using Claria over K3.
I think Paul is on the right track, 1.5pl/5-sizes; if I didn’t sell my 260,
I would have given him the carts already.  I’m also in the minority group
who believes that current printers are better with a 16-bit driver.  Put
those two together, and it could be a new level of visual smoothness.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Nick H.
Nugent
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:50 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Claria on wide format

Very impressive. This new Claria ink seems to surpass HP's Vivera by a
great distance. Claria's longevity on matte paper is 97 years vs. HP's
21 years according to Wilhelm. Maybe there will be less of a need for
coating prints with this new ink.

--nick



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

Sorry, you just missed me on that one, the extra 260 went to a friend 
in need. I do have a couple empty carts, though, if that's of any 
help.

Steve Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> By the way, if anyone has a 260 and an empty cart or 2 that they'd 
like to
> donate to the cause, I have an idea on re-using those chips that is 
worth
> checking out.
> 
>  
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of 
Paul
> Roark
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:34 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Claria on wide format
> 
>  
> 
> Excellent. Now all we need are the carts. Kiss the 1280 good bye -
> finally.
> 
> Has anyone seen a good technical write-up of the Claria dye that 
explains
> its excellent lightfastness?
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroar <http://www.paulroark.com/> 
k.com/> 
> 
> _____ 
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> tzinzunzan2006
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 9:37 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhit
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
> eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Claria on wide format
> 
> For those of you interested in printers using Epson's Claria 
inkset, a
> wide-format printer utilizing the inkset may be available soon:
> http://www.compusa.
> <http://www.compusa.
> <http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?
pfp=srch1&Ntt=sp+1400&N=0&
> > com/products/product_info.asp?pfp=srch1&Ntt=sp+1400&N=0&
> Dx=mode+matchall&Nty=1&D=sp+1400&Ntk=All&product_code=344193#ts>
> com/products/product_info.asp?
pfp=srch1&Ntt=sp+1400&N=0&Dx=mode+matchall&Nty

> =1&D=sp+1400&Ntk=All&product_code=344193#ts
> 
> Chris Hargens
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Ernst,

>> Try -- http://www.epson.co.jp/e/newsroom/tech_news/tnl0611single.pdf 
>> 
> >Not very detailed, but it gives a general idea of what makes the
> >inkset an improvement over previous dye inks.
> 
> >Chris Hargens

> So it is in the ink's molecule structure ...
> more dense clustered molecule is a step to a pigment particle, ...

Yes, that's what it looks like to me also.  Our color pigs are already what
they call "dye stacks."  They are basically non-soluble crystals of the same
chemicals that make the dyes.   

(Of course, one factor that could confuse the issue is that, consistent with
most commercial writings like this, there is a good chance much of the
article us just hype for the consumers with a dose of disinformation for the
competitors.)

A couple of issues I'm wondering about are, first, whether the apparent
stacking of the dye molecules is before they hit the paper or whether they
have found a way to get them to form larger crystals on the paper itself.
The size of the final, dried particle is what distinguishes the "dyes" from
the "pigments" in terms of longevity.  However, if the stacking is after
hitting the paper, the ink would spread or bleed like a dye -- not a good
thing for sharpness.  So, I'm assuming the stacking of the dye is done
before it's printed.  

I'm no chemist, but another question is where the line is between soluble
and non-soluble.  How many molecules could they stack before this "dye" is
really just a pigment with such small particles that they simply will never
settle?  Given the apparent pigment-like resistance to bleeding, I'm
guessing this new "dye" is, in fact, a super-fine pigment that Epson for
some reason finds advantageous to call a "dye."  

It's all rather academic, of course.  The bottom line is that Epson appears
to have made a significant step forward, at least for color, glossy
printing.  I'm not sure the ink itself has any application to B&W.

>Interesting to see that the black is considered to be
> more black than other dye blacks are. 

I'm rather skeptical of the black ink claims.  I'd expect a light load to
very fine carbon with the new dye particles added, similar to the PKN
approach that works well to increase dmax.  I doubt very much that it can
compete with carbon pigments in terms of lightfastness.

Have you noticed that the Claria inks do "worse" with UV filtering in
Wilhelm tests?  The explanation appears to be that one or more of the colors
is disproportionately affected by UV.  As such, the filter makes one of them
so much better that, while the fade rate decreases with UV filtering, the
color balance shift gets worse and triggers the end point definition sooner
than the fade rate does.

