Digital BW, The Print

Carl Schofield and I have been experimenting with the 1800 3-MK 
workflow and glossy papers, with rather good success, I believe.  Using 
Glop both when the Eboni is printed and then over-coating the print 
with Glop in a second pass is making very nice, 100% carbon pigment, 
relatively neutral glossy prints with no gloss differential or bronzing.

I just tried adding an MIS K4-PK (also 100% carbon) to the mix.  In my 
first test strip I've hit a dmax of 2.86 (Lab 1.24) with Crane Silver 
Rag.  I think this workflow has some merit.  The main disadvantages are 
that the 3MK process does have a bit of a grain pattern in the 
midtones, and a second pass through the printer is needed.

Paul     
www.PaulRoark.com

"The main disadvantages are that the 3MK process does have a bit of a grain pattern in 
the midtones, and a second pass through the printer is needed."

Paul, do you mean grain in just the glossy prints or in both matte and glossy?

Sarah

The "grain" in the 3-MK midtones is relatively the same for matte and 
glossy, in that they use the same curves at that point.  With the 
glossy papers, the contrast is a bit more, so the visibility of the 
grain is also a bit more.  The large dmax on Crane Silver Rag that I 
reported, however, is due to the PK + Glop, and there is no PK in the 
midtones.  So, the dmax difference is more than the graininess 
difference.

In actual prints, few have noticed the grain in the matte 3-MK 
workflow.  Nonetheless, as is shown in the 1600 dpi scan at 
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800-Image-Structure.pdf , it's there.

Paul    
www.PaulRoark.com 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Sarah Renkes" 
<sagaface@...> wrote:
>
>  "The main disadvantages are that the 3MK process does have a bit of 
a grain pattern in 
> the midtones, and a second pass through the printer is needed."
> 
> Paul, do you mean grain in just the glossy prints or in both matte 
and glossy?

> 
> Sarah
>

Thanks for that distinction. I have a feeling that what grain there is in either the matte or 
glossy prints won't be objectionable to me in the least, coming from single channel BO 
where there is a lot.

I still don't have an r1800 yet...probably about another month. Meanwhile, I wonder if I 
should wait for the r1900, which I read is supposed to be even smoother. I do get a little 
flustered with the endless printer model parade. I can't seem to catch up. I just want a 
system that is truly viable for what I'm looking for, and your MK3 workflow seems to fit the 
bill. I guess I should just quit reading about the newer model and be done with it. Erg!

Sarah



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

>
> The "grain" in the 3-MK midtones is relatively the same for matte and 
> glossy, in that they use the same curves at that point.  With the 
> glossy papers, the contrast is a bit more, so the visibility of the 
> grain is also a bit more.  The large dmax on Crane Silver Rag that I 
> reported, however, is due to the PK + Glop, and there is no PK in the 
> midtones.  So, the dmax difference is more than the graininess 
> difference.
> 
> In actual prints, few have noticed the grain in the matte 3-MK 
> workflow.  Nonetheless, as is shown in the 1600 dpi scan at 
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800-Image-Structure.pdf , it's there.
> 
> Paul    
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m, "Sarah Renkes" 
> <sagaface@> wrote:
> >
> >  "The main disadvantages are that the 3MK process does have a bit of 
> a grain pattern in 
> > the midtones, and a second pass through the printer is needed."
> > 
> > Paul, do you mean grain in just the glossy prints or in both matte 
> and glossy?
> > 
> > Sarah
> >
>

I just broke dmax 3.0 (L 0.9) with Crane SR with this workflow.  Not 
bad for pigments.

Paul        
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
>
> Carl Schofield and I have been experimenting with the 1800 3-MK 
> workflow and glossy papers, with rather good success, I believe.  
Using 
> Glop both when the Eboni is printed and then over-coating the print 
> with Glop in a second pass is making very nice, 100% carbon 
pigment, 
> relatively neutral glossy prints with no gloss differential or 
bronzing.
> 
> I just tried adding an MIS K4-PK (also 100% carbon) to the mix.  In 
my 
> first test strip I've hit a dmax of 2.86 (Lab 1.24) with Crane 
Silver 
> Rag.  I think this workflow has some merit.  The main disadvantages 
are 

> that the 3MK process does have a bit of a grain pattern in the 
> midtones, and a second pass through the printer is needed.
> 
> Paul     
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

The whole expisode has been amazing. Thanks for your work.

gar

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 2/10/08 at 1:50 AM pr_roark wrote:

>I just broke dmax 3.0 (L 0.9) with Crane SR with this workflow.  Not 
>bad for pigments.
>
>Paul        
>www.PaulRoark.com
>
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
><pr_roark@...> wrote:
>>
>> Carl Schofield and I have been experimenting with the 1800 3-MK 
>> workflow and glossy papers, with rather good success, I believe.  
>Using 
>> Glop both when the Eboni is printed and then over-coating the print 
>> with Glop in a second pass is making very nice, 100% carbon 
>pigment, 
>> relatively neutral glossy prints with no gloss differential or 
>bronzing.
>> 
>> I just tried adding an MIS K4-PK (also 100% carbon) to the mix.  In 
>my 
>> first test strip I've hit a dmax of 2.86 (Lab 1.24) with Crane 
>Silver 
>> Rag.  I think this workflow has some merit.  The main disadvantages 
>are 
>> that the 3MK process does have a bit of a grain pattern in the 
>> midtones, and a second pass through the printer is needed.
>> 
>> Paul     
>> www.PaulRoark.com
>>
>
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>

Wow! I have to say I get pretty excited about the possibilities when I read about your 
ongoing work....your exhaustive experimenting and thoroughly explained results really 
make you a pioneer. Thanks so much!

Sarah



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

>
> I just broke dmax 3.0 (L 0.9) with Crane SR with this workflow.  Not 
> bad for pigments.
> 
> Paul        
> www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
> <pr_roark@> wrote:
> >
> > Carl Schofield and I have been experimenting with the 1800 3-MK 
> > workflow and glossy papers, with rather good success, I believe.  
> Using 
> > Glop both when the Eboni is printed and then over-coating the print 
> > with Glop in a second pass is making very nice, 100% carbon 
> pigment, 
> > relatively neutral glossy prints with no gloss differential or 
> bronzing.
> > 
> > I just tried adding an MIS K4-PK (also 100% carbon) to the mix.  In 
> my 
> > first test strip I've hit a dmax of 2.86 (Lab 1.24) with Crane 
> Silver 
> > Rag.  I think this workflow has some merit.  The main disadvantages 
> are 
> > that the 3MK process does have a bit of a grain pattern in the 
> > midtones, and a second pass through the printer is needed.
> > 
> > Paul     
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
>

I wasn't sure if Crane Silver Rag was just a unique case, so I pulled 
some Moab Colorado Gloss out.  It hit a dmax of 3.08.

For this I'm using 2 positions with black -- the R800 Pk in one spot, 
and some old R200 PK I had in another spot.  The 3+ dmax figures take 
more than 100% ink limit.  Frankly, I'm not sure there is any 
significant visual difference between the double PK and the single 
R800 PK which hit 2.86.  The main thing that is making the difference 
from standard printing is the overcoat of glop.  When we use the rear 
feed on the 1800, Carl and I are not only able to apply a single 
overcoat, but even a second coating at least at low volume (25 ink 
limit) without getting pizza wheel marks.

Paul       
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
>
> I just broke dmax 3.0 (L 0.9) with Crane SR with this workflow.
> not bad for pigments.
...

Wow you are constantly breaking the "dmax sound barrier"! Awesome. 

Could you share this last OEM PK profile as I have a couple of sheets
of Innova FibaPrint and full PK & Glop carts doing nothing.

Thanks and congrats to you both! 

Denis


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

>
> I wasn't sure if Crane Silver Rag was just a unique case, so I pulled 
> some Moab Colorado Gloss out.  It hit a dmax of 3.08.
> 
> For this I'm using 2 positions with black -- the R800 Pk in one spot, 
> and some old R200 PK I had in another spot.  The 3+ dmax figures take 
> more than 100% ink limit.  Frankly, I'm not sure there is any 
> significant visual difference between the double PK and the single 
> R800 PK which hit 2.86.  The main thing that is making the difference 
> from standard printing is the overcoat of glop.  When we use the rear 
> feed on the 1800, Carl and I are not only able to apply a single 
> overcoat, but even a second coating at least at low volume (25 ink 
> limit) without getting pizza wheel marks.
> 
> Paul       
> www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
> <pr_roark@> wrote:
> >
> > I just broke dmax 3.0 (L 0.9) with Crane SR with this workflow.
> > not bad for pigments.
> ...
>

> Could you share this last OEM PK ...

I should have been more clear.  The 2 PKs were MIS R800 PK and MIS R2-
PK.  By itself, the MIS R800 Pk (with an overcoat of MIS glop) gets 
the 2.8+ at 100% QTR ink load, 2880, uni-directional. I suspect the 
real tonic that does the trick is the MIS Gloss Optimizer.  It might 
do the same thing with other PKs, but the fact that it appears to be 
the same as the base used in their glossy inks may be relevant.

At any rate, the 1800's ability to run these through a second and 
third time without marks is also key.

