Digital BW, The Print

I've been in a funk lately, and it's all Paul Roark's fault.  But
today while pulling weeds I finally found my way out.  Weed pulling,
you see, is my therapy.  It's when I get away from my computer and
existential challenges and focus intently on the nearly mindless
physical task, and often I do my best thinking.  That was the case
today when I finally emerged from a weeks long period of restless
unease about archival BW printing with my 2400.

It all began a few weeks ago when Paul sent me some sample prints of a
new printing method he had developed.  After several years of struggle
and frustration, through various unsuccessful attempts with MIS ink
blends, workflows, curves and profiles that kept failing and throwing
me me semi-happily back to first base with Eboni-BO printing to lick
my wounds and recoup for the next sortie, finally (and mercifully)
emerging into the nirvana of K3 printing with my trusty 2400 wherein I
had gotten comfortable in a life of happy, angst-free (and clog free)
printing, Paul comes along and invents a new and better 3-channel
method of Eboni-BO printing with the 1800, one that has all the
advantages of BO and virtually eliminates it's one glaring major
weakness.  

Suddenly we have a nearly perfect pure carbon archival fine print
solution that completely eliminates all doubts and rationalisations
regarding color inks in our prints, either mixed as dots on paper or
blended in the inks as toners.  And that's where my problems began.

The K3/2400 system had finally given me what I only could dream about
in the beginning: no fiddling with RIPs and profiles, RGB curves and
clogs - just work up the image, dial in the tone, and send it off to
the printer and get beautiful smooth gradations and first class dmax -
no muss, no fuss.  Finally I could concentrate on the photography,
make beautiful prints, and go about my business as a software
developer to earn a living.  So just as I had gotten used to it all,
along comes Paul with something better.  The nerve.

K3 ABW prints, beautiful as they are, contain some LC, LM and Y along
with the blacks, and there's the rub.  Theoretically they someday will
color shift as the color pigments fade at different rates than the
carbon blacks.  That's been a fly in the K3 salve, which Paul's new
3MK brilliantly eliminates.  The prints are gorgeous, with all the
punch, dmax and luminance that BO is famous for, but without the
infamous graininess, disliked by many.  And they are pure carbon,
which means virtually no fading or color shifting.  And they are low
cost to boot.  Ah, but there is a price to be paid.

The problem for me is that it means buying another printer, using QTR,
fiddling with curves, filling carts, resetting chips - all the things
I was very happy to leave behind when the 2400 came along.  It's not
that I'm lazy (I spend hours being a perfectionist working up the
images), but I'm always extremely busy with various projects and
activities and I'm just not inclined to be twiddling with all that
technical stuff.  I just want to take pictures and make beautiful
prints, thank you.  It is anathema for me to think about going back to
all that...but those gorgeous BO prints, truly archival....DARN!  What
to do...

So for weeks this background noise and debate has been floating around
in my mind, and today I finally resolved it.  Here's what it boils
down to for me:

1) K3/ABW prints are quite stable and will take a long time to shift.
 They are rated by Wilhelm as follows, depending on the paper:

- Framed under normal glass: 110 to >205 years
- Framed under UV glass: 110 to >300 years
- In dark album storage: > 200 years

2) I have a snowball's chance in you know where to become a famous
photographer who's prints are valuable and collected, etc.  So it's
not likely that my prints will be still around and coveted 100 years
from now.  I can think of two scenarios where a print might still
exist and be appreciated in 2107: a) a family portrait is passed down
through generations, and b) someone buys a print, likes it, displays
it, eventually dies, and the print is either inherited or is purchased
at an estate sale by someone who also likes, keeps and displays it,
and so on.

3) I figure that in 100 years or so if the print begins to shift, the
technology will be such that it could be scanned and reproduced with
perfect fidelity, much like we restore/reproduce old family photos
today.  The important thing will be that the image continues to bring
joy to it's owner(s) for another century, not whether it is original
or vintage or whatever.

As tantalizing as 3MK is, I'm not willing to give up the advantages of
K3 printing for it.  I also have confidence that Epson will continue
to improve it's technology and that their inks will become even more
lightfast.  Since I do sell prints, the printer is paying it's way, so
the ink cost is not so much an issue.  And oh what a joy not to have
clogs, occasional leaky poppet valves and bad chips. and the extra
software layer.  And the prints are beautiful, on both matte and fiber
glossy papers.  

I'm a happy 2400 camper.  Tomorrow I'm going to church, and then I'll
come home and pull some more weeds.

Regards,
Clayton

p.s. - for those who don't mind (or even like) using a RIP and
refilling carts, etc, I highly recommend looking into Paul's new 3MK
method.  IMO this is the most truly archival method of BW printing we
now have available to us, and the prints have a unique and stunning
beauty.


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

Thanks, Clayton, for your (as always) carefully considered thoughts. I've been struggling 
with the same lists of pros and cons, and impatiently waiting for more follow-up on this 
forum. Experimentation with the 3K method may have been limited to date because it 
requires a printer that can create 1.5 pL ink drops. Because the R1800 (and R800) have not 
been favored for B&W work (except by a few experienced printers), it is likely that relatively 
few forum participants have a suitable printer available. The new Epson 1400 uses 1.5 pL 
dots, and a lot more people will be trying the 3K/BO method when refillable carts become 
available for that printer.

For my part,  I'm ready to try a new direction now-either 3K/BO or Epson K3- but reluctant 
to buy a refurbished R1800. The experiences with refurbed R1800s reported by Paul were 
not good, and the earlier models, likely to be available as refurbs, had problems with 
banding. I also hesitate, without more of a track record on the K3 method, to buy a new 
R1800 when an additional $300 would buy a new 2400.  I haven't looked into the R800 yet 
because I need a 13-inch printer. Nevertheless, the R800 would be a less expensive way to 
give 3K/BO a try, and that may be what I do. 



-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" <cj@...> wrote:

>
> I've been in a funk lately, and it's all Paul Roark's fault.  But
> today while pulling weeds I finally found my way out.  Weed pulling,
> you see, is my therapy.  It's when I get away from my computer and
> existential challenges and focus intently on the nearly mindless
> physical task, and often I do my best thinking.  That was the case
> today when I finally emerged from a weeks long period of restless
> unease about archival BW printing with my 2400.
> 
> It all began a few weeks ago when Paul sent me some sample prints of a
> new printing method he had developed.  After several years of struggle
> and frustration, through various unsuccessful attempts with MIS ink
> blends, workflows, curves and profiles that kept failing and throwing
> me me semi-happily back to first base with Eboni-BO printing to lick
> my wounds and recoup for the next sortie, finally (and mercifully)
> emerging into the nirvana of K3 printing with my trusty 2400 wherein I
> had gotten comfortable in a life of happy, angst-free (and clog free)
> printing, Paul comes along and invents a new and better 3-channel
> method of Eboni-BO printing with the 1800, one that has all the
> advantages of BO and virtually eliminates it's one glaring major
> weakness.  
> 
> Suddenly we have a nearly perfect pure carbon archival fine print
> solution that completely eliminates all doubts and rationalisations
> regarding color inks in our prints, either mixed as dots on paper or
> blended in the inks as toners.  And that's where my problems began.
> 
> The K3/2400 system had finally given me what I only could dream about
> in the beginning: no fiddling with RIPs and profiles, RGB curves and
> clogs - just work up the image, dial in the tone, and send it off to
> the printer and get beautiful smooth gradations and first class dmax -
> no muss, no fuss.  Finally I could concentrate on the photography,
> make beautiful prints, and go about my business as a software
> developer to earn a living.  So just as I had gotten used to it all,
> along comes Paul with something better.  The nerve.
> 
> K3 ABW prints, beautiful as they are, contain some LC, LM and Y along
> with the blacks, and there's the rub.  Theoretically they someday will
> color shift as the color pigments fade at different rates than the
> carbon blacks.  That's been a fly in the K3 salve, which Paul's new
> 3MK brilliantly eliminates.  The prints are gorgeous, with all the
> punch, dmax and luminance that BO is famous for, but without the
> infamous graininess, disliked by many.  And they are pure carbon,
> which means virtually no fading or color shifting.  And they are low
> cost to boot.  Ah, but there is a price to be paid.
> 
> The problem for me is that it means buying another printer, using QTR,
> fiddling with curves, filling carts, resetting chips - all the things
> I was very happy to leave behind when the 2400 came along.  It's not
> that I'm lazy (I spend hours being a perfectionist working up the
> images), but I'm always extremely busy with various projects and
> activities and I'm just not inclined to be twiddling with all that
> technical stuff.  I just want to take pictures and make beautiful
> prints, thank you.  It is anathema for me to think about going back to
> all that...but those gorgeous BO prints, truly archival....DARN!  What
> to do...
> 
> So for weeks this background noise and debate has been floating around
> in my mind, and today I finally resolved it.  Here's what it boils
> down to for me:
> 
> 1) K3/ABW prints are quite stable and will take a long time to shift.
>  They are rated by Wilhelm as follows, depending on the paper:
> 
> - Framed under normal glass: 110 to >205 years
> - Framed under UV glass: 110 to >300 years
> - In dark album storage: > 200 years
> 
> 2) I have a snowball's chance in you know where to become a famous
> photographer who's prints are valuable and collected, etc.  So it's
> not likely that my prints will be still around and coveted 100 years
> from now.  I can think of two scenarios where a print might still
> exist and be appreciated in 2107: a) a family portrait is passed down
> through generations, and b) someone buys a print, likes it, displays
> it, eventually dies, and the print is either inherited or is purchased
> at an estate sale by someone who also likes, keeps and displays it,
> and so on.
> 
> 3) I figure that in 100 years or so if the print begins to shift, the
> technology will be such that it could be scanned and reproduced with
> perfect fidelity, much like we restore/reproduce old family photos
> today.  The important thing will be that the image continues to bring
> joy to it's owner(s) for another century, not whether it is original
> or vintage or whatever.
> 
> As tantalizing as 3MK is, I'm not willing to give up the advantages of
> K3 printing for it.  I also have confidence that Epson will continue
> to improve it's technology and that their inks will become even more
> lightfast.  Since I do sell prints, the printer is paying it's way, so
> the ink cost is not so much an issue.  And oh what a joy not to have
> clogs, occasional leaky poppet valves and bad chips. and the extra
> software layer.  And the prints are beautiful, on both matte and fiber
> glossy papers.  
> 
> I'm a happy 2400 camper.  Tomorrow I'm going to church, and then I'll
> come home and pull some more weeds.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> p.s. - for those who don't mind (or even like) using a RIP and
> refilling carts, etc, I highly recommend looking into Paul's new 3MK
> method.  IMO this is the most truly archival method of BW printing we
> now have available to us, and the prints have a unique and stunning
> beauty.
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Hello Jim,

>Experimentation with the 3K method may have been limited to date 
>because it requires a printer that can create 1.5 pL ink drops. 
>Because the R1800 (and R800) have not been favored for B&W work 
>(except by a few experienced printers), it is likely that relatively
>few forum participants have a suitable printer available. 

Good point.  I think that over time as more people try it and report
in, the method will grow in popularity.  There's another aspect of BO
printing that isn't mentioned much, but those who do mention it attach
some weight to it - that BO is a monotone approach and there is
something about having to rely on various papers to achieve different
tones that is pleasantly reminiscent of the darkroom days.  It's a
similar mode of working, and I too liked this part of it back when I
did mostly BO work.  I think now that the graininess is solved, this
has the potential to be very popular.


>...I also hesitate, without more of a track record on the K3 method, 
>to buy a new R1800 when an additional $300 would buy a new 2400.  I 
>haven't looked into the R800 yet because I need a 13-inch printer. 
>Nevertheless, the R800 would be a less expensive way to give 3K/BO a 
>try, and that may be what I do. 

There is also the possibility that refill carts will be made for the
260, also a 1.5 pl printer but much less expensive.  If that happens,
the 3MK method might work there as well.  That would make it a lot
less risky to try.


Regards,
Clayton


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

Hi,
I have a 2100 and love the warm tone prints I get with only the two UC carbon pigments (K & LK) via QTR - so if you like warm, you can still eliminate colour pigments.