As much as I'm curios about the inks, like John indicated, I'm really much
more excited by 1.5 pl, 5 dot levels, and a modern 13" platform for less
than $400.  I also expect this head will find its way into large format
printers.

It's definitely going to be fun to see Epson, Canon and HP duke it out.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I only tested on Epson ultra premium gloss before giving up on the 260.
However, the test prints I made with a clean 720 dpi image were the sharpest
thing I have seen to date.  As close as my unaided eye can focus, which is
pretty close, the image is sharp.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Paul Roark
 Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Claria on wide format
However, if the stacking is after
hitting the paper, the ink would spread or bleed like a dye -- not a good
thing for sharpness. So, I'm assuming the stacking of the dye is done
before it's printed.



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

This sounds like the 1280 upgrade we have been waiting for. If it's a
hextone printer it's best use may be as a dedicated b&w printer with
one of the MIS ink sets. Who needs Claria :) At $400 you could buy
another, replace the Claria with MIS pigments, and dedicate the second
printer to color. Two printers for less than the cost of a single 2400.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tzinzunzan2006"
<tzinzunzan2006@...> wrote:
>
> For those of you interested in printers using Epson's Claria inkset, a
> wide-format printer utilizing the inkset may be available soon:
>
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?pfp=srch1&Ntt=sp+1400&N=0&Dx=mode+matchall&Nty=1&D=sp+1400&Ntk=All&product_code=344193#ts

> 
> Chris Hargens
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
> Interesting to see that the black is considered to be more 
> black than other dye blacks are. There was a message here in 
> this list that said the Dmax was low. 

That was me. I was not impressed with the dmax on matte papers, eboni 
is equal or better on matte so I see no need for a "dye" ink that works 
worse for matte printing. Now if you are doing glossy that would be a 
different story, to bad they didn't make a gray dye ink for a 7+ 
channel printer.

In a couple of months I can make the measurement files available for 
the papers in the R260 testing. I need to let the print age for many 
more days in what could be called the Sun.

Paul Roark wrote:





> A couple of issues I'm wondering about are, first, whether the apparent
> stacking of the dye molecules is before they hit the paper or whether they
> have found a way to get them to form larger crystals on the paper itself.
> The size of the final, dried particle is what distinguishes the "dyes" from
> the "pigments" in terms of longevity.  However, if the stacking is after
> hitting the paper, the ink would spread or bleed like a dye -- not a good
> thing for sharpness.  So, I'm assuming the stacking of the dye is done
> before it's printed.  

Both pigment and dye ink can print sharp, enough ingredients 
to create a better rheology in the inkjet ink and on the 
paper. Though not all papers are tested by Wilhelm I get the 
impression that the ink isn't so coating dependent for good 
fade results which points to being stacked dye from the 
beginning. But a Kitamura has been involved in two component 
inkjet inks, the last doesn't have to mean that one component 
has to be in the paper coating.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20060028521.html
> 
> I'm no chemist, but another question is where the line is between soluble
> and non-soluble.  How many molecules could they stack before this "dye" is
> really just a pigment with such small particles that they simply will never
> settle?  Given the apparent pigment-like resistance to bleeding, I'm
> guessing this new "dye" is, in fact, a super-fine pigment that Epson for
> some reason finds advantageous to call a "dye."  

The line below the molecule structure pictures says:  Epson\ufffds 
newly developed Claria ink is much more resistant to light and 
ozone thanks to its tightly clustered pigment molecules.

The dividing line between dye and pigment isn't drawn by Epson 
either.

> Have you noticed that the Claria inks do "worse" with UV filtering in
> Wilhelm tests?  The explanation appears to be that one or more of the colors
> is disproportionately affected by UV.  As such, the filter makes one of them
> so much better that, while the fade rate decreases with UV filtering, the
> color balance shift gets worse and triggers the end point definition sooner
> than the fade rate does.

My bet is on the yellow. The cyan shows good properties in 
both old dye and Claria. The improvement has been exceptional 
in yellow and they indicate the yellow is a lot more vivid. 
Yellow is usually the most affected by UV, if they improved 
its light + UV resistance that much it could show a shift to 
yellow when a UV filter is used, there are more components 
(paper) in a tested print that shift to yellow already.

> As much as I'm curios about the inks, like John indicated, I'm really much
> more excited by 1.5 pl, 5 dot levels, and a modern 13" platform for less
> than $400.  I also expect this head will find its way into large format
> printers.
> 
> It's definitely going to be fun to see Epson, Canon and HP duke it out.