Paul     
www.PaulRoark.com 


> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark"
> <pr_roark@> wrote:
> >
> > I wasn't sure if Crane Silver Rag was just a unique case, so I 
pulled 
> > some Moab Colorado Gloss out.  It hit a dmax of 3.08.
> > 
> > For this I'm using 2 positions with black -- the R800 Pk in one 
spot, 
> > and some old R200 PK I had in another spot.  The 3+ dmax figures 
take 
> > more than 100% ink limit.  Frankly, I'm not sure there is any 
> > significant visual difference between the double PK and the 
single 
> > R800 PK which hit 2.86.  The main thing that is making the 
difference 
> > from standard printing is the overcoat of glop.  When we use the 
rear 
> > feed on the 1800, Carl and I are not only able to apply a single 
> > overcoat, but even a second coating at least at low volume (25 
ink 

> > limit) without getting pizza wheel marks.
> > 
> > Paul       
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
> > <pr_roark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I just broke dmax 3.0 (L 0.9) with Crane SR with this workflow.
> > > not bad for pigments.
> > ...
> >
>

So, Aam I correct in assuming ou're not using any Eboni in this 
approach? 

 Will you be posting a workflow on your web-site?

Also, have you tried using Gold Fiber Silk with this set-up?

Thanks,
Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
>
> > Could you share this last OEM PK ...
> 
> I should have been more clear.  The 2 PKs were MIS R800 PK and MIS 
R2-
> PK.  By itself, the MIS R800 Pk (with an overcoat of MIS glop) gets 
> the 2.8+ at 100% QTR ink load, 2880, uni-directional. I suspect the 
> real tonic that does the trick is the MIS Gloss Optimizer.  It 
might 
> do the same thing with other PKs, but the fact that it appears to 
be 

> the same as the base used in their glossy inks may be relevant.
> 
> At any rate, the 1800's ability to run these through a second and 
> third time without marks is also key.
> 
> Paul     
> www.PaulRoark.com

having a printer with gloss optimizer around has raised all kinds of interesting 
possibilities here. To think so much time and effort was put into sprays and applicators of 
all kinds over the years, this is a breeze.
I set mine up with the platen gap wide and paper thickness wide, and BiD, it's completely 
fast and painless... and really works well.
One more thing to throw many weeks and material at-
Tyler

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

>
> I wasn't sure if Crane Silver Rag was just a unique case, so I pulled 
> some Moab Colorado Gloss out.  It hit a dmax of 3.08.
> 
> For this I'm using 2 positions with black -- the R800 Pk in one spot, 
> and some old R200 PK I had in another spot.  The 3+ dmax figures take 
> more than 100% ink limit.  Frankly, I'm not sure there is any 
> significant visual difference between the double PK and the single 
> R800 PK which hit 2.86.  The main thing that is making the difference 
> from standard printing is the overcoat of glop.  When we use the rear 
> feed on the 1800, Carl and I are not only able to apply a single 
> overcoat, but even a second coating at least at low volume (25 ink 
> limit) without getting pizza wheel marks.
> 
> Paul       
> www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
> <pr_roark@> wrote:
> >
> > I just broke dmax 3.0 (L 0.9) with Crane SR with this workflow.
> > not bad for pigments.
> ...
>

Hi Scott,

> Am I correct in assuming ou're not using any Eboni in this
> approach? 

The Eboni curves for the glossy papers are about the same as the 3-MK 
curves for matte papers through about 75%.  Then they taper off and 
PK takes over.

I'll post the workflow and QTR profiles.

> Also, have you tried using Gold Fiber Silk with this set-up?

Ilford Gold Fibre actually printed a bit too cool in the light 
midtones.  So, I added a bit of PK to the highlights to make the tone 
essentially neutral to 50% (Lab B = 0 at 50%).  Then Lab B climbs 
evenly to a maximum of 3 at 90%.  The dmax is 2.75 with a single PK 
at 100% and 2.9 with 2 PKs at a cumulative 110%.  Right now I'd say 
Crane SR for non-OBA and Ilford Gold FB for slightly more neutral 
prints are my top choices.  I think Ilford, with the baryta surface, 
neutrality, and great price may be the winner for most.  (I ran out 
before totally testing it, but the test strips look excellent.)

Actually, a significant problem I see for this approach is that if I 
have these prints in my bin at the gallery below the large matte 
prints, they're going to make the big ones look sick.  I'm not sure 
there is any way to scale this up to large format with current 
printers and still maintaining the 100% carbon image.  The Eboni-6 
approach is very warm with glossy papers, and Glop may be 
incompatible with the Eboni-6 MIS base that works best.

Paul         
www.PaulRoark.com

Tyler,

> having a printer with gloss optimizer around has raised all 
> kinds of interesting possibilities here. To think so much 
> time and effort was put into sprays and applicators of 
> all kinds over the years, this is a breeze.
> I set mine up with the platen gap wide and paper thickness 
> wide, and BiD, it's completely 
> fast and painless... and really works well.
> One more thing to throw many weeks and material at-

The MIS Glop, like most inks on glossy papers, does not totally cure 
very quickly.  So, while it's dry to the touch quickly, we'll have 
the fogging and other issues in spades due to the large volume of 
it.  After several days and using plain paper to soak up the slow-to-
evaporate materials, the coating gets to the point where it is 
reasonably tough, but still not as hard as Print Shield.  The flip 
side is that the Glop coatings preserve the papers' textures better.  
I think the Glop coatings look better -- but they are not quite as 
tough.

One wonders what some company might be able to come up with if this 
application were their actual focus.  MIS Glop is just the glossy 
dilution base. 

Paul          
www.PaulRoark.com

"So, while it's dry to the touch quickly, we'll have
the fogging and other issues in spades due to the large volume of
it. After several days and using plain paper to soak up the slow-to-
evaporate materials, the coating gets to the point where it is
reasonably tough, but still not as hard as Print Shield."

Sorry, Paul. Could you clarify for me? By fogging, do you mean behind glass or that the 
print itself fogs over (never heard of this)?

Also, I am assuming you will be running the print through another pass for a second glop 
coat...is this necessary? And what do you mean about using plain paper to soak up the 
materials....this is beginning to sound messy and maybe a dust/lint attracting thing? 

Thanks,
Sarah







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

>
> Tyler,
> 
> > having a printer with gloss optimizer around has raised all 
> > kinds of interesting possibilities here. To think so much 
> > time and effort was put into sprays and applicators of 
> > all kinds over the years, this is a breeze.
> > I set mine up with the platen gap wide and paper thickness 
> > wide, and BiD, it's completely 
> > fast and painless... and really works well.
> > One more thing to throw many weeks and material at-
> 
> The MIS Glop, like most inks on glossy papers, does not totally cure 
> very quickly.  So, while it's dry to the touch quickly, we'll have 
> the fogging and other issues in spades due to the large volume of 
> it.  After several days and using plain paper to soak up the slow-to-
> evaporate materials, the coating gets to the point where it is 
> reasonably tough, but still not as hard as Print Shield.  The flip 
> side is that the Glop coatings preserve the papers' textures better.  
> I think the Glop coatings look better -- but they are not quite as 
> tough.
> 
> One wonders what some company might be able to come up with if this 
> application were their actual focus.  MIS Glop is just the glossy 
> dilution base. 
> 
> Paul          
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

>> ... we'll have the fogging ...

> 
> By fogging, do you mean behind glass ...?

Yes, as with other glossy prints, I currently assume we'll need to be 
sure the prints have thoroughly dried for before framing.  

Frankly, I usually use matte paper to avoid all these problems.  As 
with any workflow, this one may be great for some uses and not so 
great for others.    

> I am assuming you will be running the print through another 
> pass for a second glop coat...is this necessary?

It depends on the paper and workflow.  The 120%, dual PK Crane SR 
that hit just over 3.0 needed a fisrt 100% and then second 25% coat 
to hold the gloss differential down.  None of the others have.

That second PK is probably not worth the trouble.  It gets 0.15 more 
dmax -- with some serious loading of the paper.  When you're 
comparing 2.86 to 3.01 or the like, the difference is not worth very 
much.  I may well leave the second PK out.  (I'm testing whether a 
cleaning cart to separate the glossy form the Eboni results in any 
different nozzle performance.)  Carl is going to see what happens 
with a little C.  My guess is we can put the dmax through the roof -- 
further -- with cyan added.  

I've found a second ver light coat works well -- not a mess at all.  
A heavy one might result in pizza wheel marks.  Oddly, prints may do 
better when the second coating is applied soon after the first.  I 
had serious marks on one left over night.  I think the coatings may 
bond to each other better before they've cured.


> And what do you mean about using plain paper to soak up the 
> materials....

Typing or copy paper are probably the cheapest cellulose "sponges" we 
have.  They seem to work and are reasonably lint free.  After a good 
air drying (and hair drier for fast work), the print is dry enough 
that things don't stick.  Any lint or dust can be blown or wiped off 
easily.  This coating has encapsulated the particles and is smooth 
and tough enough to wipe clean.

> this is beginning to sound messy ...

No, it's not messy or difficult.  That's part of the beauty of it.  

Spraying was a mess. 