Richard
--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com (Photos web site)
http://warkworth.vze.com/ (Warkworth photo essay)
http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/ (Recent work) 

   "Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with 
   themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon."
   --Susan Ertz

Clayton, there is yet another solution which may bring the blend of
"best of both worlds" -- though it certainly costs a lot more up
front. That's the new HP Z series printers (yes, a lot more than the
R2400, I realize, both in size and cost). 

But consider what it gives you. 

First, no fiddling with a RIP, funky curves, etc. 

Second, when you print a B&W image on matte paper, the HP driver
limits the printer to using the 4 blacks. So you end up essentially
with a quadtone driver with smooth tonal transitions, minimal
graininess, and deep blacks. The 4 blacks are all carbon-based so you
don't have to worry about the color toners.

Third, will work with both matte and glossy/luster/f-type papers, no
need to switch or flush black inks.

Fourth, WIR reports very impressive longevity for the HP Vivera
pigment inks. For instance, for HP Hahnemuehle Smooth Fine Art, even
bare-bulb prints are rated at >100 years, glass-protected prints are
rated at >250 years, and dark storage prints are rated at >300 years.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard Smallfield
<r.smallfield@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I have a 2100 and love the warm tone prints I get with only the two UC
carbon pigments (K & LK) via QTR - so if you like warm, you can still
eliminate colour pigments.

>
> Richard
> --
> http://smallfield.vze.com
> http://photos.smallfield.vze.com (Photos web site)
> http://warkworth.vze.com/ (Warkworth photo essay)
> http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/ (Recent work)
>
>    "Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with
>    themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon."
>    --Susan Ertz
>

In a message dated 8/20/07 11:08:58 AM, madmanchan2000@... writes:


> That's the new HP Z series printers (yes, a lot more than the
> R2400, I realize, both in size and cost).
> 
This offers increased sizes, and internal profiling, but no real advantages 
in terms of number of black inks... and yes, it does its internal profiling, 
but at a cost much higher than an external, more flexible, profiling system. And 
only the Z3100s offer competitive black and white, the lower cost Z2100s have 
both fewer blacks, and fewer color inks.
> 
> But consider what it gives you.
> 
> First, no fiddling with a RIP, funky curves, etc.
> 
It requires a good profile, same as the 2400, but includes tools that allow 
you to build profiles more or less automatically. As long as these are good 
enough, and you don't need to adjust them, its simpler. If you aren't happy with 
the defaults, then you are kind of stuck...
> 
> Second, when you print a B&W image on matte paper, the HP driver
> limits the printer to using the 4 blacks. So you end up essentially
> with a quadtone driver with smooth tonal transitions, minimal
> graininess, and deep blacks. The 4 blacks are all carbon-based so you
> don't have to worry about the color toners.
> 
Using both the matte and gloss blacks at once has minimal value, and occurs 
only on some paper types. Effectively, you get black, dark gray, and light 
gray, same as the 2400. You do get more colors, but that has little effect on B&W 
printing, though it may reduce metamerism on color prints. Personally, if I 
was looking to   move up a bit from the 2400, I wouldn't be looking as far as 
the price of a Z3100, I'd be looking at the much shorter hop to the Epson 3800.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of 
the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


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

The reason I suggested the HP Z series is that the current feedback
I've heard from users who have compared it to the competing OEM
solutions (Canon Lucia and Epson K3) find it the best in B&W printing.
I was under the impression that all 4 blacks are used when printing on
heavy fine art matte media, which seems to be what Clayton tends to
use. It is true that 3 blacks are used on glossy media. Even if you
feel the extra black used on the art media isn't much use, users claim
that the results are good.

This is not the same solution as the R2400 or the other K3 printers.
With the K3 printers, when printing a neutral B&W image thru the RGB
driver, all 8 inks are used, including C, M, LC, LM, and Y. When
printing in ABW mode, C and M aren't used, but bits of LC, LM, and
even Y are used. In contrast, the Z series printers only use the
blacks. I bring this up since Clayton mentioned this as a concern of his.

In a message dated 8/20/07 1:23:34 PM, madmanchan2000@... writes:


> The reason I suggested the HP Z series is that the current feedback
> I've heard from users who have compared it to the competing OEM
> solutions (Canon Lucia and Epson K3) find it the best in B&W printing.
> I was under the impression that all 4 blacks are used when printing on
> heavy fine art matte media, which seems to be what Clayton tends to
> use. It is true that 3 blacks are used on glossy media. Even if you
> feel the extra black used on the art media isn't much use, users claim
> that the results are good.
> 
Yes, results are good, but the "four blacks" claim, while technically true, 
leans more towards marketing ploy than an actual output improvement, which is 
why I feel obliged to comment on it...
> 
> This is not the same solution as the R2400 or the other K3 printers.
> 
In what way? The Canon and Espon printers with two grays and black offer very 
similar results...

> With the K3 printers, when printing a neutral B&W image thru the RGB
> driver, all 8 inks are used, including C, M, LC, LM, and Y. When
> printing in ABW mode, C and M aren't used, but bits of LC, LM, and
> even Y are used. In contrast, the Z series printers only use the
> blacks. I bring this up since Clayton mentioned this as a concern of his.
> 
> I see, its the "black and gray only" concept that you are referring to. 
Here's my take on that: no ink, of any tonality, can be perfectly neutral on all 
papers; tonality isn't just a function of ink in a vacuum, paper effects 
tonality. So you either take the random tone it gives you on a given media (which HP 
has worked hard to neutalize as much as possible for their own media, or more 
to the point, chosen the media to offer similar grays to each other and 
balanced the ink to that average); or you use tools (which the Z3100 provides, as do 
the others) to correct that tonality to a neutral print at all levels of 
gray. The idea that the fixed tone grays are somehow preferable to the controlled 
gray output just doesn't make much sense to me. Control is a good thing. The 
amount of color ink involved in gaining control does not cause any visible 
amount of illuminant metamerism. Longevity of the resulting prints is good. So in 
my experience, only those fixated on the theory, not the prints, tend to favor 
the black and gray only method. Those focussing on the prints prefer the 
control, and the look of the resulting prints.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com





**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


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

That is exactly right. With the Vivera inks you are not using color
inks in the print driver to fill in the tonal gaps and to cool off the
 black inks. With the Z you are only using their dilutions of pigment
blacks which are primarily carbon and created cooler than Epsons. Some
will say oh, mixing color inks into the content of the ink manufacture
(carbon is warm) or adding it in the printing process through the
driver or rip is exactly the same thing. It isn't and I totally
disagree with that kind of reasoning. It is different and there is far
less chance of color casts showing up in unwanted areas with various
papers in less than perfectly calibrated workflows when all the inks
are the same hue. I've learned this big time with the Piezography K7
neutral inks, in both netural and sepia forms, and it is a lot more
significant that I had initially thought. It just makes common sense
that if you are laying down dots of the same hue in all tonal areas,
as apposed to laying down varried color dots across the spectrum
(highights vs shadows vs midtones) you are going to have more
consistent hues in all tonal areas. They should all fade at the same
rate as well since they are created from the same color ink,
preventing any color shifts in the future between differnt tonal
zones. These are significant variables to not have to be thinking about.  

The best use of the Z's quad black approach would be with a good
monochrome rip to control each channel's inkload, working out of
grayscale mode. 

Having said all that, the Epson 3800 with K3 is the biggest bang for
the buck for universally good output if you have to do color and black
and white with one desktop printer. At least for now. Personally I
wouldn't use color inks for monochrome unless forced to for certain
print color effects, but that is a subjective decision arrived at for
my purposes.

john

  
> This is not the same solution as the R2400 or the other K3 printers.
> With the K3 printers, when printing a neutral B&W image thru the RGB
> driver, all 8 inks are used, including C, M, LC, LM, and Y. When
> printing in ABW mode, C and M aren't used, but bits of LC, LM, and
> even Y are used. In contrast, the Z series printers only use the
> blacks. I bring this up since Clayton mentioned this as a concern of
his.
>

In a message dated 8/20/07 2:25:38 PM, deanwork2003@... writes:


> That is exactly right. With the Vivera inks you are not using color
> inks in the print driver to fill in the tonal gaps and to cool off the
> black inks. With the Z you are only using their dilutions of pigment
> blacks which are primarily carbon and created cooler than Epsons. Some
> will say oh, mixing color inks into the content of the ink manufacture
> (carbon is warm) or adding it in the printing process through the
> driver or rip is exactly the same thing. It isn't and I totally
> disagree with that kind of reasoning.
> 

Mixing in color ink, is mixing in color ink. It will fade the same, no matter 
what head it came out through or what tank it came from. It may simplify the 
printing process for less demanding users, but if you don't like the ramp it 
gives you on a given paper, you are still stuck correcting that with more color 
ink, via a color process... thats why I see the HP "black and gray only" 
printing method as less, not more. I print with it on one fine art paper, and its 
cool in the shadows, but not in the highlights. On another its quite warm 
throughout, but more warm in some areas than others. So I have to neutralize, and 
I can't do that without printing through a mode that allows me to use the 
other inks...

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of 
the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


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

Well that certainly is the first time I've heard of HP black inks
being warm on anything! If that's so I'm all for it and want to try it
out even more.

Mixing color inks in dots on the paper, where different amounts of
them are appearing in differnt places across the file, is NOT the same
as printing out of one consistent hue ink formulation and they would
not fade shift at the same rate in the same zones of the print becaue
the color inks would be spread out differently for different tonal
values. That's common sense. Trying to say that is just trying to
confuse people. I realize you are trying everything you can think of
ways to discredit the whole notion of people using ANY kind of
monochrome inkset because you are selling a ColorVision rgb workflow
for everything. It is kind of sad because I like Print Fix Pro for
color work and using their spectro for measuring my densities for
Studio Print and Cones inks.

If using color inks and monochrome inks WERE the same thing there
wouldn't be thousands of us all over the world who are not using K3
for monochrome work and we would all be idiots for investing in this
kind of technique.  Calling us all "purists" or old fashoned is not
going to make anyone buy into that rgb story anymore because it is
completely false. But this is a tired old arguement that most of us
have long ago forgotten about. In the past you also said there is no
advantage to us using a great rip like Studio Print or Bauhaus with
monochrome pigments over K3 and Print Fix Pro.., which is also so
totally bizarre as be genuinely laughable. There is a real advantage
to working with a grayscale workflow and a good rip, such as
controling ink limits very accurately per channel, much better control
over dmax levels and ultra subtlety in the high values that your over
inking RGB icc profiles will not even come remotely close to in the
most ideal of situations. So I have to take what you say about HP Z
inks and their workflow with the same grain of salt, a biased souce
considering what you have said in the past, and one trying to
discredit any grayscale work environment in favor of a very inferior
RGB technique. By the way, I'm not a salesman. I'm a large format
black and white photographer since 1974.

John

Granted the HP solution will fade, of course, but again, the reason I
brought it up is because the WIR tests are indicating an improvement
in longevity compared to the K3 solution. Whether or not this is due
to the HP gray-only solution I don't know, nor am I in a position to
verify.

Basically, what I'm saying is this:

- The HP Z driver appears to offer at least the functionality of the
Epson K3 ABW driver, which is what Clayton is using now (and seems to
like). Not the ultimate control of a RIP, but not bad. I figure if the
ABW driver is good enough for Clayton, the HP Z B&W driver might be
good enough, too.

- The HP Z B&W prints' longevity > K3 ABW prints' longevity (according
to WIR, by a noticeable margin)

- The HP Z B&W prints appear to have zero to minimal color inks mixed
in. Regardless of whether one believes this to be true, the longevity
test still remain.

(BTW, I use an Epson 3800 myself and love the results, but am bringing
up the Z solution because, aside from the cost, it appears to bring
together the qualities that Clayton claims he wants.)

Eric

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
...
> Mixing color inks in dots on the paper, where different amounts of
> them are appearing in differnt places across the file, is NOT the same
> as printing out of one consistent hue ink formulation and they would
> not fade shift at the same rate in the same zones of the print becaue
> the color inks would be spread out differently for different tonal
> values. That's common sense.
...

additionally, the only published 3rd party tests we've seen in recent
years bears this out.
All of Cone's Piezotone inksets and ink positions outperformed each
and every ink/position of the Epson UCK2s. Unfortunately we have no
comparative independent tests of the newer Cone sets, other mono ink
sets, or UCK3 comparisons, Canon or HP.
Nonetheless it's useful to note that not only did these purportedly
inferior "blended" ink sets leave the color inks in the dust, the
UCK2s faded at such unequal rates that any neutral build from them
would change color far faster than what might be considered
unacceptable density change.
Also, all of the Piezotone sets with (we assume) color pigment added
to adjust hue outperformed the "pure" carbon set.