On wide formats you do not use 1.5 pl, think 3 or 4 pl for 
that market, Epson already has a problem to get equal in speed 
to HP and Canon with their thermo head assemblies that have 
12K or 25K nozzles where Epson has 1.5K nozzles. One of the 
reasons why Epson made that black inkline shift on the 3800 is 
that they want to keep head number low, a pi\ufffdzohead is far 
more expensive than the new thermo heads are (nozzles 
counted). So I expect that Epson will not be the champion of 
multi color heads but will try to improve ink technology to 
get similar results with less inks. The step from UC to K3 
showed an improved M and C transparency (Yellow has always 
been more transparent) and Claria is another step towards more 
dye like (transparency) behaviour. I don't think they will use 
it for the wide formats though, the market is different and K3 
suits it well right now. It will be interesting to see gamuts 
of Claria and the 3 pigment ink samples of E,HP, C, next to 
one another. Gamut size could be equal but with differences in 
the shape, transparency should create better shadow color, 
primary mixes will be better on N-color printers.

Met vriendelijke groeten,Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Ernst,

>...
> The line below the molecule structure pictures says:  Epson’s
> newly developed Claria ink is much more resistant to light and
> ozone thanks to its tightly clustered pigment molecules.

This says to me this ink is, in fact, a pigment ink.  Here's a potentially
random thought: is this Epson's entry into the un-coated pigment market?  Do
you suppose they've noticed the un-coated pigs have lower bronzing and they
can't really solve the problem with their coated UC pigs?  So, they enter
with a particle size that is so low that they get dye-like transparency and
non-settling, but with pigment like lightfastness.  Calling it a "dye" may
be a marketing approach to signal its superior performance on glossy paper.

I wonder also if the, presumably, very small particle size, but still rather
good, pigment-like stability, indicates that the particle size to
lightfastness relationship is not linear.  Apparently some of these
substances simply become transparent when they oxidize.  If that is the
case, then they may still function as barriers to oxidation of interior
molecules.  If that is going on, then it makes sense that there would be a
non-linear relationship between size and oxidation rate.


> ... The cyan shows good properties in both old dye and Claria.

Cyan, which I assume is a phthalocyanine, is the most lightfast color I've
tested also.  I've never tested it directly against the carbon, but I'll bet
it's close to carbon in stability.  I've been suspicious that the Epson k3
neutral pigments may be slightly neutralized with some cyan.  That would
account for the slight green hue.

>... a piëzohead is far
> more expensive than the new thermo heads are (nozzles
> counted). ...

Yes, the Epson heads, however, appear to have the advantage of variable dot
size and smaller drops.  So, smoothness may be where the piezo head
technology will have its advantage -- which is just what we see in the 260.

At any rate, it'll be interesting to watch the competition.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

> This says to me this ink is, in fact, a pigment ink.

The problem is that there is no hard and fast distinction between 'pigments' 
and 'dyes'. A colorant can be soluble in one solvent and insoluble in 
another, crystalline or non-crystalline, aggregated or non-aggregated, 
stable or unstable, and so on. They don't fall neatly into two groups. So I 
don't think it is worth trying to keep this distinction.

All colorants (substances that have color) are pigments in the original 
sense of the word (Latin pigmentum, pingere - to paint or color).

Bob Frost.

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

Paul Roark wrote:
> Ernst,
> 
>> ...
>> The line below the molecule structure pictures says:  Epson\ufffds
>> newly developed Claria ink is much more resistant to light and
>> ozone thanks to its tightly clustered pigment molecules.
> 
> This says to me this ink is, in fact, a pigment ink.  Here's a potentially
> random thought: is this Epson's entry into the un-coated pigment market?  Do
> you suppose they've noticed the un-coated pigs have lower bronzing and they
> can't really solve the problem with their coated UC pigs?  So, they enter
> with a particle size that is so low that they get dye-like transparency and
> non-settling, but with pigment like lightfastness.  Calling it a "dye" may
> be a marketing approach to signal its superior performance on glossy paper.