Paul           
www.PaulRoark.com

>... have you tried using Gold Fiber Silk with this set-up?

This is the graph of the Ilford Gold Fibre tones:

http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ilford-GoldFB-tones.jpg  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

This Jpeg compares the smoothness at 1600 dpi.

http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ilford-GoldFB-Scan.jpg

I can see the "grain" or lack of total smoothness in test strips but 
it's not been apparent in the actual prints I've made so far.  

I'm mostly using my Zion Narrows photo  ( http://www.paulroark.com/Zion-
Narrows.html ) for testing -- due to the importance of the blacks.


Paul     
www.PaulRoark.com

On my copy (quoted below) of Paul's post, his link to his Zion- 
Narrows photo wrapped around the end of the line and didn't work, but  
this edit of it <http://www.paulroark.com/Zion-Narrows.html> did.
--
Sam

On Feb 10, 2008, at 3:26 PM, pr_roark wrote:

> This Jpeg compares the smoothness at 1600 dpi.
>
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ilford-GoldFB-Scan.jpg
>
> I can see the "grain" or lack of total smoothness in test strips but
> it's not been apparent in the actual prints I've made so far.
>
> I'm mostly using my Zion Narrows photo  ( http://www.paulroark.com/ 
> Zion-
> Narrows.html ) for testing -- due to the importance of the blacks.
>
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks for that explanation....saving it to my notes.

Sarah


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

>
> >> ... we'll have the fogging ...
> 
> > 
> > By fogging, do you mean behind glass ...?
> 
> Yes, as with other glossy prints, I currently assume we'll need to be 
> sure the prints have thoroughly dried for before framing.  
> 
> Frankly, I usually use matte paper to avoid all these problems.  As 
> with any workflow, this one may be great for some uses and not so 
> great for others.    
> 
> > I am assuming you will be running the print through another 
> > pass for a second glop coat...is this necessary?
> 
> It depends on the paper and workflow.  The 120%, dual PK Crane SR 
> that hit just over 3.0 needed a fisrt 100% and then second 25% coat 
> to hold the gloss differential down.  None of the others have.
> 
> That second PK is probably not worth the trouble.  It gets 0.15 more 
> dmax -- with some serious loading of the paper.  When you're 
> comparing 2.86 to 3.01 or the like, the difference is not worth very 
> much.  I may well leave the second PK out.  (I'm testing whether a 
> cleaning cart to separate the glossy form the Eboni results in any 
> different nozzle performance.)  Carl is going to see what happens 
> with a little C.  My guess is we can put the dmax through the roof -- 
> further -- with cyan added.  
> 
> I've found a second ver light coat works well -- not a mess at all.  
> A heavy one might result in pizza wheel marks.  Oddly, prints may do 
> better when the second coating is applied soon after the first.  I 
> had serious marks on one left over night.  I think the coatings may 
> bond to each other better before they've cured.
> 
> 
> > And what do you mean about using plain paper to soak up the 
> > materials....
> 
> Typing or copy paper are probably the cheapest cellulose "sponges" we 
> have.  They seem to work and are reasonably lint free.  After a good 
> air drying (and hair drier for fast work), the print is dry enough 
> that things don't stick.  Any lint or dust can be blown or wiped off 
> easily.  This coating has encapsulated the particles and is smooth 
> and tough enough to wipe clean.
> 
> > this is beginning to sound messy ...
> 
> No, it's not messy or difficult.  That's part of the beauty of it.  
> 
> Spraying was a mess. 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul           
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

> One wonders what some company might be able to come up with if this 
> application were their actual focus.  MIS Glop is just the glossy 
> dilution base. 
> 
> Paul          
> www.PaulRoark.com 

A two head, two component gloss enhancer system that builds 
a nice strong layer without clogs in the nozzles or a gloss 
enhancer that reacts to a paper coating component. All with 
risks that the reaction takes place on the wrong spot. A UV 
or IR curing GE then.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> having a printer with gloss optimizer around has raised all kinds of 
interesting 
> possibilities here. To think so much time and effort was put into 
sprays and applicators of 
> all kinds over the years, this is a breeze.
> I set mine up with the platen gap wide and paper thickness wide, and 
BiD, it's completely 
> fast and painless... and really works well.
> One more thing to throw many weeks and material at-
> Tyler
> 
That's with SP ? Do you proceed one pass (inks+GO) or also several 
separated ones ?
Olivier

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Olivier" <odesmais@...> wrote:
...
> That's with SP ? Do you proceed one pass (inks+GO) or also several 
> separated ones ?
> Olivier
>

both, and yes, with SP. I don't want to hijack the 3MK thread with this and the
work is still
experimental so I'll keep it brief.
It's in the go-down as a spot channel, then another pass with some percentage of
GO only.
Tyler

Tyler,
Isn't this turning into a full time job?

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Feb 11, 2008, at 10:28 AM, Tyler Boley wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Olivier"  
> <odesmais@...> wrote:
> ...
>> That's with SP ? Do you proceed one pass (inks+GO) or also several
>> separated ones ?
>> Olivier
>>
>
> both, and yes, with SP. I don't want to hijack the 3MK thread with  
> this and the
> work is still
> experimental so I'll keep it brief.
> It's in the go-down as a spot channel, then another pass with some  
> percentage of
> GO only.
> Tyler
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>



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

Mark, had I full time to put into it, I'd be long done with it. Seems I have to do something I 
can actually invoice someone for to support the life style. Stalking potential clients is very 
time consuming.
Tyler

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

>
> Tyler,
> Isn't this turning into a full time job?
> 
> Mark
> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
> 
> On Feb 11, 2008, at 10:28 AM, Tyler Boley wrote:
> 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Olivier"  
> > <odesmais@> wrote:
> > ...
> >> That's with SP ? Do you proceed one pass (inks+GO) or also several
> >> separated ones ?
> >> Olivier
> >>
> >
> > both, and yes, with SP. I don't want to hijack the 3MK thread with  
> > this and the
> > work is still
> > experimental so I'll keep it brief.
> > It's in the go-down as a spot channel, then another pass with some  
> > percentage of
> > GO only.
> > Tyler
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

> ... I don't want to hijack the 3MK thread 


Don't worry about hijacking the thread.  It's all interesting.  The 
approach is much wider than the 1800 and Eboni. 

One thing to be sensitive to is potential incompatibilities.  I've 
been told, for example, that the base I'm using for the Eboni-6 is 
not compatible with some modern inksets -- Epson UltraChrome 
included.  I may have experienced an un-characteristic nozzle clog 
when I used Glop and Eboni-6 (older matte-style base) in the same 
printer.

Paul        






> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Olivier" 
<odesmais@> wrote:
> ...
> > That's with SP ? Do you proceed one pass (inks+GO) or also 
several 
> > separated ones ?
> > Olivier
> >
> 
> both, and yes, with SP. I don't want to hijack the 3MK thread with 
this and the
> work is still
> experimental so I'll keep it brief.
> It's in the go-down as a spot channel, then another pass with some 
percentage of

> GO only.
> Tyler
>

> Don't worry about hijacking the thread.  It's all interesting.  The 
> approach is much wider than the 1800 and Eboni. 
> 
> One thing to be sensitive to is potential incompatibilities.  I've 
> been told, for example, that the base I'm using for the Eboni-6 is 
> not compatible with some modern inksets -- Epson UltraChrome 
> included.  I may have experienced an un-characteristic nozzle clog 
> when I used Glop and Eboni-6 (older matte-style base) in the same 
> printer.
> 
> Paul        

Thanks for your understanding Paul, and yes I thing it's a wide issue.
Now one thing I don't fully understand is the multi-pass to lay down 
GO. At the Dmax point I understand but in other parts of the 
greyscale I feel you can process GO as an additional partition.

Say in a simplified example you have at a given output 25% dark ink 
and 75% light ink for a 100% coverage. The light ink is 50% density 
of the dark one. At this specified level you need to apply 20% GO 
(empirically determined and that's probably a bigger issue). As you 
know there is not a single mix to deliver this output density : 25% 
dark and 75% light with light density at 50% dark density is 
equivalent to 62.5% dark alone. If you have to limit total light and 
dark coverage to 80% to allow 20% GO and full 100% coverage then you 
can output 35% light and 45% dark (same 62.5% dark equivalent) 
together with the 20% GO. That trades GO against granularity but it's 
a single pass.
Correct ?

Olivier

I am still having a little bit of trouble understanding how to set up 
my new (refurbished) 1800 for a dedicated B&W printer using the PK, 
MK and Gloss inks you are recommending.  Are you saying for the 
papers similar to Crane Silver Rag, to keep PK in position & Eboni 
both in BK & Gloss positions.  THEN you make a second pass with the 
Gloss back in Gloss position?  AND the gloss you use is the MIS Gloss 
Optimizer?  

With matte papers, it would seem to be the same, EXCEPT that the 
Eboni would stay in all three positions for the first pass.

As you can see, I am confused.  

I do understand the QTR part.  