Thankfully, there are more and more out of the box solutions for
enthusiasts who want to be able to print all photography from the same
printer, easily. Certainly there is a need for that for all kinds of
reasons, and the prints will probably have reasonable longevity.

While that front evolves, the state of the art for those whose
concerns are for primarily for uncompromising monochromatic
photographic printing and all it traditionally entails continues to
also evolve, and remains far out in front in addressing those concerns.
Tyler

Eric, first of all I agree with David that the HP carbon inks are not
neutral, nor uniform down the scale. On the other hand, I don't find
that in and of itself a problem if I happen to love the way it looks.
I also agree calling them a true qaud, in MK use, a stretch as the
densities are not ideal, and a true quad with desnties designed for
that purpose is smoother. I think the B&W HP output is pleasing
though, more from the dither characteristcs than the use of multiple
Ks. It's PK mono output is is somewhat pleasing as well.

That it can make nice prints seems unrelated to the qualities they
market <G>.

But more to the point, I agree with what you have said. 

I have a feeling the inkset could be exploited even further by a
mono-minded techie with a RIP, even though these color drivers are
partitioning these mulitple Ks, someone with an eye for the finer
points of putting down multiple gray inks might get something even
more promising from them.
I hear rumors that Bowhaus is doing promising things with the Canon
inks and IJC.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Chan"
<madmanchan2000@...> wrote:

>
> Granted the HP solution will fade, of course, but again, the reason I
> brought it up is because the WIR tests are indicating an improvement
> in longevity compared to the K3 solution. Whether or not this is due
> to the HP gray-only solution I don't know, nor am I in a position to
> verify.
> 
> Basically, what I'm saying is this:
> 
> - The HP Z driver appears to offer at least the functionality of the
> Epson K3 ABW driver, which is what Clayton is using now (and seems to
> like). Not the ultimate control of a RIP, but not bad. I figure if the
> ABW driver is good enough for Clayton, the HP Z B&W driver might be
> good enough, too.
> 
> - The HP Z B&W prints' longevity > K3 ABW prints' longevity (according
> to WIR, by a noticeable margin)
> 
> - The HP Z B&W prints appear to have zero to minimal color inks mixed
> in. Regardless of whether one believes this to be true, the longevity
> test still remain.
> 
> (BTW, I use an Epson 3800 myself and love the results, but am bringing
> up the Z solution because, aside from the cost, it appears to bring
> together the qualities that Clayton claims he wants.)
> 
> Eric
>

Nicely said Mr. Boley.
--
Bruce Watson


Tyler Boley wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
> <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
> ...
>   
>> Mixing color inks in dots on the paper, where different amounts of them are appearing in differnt places across the file, is NOT the same as printing out of one consistent hue ink formulation and they would not fade shift at the same rate in the same zones of the print becaue the color inks would be spread out differently for different tonal values. That's common sense.
>>     
> ...
>
> additionally, the only published 3rd party tests we've seen in recent
> years bears this out. All of Cone's Piezotone inksets and ink positions outperformed each and every ink/position of the Epson UCK2s. Unfortunately we have no comparative independent tests of the newer Cone sets, other mono ink sets, or UCK3 comparisons, Canon or HP. Nonetheless it's useful to note that not only did these purportedly inferior "blended" ink sets leave the color inks in the dust, the UCK2s faded at such unequal rates that any neutral build from them would change color far faster than what might be considered unacceptable density change. Also, all of the Piezotone sets with (we assume) color pigment added to adjust hue outperformed the "pure" carbon set.
>
> Thankfully, there are more and more out of the box solutions for
> enthusiasts who want to be able to print all photography from the same printer, easily. Certainly there is a need for that for all kinds of reasons, and the prints will probably have reasonable longevity.
>
> While that front evolves, the state of the art for those whose
> concerns are for primarily for uncompromising monochromatic
> photographic printing and all it traditionally entails continues to
> also evolve, and remains far out in front in addressing those concerns.
> Tyler
>

Do we know how HP is actutally making their blacks/greys cooler (if 
indeed they are)?

There's warm carbon and there's neutral to cool carbon, as anyone who's 
every made Carbon Prints knows

Although I'm guessing that HP probably takes the Cone route and they 
are Carbon Pigment mixed with other pigments for tint?

In a message dated 8/20/07 3:49:40 PM, deanwork2003@... writes:


> I realize you are trying everything you can think of
> ways to discredit the whole notion of people using ANY kind of
> monochrome inkset
> 

Actually I rather like the Cone monochrome inksets. And HP has done a lot 
towards making simple neutral printing possible. I find it all very interesting, 
and the possibilities for the end user are increasing, though the complexity 
of choosing a solution is increasing even faster. But the proposal that the HP 
inks are just magically neutral is one that gets me going. They vary like any 
inkset does, depending on what you print on with them. If you stick to HP's 
very constrained line of media, chosen specifically because it offers similar 
toning one media to the next, you are not too far off. Move to other media, and 
tonality becomes far more of an issue.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of 
the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


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

Tim, Paul recently told me something about the uniqueness of their
molecular structure... er somethin'... it went right over my head.
It is apparently different, and of course you are right about
historical carbon prints.
I'm still unconvinced the existance of material in addition to carbon
has any detrimental effect on an ink's longevity. This carbon thing is
becoming mythical, there's little to support it.
Inks have lots of things going on in them besides ingredients to make
density, and/or color, and I suspect some of those things effect fading.

As a pure element, yes, carbon makes diamonds, bla bla... and the
historical carbon processes were very stable.
But when it comes to carbon and inkjet ink, it's kind of like saying
Tang is made from oranges.

I don't know, that's what I'm thinkin'.
On the other hand, there are a lot of fine art B&W lightjets out there
made on Crystal Archive, those will surely change color. I'd say the
concern at the buyer/dealer level is conversely porportional to the
fame of the artist. Did anyone ask how long their Hockney Iris would
last before they took out a loan to buy it?
Little of this stuff is based in rationality.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tim Atherton"
<timatherton@...> wrote:

>
> Do we know how HP is actutally making their blacks/greys cooler (if 
> indeed they are)?
> 
> There's warm carbon and there's neutral to cool carbon, as anyone who's 
> every made Carbon Prints knows
>

In a message dated 8/20/07 7:49:25 PM, tyler@... writes:


> I'm still unconvinced the existance of material in addition to carbon
> has any detrimental effect on an ink's longevity. This carbon thing is
> becoming mythical
> 

Thats an important point: there are a number of other pigments that can be 
used for black inks that are long lived, and not as warm as carbon. Any of them 
could be used to create a less warm, more neutral inkset. But there is still 
the issue of fine tuning it along the gray ramp, and on differing media. 

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of 
the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


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

It isn't?

On Aug 20, 2007, at 7:48 PM, Tyler Boley wrote:

> it's kind of like saying
> Tang is made from oranges.



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

Tim,

What one calls "neutral" is always subjective. I think most of us
agree on that point. Cone calls his NK7 inkset true lab neutral on
Photorag. HP calls their Z3100 mono set up neutral. 
Canon has their definition of neutral. Other inksets have other
renditons of neutral. The Cone inks are warmer, but not as far as a
warm neutral, another category I use. In comparison to them the Z inks
are cooler. But many people say the Z prints are really what neutral
is  but that they may or may not prefer the Cone NK7 color more. I
would fall in the camp of the NK7 being exactly what I want. A lot
more people might prefer the selenium matched inkset. 

By the way there has never been a true agreed upon neutral even in the
darkroom environment as the print color is always effected by which
print developer component one used and with which brand of silver
paper. I don't think I ever made a perfectly neutral darkroom print.
Like the NK7, they were always very slightly to the side of warm.

john 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tim Atherton"
<timatherton@...> wrote:

>
> Do we know how HP is actutally making their blacks/greys cooler (if 
> indeed they are)?
> 
> There's warm carbon and there's neutral to cool carbon, as anyone who's 
> every made Carbon Prints knows
>

When this carbon is ground to such an ultrafine state to fit through
the nozzles of these printers and produce 2880 dpi resolution, and
even in variable sizes, you know they are not in a normal state either
molecularly or even chemically with the other ingredients added to
them for viscosity and suspension. And its all secret stuff, just like
Tang. The important thing for me is that all the values of a print
react similarly over time.


j


 
> Thats an important point: there are a number of other pigments that
can be 
> used for black inks that are long lived, and not as warm as carbon.
Any of them 
> could be used to create a less warm, more neutral inkset. But there
is still 
> the issue of fine tuning it along the gray ramp, and on differing
media. 

> 
> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Division
> DataColor Inc.
> CDTobie@...
> www.colorvision.com
> 
> 
> **************************************
>  Get a sneak peek of 
> the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I heard that at the last Kraft Foods board of directors meeting, a
bowl of fruit was included on the catering table. Word is, there may
have been an orange in there...
By today's corporate standards, I believe that means that yes, Tang is
made from oranges. All is good with the world Mark.
Tyler

yeah I know, it's OT...
off to fill some 3000 carts with tang, Culbertson would approve if
some Vodka were included. With enough you'll swear it was oranges.
But I think the pulp would clog  the nozzles, so Tang it is...

what nurse?!? get off the computer?!?! OK OK


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Savoia
<mark@...> wrote:

>
> It isn't?
> 
> On Aug 20, 2007, at 7:48 PM, Tyler Boley wrote:
> 
> > it's kind of like saying
> > Tang is made from oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Did I miss this group becoming the "Harry Potter" and/or "PT Barnum" 
sales-pitch group?

I'm sorry, but the laws of chemistry and physics, not those of alchemy 
and hocus-pocus, apply, no matter how finely you grind the carbon. 

john dean wrote:
> When this carbon is ground to such an ultrafine state to fit through
> the nozzles of these printers and produce 2880 dpi resolution, and
> even in variable sizes, you know they are not in a normal state either
> molecularly or even chemically with the other ingredients added to
> them for viscosity and suspension. And its all secret stuff...


-- 

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2007, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }





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

I was trying to avoid getting involved in this thread because it's sounding
more and more like a series of sales pitches.  Some of the information that
is being bounced around is, from my experience and reading, not particularly
illuminating.

My fade tests showed only a very slight advantage to the blended inksets
like the Cone and MIS neutralized carbon inksets over the RIP-controlled
methods that used the least amount of separate colors to achieve the same
hue.  The advantage may have been so small as to be within the normal
"noise" level of my tests. On the other hand, I have not tested these to the
30% fade end point Wilhelm uses.  But to the extent I have been able to
glean any information from my tests and reading, there is no magic in carbon
that preserves the color pigments when they are mixed in.  On the other
hand, I initially thought the carbon under the faded colors might give it a
slight edge in lightness fading, even if not in hue changes.

The OEM K3 approaches will always lose to the dedicated B&W systems because
the Epson OEM solutions use more color.  Likewise the ABW will have a slight
advantage to K3 RGB mode because it uses slightly less color than the ABW
mode.

With *good* carbon like the Epson MK and MIS Eboni MK, and the Epson and MIS
LK, the more carbon to color, the better the lightfastness.  This holds true
in every fade test I've seen.  Wilhelm gets the same pattern in his tests as
I do.

Not all carbon is very lightfast.  In the watercolor field what they call
"amorphous" carbon, for example, is not particularly lightfast.  Graphite,
on the other hand is extremely lightfast.  All carbon is not the same.  The
MIS Eboni, Epson MK and Cone Museum K are very good forms of carbon and will
consistently beat the mixes with color in them.

Of the colors, the cyan is most lightfast, at least when it comes to light
and temperatures within our usual indoor lighting situations.  Cyan is not
particularly tough when it comes to gas attack, and how tests are done can
affect the fade rates.  In normal display, the cyan will far outlast the
magenta that is used in these mixes, whether the inks are separate or
blended.  I suspect we've all seen lots of cyan pictures in window displays.
This is caused by the cyan being much tougher than the other colors.

