Digital BW, The Print

Hello All,

I've been trying very hard to get good results from the 3MK inkset on 
my R800. The problem is that the ink dropletts are far larger than 
the R800 gives using other inksets via QTR on the same paper. I've 
sought advice here and at the QTR group. Paul suggested that I use 
the paper and profile he did in developing 3MK as a starting 
point.... still I got very grainy prints due to larger than expected 
dropletts. I got another suggestion to reduce the ink limit undtil 
the printer started to print using smaller droplettes...same result, 
grainy prints due to larger than expect droplettes.

At this point I'm tempted to return the unused inkset I bought and go 
back to Piezo K6 on my R220 where I get prints that are 
vastly 'smoother' than the R800 using 3MK.

Has anybody else seen this issue with 3MK? If so have you been able 
to 'fix' it? If not tell me about how your R800 is set up and how 
you're printing. I really want to use the inkset and am willing to 
try anything to get the fine droplette size that the R800 is capable 
of. I suspect this is an issue with QTR. I've asked if there is any 
way to specify droplette size in a profile, but have not gotten a 
response.

Thanks in advance,
Eric

If you are accustomed to a grainless image, maybe the 3MK approach is just
not smooth enough for your tastes.  Even the R800 cannot totally smooth out
high density Eboni.  Compare what you're getting to the posted scans, for
example at page 3 of http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800.pdf

 

Paul

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

 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric
Miner
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 4:54 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] 3MK Disappointment

 

Hello All,

I've been trying very hard to get good results from the 3MK inkset on 
my R800. The problem is that the ink dropletts are far larger than 
the R800 gives using other inksets via QTR on the same paper. I've 
sought advice here and at the QTR group. Paul suggested that I use 
the paper and profile he did in developing 3MK as a starting 
point.... still I got very grainy prints due to larger than expected 
dropletts. I got another suggestion to reduce the ink limit undtil 
the printer started to print using smaller droplettes...same result, 
grainy prints due to larger than expect droplettes.

At this point I'm tempted to return the unused inkset I bought and go 
back to Piezo K6 on my R220 where I get prints that are 
vastly 'smoother' than the R800 using 3MK.

Has anybody else seen this issue with 3MK? If so have you been able 
to 'fix' it? If not tell me about how your R800 is set up and how 
you're printing. I really want to use the inkset and am willing to 
try anything to get the fine droplette size that the R800 is capable 
of. I suspect this is an issue with QTR. I've asked if there is any 
way to specify droplette size in a profile, but have not gotten a 
response.

Thanks in advance,
Eric

 



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

Thanks Paul. It's not that I expect grainless prints. But, I am used to 
it being very hard to see individual droplettes with the naked eye. So 
far for me I can see the droplettes very easily with 3MK. I need to 
understand why Eboni's density would affect the grainieness of the 
print. There's a lot I have to learn in this area can you poiont me to 
some resources I can study?

Thanks for all your help and input on this,

Eric

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> If you are accustomed to a grainless image, maybe the 3MK approach is 
just
> not smooth enough for your tastes.  Even the R800 cannot totally 
smooth out
> high density Eboni.  Compare what you're getting to the posted scans, 
for

> example at page 3 of http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800.pdf
> 
>  
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>

I simply don't understand why you guys just don't use Piezography NK7.
It is such a no brainer, perfect gradations, no dots, and with no
clogging. It just boggles the mind.... I guess people just love doing
tests over and over and over again to save a few bucks, and struggling
the way we did 5 years ago.

John, Without realizing it, you set the standard. One must run test after
test after test before you can appreciate the print. Simply pushing in the
carts, and hitting print is just no good. We MUST feel the struggle! Long
Live the struggle for the perfect print!

 

Or what ever makes you happy. ;< ) 

 

There are times when it makes sense to work a process to achieve a look and
there are times when it is simply a waste of time. Times when it can be done
quicker and with more control. 

 

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 john dean
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:40 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] 3MK Disappointment

 

I simply don't understand why you guys just don't use Piezography NK7.
It is such a no brainer, perfect gradations, no dots, and with no
clogging. It just boggles the mind.... I guess people just love doing
tests over and over and over again to save a few bucks, and struggling
the way we did 5 years ago.

 



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

John,

I do use the Piezography NK6, in fact it was the first inkset I tested. 
So far it's my favorite it looks like I'll stick with it - the prints 
are great and, as you said, it's a no brainer to setup and use.

I just wish this was a cheaper process.

Eric

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:

>
> I simply don't understand why you guys just don't use Piezography NK7.
> It is such a no brainer, perfect gradations, no dots, and with no
> clogging. It just boggles the mind.... I guess people just love doing
> tests over and over and over again to save a few bucks, and struggling
> the way we did 5 years ago.
>

I use it in big printers and the price for say 500 ml or 220 ml carts
isn't bad at all, I guess about 1/4 cheaper than Epson.

If I were using a smaller printer I would surely by the ink in bulk 
bottles, regardless of what kind it was, and fill my own refillable
carts and reset the chips. Where you really get hit is buying those
small carts for the small machines.

john





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Miner"
<eminer1254@...> wrote:

>
> John,
> 
> I do use the Piezography NK6, in fact it was the first inkset I tested. 
> So far it's my favorite it looks like I'll stick with it - the prints 
> are great and, as you said, it's a no brainer to setup and use.
> 
> I just wish this was a cheaper process.
> 
> Eric