Thanks for your help.   Nancy 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
>
> > Could you share this last OEM PK ...
> 
> I should have been more clear.  The 2 PKs were MIS R800 PK and MIS 
R2-
> PK.  By itself, the MIS R800 Pk (with an overcoat of MIS glop) gets 
> the 2.8+ at 100% QTR ink load, 2880, uni-directional. I suspect the 
> real tonic that does the trick is the MIS Gloss Optimizer.  It 
might 
> do the same thing with other PKs, but the fact that it appears to 
be 

> the same as the base used in their glossy inks may be relevant.
> 
> At any rate, the 1800's ability to run these through a second and 
> third time without marks is also key.
> 
> Paul     
> www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Olivier" <odesmais@...> wrote:
...
...
> Say in a simplified example you have at a given output 25% dark ink 
> and 75% light ink for a 100% coverage. ..

why are you attempting to have inks and GO limit at 100% total ink? Or even have the inks 
limit there without GO?
I have no knowledge of the particular materials you are using, but I'd see no need to adhere 
to that prerequisite.
Multiple passes here has just been a way to try and push things to see what would happen. 
It's possible to make a single pass setup and compromise on a lower dmax.
Tyler

"Olivier" wrote:

>  Now one thing I don't fully understand is the multi-pass 
> to lay down GO. At the Dmax point I understand but in 
> other parts of the greyscale I feel you can process 
> GO as an additional partition.

We're using Glop (the MIS version seems to do a much better job than 
Epson's according to Carl's experiments) both in the first pass and 
as a second-pass overcoat.

We tried various approaches -- no Glop at first, a flat amount, and 
various curves for the Glop during the first pass.  The reasons for 
the Glop during the first pass are to help "nail" down the matte ink 
at least somewhat to avoid abraision marks and to result in an even 
final gloss.  Particularly before we were using PK, the end point 
required a very large load of Glop to get an even gloss.  With PK, 
the matte-compatible (not glossy) inks still need a relatively heavy 
load of Glop to avoid a gloss differential when the very glossy PK 
takes over.  It'll take a few iterations at the cross-over point to 
get that transition looking good.

On the other hand, I think it's possible, if PK is used, that one 
could use no glop at first and just pass the print through a second 
pass -- maybe using a different printer --  for the glop overcoat.  
But the risks of marks and gloss differential would be increased.  
I'm just not sure if one could feather in the PK and overcoat enough 
to get a good transition from the matte to gloss ink.

 
> Say in a simplified example you have at a given output 25% dark ink 
> and 75% light ink for a 100% coverage. The light ink is 50% density 
> of the dark one. At this specified level you need to apply 20% GO 
> (empirically determined and that's probably a bigger issue). As you 
> know there is not a single mix to deliver this output density : 25% 
> dark and 75% light with light density at 50% dark density is 
> equivalent to 62.5% dark alone. If you have to limit total 
> light and dark coverage to 80% to allow 20% GO and full 
> 100% coverage then you 
> can output 35% light and 45% dark (same 62.5% dark equivalent) 
> together with the 20% GO. That trades GO against granularity
> but it's  a single pass.

In the 3MK setup, we never run into paper load issues until the dmax 
point.  The 3 MK channels are so "dry" that there's lots of room for 
Glop.

With the Eboni-6 setup I experimented with briefly -- which is 
essentially a K6 using only Eboni and a matte dilution base -- I'm 
not sure I ran into any ink limit issues either, even though, 
presumeably like the typical K6 and K7 profiles, I use a lot of light 
inks.  I think the addition of glop does not just add to the total 
load and result in the same resulting visual problems that one would 
see with an overloaded paper.  But, I understand the risk of 
overloading the paper.  

With a K6 setup, I think the main thing you'd have to do is 
substitute a PK for the combination of inks Jon uses at the dark 
end.  (Note in the k6-7 test strips I've seen, the 100% is already 
bleeding badly from overloading.)

In my latest QTR profile, the Glop curve is as follows: 0;0	25;5
	50;10	75;24	80;27	85;30	90;30	92.5;27	95;22	100;0
	
I split this between 2 channels limited to 50% each.

My PK curve is as follows: 0;0	10;1	20;1.5	30;1.5	40;2	50;1.5
	60;1.5	65;2	70;1.5	75;1	80;4.25	85;8	90;15
	92.5;22	95;35	98;60	100;100	  (Ink limit 100)

Note that with the overcoat, the PK does not reach it's dmax until 
beyond 100%.  But the marginal increase may not be worth the effort 
it takes to hide the gloss differential.

Note also that I use the PK not only at the end but also in the light 
midtones to keep the print from being too  cool. (It's odd to think 
of a carbon print going cold, but it does.)

With the 3MK setup, the underlying Eboni curves are just about where 
they were with a matte print except for the end point.  I roll all of 
them off to (100,0).  In general, I think it's a mistake to have any 
other inks in the 100% spot aside from the MK or PK.

The second pass is done with a 100% Glop overcoat, split between 2 
channels.  With the 1800 I was able to see some microbanding in the 
glop if only one channel was used.  That would probably not happen in 
a 3.5 pl printer.

So, bottom line, with Piezo (I assume that is what you're using), I 
think you could use the glop curve above while printing if a PK was 
substituted in, and then do a 100% overcoat, and probably have a very 
interesting glossy print -- generally better than what glossy inks 
produce.  Just keep an eye out for possible incompatibilities between 
the Piezo matte base and Glop.  I may have run into such with the 
Eboni-6 and its matte base (which I'm guessing is close to what Jon 
uses).

If you see evidence of overloading the midtones, you might be able to 
back the Glop off and still get a good final gloss.  Particularly in 
the light midtones, not much is needed.

I hope this is somewhat responsive to the question.

Paul     
www.PaulRoark.com

I'll more fully write up my workflow later.

Paul

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Nancy Wilson" 
<nancyewilson@...> wrote:
>
> I am still having a little bit of trouble understanding how to set 
up 
> my new (refurbished) 1800 for a dedicated B&W printer using the PK, 
> MK and Gloss inks you are recommending.  Are you saying for the 
> papers similar to Crane Silver Rag, to keep PK in position & Eboni 
> both in BK & Gloss positions.  THEN you make a second pass with the 
> Gloss back in Gloss position?  AND the gloss you use is the MIS 
Gloss 
> Optimizer?  
> 
> With matte papers, it would seem to be the same, EXCEPT that the 
> Eboni would stay in all three positions for the first pass.
> 
> As you can see, I am confused.  
> 
> I do understand the QTR part.  
> 
> Thanks for your help.   Nancy 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
> <pr_roark@> wrote:
> >
> > > Could you share this last OEM PK ...
> > 
> > I should have been more clear.  The 2 PKs were MIS R800 PK and 
MIS 
> R2-
> > PK.  By itself, the MIS R800 Pk (with an overcoat of MIS glop) 
gets 
> > the 2.8+ at 100% QTR ink load, 2880, uni-directional. I suspect 
the 

> > real tonic that does the trick is the MIS Gloss Optimizer.  It 
> might 
> > do the same thing with other PKs, but the fact that it appears to 
> be 
> > the same as the base used in their glossy inks may be relevant.
> > 
> > At any rate, the 1800's ability to run these through a second and 
> > third time without marks is also key.
> > 
> > Paul     
> > www.PaulRoark.com
>

> We're using Glop (the MIS version seems to do a much better job 
than 
> Epson's according to Carl's experiments) both in the first pass and 
> as a second-pass overcoat.

Fine, but the issue is reloading the paper as I see it.

> We tried various approaches -- no Glop at first, a flat amount, and 
> various curves for the Glop during the first pass.  The reasons for 
> the Glop during the first pass are to help "nail" down the matte 
ink 
> at least somewhat to avoid abraision marks and to result in an even 
> final gloss.  Particularly before we were using PK, the end point 
> required a very large load of Glop to get an even gloss.  With PK, 
> the matte-compatible (not glossy) inks still need a relatively 
heavy 
> load of Glop to avoid a gloss differential when the very glossy PK 
> takes over.  It'll take a few iterations at the cross-over point to 
> get that transition looking good.

As you mentionned further down I use Piezo MPS. For some reasons, 
I "feel" K is different from the other inks, but overall it's a 
glossy set.

> On the other hand, I think it's possible, if PK is used, that one 
> could use no glop at first and just pass the print through a second 
> pass -- maybe using a different printer --  for the glop overcoat.  
> But the risks of marks and gloss differential would be increased.  

Exactly.

> With a K6 setup, I think the main thing you'd have to do is 
> substitute a PK for the combination of inks Jon uses at the dark 
> end.  (Note in the k6-7 test strips I've seen, the 100% is already 
> bleeding badly from overloading.)

I see both over-inking and partitionning with QTR as an issue with K7 
MPS that further complicates GO implementation. The multi-pass is the 
straightforward way, but the single pass can help saving marks and 
scratches on the paper.
 
> In my latest QTR profile, the Glop curve is as follows: 0;0	25;5
> 	50;10	75;24	80;27	85;30	90;30	92.5;27	95;22	100;0

That a very heavy load at the dark end that tends to indicate a 
single pass is hopeless.
	