We obviously have some true believers in their favored approaches here,
which is fine.  I hope the new members of the forum are good at reading
between the lines and seeing who is aligned with whom -- whether due to
experience, type of printing environment, workshops, or whatever.  All of
the systems that are used by the regulars on this forum can produce
excellent results ... but of course MY SOLUTIONS ARE THE BEST!!  ;-)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Well if I put in a plug for the finest monochrome inkset solution 
available in the world every six months, considering I'm not involved
with the company and have never even met them, then that wouldn't come
remotely close to counter balancing all the sales propaganda through
all these MIS posts that go on all year long, year after year to sell
things here.

To suggest that MIS, Epson, and Cones formulations are all about the
same and not substantially different in regard to tonal quality
workflow and sophistication of development is misleading. That is why
we post every six monts or so.

john 



> I was trying to avoid getting involved in this thread because it's
sounding
> more and more like a series of sales pitches.  Some of the
information that
> is being bounced around is, from my experience and reading, not
particularly
> illuminating.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor, P.O.V.
Image Service" <editor@...> wrote:
>
> Did I miss this group becoming the "Harry Potter" and/or "PT Barnum" 
> sales-pitch group?
> 
> I'm sorry, but the laws of chemistry and physics, not those of alchemy 
> and hocus-pocus, apply, no matter how finely you grind the carbon. 
> 
> john dean wrote:
> > When this carbon is ground to such an ultrafine state to fit through
> > the nozzles of these printers and produce 2880 dpi resolution, and
> > even in variable sizes, you know they are not in a normal state either
> > molecularly or even chemically with the other ingredients added to
> > them for viscosity and suspension. And its all secret stuff...
> 

Keith, without directly commenting on the content or tone of your
post, I'd just like the list to know some more about the person you
are addressing-

"John has both a BFA in fine art photography from the University of
Arizona in Tucson and an MFA in fine art photography from Tyler School
of Art of Temple University in Philadelphia Pennsylvania. He studied
with Todd Walker, William Larson, Harold Jones, Esther Parada, Martha
Madigan, Larry Fink, and offset printmaking with Michael Becotte at
the Tyler Offset Workshop in Philadelphia. He studied the history of
photography with Keith McElroy Ph.D. in Tucson. He has a very strong
background in art history and the history of photography, having
worked as an assistant at the Center For Creative Photography in
Tucson for 3 years. There he showed rare prints to researchers and
students and learned about the finest photographic printmaking first
hand from the actual portfolios of America's and Europe's greatest art
photographers. In that environment he met many of these great
printmakers: like Ansel Adams, Emmit Gowin, Harry Callahan, Aaron
Siskind, Frederick Sommer, Paul Caponigro, Linda Connor, Jerry
Uelsman, and W. Eugene Smith to name a few."

I doubt if there are but a handful of people frequenting this list
whose opinion I regard as highly about photographic printing.
John would never, in a million years, mention any of this. So I will.
Believe it or not, there are a few people around simply committed to
the highest of standards in photography, and not associated with a
manufacturer. I realize that's become so rare it's hard to believe.
Tyler

Tyler, while I respect the credentials, and John's work, AFAIK, they 
don't mean he is an expert on things like: digital profiles and 
whether/why a particular inkset appears neutral, warm, or cold. Cold 
hard factual data, like spectro readings and colorimetry, tell the "whys."

One thing is clear, the HP system is a closed/controlled media system, 
which allows them to force their prints towards an enforced neutrality, 
when using approved media - I'm assuming you're not going to dispute that?

Yes, perhaps I am speaking sacrilege within this forum, but if Ansel 
Adams, Paul Strand, Henri Cartier-Bresson, and Dorothea Lange rose from 
the grave and offered opinion that contradicted physical and chemical 
laws, I'd still take issue with it, and direcly. Sorry Tyler, I'm just 
that way.

You can impute any tone you like (it's my standard, direct, but not 
purposefully disrespectful tone), but the fact remains that the basic 
laws of chemistry and physics don't change when you grind something down 
finely. Alchemists believed that. Unless carbon forms a compound with 
another material through actual chemical processes, super fine carbon, 
in any suspension, is still, by chemical definition, pure carbon.

Does that mean the carbon is non-reactive? No, it's simply not a noble 
gas.  But just grinding it down to a superfine level doesn't make it 
reactive.


Tyler Boley wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor, P.O.V.
> Image Service" <editor@...> wrote:
>   
>> Did I miss this group becoming the "Harry Potter" and/or "PT Barnum" 
>> sales-pitch group?
>>
>> I'm sorry, but the laws of chemistry and physics, not those of alchemy 
>> and hocus-pocus, apply, no matter how finely you grind the carbon. 
>>
>> john dean wrote:
>>     
>>> When this carbon is ground to such an ultrafine state to fit through
>>> the nozzles of these printers and produce 2880 dpi resolution, and
>>> even in variable sizes, you know they are not in a normal state either
>>> molecularly or even chemically with the other ingredients added to
>>> them for viscosity and suspension. And its all secret stuff...
>>>       
>
> Keith, without directly commenting on the content or tone of your
> post, I'd just like the list to know some more about the person you
> are addressing-
>
> "John has both a BFA in fine art photography from the University of
> Arizona in Tucson and an MFA in fine art photography from Tyler School
> of Art of Temple University in Philadelphia Pennsylvania. He studied
> with Todd Walker, William Larson, Harold Jones, Esther Parada, Martha
> Madigan, Larry Fink, and offset printmaking with Michael Becotte at
> the Tyler Offset Workshop in Philadelphia. He studied the history of
> photography with Keith McElroy Ph.D. in Tucson. He has a very strong
> background in art history and the history of photography, having
> worked as an assistant at the Center For Creative Photography in
> Tucson for 3 years. There he showed rare prints to researchers and
> students and learned about the finest photographic printmaking first
> hand from the actual portfolios of America's and Europe's greatest art
> photographers. In that environment he met many of these great
> printmakers: like Ansel Adams, Emmit Gowin, Harry Callahan, Aaron
> Siskind, Frederick Sommer, Paul Caponigro, Linda Connor, Jerry
> Uelsman, and W. Eugene Smith to name a few."
>
> I doubt if there are but a handful of people frequenting this list
> whose opinion I regard as highly about photographic printing.
> John would never, in a million years, mention any of this. So I will.
> Believe it or not, there are a few people around simply committed to
> the highest of standards in photography, and not associated with a
> manufacturer. I realize that's become so rare it's hard to believe.
> Tyler
>
>
>   


 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2007, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }





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

However, cavear emptor. 

While the laws of chemistry and physics may not change at macro-atomic 
levels, the relatively young area of  "surface science" 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_chemistry may have some 
applicability here when dealing with some inks in particles when we 
started measuring the particle size in atoms. Last time I checked, we 
weren't at that point yet.




 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2007, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }





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

Now he's a chemist.

What follows is my personal belief based upon my experience as a  
printer for myself and other photographers. That's it. Please read it  
with that in mind.

Neutrality and longevity are in the eyes of the beholder it seems.  
For example one of my eyes sees everything bluer than the other. My  
brain compensates for that.

  A tungsten bulb does a lot more messing up of my "neutrality" than  
my Selenium ink-set. I'm not worried about lab neutral nor do I want  
to bother with being worried about it. I firmly believe that humans  
are creatures of warmth and change and that we have evolved around  
candle-light. That's why my clients constantly pick warmer mixes of  
ink. I believe that the physical act of adjusting to a warm tone  
(doing a human white balance from warm to white) actually feels good.  
I run K7 neutral as well. When it comes to printing concrete  
buildings the neutral and white-white hahnemuhle works well. If my  
clients want something really cool than I can flush a line with cyan  
or print QTR on an Ultrachrome printer.

I know three galleries off the top of my head that won't accept  
"inkjet" prints even though they are 2 to 4 times more archival per  
Wilhelm/RIT data. I know other archivists that will not accept c- 
prints (and rightly so in my opinion.) And I know many people who are  
still buying $20,000.00 1999 dye-based Iris prints that will fade in  
20 years (possibly.)

I can have a huge debate with myself about the standards employed in  
ink or I can do what the photographer/gallery/archive requires and  
wants. If a photographer wants a higher dMax I'll put a different ink  
in. If they want a longer longevity, I'll put a different ink in. If  
they want "both" I'll max out my under-printing and spray the thing.

There are always trade-offs. The question is how often one is willing  
to switch between them to get a good print--and the right one.

As for Quad/K7 vs K3, I think the quality difference (in fidelity  
terms) speaks for itself. All you need is a loup and some one point  
text printed from both printers and you'll see very clearly. I would  
suggest doing this. (That topic is in the archive I think. About  
three months back.) Now, the 3800 K3 may be a different beast all- 
together as it has 6 droplet sizes. Need sample prints . . .

The new 4880, 7880, 9880 Epson printers will have nine channels (full  
time MK PK). So you will eventually be able to put a Quad neutral ink- 
set in and have full color capability with 6 droplet sizes. Probably  
something like a 2 picoliter dot too. That will be the solution to K3  
and its lack of neutrality and fidelity.

take care,
Walker

The fact remains that all the blacks, grays and whites in 
the end will get a warmer tone considering the use of papers 
that are not completely free of OBA and the inks having a 
carbon core. The inkjet paper's coating absorption of 
environmental dirt is more a concern and will add to that 
warming up. Whether the prints are made with bare carbon + 
toners or carbon cores with a blue coat is hardly an issue. 
I do not expect the use of metal oxides in inkjet inks to 
get other cooler blacks. When this list is 50 years old we 
actually will have practical evidence and that will vary 
from prints stuck on the fridge to archived in Bill's 
cellar, vary from important prints to no loss to 
civilisation. I think the book is closed on the archival 
quality of B&W inks, meaning we are there for 95%, at least 
for anyone who cares to check the facts.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


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

Well, I don¹t have the credentials to contribute much here, but I do have a
question.

Given that carbon is not non-reactive, grinding it to a superfine level
enormously increases the surface to volume ratio and may, therefore make it
much more physically (not chemically) reactive, no?

Harry


On 8/20/07 11:24 PM, "Editor, P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>
wrote:
> 
> [Major SNIP]
> 
> Does that mean the carbon is non-reactive? No, it's simply not a noble
> gas.  But just grinding it down to a superfine level doesn't make it
> reactive.
> 
> Tyler Boley wrote:
>> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , "Editor, P.O.V.
>> > Image Service" <editor@...> wrote:
>> >   
>>> >> Did I miss this group becoming the "Harry Potter" and/or "PT Barnum"
>>> >> sales-pitch group?
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm sorry, but the laws of chemistry and physics, not those of alchemy
>>> >> and hocus-pocus, apply, no matter how finely you grind the carbon.
>>> >>
>>> >> john dean wrote:
>>> >>     
>>>> >>> When this carbon is ground to such an ultrafine state to fit through
>>>> >>> the nozzles of these printers and produce 2880 dpi resolution, and
>>>> >>> even in variable sizes, you know they are not in a normal state either
>>>> >>> molecularly or even chemically with the other ingredients added to
>>>> >>> them for viscosity and suspension. And its all secret stuff...
>>>> >>>       


-- 

Harry F. Lockwood




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

Hi Walker,

Actually the these printers will have 8 channels just like the K3.
That was disturbing to find out and one reason I'm looking closely at
HP. They are K3 printers with a vivid magenta. They changed the entire
ink formula though to the point that you need one of these new
printers to use them. So they say. You'll find a way to put them in a
9600 though won't you :-).

So the worse part of that is you still have to switch out the MK and
PK for different media. They only fixed that in the 64" model.

john




The new 4880, 7880, 9880 Epson printers will have nine channels (full
time MK PK). So you will eventually be able to put a Quad neutral ink-
set in and have full color capability with 6 droplet sizes. Probably
something like a 2 picoliter dot too. That will be the solution to K3
and its lack of neutrality and fidelity.

take care,
Walker

> Yes, perhaps I am speaking sacrilege within this forum, but if Ansel 
> Adams, Paul Strand, Henri Cartier-Bresson, and Dorothea Lange rose 
from 
> the grave and offered opinion that contradicted physical and chemical 
> laws, I'd still take issue with it, and direcly. Sorry Tyler, I'm 
just 
> that way.

Typical sexual intellectual BS from Keith Krebs. 

