Hi Phil,
>I am using 2200. I have read your pdf on K4 ink set...
>that is what has prompted me to go this way.
>I understood from reading that piece that LLLK was smoother.
I pulled it from my setup because it didn't seem to add any smoothness over
the LLK.
> I ordered the clear base on MIS recommendation. ...
> Am I going to have problems on lustre relative to bronzing
> with this base? If so, I will need to return to MIS for
> exchange. Isn't the Base used in all standard Inks?
The clear base I've seen MIS sell is the old one that is for matte paper
only. It bronzes badly on glossy papers. Not all bases are the same. In
fact, the base is where a lot of the action has been in pigmented inks.
What MIS sells as Glop appears to be the best base available for glossy
papers.
>...you think laying down too many shades actually makes things blotchy???
Yes, too much light ink overloads the paper with water. The transition from
UT1 to UT2 was, in part, needed for the then new glossy paper capability of
the base. UT1 used too much light ink and was not smooth.
With the R1800 3-MK (100% Eboni) approach I'm finding some papers that I
thought were not smooth even with the more recent inksets were, in fact,
just being overloaded still. MIS Alpha is the most notable case in point.
My old favorite was the Permajet Alpha, which has the Innova non-OBA coating
on a cotton base. When Permajet pulled out of the US market, MIS started
selling it's own version of "Alpha" -- in this case the same Innova coating,
but on an alpha-cellulose base. The cotton bases appear to be much better
at absorbing water than the alpha cellulose base. So, while the old
Permajet Alpha was great, the MIS Alpha was blotchy. Now with the 3-MK
approach, it's once again near the top of the heap for me. Reducing the
water and going to a more dense ink increased smoothness.
> Seems like this is controlled with ink limit and linearization.
Yes, it should be. However when we use the Epson driver, the ink limit is
mostly out of our control, and what is needed for a good dmax may not be
what is needed for midtone smoothness. I'm sure you'd be able to utilize
the LLLK properly with QTR, but if you use the 2880 needed for the best
blacks, the LLK dots are already virtually invisible.
> ...Is the blotchy quality from too much base dilution?
Yes, blotchiness is often from too much water on the paper.
>One of the reasons I am going to this set of inks is the
>idea of having both PKN and Ebony loaded...and not have
>to swap carts. I was planning to use PKN as my dark grey
> when using Matt paper...so it definitely sounds like
> I do not need to have further dilutions of the LLK.
I don't use PKN in my setup because it will introduce a lot of color inks
into the deep shadows. You'll notice one option I used is to has PK in the
system for not only glossy black but also as another dark gray ink. Being
pure carbon, it could be part of the carbon core. Then I had full strength
cyan to get the higher dmax like PKN. In the deepest shadows it is mostly
the cyan that helps the PK, and cyan is much stronger than magenta in terms
of light fastness.
>I am still not clear on your reasoning for separating the
>color carts...
Initially it was for the large format printers to avoid the tone shifts that
are associated with blended inks. However, ease of profiling was a very
nice side effect. Additionally, the QC issues of ink mixing disappear and
it allows me to use the Epson UC LM, which is the best.
>... Epson Ultrachome LC & LM ... off the shelf
> colors are so potent, I have to set the output of these inks
> to just a whisper.
Yes, and that's good. If you have the ink limit set very low, you still
have lots of room to adjust. I was worried about the ability of the rip and
printer to control such small amounts of ink, but they are fine and very
consistent.
The limiting factor is the smoothness of the LC in the highlights. That is
why I went to an LLC (50% LC). It makes a barely visible difference on the
2200. Interestingly, profiles made for LLC can be used fine with LC by just
cutting the ink load in half. It's very linear.
> I would have thought that LC and LM were tonally equivalent...
> so both should be diluted to get same density with same curve.
The LM just does not show up as prominently in the highlights. It's fairly
invisible. As a nice consequence of not needed to dilute the LM, as
mentioned above, it opened up the ability to use off the shelf Epson LM.
> Lets say I use LLK in 2 positions(instead of LLLK
> for one)...and split the output evenly for those 2 positions....
> same curve and ink limits. Shouldn't this smooth the output?
>Is there any gain here?
There might be, but I'd use the two with slightly different curves so that
the dithering is more random.
Frankly, with modern printers, 3 grays seem to do the job just fine. The k3
approach is very smooth. I suspect the more inks makes more of a difference
at higher speeds and with larger dots. However, I've found with QTR I want
to use the 2880 for the best dmax. With that resolution, there seems to be
very little gained by more than 3 gray inks.
The 2200 is a good enough printer that any number of approaches will work
fine. I'd guess that avoiding banding is more of an issue than the dots.
Finding the solution that works best in this regard may be different on your
particular printer than others, as I expect banding is, in part, a function
of less than perfect assembly and adjustment. So, I'd just try the solution
that seems easiest to live with given your own preferences and see how it
works.
Good luck with the system.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com