> I split this between 2 channels limited to 50% each.
> 
> My PK curve is as follows: 0;0	10;1	20;1.5	30;1.5	40;2
	50;1.5
> 	60;1.5	65;2	70;1.5	75;1	80;4.25	85;8	90;15
> 	92.5;22	95;35	98;60	100;100	  (Ink limit 100)
> 
> Note that with the overcoat, the PK does not reach it's dmax until 
> beyond 100%.  But the marginal increase may not be worth the effort 
> it takes to hide the gloss differential.

That's to hide mat ink (sorry I'm not sure I can follow it all) ?
 
> In general, I think it's a mistake to have any 
> other inks in the 100% spot aside from the MK or PK.

Do you care to expand on this.
I have experienced with MPS that some lighter dilution while not 
really improving Dmax helps separating shadows in the 95-100%.

> The second pass is done with a 100% Glop overcoat, split between 2 
> channels.  With the 1800 I was able to see some microbanding in the 
> glop if only one channel was used.  That would probably not happen 
in 
> a 3.5 pl printer.

I'm sure the second pass is a nice finishing. But this means one 
doesn't care about registration (fine) but also that the first pass 
would have protected the print ? Why not go the PrintShield route for 
the final finishing if the first GO pass does the job ?

> So, bottom line, with Piezo (I assume that is what you're using), I 

Yes as I said the MPS version.

> I hope this is somewhat responsive to the question.
> 
This has been and beyond expectations. Thanks.

Olivier

> why are you attempting to have inks and GO limit at 100% total ink? 
Or even have the inks 
> limit there without GO?
> I have no knowledge of the particular materials you are using, but 
I'd see no need to adhere 
> to that prerequisite.

It's just an example, it could be any actual measurement.

> Multiple passes here has just been a way to try and push things to 
see what would happen. 

I understand and appreciate.

> It's possible to make a single pass setup and compromise on a lower 
dmax.

Yes if the Dmax calls for GO, no in the mid-tones : you compromise on 
granularity (hope this is the right word in English).

Olivier

Paul;

I ubderstand your drive to get an all-carbon gloss inkset for 
longevity purposes, but it does seem like an uphill struggle

> 
> On the other hand, I think it's possible, if PK is used, that one 
> could use no glop at first and just pass the print through a second 
> pass -- maybe using a different printer --  for the glop overcoat.  
> But the risks of marks and gloss differential would be increased.  
> I'm just not sure if one could feather in the PK and overcoat 
enough 
> to get a good transition from the matte to gloss ink.

This is how I've been operating for months now-with K3. ABW, and a 
pass through the R1800 for an overall glop coat after  a few minutes 
of drying or a blast with a hair dryer. Works great, though the 2.65 
dmax on Red River Ultra-pro satin sounds paltry compared to your 2.8+ 
results. Thing is, it doesn't LOOK weak-in fact it looks great.

I just set up the new R1800 as a gloss machine, with Epson K3 inks 
drained from large cartridges. I hate to admit it, being a born 
cheapskate, but the Epson inks just look better on PK papers, and the 
glop load is much lower that way. No pizza-wheel marks, no GD, with 
only a 30% coat.

For me its getting to the point where opening and draining a couple 
220 carts to fill a CIS is about as much excitement as I can stand-I 
need to get on with production, though as always I'm thankful that 
you're continuing to push  the limits.

Steve Karafyllakis

Steve,

Can you tell us a bit more about your setup.

You've got a CIS using Ultrachrome drained from 200ml cartridges.
Which Glop are you using and are you using it in the CIS?

Also to apply just a glop coat are you using QTR or what?

Any tips on how much glop to use? Do you use a single channel of GLop or
multiple channels?

I've been thinking about setting up a single pass glop machine for a while
and just trying to decide how to go about it.

I hope when Epson releases the next round of large format printers they
allow for a GLOP option, Ilford silk is a great paper but I hate the gloss
differential. ( I knew I should get beyond paper peeking, but I can't).

Txs,

Mike


On 12/02/2008, Steven Karafyllakis <stevekphoto@...> wrote:
>
>   Paul;
>
> I ubderstand your drive to get an all-carbon gloss inkset for
> longevity purposes, but it does seem like an uphill struggle
>
> >
> > On the other hand, I think it's possible, if PK is used, that one
> > could use no glop at first and just pass the print through a second
> > pass -- maybe using a different printer -- for the glop overcoat.
> > But the risks of marks and gloss differential would be increased.
> > I'm just not sure if one could feather in the PK and overcoat
> enough
> > to get a good transition from the matte to gloss ink.
>
> This is how I've been operating for months now-with K3. ABW, and a
> pass through the R1800 for an overall glop coat after a few minutes
> of drying or a blast with a hair dryer. Works great, though the 2.65
> dmax on Red River Ultra-pro satin sounds paltry compared to your 2.8+
> results. Thing is, it doesn't LOOK weak-in fact it looks great.
>
> I just set up the new R1800 as a gloss machine, with Epson K3 inks
> drained from large cartridges. I hate to admit it, being a born
> cheapskate, but the Epson inks just look better on PK papers, and the
> glop load is much lower that way. No pizza-wheel marks, no GD, with
> only a 30% coat.
>
> For me its getting to the point where opening and draining a couple
> 220 carts to fill a CIS is about as much excitement as I can stand-I
> need to get on with production, though as always I'm thankful that
> you're continuing to push the limits.
>
> Steve Karafyllakis
>
> 
>


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

Hi Steve,

> 
> I understand your drive to get an all-carbon gloss inkset for 
> longevity purposes, but it does seem like an uphill struggle
> 

Actually, I think we've overcome the problems already.  The approach 
appears to work very well on many papers.  

The need for a second pass for coating is a disadvantage, but it 
looks like you're doing it with the K3 setup anyway.  I've thought 
for some time that glossy prints needed to be sprayed to really look 
good.  It looks like we both have found that a second glop coat makes 
that job juch easier.  What printers aside from the 1800 allow this 
without wheel marks is uncertain.  If you're using the Epson glop in 
the 1800, you might find the MIS glop is both far cheaper and does a 
better job, judging from Carl's experiences.

The other disadvantage of the 100% carbon glossy approach is that the 
3MK setup can't get as smooth as an inkset with dilute inks, which 
might affect some types of images, particularly in the midtones.  For 
most of my images, it's not a problem.
 
Overall, even aside from the 100% carbon aspect, the prints are 
simply the best glossy prints I've been able to make.  I think Carl 
agrees with this.  I still, however, am not 100% sure I like glossy 
prints as well as matte, but I have to say the dmax difference in 
good lighting makes a visible difference.

I think those who use Piezo inks may want to use this approach to add 
a gloss option to their existing inks.  That would give that user 
base access to the new baryta and fiber based papers.  The Piezo 
options on those papers could be interesting.  Aside from the unknown 
with respect to the base compatibilities, I think the approach should 
work.  Those who know how to use QTR or other rip should be able to 
find a spot in their K7 systems for a glop cart and profile the 
systems.

Paul        
www.PaulRoark.com

I do agree with Paul that the 3MK1PKGL prints on Ilford Gold Silk and  
Harman FB Al Gloss are the best glossy B&W printsI have seen as  
well.  This is not an out of the box printing workflow and it does  
require a little extra effort, but for me at least it is well worth  
it when I see the prints.  I do wish that this process could be used  
on a larger format printer, but a 1.5 pl large printer does not seem  
to be forthcoming from Epson, Canon, or HP.  I now stock only 3  
bottles (Eboni, PK, and Glop) for refilling the 1800 carts for B&W  
work and I may setup a CIS like Steve's unit, using 3 positions each  
of Eboni and PK and 2 for Glop.  This process does use a lot of Glop  
so a CIS would save the time needed for refilling the small 1800  
carts.  I think Steve is using a clear Glop sold by his CIS vendor  
that may be even better than the MIS Glop which is a pale yellow that  
imparts slight warming to the print.

Carl





On Feb 12, 2008, at 2:52 PM, pr_roark wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
>>
>> I understand your drive to get an all-carbon gloss inkset for
>> longevity purposes, but it does seem like an uphill struggle
>>
>
> Actually, I think we've overcome the problems already.  The approach
> appears to work very well on many papers.
>
> The need for a second pass for coating is a disadvantage, but it
> looks like you're doing it with the K3 setup anyway.  I've thought
> for some time that glossy prints needed to be sprayed to really look
> good.  It looks like we both have found that a second glop coat makes
> that job juch easier.  What printers aside from the 1800 allow this
> without wheel marks is uncertain.  If you're using the Epson glop in
> the 1800, you might find the MIS glop is both far cheaper and does a
> better job, judging from Carl's experiences.
>
> The other disadvantage of the 100% carbon glossy approach is that the
> 3MK setup can't get as smooth as an inkset with dilute inks, which
> might affect some types of images, particularly in the midtones.  For
> most of my images, it's not a problem.
>
> Overall, even aside from the 100% carbon aspect, the prints are
> simply the best glossy prints I've been able to make.  I think Carl
> agrees with this.  I still, however, am not 100% sure I like glossy
> prints as well as matte, but I have to say the dmax difference in
> good lighting makes a visible difference.
>
> I think those who use Piezo inks may want to use this approach to add
> a gloss option to their existing inks.  That would give that user
> base access to the new baryta and fiber based papers.  The Piezo
> options on those papers could be interesting.  Aside from the unknown
> with respect to the base compatibilities, I think the approach should
> work.  Those who know how to use QTR or other rip should be able to
> find a spot in their K7 systems for a glop cart and profile the
> systems.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>


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

If you're using the Epson glop in 
> the 1800, you might find the MIS glop is both far cheaper and does 
a 
> better job, judging from Carl's experiences.