Don Bryant

Hmm. Strange. I wonder why they would do that . . .

thanks for the clarification John. I guess when I heard full-time MK  
PK I just assumed 9 channels. I guess the full-time thing was hog-wash.

take care,
Walker

Yea, a dealer sent me a spec sheet and that is the way it is. They
only did it right with the $15,000.00 64" machine. They put their r&d
into this vivid magenta thing with the other ones and a claimed
improved dither also, rather than giving another slot for additonal K
or a glop. I would like both an additional k and a glop. It also seems
like these new inks are being more and more designed for output on
glossy papers though, so they might look fine on glossy media the way
they are. 

john




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Walker Blackwell
<forums@...> wrote:

>
> Hmm. Strange. I wonder why they would do that . . .
> 
> thanks for the clarification John. I guess when I heard full-time MK  
> PK I just assumed 9 channels. I guess the full-time thing was hog-wash.
> 
> take care,
> Walker
>

It would make a particular particle apparently more reactive. It doesn't 
change the basic physic or chemistry.

On a physical level, if you have a bunch of marbles and throw them onto 
a lake surface, they sink. Grind them up fine enough and they float.  
Have the rules of physics, in this case the relationship between 
floating and displacement, changed? No. But the size has made them sit 
on the surface as the result of surface tension. Stir the lake and 
they'll sink.

What worries me overall is that the digital printing lists are becoming 
more and more like fora for marketing battles. They're also becoming 
realms where photographers/printers seem all too obsessed/preoccupied 
with developing terminology that obfuscates basic truths.

Any good photographer knows that there are really no "secret" 
techniques. If you see something, it can be replicated. The same applies 
to chemistry and physics here.  This language of  secret 
techniques/chemistry is the kind of hype that  once surrounded the term 
"giclee."  It's great for short-term marketing, but doesn't hold water 
in the end.


Harry Lockwood wrote:
> Well, I don¹t have the credentials to contribute much here, but I do have a
> question.
>
> Given that carbon is not non-reactive, grinding it to a superfine level
> enormously increases the surface to volume ratio and may, therefore make it
> much more physically (not chemically) reactive, no?
>
>   


 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 




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

Ack!


Might be worth "googling" carbon lattice.

Keith,

Good job you added this proviso! I was just about to compose a reply 
suggesting that reactivity may change as one approaches molecular sizes. 
Don't we see a hint of this in the aggregation of dye molecules to form more 
stable particles? Claria ink?

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Editor, P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>


However, cavear emptor.

While the laws of chemistry and physics may not change at macro-atomic
levels, the relatively young area of  "surface science"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_chemistry may have some
applicability here when dealing with some inks in particles when we
started measuring the particle size in atoms. Last time I checked, we
weren't at that point yet.

Anyone who has ever worked with watercolors, even the finest ones such
as Windor Newton, knows that you can look at the pigments floating
around in suspension right there on the paper itself. That fairly
coarse clumping of pigments is actually the substance and beauty of
the medium. Hardly the kind of grinding that one would need to pass
through an Epson micro piezzo head for photogaphic smooth value
purposes. That is apples and oranges compared there.

What started this line of the thread was me saying that carbon pigment
in conjunction with micro grinding AND all the other components of an
inkjet formulation is a different animal than carbon pigment in a
natural form, pure carbon.  

If this were not true there would be no need to fade test these
monochrome inkjet prints at all to determine whether they were >200,
>300, etc. They would last into the thousands of years, or at least
until the paper fell apart.   

john

Harry,

I think we also have to specify what form of carbon we are talking about. 
The word is often used loosely as if there is only one type. One form of 
pure carbon - buckyballs (fullerenes - C60 and similar) - are soluble in 
water and many organic solvents and vary in color - C60 is purple for 
example.

Bob Frost.



Harry Lockwood wrote:

> Well, I don\ufffdt have the credentials to contribute much here, but I do have 
> a
> question.
>
> Given that carbon is not non-reactive, grinding it to a superfine level
> enormously increases the surface to volume ratio and may, therefore make 
> it
> much more physically (not chemically) reactive, no?

...

>Given that carbon is not non-reactive, grinding it to a 
>superfine level enormously increases the surface to volume 
>ratio and may, therefore make it much more physically 
>(not chemically) reactive, no?

Probably.

I've found the information at http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/pigmt3.html to
be extremely useful.  The tables include information on particle sizes and
specific gravities, attributes that are very significant to our inks.

Note how finely ground the carbon black is that watercolor artists use.  I
think these people, who have been concerned with lightfastness for a long
time and have much more flexibility in materials than we do, might have
useful information relative to our field.  If is it true that they use
carbon ground to such a fine size, then it suggests to me that the material
is tough enough that we're not being too negatively affected by the sizes
needed for our medium.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

At 05:03 PM Tuesday 8/21/2007, you wrote:
>As for Quad/K7 vs K3, I think the quality difference (in fidelity 
>terms) speaks for itself. All you need is a loup and some one point 
>text printed from both printers and you'll see very clearly.

Um ... which of our customers are going to view their framed prints with a loupe?! Aren't pictures supposed to hang on the wall and not be viewed under a microscope?

Richard

--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com (Photos web site)
http://warkworth.vze.com/ (Warkworth photo essay)
http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/ (Recent work) 

   " The best way to predict the future is to invent it. " 
   - Alan Kay

For those that are interested, here is a bit of info on Carbon Black 
pigments from a manufacturer of the various types.

http://www.mbssth.com/pigment-black.htm

http://www.mbssth.com/carbon-black1.htm

Note that carbon black is NOT pure carbon like graphite; it has various 
oxygen-containing groups on its surface that considerably affect its 
properties, and which are modified further by ink manufacturers apparently. 
So 'PURE CARBON' is not true of inks based on carbon black.

Bob Frost.

>... with watercolors ... you can look at the pigments 
> floating around in suspension right there on the paper 
> itself ... fairly coarse clumping of pigments ...

Those are probably mostly agglomerations of many particles.  I have in fact
printed with Daniel Smith "Extra fine" watercolors using an inkjet printer.

(Don't try this without knowing what you're doing.)

The main difference in grind may be that the watercolor pigments are not
processed to have as uniform particle size.  Also, of course, the
dispersant/base is very different.  

With filtering, a good high shear mixer, and other processing that only
companies in the business should try, I think we may have a broader palette
available to us than most think.  Further exploration of this is on my "to
do" list, in fact.  I'm working with an excellent watercolor painter
(Guggenheim Fellow, in fact) on a project in this general direction.  If we
succeed, watercolor painting and inkjet printing may have an interesting
overlap and fusion.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 






 is actually the substance and beauty of
the medium. Hardly the kind of grinding that one would need to pass
through an Epson micro piezzo head for photogaphic smooth value
purposes. That is apples and oranges compared there.

What started this line of the thread was me saying that carbon pigment
in conjunction with micro grinding AND all the other components of an
inkjet formulation is a different animal than carbon pigment in a
natural form, pure carbon. 

If this were not true there would be no need to fade test these
monochrome inkjet prints at all to determine whether they were >200,
>300, etc. They would last into the thousands of years, or at least
until the paper fell apart. 

john

Which actually seems to me to bring up a key point. I certainly don't 
claim to be an expert, or have the experience that most of the people 
on this thread do. But from what I have read there are three things 
that primarily effect longevity: the ink, the paper, and the 
environment. If all three aren't fully controlled the longevity is 
determined by the "weakest link." It seems that what you are all 
saying is "all things being equal" this lasts better than that. But 
how often are all things equal? i.e., in the real world, does this 
really matter?

Likewise for neutrality. The "eye of the beholder" aside, the paper 
(including presence or lack of OBAs and the paper lot), the lot or 
batch of ink, the color temperature of the light in the display area 
(possibly even the age of the bulbs or the mix of daylight and 
artifical light) will effect the perceived neutrality of the ink.  

For those with experience to give a really helpful response, in the 
real world do these things objectively matter, are they overcome by 
the "noise" all the things we can't control, or are people actually 
just expressing their likes and dislikes, their own personal 
impressions and perceptions, rather than any objective, practical 
issue of major concern.

Rich


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> Anyone who has ever worked with watercolors, even the finest ones 
such
> as Windor Newton, knows that you can look at the pigments floating
> around in suspension right there on the paper itself. That fairly
> coarse clumping of pigments is actually the substance and beauty of
> the medium. Hardly the kind of grinding that one would need to pass
> through an Epson micro piezzo head for photogaphic smooth value
> purposes. That is apples and oranges compared there.
> 
> What started this line of the thread was me saying that carbon 
pigment
> in conjunction with micro grinding AND all the other components of 
an

> inkjet formulation is a different animal than carbon pigment in a
> natural form, pure carbon.  
> 
> If this were not true there would be no need to fade test these
> monochrome inkjet prints at all to determine whether they were >200,
> >300, etc. They would last into the thousands of years, or at least
> until the paper fell apart.   
> 
> john
>

"some people are crazy enought to pay 30 grand for a
type c Kodak lightjet print as an investment,
seriously. That's their bad judgement, not mine. But
what is within my control matters to me."
 

If you actually took this issue as seriously as you
claim, you'd recognize that your "control" of
"archival" consists primarily of preservation of
digital files for clients' optional future access, so
that over the millenia your timeless wonderful images
can be reprinted again and again by your progeny,
cursed with the responsibility unto the seventh
generation.  

If they care, patrons of today's Picassos know their
paintings will not last forever without restoration.  

The same sort of knowledge should, for photographers
to sleep well, be conveyed to purchasers of inkjet
prints. To pretend the original print is "archival"
while not offering future reprints from digital files
(for a price by whoever is alive to make the prints )
might be seen as deceitful, a morally careless
attitude toward the work itself (which is the file) as
it wings its way into the misty future. There are,
after all, services that promise eternal storage of
digital files (so long as the bills are paid :-)

I'm not going to prolong the agony of this conversation any longer
beyond this because the fact is, it is only a major concern for a very
tiny minority of inkjet users like me, and it is obvious that for most
photographers these days, ultimate print longevity is way down the
list of priorities. I don't plan to be a martyr about it, if every now
and then I become really preoccupied with it.

Though to answer you, the arguement that as long as one has a digital
back up file all is cool in the world and let the prints shift as they
may over time if they need do and, that we as consumers of the product
have no control over that side of things, is not a philosophy that I
could afford to ascribe to. People pay me to be concerned about these
things so they don't have to.

The files are always twice backed up, for sure. But, when a gallery or
art buyer for say a corporation buys a series of prints or someone
purchases a limited editon portfolio, there is no telling where it
will end up. For instance I've done prints for people that are now in
China,France,Spain,Egypt,and Mexico. If one print shifts color or
fades within a group not only does the entire body of work come into
question, but the reputation of the gallery or art buyer as well as
the company where it was produced comes into question in a big way.
This is especially true if one of the sellng points of ones work is
its relative permanece over other, cheaper processes that these days
are ubiquitous in the market place. Photograhic work changes color
differently than other artwork in that it doesn't usually fade
gradually or subtlely most of the time. Usually the change is ugly,
obvious, and fairly quick and changes the whole character of the work.

I'll stop. I promise. Will revisit in another 6 months. Its boring
everyone now, including me. 

John

In a message dated 8/20/07 11:35:56 PM, editor@... writes:


> Does that mean the carbon is non-reactive? No, it's simply not a noble
> gas.
> 

But my testing with Radon Prints proved to be unstable, with a short 
half-life, and a tendency to promote lung cancer... <G>

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of 
the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


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

In a message dated 8/21/07 7:34:18 AM, hflockwood@... writes:


> Given that carbon is not non-reactive, grinding it to a superfine level
> enormously increases the surface to volume ratio and may, therefore make it
> much more physically (not chemically) reactive, no?
> 

Sure, though it still beats dyes in that regard...

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of 
the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


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

In a message dated 8/21/07 9:05:19 AM, deanwork2003@... writes:


> So the worse part of that is you still have to switch out the MK and
> PK for different media. They only fixed that in the 64" model.
> 

Assumedly because they were designing it from scratch, so could do it right. 
We'll have to wait for the next 'from scratch' generation of narrower printers 
to get that functionality. Whether they take that opportunity to add 
secondary color inks (RGB) or not will be the next big question. More vivid CMYs is 
not the same as adding secondaries, it does not reduce (if anything it 
increases) illuminant metemerism in color prints.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


**************************************
 Get a sneak peek of 
the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


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

Contrary to my initial post John, I agree with you on each and EVERY 
point in this post. As far as I'm concerned, this isn't boring at all. 
It's one of the central issues of printing anything, particularly art. 
It's what drew me into the fray with EPSON over 6 years ago.