Bronzing is a complex thing but the smaller the pigment 
particle the easier the penetration of that particle through 
the top layer of the coating on gloss paper. Either they can 
not encapsulate the particles due to their size or structure, 
on the other hand it may not be a good idea to encapsulate as 
they get too big to get through the membrane. The 
encapsulation on the K3 and the HP Vivera particles is there 
also to prevent the particles to clump in suspension, they do 
not attract one another due to the potential on the surface. 
So there's more done than just making them smaller. Another 
molecule is created as well as is mentioned in this line:

"To counter this, the researchers created new chemical 
formations by adding additional atoms to the dye\ufffds basic 
molecular structure, and then engineered the molecules into 
tight clusters. This not only strengthened the ink\ufffds atomic 
bonding, better protecting it from the effects of light and 
gases, but also improved the quality of the ink"

I don't think you can make another colorant without changing 
the molecule structure so that's obvious but they possibly hit 
on something that wasn't possible before but suits water based 
inkjet printing inks well.

> I wonder also if the, presumably, very small particle size, but still rather
> good, pigment-like stability, indicates that the particle size to
> lightfastness relationship is not linear.  Apparently some of these
> substances simply become transparent when they oxidize.  If that is the
> case, then they may still function as barriers to oxidation of interior
> molecules.  If that is going on, then it makes sense that there would be a
> non-linear relationship between size and oxidation rate.

That non linearity is something I also thought about but I 
think they did more than making the particles smaller. I doubt 
they can count on the positive filtering effect of oxidised 
particles, smaller particle size means more total surface area 
if compared to bigger particles and that usually gives more 
fading to light and ozon. Anyway when layers become oxidised 
and get transparent it would result in less chroma, even if 
neutrality in the print is kept it would be noticed in 
Wilhelm's results. I really think that they found something 
that allowed such small particles to be stable.

What intrigues me most is the lower Dmax Greg reported if 
compared to dye inks on matte and even K3 on matte.
If the black is also pigment based and has a very small 
particle size there may be something going on that I remember 
from some silkscreen ink research. The smaller the particle 
size and the more uniform that size (shape and size) the more 
difficult it becomes to create an opaque black ink. That has 
to do with the stacking of the particles, for opaqueness you 
need some non-uniformity. Something that is found in film 
grain structure too.

We discussed the Dmax of black dye ink in the past and I 
mentioned that light more or less drowns in black dye prints, 
like a black pond you look in at the right angle so the 
surface doesn't reflect. With bigger pigment particles 
opaqueness is created to a degree so white paper underneath is 
blocked but density becomes never more than the reflectance of 
the pigment particle surface (+ encapsulation) allows, laying 
down more ink the Dmax even decreases, something that is 
related to bronzing. I guess that the smaller uniform black 
pigment particle that works nicely on gloss papers considering 
gloss etc doesn't have the dye quality to create good black on 
matte paper (pond wise) but also isn't able to do it in 
pigment style with opaqueness. The last could become better if 
more ink is laid down if that doesn't result in bleeding. All 
speculative of course.

> Yes, the Epson heads, however, appear to have the advantage of variable dot
> size and smaller drops.  So, smoothness may be where the piezo head
> technology will have its advantage -- which is just what we see in the 260.

With the new HP and Canon wide format models another approach 
has been taken, thermo heads can be made with droplet size 
variation but it isn't an advantage in this case. There is 
just one droplet size per ink on the HP Z3100/2100 and they 
used a small one for most inks: 4 pl. That's close to the 
minimum droplet size used on the existing Epson wide formats. 
The result is that the print will be smoother in all mixes and 
gradations than Epson's K3 wide format prints as the last will 
use the bigger droplets when more ink is needed. The HP and I 
guess the Canon (though a bit coarser) will mix everything 
with that fixed small droplet size. The dithering, weaving 
pattern is adapted to that system. On the HP, the matte black 
and the gloss enhancer heads use 6 pl, the first one to get 
the bigger matte black particles through the wider nozzle, the 
second one to get more varnish on the print and create an even 
layer. The Epson wide formats right now will be smoother in 
the high lights where the 3.5 pl may have a small advantage 
(it also depends on the LM,LC, Y and LLK ink density of the 3 
manufacturers) but will not have an advantage above that 
level. It is interesting to see that the 3800 seems to use the 
smallest droplet over a longer range too than the older K3 
models do.

My bet is on countless many nozzles that squirt at 20Ks 
countless many small droplets. An interesting HP development 
is a static single array inkjet head that squirts pages at 
their full width without the head moving. See Edgeline 
Technology. It would be a much more expensive head in pi\ufffdzo 
technology.


Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Sorry, but why we should wait for an Epson 1400 and trasform it in a
bw printer, if we have an 8 ink printer like r1800?
I'm considering an a3 printer for mis ink......
Best regards and "ciao",
Carlo.

I, too, was considering dedicating an R1800 to b&w with MIS inks, but
the 1400 may provide a better option. Here's why:
More ink channels increase complexity and cost for no return when
using a printer with a dedicated b&w ink set. For example, the R1800
natively supports CMYK, plus photo black, blue, red, and gloss
optimizer. You will need a RIP to correctly partition and linearize
b&w inks. If you don't print on glossy paper you don't even need the
PK or glop channel, so you might just as well turn them off. This
leaves you with a hextone printer :-)   
You might as well just start with a 6 color printer and have the
option of using the Epson driver to print. 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Carlo Nicolucci"
<carlophoto@...> wrote:

>
> Sorry, but why we should wait for an Epson 1400 and trasform it in a
> bw printer, if we have an 8 ink printer like r1800?
> I'm considering an a3 printer for mis ink......
> Best regards and "ciao",
> Carlo.
>

Phillip, I have an R1800, and I can't tell you in how many ways I 
disagree with you. But here's a try:
First of all, there may be no B&W for the Claria printers for a 
while; the chips have two extra contacts and there's some kind of 
electric ink level sensing in each cart, so they may be more 
difficult to reverse-engineer and mass produce. And in case you 
missed Paul Roark's remark on the subject, Epson is building towards 
further infringement suits, and these carts could well involved.
 
We don't know for sure that the printer will work well with pigments. 
It may not simply supercede the 1280 in the line-up, it may behave 
like it as well: many of us used one, (I had 4) and cursed the beast 
everyday because it clogged so readily. 
On the other hand, while more channels may indeed mean more 
complexity, they also offer more versatility. I'm using the glop 
channel for an LK, and the red for an LLK, and of course the printer 
has both MK and PK already. So I have 3K matte and Photo black in one 
machine, with toning all the way from deep blue to deep sepia. And I 
am only a single cartidge switch away from doing color. Or, you could 
use only the LK in the glop channel, and have 2K B&W and full-time 
PIGMENT color. And 2K B&W with that printer is nothing to sneer at, 
it is excellent. The only downside is the fact that there aren't many 
pre-made QTR profiles for this printer, you have to learn to make 
your own.

As for using the Eppson driver, how would you get decent B&W out of 
that? You either need good profiling hardware and software (more 
complexity and cost: cheapest available that will do the job- 
Printfix Pro at $500.00) or you go with BO, IF the driver will allow 
you to do that. My R260 driver will not, so I doubt the R1400 will be 
different.

But the real qusestion is: do you want to start printing now? or 
several months down the road?

Steve Karafyllakis



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Philip 
Schwartz" <Philip.Schwartz@...> wrote:
>
> I, too, was considering dedicating an R1800 to b&w with MIS inks, 
but

> the 1400 may provide a better option. Here's why:
> More ink channels increase complexity and cost for no return when
> using a printer with a dedicated b&w ink set. For example, the R1800
> natively supports CMYK, plus photo black, blue, red, and gloss
> optimizer. You will need a RIP to correctly partition and linearize
> b&w inks. If you don't print on glossy paper you don't even need the
> PK or glop channel, so you might just as well turn them off. This
> leaves you with a hextone printer :-)   
> You might as well just start with a 6 color printer and have the
> option of using the Epson driver to print. 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Philip Schwartz"
<Philip.Schwartz@...> wrote:
>
> I, too, was considering dedicating an R1800 to b&w with MIS inks, but
> the 1400 may provide a better option. Here's why:
> More ink channels increase complexity and cost for no return when
> using a printer with a dedicated b&w ink set. For example, the R1800
> natively supports CMYK, plus photo black, blue, red, and gloss
> optimizer. You will need a RIP to correctly partition and linearize
> b&w inks. If you don't print on glossy paper you don't even need the
> PK or glop channel, so you might just as well turn them off. This
> leaves you with a hextone printer :-)   

Actually, I use PK in a matte paper partitioning. It produces a nicer
transition than going right from MK to LK.