Actually, I've found a third alternative-the importers I bought my 
CIS from sell R1800 equivalent pigs, and have a completely clear glop 
I like better than either of the others. Carl shopuld be testing it 
for drying and toughness as soon as he gets some. That's not been an 
issue with PK inks, so I don't have a good sense of how it compares 
for toughness. 


> The other disadvantage of the 100% carbon glossy approach is that 
the 
> 3MK setup can't get as smooth as an inkset with dilute inks, which 
> might affect some types of images, particularly in the midtones.  
For 
> most of my images, it's not a problem.

I was thinking of doing a LK/LLK mix for exactly this reason, but the 
dots of the R1800 are so fine I don't think I'll bother with a third 
gray.
>  
> Overall, even aside from the 100% carbon aspect, the prints are 
> simply the best glossy prints I've been able to make.  I think Carl 
> agrees with this.  I still, however, am not 100% sure I like glossy 
> prints as well as matte, but I have to say the dmax difference in 
> good lighting makes a visible difference.

I too have somewhat mixed feelings in this regard-but watching other 
photographers' jaws drop when I tell them that 2.6 black field 
they're looking at is from an inkjet printer....




  Those who know how to use QTR or other rip should be able to 
> find a spot in their K7 systems for a glop cart and profile the 
> systems.

A second printer is way better, or barring that, at least a second 
QTR installation thats permanently set for the glop coating saves 
time & effort.


Steve Karafyllakis

Steve,

> ...I've found a third alternative-the importers I bought my 
> CIS from sell R1800 equivalent pigs, 

What company is that?

> and have a completely clear glop 
> I like better than either of the others. Carl shopuld be testing it 
> for drying and toughness as soon as he gets some. 

More sources would be good.



...
 
> I was thinking of doing a LK/LLK mix for ... [smoothness], 

I tried the Eboni-6 dilute inks, but they are too warm for my tastes.


> but the dots of the R1800 are so fine I don't think I'll bother 

I also pulled the dilute ink -- just not needed for my uses.


Paul       
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
>
> Steve,
> 
> > ...I've found a third alternative-the importers I bought my 
> > CIS from sell R1800 equivalent pigs, 
> 
> What company is that?

Paul;

SuperJet USA

the website is at:  http://stores.ebay.com/SuperJetUSA-
Store_W0QQcolZ4QQdirZ1QQfsubZ0QQftidZ2QQpZ3QQtZkm

but in order to get the glop by itself I email
 
 inkexpress4u@... 

and they send me a Paypal invoice. It took a couple weeks to get the 
first order, don't be surprised by the delay. 

Steve Karafyllakis

> > and have a completely clear glop 
> > I like better than either of the others. Carl shopuld be testing 
it 
> > for drying and toughness as soon as he gets some. 
> 
> More sources would be good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
>  
> > I was thinking of doing a LK/LLK mix for ... [smoothness], 
> 
> I tried the Eboni-6 dilute inks, but they are too warm for my 
tastes.

> 
> 
> > but the dots of the R1800 are so fine I don't think I'll bother 
> 
> I also pulled the dilute ink -- just not needed for my uses.
> 
> 
> Paul       
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark"
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
...
> I think those who use Piezo inks may want to use this approach to add 
> a gloss option to their existing inks.  That would give that user 
> base access to the new baryta and fiber based papers.  The Piezo 
> options on those papers could be interesting.  Aside from the unknown 
> with respect to the base compatibilities, I think the approach should 
> work.  Those who know how to use QTR or other rip should be able to 
> find a spot in their K7 systems for a glop cart and profile the 
> systems.

Paul, it's been available for some time, the selenium MPS set. They
are just not advertising it as a gloss setup yet since QTR profiles
are not ready from them. Anyone buying it is completely on their own.
I have it in a 7800 right now, K7 plus GO, 8 slots.
Tyler

Olivier,

I mistakenly thought the Piezo inkset you were using was a matte 
version.  I missed the fact that Jon had released the glossy MPS 
inkset.  So, some of my answers need clarification.  Sorry for the 
confusion.


> > We're using Glop (the MIS version ... both in the first pass and 
> > as a second-pass overcoat.

With a glossy set, you might be fine with a single pass.  With a 
matte inkset like the 1800 3-MK, the second pass is needed.

In the 3-MK glossy workflow, the second pass is a solid, even over-
coat of Glop that covers an image area larger than the printed 
image.  As such there are no registration problems.  It's just like a 
liquid laminate.

 
 
> ... I use Piezo MPS. For some reasons, 
> I "feel" K is different from the other inks, but overall it's a 
> glossy set.

I have no experience with that particular inkset.  

The results Carl and I have been experimenting with is a matte inkset 
that would be more similar to the older Piezo matte inksets.


> > With a K6 [matte inkset] setup,  
> > you'd have to ... substitute a PK ...

> > In my latest QTR profile, the Glop curve is as follows: 0;0	25;5
> > 	50;10	75;24	80;27	85;30	90;30	92.5;27	95;22	100;0


With a matte inkset one needs a lot of Glop overcoat to equalize the 
gloss across the grayscale evenly.  

With a glossy underlying set, the uses of an overcoat would include 
different factors.  If there is any bronzing or gloss differential, 
however, the Glop might still help, and you'd probably be able to 
kick the dmax up.  Weighing whether it'd be worth it would be very 
different than for a matte inkset, where it's really necessary.



> > My PK curve is as follows: 0;0	10;1	20;1.5	30;1.5	
> >     40;2     50;1.5
> > 	60;1.5	65;2	70;1.5	75;1	80;4.25	85;8	90;15
> > 	92.5;22	95;35	98;60	100;100	  (Ink limit 100)


I believe that with the overcoat of Glop we can usually put down a 
higher load of black pigment than we could without the overcoat.

 
> > In general, I think it's a mistake to have any 
> > other inks in the 100% spot 

> Do you care to expand on this.

My experience with matte paper was that If I just measure the 100% 
spot, I find the 100% Eboni and no other ink beats any combination of 
Eboni with another lighter or color ink.


With a glossy papers I have found that the addition of "blue" (cyan 
plus magenta or R800 blue in various ratios) pigment ink often raises 
the dmax.  In fact, I'm more inclined to not care about a bit of blue 
in the PK for dmax purposes.  The tone shifts at that low level would 
be insignificant, and the density drop will not cause any 
posterization.  And there may be situations where just filling in for 
another ink helps no matter if it is a somewhat lower load ink.

> > The second pass is done with a 100% Glop overcoat, 
> > split between 2 channels.  
> > With the 1800 I was able to see some microbanding in the 
> > glop if only one channel was used.  
> > That would probably not happen in a 3.5 pl printer.


> Why not go the PrintShield route ...

The printer-applied spray with Glop is easier.

I hope this clarifies any confusion I may have causes.

Paul         
www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Michael;

Didn't mean to ignore you, I missed your response-


> 
> You've got a CIS using Ultrachrome drained from 200ml cartridges.
> Which Glop are you using and are you using it in the CIS?

As you probably have gathered by now, I'm using a second R1800 (which 
I otherwise use for matte printing with MIS K4) The glop is in this 
CIS, though when I get a final setup for the new R1800 it will 
probably include glop as well. For print sizes bigger than 13"-wide, 
I spray the glop with a testor's model-painting airbrush that cost 
all of $20 and does a fine job. I do hate having to do it though.
> 
> Also to apply just a glop coat are you using QTR or what?

Yes, QTR, single channel. Carl is having good success with two 
channels, but with the less fragile PK inks I don't think that kind 
of load is needed.
> 
> Any tips on how much glop to use? Do you use a single channel of 
GLop or
> multiple channels?

My glop curve is a simple QTR curve with 100% density and a limit of 
50% I print a middle grey field, but sometimes I kick down the Gamma 
slider in QTR a bit. If you get too much on, the shadows come out wet-
 I like to avoid that, and do a second pass if needed.

Steve Karafyllakis

Txs Steve

On 13/02/2008, Steven Karafyllakis <stevekphoto@...> wrote:
>
>   Hi Michael;
>
> Didn't mean to ignore you, I missed your response-
>
> >
> > You've got a CIS using Ultrachrome drained from 200ml cartridges.
> > Which Glop are you using and are you using it in the CIS?
>
> As you probably have gathered by now, I'm using a second R1800 (which
> I otherwise use for matte printing with MIS K4) The glop is in this
> CIS, though when I get a final setup for the new R1800 it will
> probably include glop as well. For print sizes bigger than 13"-wide,
> I spray the glop with a testor's model-painting airbrush that cost
> all of $20 and does a fine job. I do hate having to do it though.
> >
> > Also to apply just a glop coat are you using QTR or what?
>
> Yes, QTR, single channel. Carl is having good success with two
> channels, but with the less fragile PK inks I don't think that kind
> of load is needed.
> >
> > Any tips on how much glop to use? Do you use a single channel of
> GLop or
> > multiple channels?
>
> My glop curve is a simple QTR curve with 100% density and a limit of
> 50% I print a middle grey field, but sometimes I kick down the Gamma
> slider in QTR a bit. If you get too much on, the shadows come out wet-
> I like to avoid that, and do a second pass if needed.
>
> Steve Karafyllakis
>
> 
>


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

Paul, I wouldn't say you have been confusing, oppositely you provided 
lots of elements worth thinking about.
 