Perhaps I should have taken the original post I commented on with the 
intended note of wry sarcasm on "very secret" it now, given your other 
posts, would seem to have carried. Apologies for that.

But this issue is very much NOT boring. The fact is a print done by a 
skilled printer  and/or the original artist, has a very different value 
than one done from the file today (witness the reprintings of Ansel 
Adams' images). To take an extreme case, imagine a preservationist, 
through some future process, could determine exactly what an Egyptian 
tomb painting, the images at Lascaux, or  the Sistine Chapel ceiling, 
looked like five minutes after the pigments had air-dried. Assume also 
that one could now produce copies so perfect that they were no different 
from those originals at a microscopic level (in philosophy that's often 
called supervenience). Would the new prints be as valuable as the 
originals? Certainly not. Why? The person or persons who did the 
originals, their historic value, event the importance of where they are 
located makes their value quite different.

Having the originals files ready to reproduce a new print is not always 
the same. Even a printing technique that is technically better in every 
purely objective term may not produce a print with the same overall 
synergistic value that an older technique might. Philosophers often 
speak of beauty in this regard (a perfect nose, added to perfect eyes, 
and a perfect moth, etc. does not produce a perfect face) calling it 
organic unity. For art, lithographs, intaglio, etc. this same principle 
is obvious. For photography, using Kodachrome to photograph Southwestern 
deserts springs to mind.

In any event,  having the original file isn't the same. Even today, I 
have prints, which for reasons of organic unity I preferred when made 
with older inkjet technology.
  

john dean wrote:
> I'm not going to prolong the agony of this conversation any longer
> beyond this because the fact is, it is only a major concern for a very
> tiny minority of inkjet users like me, and it is obvious that for most
> photographers these days, ultimate print longevity is way down the
> list of priorities. I don't plan to be a martyr about it, if every now
> and then I become really preoccupied with it.
>
> Though to answer you, the arguement that as long as one has a digital
> back up file all is cool in the world and let the prints shift as they
> may over time if they need do and, that we as consumers of the product
> have no control over that side of things, is not a philosophy that I
> could afford to ascribe to. People pay me to be concerned about these
> things so they don't have to.
>
> The files are always twice backed up, for sure. But, when a gallery or
> art buyer for say a corporation buys a series of prints or someone
> purchases a limited editon portfolio, there is no telling where it
> will end up. For instance I've done prints for people that are now in
> China,France,Spain,Egypt,and Mexico. If one print shifts color or
> fades within a group not only does the entire body of work come into
> question, but the reputation of the gallery or art buyer as well as
> the company where it was produced comes into question in a big way.
> This is especially true if one of the sellng points of ones work is
> its relative permanece over other, cheaper processes that these days
> are ubiquitous in the market place. Photograhic work changes color
> differently than other artwork in that it doesn't usually fade
> gradually or subtlely most of the time. Usually the change is ugly,
> obvious, and fairly quick and changes the whole character of the work.
>
>   

-- 

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2007, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }





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

Excellent point and one I hadn't even though of until now.

john


> secondary color inks (RGB) or not will be the next big question.
More vivid CMYs is 

> not the same as adding secondaries, it does not reduce (if anything it 
> increases) illuminant metemerism in color prints.
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Unit
> Datacolor Inc.
> CDTobie@...
> www.colorvision.com
> 
> 
> **************************************
>  Get a sneak peek of 
> the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

John, I have to take issue with this thoughtful post, but it looks
like I'll ramble off shortly...
As a commercial printer, I can not, and insistantly do not, take
responsibility for long term storage of their original files. That
would be foolhardy to say the least.
I'm just the next generation darkroom guy, and they generally had big
font disclaimers about film damage liability. H**l, I could even
somehow misplace or damage your file while it's in house and in
production, if you don't have a master copy at home, and mine was just
a copy, you're nuts.

Bruce Barnbaum recently told me he considered my edited final file my
original, and not my print. I guess I see his point, but the darkroom
paradigm has really not changed in my case. My prints are not just
reproduction of the file. I make choices about paper, choices about
what ink and how it goes down, things few others will consciously see,
that make each print the original. That day. I may actually make new
tonal changes as well, after living with my earlier choices for some time.
Same was true in the darkroom, I'd print a neg differently every time,
and enjoyed that capability.
I assume I'm far from unique in this regard, others are doing the same
thing.
Also, the likelihood that the inks, paper, software, etc. I use today
will be in play in a decade seems unlikely, given the rapid evolution
of these processes. Since I began ink printing, things have changed
dramatically, there are prints on the walls here made with now
obsolete materials. So even if some young printer had my notes and
wanted to reproduce another "original" when I am in my impending
dotage, it probably won't be possible.
The whole print on demand idea is a bit less of a sure thing than most
realize. If you want an entire edition to be identical, you'd better
print the whole thing today.

I'm not implying no one will ever print my files as well, but they
won't be printed by me, exactly the way I would have. As far as I'm
concerned my prints are my originals.

There's a good chance I've elevated all this ink manipulation into
some kind of high craft in my pea brain to justify all the time and
effort... but I don't consider the mono ink process employed here mere
reproduction, but part of the art itself. Even how color ink hits the
paper is carefully considered here, even though all those choices may
ultimately put the same hue down.
Clayton's thoughts about coverage and it's aesthetic effect is highly
relevant, at least to me. Our tastes may differ, but we agree the
issue is important.
If it were mere reproduction, even challenging critical difficult
reproduction, it would certainly lose it's appeal for me.
I realize this topic seems to be boring some people, but not me. In
fact I think it's important stuff. Unfortunately I haven't had time to
get the replies on here I would like, but I'm also probably getting
into less trouble...
As this new paradigm for photo printing evolves, us artists and
craftspersons, who are passionate about this stuff, need to make sure
our voices are heard. Even if we strongly disagree. Big business is
rolling along, and rarely takes note of anything but the squeaky
wheel. It's highly skilled and passionate people that have brought
about multiple K inks in all the new printers we have today.
I see the long held concerns of photography, optical clarity,
continuous tone, longevity, all the early challenges, still very much
in play and even at risk. We have entities involved in the future of
these things concerned only in the evolution of high tech, and how
good they are now doing in their world, not realizing they are
possibly taking major steps backwards in the larger picture of
photography. We might be those people responsible for carrying forward
those concerns, and pressing for advances in craft, not declines.
This list is Digital B&W, the print.

By the way, Walker does more edition work for more successful artists,
in bigger prestigious art markets than I, so his experience should be
considered more relevant. But in the last few years I've seen no
resistance to ink any more, in my little world. As most of you know
there was a Piezotone/PhotoRag Walker Evans exhibit in New York last
year. I even heard there were some quad Adams editions out there
somewhere.
The resistance I've seen is to "Giclee", which I don't call any of
these prints.
Things are coming along.
OK, I'm done for now, whew...
Tyler



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, john kelly
<djon43@...> wrote:

>
> "some people are crazy enought to pay 30 grand for a
> type c Kodak lightjet print as an investment,
> seriously. That's their bad judgement, not mine. But
> what is within my control matters to me."
>  
> 
> If you actually took this issue as seriously as you
> claim, you'd recognize that your "control" of
> "archival" consists primarily of preservation of
> digital files for clients' optional future access, so
> that over the millenia your timeless wonderful images
> can be reprinted again and again by your progeny,
> cursed with the responsibility unto the seventh
> generation.  
> 
> If they care, patrons of today's Picassos know their
> paintings will not last forever without restoration.  
> 
> The same sort of knowledge should, for photographers
> to sleep well, be conveyed to purchasers of inkjet
> prints. To pretend the original print is "archival"
> while not offering future reprints from digital files
> (for a price by whoever is alive to make the prints )
> might be seen as deceitful, a morally careless
> attitude toward the work itself (which is the file) as
> it wings its way into the misty future. There are,
> after all, services that promise eternal storage of
> digital files (so long as the bills are paid :-)
>

Tyler wrote:

"...impending dotage..."

 
Isn't that what happens to an image file just before it's Ripped?





Bill Kennedy
K2 Press
Austin, Texas






 


________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


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

Tyler,

I think we were discussing two differnt things here. You are talking
about business practices in storing files, and I was involved in a 
discussion of the ramifications of storage for permanence purposes. 

I commented that I believe in storing two digital copies of important
work in all cases. However, I like you, do not take it upon my self to
be the preservaton guarantor of someone else's valuable images and I
state that up front to them always. I do usually keep a backup file of
work I do but I don't guarantee anyone that it will be availble for
them in the future. I'm amazed that those Iris studios did that. I
simply do that as an added convenience, mostly for myself, so when
they order another one, as someone did today I don't have to start
over or wait for them to bring over a file. But I gave them a file
initially so they are responsible for its long term existence once it
leaves me. 

As to whether people like us will be able to reproduce a file to
exactly match something we did earlier, I also assume in a few years
we won't. But we should be able to come very close. Even in the
lithography days print studios told clients if you want them all to
look the same they need to be printed at the same time. Even
Rembrant's materials and paper changed, probably a lot more than ours. 

But we are in a hopefully advanced era and it is more than a little
disturbing that just when we get used to fine tuned workflow the
companies change the inks on us or the coatings on the paper and what
not. Epson seems to be in the habbit of changing insets every year now
and I expect Canon and HP to do the same. Part of it is advancements
and a large part of it is marketing protocol. MIS has close to a
billion variants out there, and Cone is about to change his again in
order to keep up with the need for glossy compatible media. I hope
we'll have the same inks WE'RE using now for the next 5 years. But
beyond that I wouldn't count on it. I certainly wouldn't tell my
clients to count on it. We do the best we can.

John       (I need to get some work done, quit posting stuff)

Stop it, you guys are scaring me.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, BKPhoto@... wrote:
>
> 
>  Tyler wrote:
> 
> "...impending dotage..."
> 
>  
> Isn't that what happens to an image file just before it's Ripped?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Kennedy
> K2 Press
> Austin, Texas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's
free from AOL at AOL.com.

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

Hi John-
In the case of files that I have prepared, eg a drum scan to print, or a
painting reproduction, I currently don't give the customer the file, unless
they pay extra for it, because I don't want them taking the file to another
printer and printing it for cheap. Have you (or anyone else) considered
this, and how do you protect yourself?

Bill

On 8/22/07, john dean <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
>   Tyler,
>
> ...I do usually keep a backup file of
> work I do but I don't guarantee anyone that it will be availble for
> them in the future. I'm amazed that those Iris studios did that. I
> simply do that as an added convenience, mostly for myself, so when
> they order another one, as someone did today I don't have to start
> over or wait for them to bring over a file. But I gave them a file
> initially so they are responsible for its long term existence once it
> leaves me.
>
>
>


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

got a nice ring to it doesn't it?

Actually, I seem to be able to apply it to everything I see around me
here.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, BKPhoto@... wrote:
>
> 
>  Tyler wrote:
> 
> "...impending dotage..."
> 
>  
> Isn't that what happens to an image file just before it's Ripped?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Kennedy
> K2 Press
> Austin, Texas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's
free from AOL at AOL.com.

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

Bill,
If you have good customers that trust you and REALLY like what you do  
and how you do it, the trust should be a two way street. And I would  
certainly not want to be the only holder of their "adjusted ready to  
print" file, just in case something happens on my end. I have always  
given them the file, and the reprint orders keep coming in. Sure I  
have no idea what they are doing with them, but I trust them. Of  
course this is a business decision we made for the way we do business  
and has worked for us.
Mark

On Aug 22, 2007, at 2:47 PM, Bill Morse wrote:

> Hi John-
> In the case of files that I have prepared, eg a drum scan to print,  
> or a
> painting reproduction, I currently don't give the customer the  
> file, unless
> they pay extra for it, because I don't want them taking the file to  
> another
> printer and printing it for cheap. Have you (or anyone else)  
> considered
> this, and how do you protect yourself?
>
> Bill
>
> On 8/22/07, john dean <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>>
>>   Tyler,
>>
>> ...I do usually keep a backup file of
>> work I do but I don't guarantee anyone that it will be availble for
>> them in the future. I'm amazed that those Iris studios did that. I
>> simply do that as an added convenience, mostly for myself, so when
>> they order another one, as someone did today I don't have to start
>> over or wait for them to bring over a file. But I gave them a file
>> initially so they are responsible for its long term existence once it
>> leaves me.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you  
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by  
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules  
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the  
> group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines”  
> in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER  
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL  
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE  
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO  
> OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Bill,
I do the same thing here on print jobs where the client brings in
film. There is an additional charge if they want the file after I have
edited it and prepared it for output on a particular printer setup. Of
course I am getting more digital camera files now and that becomes
trickier to deal with. A big part of the appeal for me to keep client
files in house where appropriate is that I can reprint without the
variable of the client altering the file (say, by inadvertantly
assigning another profile or tweaking it for their desktop without
saving a copy).