100% MK (I use MIS "eboni") for D from about 1.7-1.4
100% PK (I use MIS PKN) for D from about 1.4-1.1
32% PK (PKN again, cut with MIS "clear base)
10% PK
3.2% PK
1% PK

Steve:

  Thanks for your comments, and there is a lot I agree with. I am
setting up an R800 for b&w, and if I am satisfied with the results I
can step up to an R1800 for larget format prints. The extra channels
do provide more options -- my point was that it does require a RIP and
custom profiling, so it does not provide an out-of-box solution and so
won't be practical for a lot of folks. To my eye, BO and 2K can be
quite good, but can't match the quality of prints from a 4- or 6-color
printer with a dedicated b&w inkset. I have a 4-color and a 6-color
printer dedicated to b&w, and the hextone printer can produce smoother
prints and dotless hightlights, so my own experience tells me that my
next b&w printer should use 6 channels. I can cope with more, but I
don't actually *need* them. I can also get by with 4 or 5, but then I
need to use a RIP, and I'd rather spend more time making prints and
less time profiling. If I could be satisfied with K3, I'd bite the
bullet and buy a 2400.

Re printing with the Epson driver: it is possible to get truly
excellent quality b&w without using a RIP. MIS  has EZ inks that can
be tweaked using the Epson driver sliders. Personally, I create
transfer curves for each paper/ink combination and linearize using
an X-Rite densitometer I picked up on eBay.  This is a *lot* more
straightforward than creating QTR profiles. I have created QTR
profiles, compared images printed with QTR and the Epson driver, and
the print quality is identical. There are times when a RIP is the
right tool for the job, but it's not the only path to high-quality b&w.

You comments about the 1400 are well taken. When we see the final
specs, it may well not be practical to use with third-party pigment
inks. One can always hope.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven
Karafyllakis" <stevekphoto@...> wrote:

>
> Phillip, I have an R1800, and I can't tell you in how many ways I 
> disagree with you. But here's a try:
> First of all, there may be no B&W for the Claria printers for a 
> while; the chips have two extra contacts and there's some kind of 
> electric ink level sensing in each cart, so they may be more 
> difficult to reverse-engineer and mass produce. And in case you 
> missed Paul Roark's remark on the subject, Epson is building towards 
> further infringement suits, and these carts could well involved.
>  
> We don't know for sure that the printer will work well with pigments. 
> It may not simply supercede the 1280 in the line-up, it may behave 
> like it as well: many of us used one, (I had 4) and cursed the beast 
> everyday because it clogged so readily. 
> On the other hand, while more channels may indeed mean more 
> complexity, they also offer more versatility. I'm using the glop 
> channel for an LK, and the red for an LLK, and of course the printer 
> has both MK and PK already. So I have 3K matte and Photo black in one 
> machine, with toning all the way from deep blue to deep sepia. And I 
> am only a single cartidge switch away from doing color. Or, you could 
> use only the LK in the glop channel, and have 2K B&W and full-time 
> PIGMENT color. And 2K B&W with that printer is nothing to sneer at, 
> it is excellent. The only downside is the fact that there aren't many 
> pre-made QTR profiles for this printer, you have to learn to make 
> your own.
> 
> As for using the Eppson driver, how would you get decent B&W out of 
> that? You either need good profiling hardware and software (more 
> complexity and cost: cheapest available that will do the job- 
> Printfix Pro at $500.00) or you go with BO, IF the driver will allow 
> you to do that. My R260 driver will not, so I doubt the R1400 will be 
> different.
> 
> But the real qusestion is: do you want to start printing now? or 
> several months down the road?
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Philip 
> Schwartz" <Philip.Schwartz@> wrote:
> >
> > I, too, was considering dedicating an R1800 to b&w with MIS inks, 
> but
> > the 1400 may provide a better option. Here's why:
> > More ink channels increase complexity and cost for no return when
> > using a printer with a dedicated b&w ink set. For example, the R1800
> > natively supports CMYK, plus photo black, blue, red, and gloss
> > optimizer. You will need a RIP to correctly partition and linearize
> > b&w inks. If you don't print on glossy paper you don't even need the
> > PK or glop channel, so you might just as well turn them off. This
> > leaves you with a hextone printer :-)   
> > You might as well just start with a 6 color printer and have the
> > option of using the Epson driver to print. 
> >
>

Phillip; You obviously have many more choices and experience than a 
newbie coming and trying to figure out which printer to go with; My 
point was that we know nothing about the R1400, so anyone needing to 
choose now should forget it for the time being. As for out-of-the-box 
B&W, the 2400/3800 are really the best choices, once you have tried 
the EZ capable printers. BTW, I didn't see any specifically R1800 EZ 
inksets, though the R200/300 carts would fit, and probably be 
useable. But the 2400 is hands-down the best printer in the 13" size-
it is made better, and will last longer, so in the long haul you will 
get your money's worth. And as for K3 quality, I might suggest (if 
you have'nt already done so) you order a couple test prints from 
Clayton, and see what you think.