> 

> With a glossy set, you might be fine with a single pass.  With a 
> matte inkset like the 1800 3-MK, the second pass is needed.
> 
> In the 3-MK glossy workflow, the second pass is a solid, even over-
> coat of Glop that covers an image area larger than the printed 
> image.  As such there are no registration problems.  It's just like 
a 
> liquid laminate.
> 
The real issue here is that when I re-load the paper I can see the 
damage : lots of rubber roll marks on the inked patches. I can let it 
dry longer but there's still marks looking like waves if I look 
carefully.
Might be I put down too much ink, but the output is fine and less ink 
reduces Dmax.

> 
> I believe that with the overcoat of Glop we can usually put down a 
> higher load of black pigment than we could without the overcoat.
> 
Sorry, I'm not following you on this : you mean a higher load of 
pigment in the ink composition, not on the paper, right ?

> My experience with matte paper was that If I just measure the 100% 
> spot, I find the 100% Eboni and no other ink beats any combination 
of 
> Eboni with another lighter or color ink.
> 
> 
> With a glossy papers I have found that the addition of "blue" (cyan 
> plus magenta or R800 blue in various ratios) pigment ink often 
raises 
> the dmax.  In fact, I'm more inclined to not care about a bit of 
blue 
> in the PK for dmax purposes.  The tone shifts at that low level 
would 
> be insignificant, and the density drop will not cause any 
> posterization.  And there may be situations where just filling in 
for 
> another ink helps no matter if it is a somewhat lower load ink.

Fine. Yet in my experience, I don't see any benefit in multiple inks 
at Dmax with MPS, where I see a big plus is that some lighter inks 
helps separating shadows and smooth the ramp. Provided you find the 
right mix which is an other story. Some might have more valuable 
experience than mine.

> 
> The printer-applied spray with Glop is easier.

Yes with no possible discussion, nut provided GO can be applied 
without print damages and unacceptable ink limitations. I'm not yet 
there as you can feel.

> I hope this clarifies any confusion I may have causes.
> 
Very kind of you to have cared about this point.
Thanks.
Olivier

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Olivier" <odesmais@...> wrote:
...> 
> The real issue here is that when I re-load the paper I can see the 
> damage : lots of rubber roll marks on the inked patches. I can let it 
> dry longer but there's still marks looking like waves if I look 
> carefully.
> Might be I put down too much ink, but the output is fine and less ink 
> reduces Dmax.

Olivier, I'm not experiencing this problem. How long are you letting them dry after 1st ink 
go-down? What printer?

snipping questions for Paul...

> Fine. Yet in my experience, I don't see any benefit in multiple inks 
> at Dmax with MPS, where I see a big plus is that some lighter inks 
> helps separating shadows and smooth the ramp. Provided you find the 
> right mix which is an other story. Some might have more valuable 
> experience than mine.

I suspect you are using something that lets you control underinking. SP doesn't let me do 
that. Underink is driven out by an ink reaching 100%. So any limiting at the low end leaves 
underink of the adjacent dark gray. I suspect there would indeed be an advantage to C 
under a PK, as CMYK profilers put a lot in there to make "neutral, and it does increase 
dmax.
But I think that is a very different situation than the inks you and I are using.

To address an earlier question you had- yes, in the ink go-down different amounts of GO 
are necessary in different parts of the scale, and that really varies with paper. Total ink 
does as well, often going back and reducing lighter ink limits after the necessary GO winds 
up mottling a bit is necessary...
For example IGFS can take more ink, and requires way more GO in the highlights, Innova 
US (Epson whatever they call it) can take much less, and requires less GO in the highlights 
and more in the deep shadows...

Then I still think it needs a second run through of around 50% GO...
That may all change tomorrow.

Tyler

Olivier, 

> The real issue here is that when I re-load the paper I can see the 
> damage : lots of rubber roll marks on the inked patches. ...

I expected roller and pizza wheel marks also.  The 1800 may be better 
than most printers in that respect.  I've also been using mostly 
Crane Silver Rag for testing, and maybe that paper is more immune to 
them.  In the past and with most printers I would have expected these 
problems to be killers.  I'm not sure why I'm not seeing them.  It 
may be that the matte ink, even with the glop mixed in somewhat to 
hold it down, is such a matte surface still that the marks are not 
showing up.  Where I've seen the problems are with a second overcoat 
of more than 25%.

> > I believe that with the overcoat of Glop we can usually put 
> > down a higher load of black pigment ...

> ... you mean a higher load of 
> pigment in the ink composition, not on the paper, right ?

Maybe both ink limit and composition.  With respect to the ink limit, 
for example, the Crane SR didn't hit a post-overcoat dmax until 120% 
QTR load.  That's a very large amount of ink.

The MIS (Image Specialists) PK for the R1800 is the MIS K4-PK.  It's 
a lower load than the MP or 7600 PK.  It may be that with an 
overcoat, I can go to the higher load ink and get a better dmax.  The 
R2-PK that I've used in the R1800 is half way between these other 
PKs, and it seems to be working fine.  The problem with the higher 
load PKs in new printers shows up as reduced gloss (I think, working 
from memory).  If so, then we might be able to cure that with the 
overcoat.

Clearly, this is still in the experimental stage.


> ... I don't see any benefit in multiple inks 
> at Dmax with MPS, where I see a big plus is that some lighter inks 
> helps separating shadows and smooth the ramp. Provided you find the 
> right mix which is an other story. 

I agree.  With a good pre-linearization ramp in the 90%+ range, I can 
usually get fine shadow separation and still have only K in the 100% 
spot.

Paul        
www.PaulRoark.com

> Olivier, I'm not experiencing this problem. How long are you 
letting them dry after 1st ink 
> go-down? What printer?
> 
> snipping questions for Paul...
> 

Not much indeed, but I use the (noisy) hair-dryer method. Currently 
I'm trying to fix MPS with a R1800 before moving it to an LFP. 

> I suspect you are using something that lets you control 
underinking. SP doesn't let me do 
> that. Underink is driven out by an ink reaching 100%. So any 
limiting at the low end leaves 
> underink of the adjacent dark gray. I suspect there would indeed be 
an advantage to C 
> under a PK, as CMYK profilers put a lot in there to make "neutral, 
and it does increase 
> dmax.
> But I think that is a very different situation than the inks you 
and I are using.
> 

I'm trying my luck with QTR because of the R1800, I'd like to produce 
something even vaguely ressembling Jon's curves. With SP I saw your 
talk about the creation of a spot color : SP let you do that without 
having to linearize it ?
For underinking, as I said I just use a bit of the lighter dilutions 
to help me separate shadows while still reaching Dmax at 100%.

> Then I still think it needs a second run through of around 50% GO...
> That may all change tomorrow.
 
I know you're mostly right, I just hate the idea of re-loading the 
print. 

Olivier

> Where I've seen the problems are with a second overcoat 
> of more than 25%.
>

MPS may call for a longer dry time. Also I tend to overink to hit 
Dmax.
  
> Maybe both ink limit and composition.  With respect to the ink 
limit, 
> for example, the Crane SR didn't hit a post-overcoat dmax until 
120% 
> QTR load.  That's a very large amount of ink.

I wish I could lay down that much !

> 
> The MIS (Image Specialists) PK for the R1800 is the MIS K4-PK.  
It's 
> a lower load than the MP or 7600 PK.  It may be that with an 
> overcoat, I can go to the higher load ink and get a better dmax.

Gloss coating seems to produce the inverse effect of the matte media 
light diffused reflection.
 
> Clearly, this is still in the experimental stage.

More than time allows. Not mentionning the "empirical" K7 
partitioning... Roy did a fantastic job on QTR and I'm amongst the 
grateful ones, but what it really lack imho is the ability to draft a 
custom calibration chart. 
 
> I agree.  With a good pre-linearization ramp in the 90%+ range, I 
can 
> usually get fine shadow separation and still have only K in the 
100% 
> spot.

That's also my objective.

Olivier

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Olivier"
<odesmais@...> wrote:
>
> > Olivier, I'm not experiencing this problem. How long are you 
> letting them dry after 1st ink 
> > go-down? What printer?
> > 
> > snipping questions for Paul...
> > 
> 
> Not much indeed, but I use the (noisy) hair-dryer method. Currently 
> I'm trying to fix MPS with a R1800 before moving it to an LFP. 

I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with it, so don't know if there is some
mechanical reason you are getting the problem and I am not. 
...
> I'm trying my luck with QTR because of the R1800, I'd like to produce 
> something even vaguely ressembling Jon's curves...

See this thread-
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/message/4561
I have not tried it but Walker apparently did and it worked.