On 8/22/07, Bill Morse <Bill.Morse@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi John-
>  In the case of files that I have prepared, eg a drum scan to print, or a
>  painting reproduction, I currently don't give the customer the file, unless
>  they pay extra for it, because I don't want them taking the file to another
>  printer and printing it for cheap. Have you (or anyone else) considered
>  this, and how do you protect yourself?
>
>  Bill
>
>  On 8/22/07, john dean <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>  >
>  > Tyler,
>  >
>  > ...I do usually keep a backup file of
>  > work I do but I don't guarantee anyone that it will be availble for
>  > them in the future. I'm amazed that those Iris studios did that. I
>  > simply do that as an added convenience, mostly for myself, so when
>  > they order another one, as someone did today I don't have to start
>  > over or wait for them to bring over a file. But I gave them a file
>  > initially so they are responsible for its long term existence once it
>  > leaves me.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  


-- 
amadou diallo
Author, Mastering Digital Black and White
www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com

Oh yes. I've thought a lot about it in the beginning, but not recently.

And I'll also say that I don't do primarily artist painting
reproductions, but if I did I would probably approach it the same way
I do now, I think.....and if I were set up to do digital capture of
the painting I'd charge a lot for that up front.

I think you have to sit down and make a personal decision about this
kind of model and the most important thing is to stick with your
decision and not change the rules in mid stream if you can help it.
That's what makes people mad. There is no art law that says you have
keep position of someones files that you worked on, or that you can't.

The way I decided to approach it is - I give every file 15 free
minutes of Photoshop work. For decent files that aren't manipulated
that is usually all I need. For any computer time over that I charge
$75.00/hr, which is very cheap by advertising standards and I should
raise that now. Of course bigger files require more time expended. So,
if a person has added work done, and many do, they pay for it up front
and then it is their baby from then on. Like Tyler said, do we really
want to be responsible for that file long term? I don't. If they take
it to Kmart or Kinkos it's their cheap output they will end up with
and its out of my hands. 
 
The bigger issue we deal with, that I also saw coming in the
beginning, is doing all this work and then they buy their own Epson or
have a friend who has one, and output their additonal prints next.
That happens and it happens to me every year. But as we all know it
isn't as easy as it sounds and anyone with color management skills
isn't going to work very cheap for long. All I can do is charge as
much as I can up front and try to do a level of work that they can't
do. Everyone has their own methods.

I'd love to hear Walker and Bill discuss this sometime.

john - off for the week....may your prints have invisible dottage 





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Morse"
<Bill.Morse@...> wrote:
>
> Hi John-
> In the case of files that I have prepared, eg a drum scan to print, or a
> painting reproduction, I currently don't give the customer the file,
unless
> they pay extra for it, because I don't want them taking the file to
another

> printer and printing it for cheap. Have you (or anyone else) considered
> this, and how do you protect yourself?
> 
> Bill
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> Tyler,
> 
> I think we were discussing two differnt things here.

probably, maybe that dotage has moved beyond impending...


>...I do usually keep a backup file of
> work I do but I don't guarantee anyone that it will be availble for
> them in the future. I'm amazed that those Iris studios did that. I
> simply do that as an added convenience, mostly for myself, so when
> they order another one, as someone did today I don't have to start
> over or wait for them to bring over a file. But I gave them a file
> initially so they are responsible for its long term existence once it
> leaves me. 

Yes, that's what I do too, I just don't let them know that so they
will depend on it. "Oh yes, I think I may still have that here.."

It's amazing though, that often they have no idea what they did with
it, or when it comes back it's still on the "transport only, not
storage" disk I burned for them.

Bill, I understand your position, and hear others do that as well.
I try to get paid for my time initially, and let them have it.
Note- try.

Also, if I'm scanning only, my price is a bit outrageous, if I'm
scanning for an in house print job my price is very competitive. The
last thing I'm aspiring to be is a scanner operator after all these years.
Some basic tweaking is included, but if it gets into more hours, I
charge for that.
I got paid, I let them have it. Good luck on getting a better print
elsewhere <G>. Cheaper is fine, it's a free world, I'm not going to
gutter fight for the work, what with this dotage and all.
Also, I don't tweak per my system, it's calibrated, and the files are
tagged, so no special files here just for this. It should print fine
elsewhere, less beautifully of course...

We could have an entire list just for how to make a living doing this
stuff, probably under the mental health-denial catagory.
Tyler

Bill Morse wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi John-
> In the case of files that I have prepared, eg a drum scan to print, or a
> painting reproduction, I currently don't give the customer the file, unless
> they pay extra for it, because I don't want them taking the file to another
> printer and printing it for cheap. Have you (or anyone else) considered
> this, and how do you protect yourself?

The music and video companies struggle with this precise issue
in the on-going DRM wars.

 From the perspective of the producer, probably the most realistic
answer is "never give the file away, even if it's protected with DRM".

 From the perspective of the consumer, the answer seems to be
"you don't deserve to protect yourself".

It's not like the twain will never meet; afterall, it's all
about business at the end of the day.  If someone wants a
non-DRM protected (plain) file, then you offer to sell it
to them at a price which yields the entire profit you expect
to make from that file, ever.

Dana

Dana, doesn't it get a bit trickier though, in this case? I mean, the
image content is actually the photographer's intellectual property. Do
I have some ownership right to the plumbing work I did on it?
Music is clearly intellectual property, does the guy doing the final
mix have some claim of ownership to it as well as the creator?

OK, way OT, better find lunch...
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dana H. Myers"
<dana.myers@...> wrote:
>
> Bill Morse wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Hi John-
> > In the case of files that I have prepared, eg a drum scan to
print, or a
> > painting reproduction, I currently don't give the customer the
file, unless
> > they pay extra for it, because I don't want them taking the file
to another
> > printer and printing it for cheap. Have you (or anyone else)
considered

> > this, and how do you protect yourself?
> 
> The music and video companies struggle with this precise issue
> in the on-going DRM wars.
> 
>  From the perspective of the producer, probably the most realistic
> answer is "never give the file away, even if it's protected with DRM".
> 
>  From the perspective of the consumer, the answer seems to be
> "you don't deserve to protect yourself".
> 
> It's not like the twain will never meet; afterall, it's all
> about business at the end of the day.  If someone wants a
> non-DRM protected (plain) file, then you offer to sell it
> to them at a price which yields the entire profit you expect
> to make from that file, ever.
> 
> Dana
>

Perhaps in the interest of brevity, I sacrificed clarity.  Of course the
basic physics or chemistry doesn’t change, but the *relevant* physics or
chemistry may.  Your example of the marble is a good illustration.  In its
intact state, the marble sinks through the fluid, governed by gravity and
viscous forces, with some surface-force contributions, to its behavior.
Once ground into particles, the same principles apply, but at sufficiently
small size, surface forces may dominate even to the point of relegating
direct gravity to second or third order.

More fun: suppose the “marble” is an aluminum sphere cleaned (say, by
bombardment in a near perfect vacuum system) so that the surface is
uncontaminated Al only (actually, not realizable.)  Now grind the particles
down to a couple of nanometers in diameter.  Still have Al.  But if this Al
dust is expose to air, the Al particles will immediately adsorb oxygen and,
by diffusion, the Al particles will convert to Al2O3 in a very short time.
Different chemistry this time.

Sorry for drifting so far OT.

Harry




On 8/21/07 10:52 AM, "Editor, P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>
wrote:

>  
>  
>  
> 
> It would make a particular particle apparently more reactive. It doesn't
> change the basic physic or chemistry.
> 
> On a physical level, if you have a bunch of marbles and throw them onto
> a lake surface, they sink. Grind them up fine enough and they float.
> Have the rules of physics, in this case the relationship between
> floating and displacement, changed? No. But the size has made them sit
> on the surface as the result of surface tension. Stir the lake and
> they'll sink.
> 
> What worries me overall is that the digital printing lists are becoming
> more and more like fora for marketing battles. They're also becoming
> realms where photographers/printers seem all too obsessed/preoccupied
> with developing terminology that obfuscates basic truths.
> 
> Any good photographer knows that there are really no "secret"
> techniques. If you see something, it can be replicated. The same applies
> to chemistry and physics here.  This language of  secret
> techniques/chemistry is the kind of hype that  once surrounded the term
> "giclee."  It's great for short-term marketing, but doesn't hold water
> in the end.
> 
> Harry Lockwood wrote:
>> > Well, I don¹t have the credentials to contribute much here, but I do have a
>> > question.
>> >
>> > Given that carbon is not non-reactive, grinding it to a superfine level
>> > enormously increases the surface to volume ratio and may, therefore make it
>> > much more physically (not chemically) reactive, no?
>> >
>> >   
> 
> Keith Krebs
> _._,___


-- 

Harry F. Lockwood




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

And don’t forget graphene.  This is a pure carbon 2-D semiconductor, one
atom thick.

Harry


On 8/21/07 3:06 PM, "Bob Frost" <bob@...> wrote:

> Harry,
> 
> I think we also have to specify what form of carbon we are talking about.
> The word is often used loosely as if there is only one type. One form of
> pure carbon - buckyballs (fullerenes - C60 and similar) - are soluble in
> water and many organic solvents and vary in color - C60 is purple for
> example.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> Harry Lockwood wrote:
>> > Well, I don¹t have the credentials to contribute much here, but I do have
>> > a
>> > question.
>> >
>> > Given that carbon is not non-reactive, grinding it to a superfine level
>> > enormously increases the surface to volume ratio and may, therefore make
>> > it
>> > much more physically (not chemically) reactive, no?
> 
>  
>     


-- 

Harry F. Lockwood




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

Absolutely.  But I wonder if there is a particle size that optimizes
longevity and other printing considerations.  Tough question to answer.

Harry


On 8/22/07 11:10 AM, "CDTobie@..." <CDTobie@...> wrote:

>  
> In a message dated 8/21/07 7:34:18 AM, hflockwood@...
> <mailto:hflockwood%40verizon.net>  writes:
> 
>> > Given that carbon is not non-reactive, grinding it to a superfine level
>> > enormously increases the surface to volume ratio and may, therefore make it
>> > much more physically (not chemically) reactive, no?
>> > 
> 
> Sure, though it still beats dyes in that regard...
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Unit
> Datacolor Inc.
> CDTobie@... <mailto:CDTobie%40colorvision.com>
> www.colorvision.com


-- 

Harry F. Lockwood




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

In this context it must be remembered that Tyler is an (ex)musician.
   
  Tom Baker
  

BKPhoto@... wrote:
          
Tyler wrote:

"...impending dotage..."

Isn't that what happens to an image file just before it's Ripped?

Bill Kennedy
K2 Press
Austin, Texas

__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

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



         


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

In a message dated 8/22/2007 8:25:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
djon43@... writes:

The same  sort of knowledge should, for photographers
to sleep well, be conveyed to  purchasers of inkjet
prints. To pretend the original print is  "archival"
while not offering future reprints from digital files
(for a  price by whoever is alive to make the prints )
might be seen as deceitful,  a morally careless
attitude toward the work itself (which is the file)  as
it wings its way into the misty future. There are,
after all,  services that promise eternal storage of
digital files (so long as the  bills are paid :-)



Problem with this rationale is that the inks, papers and printheads will  all 
be different at some future point in time. The only way to assure future  
purchasers of originality is to print an inventory of the image and store them  
in the best archival conditions affordable.
 
Richard Massie



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


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

I don't think one is ever an ex musician, but rather just out of practice.
Does one become an ex photographic artist? 

 

As for file handling, the basic content is the ownership of the author. Then
the world becomes one big open area of gray in all its hues. 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

 

Skype : ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Baker
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 3:53 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: K3 archival and alternatives

 

In this context it must be remembered that Tyler is an (ex)musician.