And anyhow: whatever B&W solution you apply to an R1800, or R1400, 
you can obviously apply to the R2400 if K3 isn't smooth enough for 
you. 

>> To my eye, BO and 2K can be
> quite good, but can't match the quality of prints from a 4- or 6-
color
> printer with a dedicated b&w inkset. 

I'm with you there, I think K3 is a minimum, at least for my tastes.

>> MIS  has EZ inks that can
> be tweaked using the Epson driver sliders. Personally, I create
> transfer curves for each paper/ink combination and linearize using
> an X-Rite densitometer I picked up on eBay.  This is a *lot* more
> straightforward than creating QTR profiles. 

Haven't tried this approach yet, so I can't really argue the point, 
but you must admit neither way is exactly 'out-of-the-box' B&W.

I have created QTR
> profiles, compared images printed with QTR and the Epson driver, and
> the print quality is identical. There are times when a RIP is the
> right tool for the job, but it's not the only path to high-quality 
b&w.

Sorry, you confused me here- you're talking about using the Epson 
driver with a dedicated B&W inkset, not the OEM inks, yes? If that's 
so, then we get back to the same place: the R2400 is currently the 
best and simplest out-of-the-box setup. Unfortunately, also the most 
expensive. Epson knew what they were doing, after all. As a previous 
poster said, 'you can almost feel their hands in your pocket...'

Sounds like we agree on the facts but may have settled on different
workflows. I'm not satisfied with Epson's K3/ABW solution, and I am a
long-time user of MIS ink, so I figured I would consider the R1800 for
b&w -- no point in paying for Epson's expensive b&w 2400 if I am going
to use my own workflow and third-party ink. I am guessing that there
is not a significant difference in build quality between the R1800 and
the 2400, but I could be wrong about this. 

Always a good idea to see what others are able to do -- I will
definitely order some of Clayton's K3, R2, and BO prints for reference.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven
Karafyllakis" <stevekphoto@...> wrote:

>
> Phillip; You obviously have many more choices and experience than a 
> newbie coming and trying to figure out which printer to go with; My 
> point was that we know nothing about the R1400, so anyone needing to 
> choose now should forget it for the time being. As for out-of-the-box 
> B&W, the 2400/3800 are really the best choices, once you have tried 
> the EZ capable printers. BTW, I didn't see any specifically R1800 EZ 
> inksets, though the R200/300 carts would fit, and probably be 
> useable. But the 2400 is hands-down the best printer in the 13" size-
> it is made better, and will last longer, so in the long haul you will 
> get your money's worth. And as for K3 quality, I might suggest (if 
> you have'nt already done so) you order a couple test prints from 
> Clayton, and see what you think.
> 
> And anyhow: whatever B&W solution you apply to an R1800, or R1400, 
> you can obviously apply to the R2400 if K3 isn't smooth enough for 
> you. 
> 
> >> To my eye, BO and 2K can be
> > quite good, but can't match the quality of prints from a 4- or 6-
> color
> > printer with a dedicated b&w inkset. 
> 
> I'm with you there, I think K3 is a minimum, at least for my tastes.
> 
> >> MIS  has EZ inks that can
> > be tweaked using the Epson driver sliders. Personally, I create
> > transfer curves for each paper/ink combination and linearize using
> > an X-Rite densitometer I picked up on eBay.  This is a *lot* more
> > straightforward than creating QTR profiles. 
> 
> Haven't tried this approach yet, so I can't really argue the point, 
> but you must admit neither way is exactly 'out-of-the-box' B&W.
> 
> I have created QTR
> > profiles, compared images printed with QTR and the Epson driver, and
> > the print quality is identical. There are times when a RIP is the
> > right tool for the job, but it's not the only path to high-quality 
> b&w.
> 
> Sorry, you confused me here- you're talking about using the Epson 
> driver with a dedicated B&W inkset, not the OEM inks, yes? If that's 
> so, then we get back to the same place: the R2400 is currently the 
> best and simplest out-of-the-box setup. Unfortunately, also the most 
> expensive. Epson knew what they were doing, after all. As a previous 
> poster said, 'you can almost feel their hands in your pocket...'
>