Tom Baker


BKPhoto@aol. <mailto:BKPhoto%40aol.com> com wrote:

Tyler wrote:

"...impending dotage..."

Isn't that what happens to an image file just before it's Ripped?

Bill Kennedy
K2 Press
Austin, Texas

__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
AOL at AOL.com.

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

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

 



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:

> I hear rumors that Bowhaus is doing promising things with the Canon
> inks and IJC.


I have seen a recent beta of trueBW - the driver that Bowhaus will be
selling for the new Canon printers - and it is a much improved
reincarnation of IJC/OPM. It is now a single piece of software not two
(as in IJC and OPM) written from the ground up for the new hardware.
It currently only supports the new Canons (iPF5100 etc) as seen in
this Canon site:

http://tinyurl.com/2ooqrf

The good news as I see it, besides the many improvements in trueBW, is
that the new Lucia inks are very promising for bw. I have made (and
seen) some sample prints on SilverRag using trueBW on a 5100. My
experience is limited in that I have not had a chance to see anything
comparable from the HP camp. 

The gray inks in the Lucia have been tweaked since their introduction
a year ago, as has the 5100 (compared to the 5000). Very
significantly, the new grays have no bronzing when printing on
glossy/semi-gloss media.

The other important improvement is that the grays seem to belong to a
 single hue and a fairly neutral one at that (a long way from the
usual warm UC). This translates to far less need for other colours to
come in  and neutralize the scale when printing on glossy white
papers. It also makes any toning shifts easier since all grays are in
the same color family. The only minor exception is the photo black
which needs a pinch of cyan to bring it in line with the grays. 

For those printing on papers like Silver Rag, this means practically
no color dots and no need for coating (at least not on account of
bronzing). With a good trueBW profile, the very speedy 5100 will
quickly spit out a semigloss bw print that compares favorably to one
made with a dedicated inkset! 

Of course, there remains the issue that when toning, as with any color
inkset, the color dots, however faint, may be objectionable from a
"pure bw" point of view. And so, I hope "one day" we will see the same
ink technology in a low gamut set specifically for monochrome use.

As for trueBW, it is now a universal binary app, supports all 12 ink
channels and has an all-new interface that makes it a lot easier to
make profiles as well as to tweak the tones. 

As an example of a sophisticated new feature: the user can link
together the toning inks and then move them up or down together in
precise percentage points. But these points are not "absolute" values
of one hundredth of the entire adjustment scale: they are a percent of
the amount of ink in use. This makes it possible to move the inks up
or down and keep them in the same proportion to each other thus
preserving the hue as the intensity of the tint changes.

There is a lot more, but hard to describe without visuals.
As these products become available in the market this fall I am sure
there will be discussions and comparisons. For now, I think we've
broken the barrier of printing bw on semigloss without all the fuss.

Antonis

Antonis wrote:

> The good news as I see it, besides the many improvements in trueBW, is
> that the new Lucia inks are very promising for bw. I have made (and
> seen) some sample prints on SilverRag using trueBW on a 5100. My
> experience is limited in that I have not had a chance to see anything
> comparable from the HP camp. 
> 
> The gray inks in the Lucia have been tweaked since their introduction
> a year ago, as has the 5100 (compared to the 5000). Very
> significantly, the new grays have no bronzing when printing on
> glossy/semi-gloss media.
> 
> The other important improvement is that the grays seem to belong to a
>  single hue and a fairly neutral one at that (a long way from the
> usual warm UC). This translates to far less need for other colours to
> come in  and neutralize the scale when printing on glossy white
> papers. It also makes any toning shifts easier since all grays are in
> the same color family. The only minor exception is the photo black
> which needs a pinch of cyan to bring it in line with the grays. 

Antonis,

I'm curious what they changed in the Canon monochrome inks 
for more reasons than the gloss difference reduction. Was 
the shift from warmer to neutral ?  Any change in Dmax ? A 
change in transparency ? Which doesn't have to mean less Dmax.


The HP Z3100 MKPKkk are really neutral and with little gloss 
enhancer added the result is in my opinion excellent. In ABW 
mode of the HP  driver the inks used in the neutral setting 
are either 4 or 3 monochrome inks for matte and 3 inks for 
gloss. The only issue I see is that the ABW mode of the 
driver delivers near linear ouput for the calibrated papers 
(contrary to some early information) and the QTR profiles to 
correct that have a problem with Qimage's CM, the 
application I prefer to print from. Checking some 
possibilities to create Qimage friendly B&W profiles right now.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


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

Great Post. You are absolutely right. I imagine the next version
Bauhaus does will be for the HPZ. The Canon black and white on glossy
are very nice and even without a glop appear smooth and bronzeless, at
least on their media. You are also getting with that printer the
fastest output and the best color gamut of the big three. I wish they
would publish their detailed permence results on Wilhelm's site, like
the others.

john

Antonis,

 When they finish with the software will it be one program for 
Epson,H-P, and Canon or separate ones for each?Will the program be 
cross platform with the same features. 
I am going to be very interested to see what Epson comes up with now 
that the pressure is on. 
On a side note, do you know if there is any work by anyone on 
compatable ink sets for the Canon and H-P?

John H.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis" 
<antonisphoto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
> <tyler@> wrote:
> 
> > I hear rumors that Bowhaus is doing promising things with the 
Canon
> > inks and IJC.
> 
> 
> I have seen a recent beta of trueBW - the driver that Bowhaus will 
be
> selling for the new Canon printers - and it is a much improved
> reincarnation of IJC/OPM. It is now a single piece of software not 
two
> (as in IJC and OPM) written from the ground up for the new hardware.
> It currently only supports the new Canons (iPF5100 etc) as seen in
> this Canon site:
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/2ooqrf
> 
> The good news as I see it, besides the many improvements in trueBW, 
is
> that the new Lucia inks are very promising for bw. I have made (and
> seen) some sample prints on SilverRag using trueBW on a 5100. My
> experience is limited in that I have not had a chance to see 
anything
> comparable from the HP camp. 
> 
> The gray inks in the Lucia have been tweaked since their 
introduction
> a year ago, as has the 5100 (compared to the 5000). Very
> significantly, the new grays have no bronzing when printing on
> glossy/semi-gloss media.
> 
> The other important improvement is that the grays seem to belong to 
a
>  single hue and a fairly neutral one at that (a long way from the
> usual warm UC). This translates to far less need for other colours 
to
> come in  and neutralize the scale when printing on glossy white
> papers. It also makes any toning shifts easier since all grays are 
in
> the same color family. The only minor exception is the photo black
> which needs a pinch of cyan to bring it in line with the grays. 
> 
> For those printing on papers like Silver Rag, this means practically
> no color dots and no need for coating (at least not on account of
> bronzing). With a good trueBW profile, the very speedy 5100 will
> quickly spit out a semigloss bw print that compares favorably to one
> made with a dedicated inkset! 
> 
> Of course, there remains the issue that when toning, as with any 
color
> inkset, the color dots, however faint, may be objectionable from a
> "pure bw" point of view. And so, I hope "one day" we will see the 
same
> ink technology in a low gamut set specifically for monochrome use.
> 
> As for trueBW, it is now a universal binary app, supports all 12 ink
> channels and has an all-new interface that makes it a lot easier to
> make profiles as well as to tweak the tones. 
> 
> As an example of a sophisticated new feature: the user can link
> together the toning inks and then move them up or down together in
> precise percentage points. But these points are not "absolute" 
values
> of one hundredth of the entire adjustment scale: they are a percent 
of

> the amount of ink in use. This makes it possible to move the inks up
> or down and keep them in the same proportion to each other thus
> preserving the hue as the intensity of the tint changes.
> 
> There is a lot more, but hard to describe without visuals.
> As these products become available in the market this fall I am sure
> there will be discussions and comparisons. For now, I think we've
> broken the barrier of printing bw on semigloss without all the fuss.
> 
> Antonis
>

Ernst, 

There is this debate going on that when the Z driver adds the PK ink
to the MK rag paper output (quad as apposed to Tri black) that you're
not really gaining anything, and could possibly even create a very
difficult mix to linearize, given the unequally spaced density
dilution of the Pk ink in a Quad set up like that.

What is your take on that having worked with it? I assume a carefuly
controled mono rip could take more advantage if it better than the HP
driver? Is the additon of the extra PK black doing anything for you vs
not using it on media such as say Photorag?

john






In ABW 

> mode of the HP  driver the inks used in the neutral setting 
> are either 4 or 3 monochrome inks for matte and 3 inks for 
> gloss

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mr_Misty_44"
<jharvey@...> wrote:
>
> Antonis,
> 
>  When they finish with the software will it be one program for 
> Epson,H-P, and Canon or separate ones for each?Will the program be 
> cross platform with the same features. 
> I am going to be very interested to see what Epson comes up with now 
> that the pressure is on. 
> On a side note, do you know if there is any work by anyone on 
> compatable ink sets for the Canon and H-P?
> 
> John H.


John,

I don't know the answers to these questions. I know that for now
trueBW will support Canons only. Eventually ---  who knows. Like you,
I hope it will support the other printers. 

A lot depends on the printer manufacturers. Canon, in this case,
offered a lot of support and access to their printers and maybe driver
code.

Antonis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
<E.Dinkla@...> wrote:


> Antonis,
> 
> I'm curious what they changed in the Canon monochrome inks 
> for more reasons than the gloss difference reduction. Was 
> the shift from warmer to neutral ?  Any change in Dmax ? A 
> change in transparency ? Which doesn't have to mean less Dmax.


Ernst,

I haven't measured dmaxes but what I've seeen is in a range where
small variations don't make a big difference (say, around 2.4).
Don't know about transparency either. As for shift in tone, I don't
remember last year's Lucia being all that warm. I haven't really
worked with these closely enough to know more.

Antonis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
> I wish they
> would publish their detailed permence results on Wilhelm's site, like
> the others.


Yes, I agree John.   I thought I had seen something a year ago but
since the new inks came out so recently I'm sure it will take a while.
Canon, like HP and Epson have endorsed WIR for their permanence
testing. I expect to see some results in the next year.

Antonis

Maybe, but the time to post test results is before the printers have
been released. It certainly will effect my decision.


john



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

>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
> <deanwork2003@> wrote:
> > I wish they
> > would publish their detailed permence results on Wilhelm's site, like
> > the others.
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree John.   I thought I had seen something a year ago but
> since the new inks came out so recently I'm sure it will take a while.
> Canon, like HP and Epson have endorsed WIR for their permanence
> testing. I expect to see some results in the next year.
> 
> Antonis
>

I can't speak for the HP, but with Epson drivers and 3K with and without PK
on matte, my experience is that while it's definitely not necessary for
smoothness, a small amount of PK can improve things, including by lowering
the amount of color inks needed to neutralize the carbon, due to the denser
PK printing more neutrally than the LK.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

>There is this debate going on that when the Z driver adds 
>the PK ink to the MK rag paper output (quad as apposed to 
>Tri black) that you're not really gaining anything, and 
>could possibly even create a very difficult mix to linearize, 
>given the unequally spaced density dilution of the Pk ink 
>in a Quad set up like that.


>>In ABW 
>> mode of the HP driver the inks used in the neutral setting 
>> are either 4 or 3 monochrome inks for matte and 3 inks for 
>> gloss

john dean wrote:
> Ernst, 
> 
> There is this debate going on that when the Z driver adds the PK ink
> to the MK rag paper output (quad as apposed to Tri black) that you're
> not really gaining anything, and could possibly even create a very
> difficult mix to linearize, given the unequally spaced density
> dilution of the Pk ink in a Quad set up like that.
> 
> What is your take on that having worked with it? I assume a carefuly
> controled mono rip could take more advantage if it better than the HP
> driver? Is the additon of the extra PK black doing anything for you vs
> not using it on media such as say Photorag?
> 
> john

I think I raised that question myself. But right now the 
Fine Art Paper >250 gr media setting that uses the quad 
inkset gives a higher Dmax than the Matte Litho Realistic 
media setting that leaves PK out of the mix, both used on 
all matt HM coatings. The PK may not do much in bridging the 
gap between middle grey ink and MK (which was what made me 
question its use) but it could boost the Dmax by running 
along on the last part with MK. As long as the curves are 
hidden in the Z3100 driver it is hard to find out.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


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