> With SP I saw your 
> talk about the creation of a spot color : SP let you do that without 
> having to linearize it ?

No, I have to fool it by temporarily assigning a real ink to that
position... a pain but it works, not a huge deal.


...
> I know you're mostly right, I just hate the idea of re-loading the 
> print. 

I'm sure there is a way to maximize single pass, but it's hard. I
think that is what's taking Jon so long to get his QTR profiles out,
double pass may keep many customers away.
I went the double pass route for now as I want to initially evaluate
the overall look and just need something working. Also, it clearly
gave higher damxes without too much effort. So it seemed the way to
go, clearly a very "custom" way of printing. 
Another note, dmax skyrocketed by polishing the prints with a soft
cloth, but had a silvered look in the blacks. Kind of interesting.

Tyler

Tyler Boley wrote:
> Another note, dmax skyrocketed by polishing the prints with a soft
> cloth, but had a silvered look in the blacks. Kind of interesting.
>
> Tyler
Could that be over inking? That is, the cloth is removing excess ink?
--
Bruce Watson

Bruce, yes definitely. Just discovered it by accident with some things
laying around getting scuffed. That powdery look from overinking rubs
off, leaving very high dmax and a daugerotype mirrored look in the
blacks. But then inking less to keep that from happening does not
yield the same densities.
I'm sure my experiences are going to differ from the MIS work as this
is a universal K instead of a true PK.
I need a vacation.
And interestingly, these prints have a long way to go to be as
inherently beautiful as the fine art paper MK prints. But then we have
many more years of tweaking that process...
Tyler


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson
<bwyg@...> wrote:

>
> Tyler Boley wrote:
> > Another note, dmax skyrocketed by polishing the prints with a soft
> > cloth, but had a silvered look in the blacks. Kind of interesting.
> >
> > Tyler
> Could that be over inking? That is, the cloth is removing excess ink?
> --
> Bruce Watson
>

> See this thread-
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/message/4561
> I have not tried it but Walker apparently did and it worked.
 
Thanks for the link, I know the acv method or the Point List one, 
they are similar, just a question of habit. I'm sure Walker got 
something out of it. But he had something to start with. On glossy 
media Jon shared a graph, and this did do either. So I have to make 
it differently. The easiest I presume would be to start by a 1440 res 
vs 2880, it's more forgiving. I'll do that when all else has failed. 


> > With SP I saw your 
> > talk about the creation of a spot color : SP let you do that 
without 
> > having to linearize it ?
> 
> No, I have to fool it by temporarily assigning a real ink to that
> position... a pain but it works, not a huge deal.
 
I thought about that. But I don't see practically how you do that, I 
mean the temporary assignment.

> > I know you're mostly right, I just hate the idea of re-loading 
the 
> > print. 
> 
> I'm sure there is a way to maximize single pass, but it's hard. I
> think that is what's taking Jon so long to get his QTR profiles out,
> double pass may keep many customers away.
> I went the double pass route for now as I want to initially evaluate
> the overall look and just need something working. Also, it clearly
> gave higher damxes without too much effort. So it seemed the way to
> go, clearly a very "custom" way of printing. 
> Another note, dmax skyrocketed by polishing the prints with a soft
> cloth, but had a silvered look in the blacks. Kind of interesting.

As I said you can swap a combination of ink for another one to output 
the same density, the darker in the ramp the more you lose some 
smoothness to allow GO in. However, I start wondering whether GO here 
is not simply meant to be a proper overcoating vs an additional 
channel at the printing stage.

Olivier

> Bruce, yes definitely. Just discovered it by accident with some things
> laying around getting scuffed. 

Polishing before GO ?
Olivier

I never bothered to put the polished things back through for a second
GO pass. It was just an interesting side discovery made before
starting the double pass thing....

Regarding the GO linearization, in StudioPrint you can easily assign
any cart to any color, light color, or spot color... etc..

Tyler

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

>
> 
> > Bruce, yes definitely. Just discovered it by accident with some things
> > laying around getting scuffed. 
> 
> Polishing before GO ?
> Olivier
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark"
> <pr_roark@> wrote:
> ...
> > I think those who use Piezo inks may want to use this approach to 
add 
> > a gloss option to their existing inks.  That would give that user 
> > base access to the new baryta and fiber based papers.  The Piezo 
> > options on those papers could be interesting.  Aside from the 
unknown 
> > with respect to the base compatibilities, I think the approach 
should 
> > work.  Those who know how to use QTR or other rip should be able 
to 
> > find a spot in their K7 systems for a glop cart and profile the 
> > systems.
> 
> Paul, it's been available for some time, the selenium MPS set. They
> are just not advertising it as a gloss setup yet since QTR profiles
> are not ready from them. Anyone buying it is completely on their 
own.
> I have it in a 7800 right now, K7 plus GO, 8 slots.
> Tyler
>


tyler,

can you tell me how this works?

i have an epson R1800 and am planning to convert it to K7 selenium 
and want to be able to use the new glossy fiber and baryta papers.  
how do i set this up to do a second pass with glop only?

what else is needed?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "c1asia"
<c1asia@...> wrote:
>...the selenium MPS set. They
> > are just not advertising it as a gloss setup yet since QTR profiles
> > are not ready from them. Anyone buying it is completely on their 
> own.
> > I have it in a 7800 right now, K7 plus GO, 8 slots.
> > Tyler
> >
> 
> 
> tyler,
> 
> can you tell me how this works?
> 
> i have an epson R1800 and am planning to convert it to K7 selenium 
> and want to be able to use the new glossy fiber and baryta papers.  
> how do i set this up to do a second pass with glop only?
> 
> what else is needed?

Honestly I could not tell you what to do, it's really not ready yet. I
doubt they would even sell it to you yet without a lot of caveats that
you are on your own. You'd need special QTR profiles, and the fact
that they are not available yet from IJM is indicative of the setup
difficulty. Some needs to go down with the ink initially, different
amounts in different parts of the scale, and that differently for
different papers- this aside from from controlling the 7 inks
themselves, also paper dependent. The amount of glop in the second
pass is also paper dependent. I suppose you'd make a BO QTR ink setup
and assign the GLOP to that channel but I'm not a QTR guy.
Seriously, it's difficult, time and materials intensive.

It took some harassing on my part to get them to take my money for it.
See if Olivier replies as well, I believe he's trying it with QTR.
I'd call this a product still in development in some ways.

I also have to say that this inkset makes some of the most beautiful
prints on matte, like German Etching, I've seen- assuming a good match
to image and tones. But that's not what you're after.

I'm working on a way to provide samples of the gloss look and will
post about that in a few days. I don't want to be in that business so
I'm trying to do it right.

Tyler

Tyler,

Do you have any spectro readings on the K7 gloss inkset?  I'm just 
curious how they compare to the UT-RC inkset I set up.  It's at 
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R260-BW-GS-Eps.pdf including some 
graphs of the print tones on various papers.

This RC inkset is what I've recommended in the past to those who want 
glossy printing in the 1800 as well as the 3-MK matte printing.  At 
this point, I would probably still recommend it over the MK+Glop I'm 
experiementing with.  Being the most recent glossy-compatible insket 
I've mixed, it has the tones and ratios that I'm leaning toward for 
that type of (blended) monotone inkset.  There are 3 tones and 2 
midtone dilutions for each.  It's for the 1.5 pl printers.

Additionally, I must note on my glop experiments that I was getting 
roller marks on some images.  These marks were not the pin-hole type 
of pizza wheel tracks I'm accustomed to.  I printed a matte print on 
the 1800 and was rather disturbed to see the tracks on the matte 
paper also.

So, I cleaning the rollers by running a piece of EEM through the 
printer with an ammonia spray across the center of the paper.  Then a 
number of plain paper sheet were run through the printer to dry 
things.  The bottom line on the cleaning is that lots of ink and 
probably glop came off the rollers.  A similar cleaning procedure on 
a 220 that I've  been using a lot for experimentation on various 
inksets, most recently the Eboni-6 -- but never the glop overcoating 
approach -- showed no fouling of the rollers at all.  I think those 
who use glop heavily might want to regularly clean their rollers.

Every time I go down this glossy road, I end up coming back to matte.

I'll keep up the experimenting just because the new papers are 
interesting but my serious printing remains 100% matte paper.

Paul   
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul, I'm still perfecting things, and each paper so far is different
and requires different ink percents, different GO in the go down, and
different GO overprint. In fact, it may not be absolutely perfect by
the time the samples go out. I'll think I've nailed it, then a
different image will show some little problem.
This is a major reason for the samples- feedback to see if I should
proceed.

Needless to say, my dmax will be nothing near the 3+ you have
reported. But of course I'm juggling more grays.

I'm not seeing roller markes here, but wonder about the mechanics of
these different printers.

By far, to my biased eye, the most beautiful prints coming out of here
for people are the matte prints. Not all of them, but some just
succeed in a way the gloss does not, that elusive something extra.
The other beautiful prints around here- Silver gelatin.
Tyler


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

>
> Tyler,
> 
> Do you have any spectro readings on the K7 gloss inkset?  I'm just 
> curious how they compare to the UT-RC inkset I set up.  It's at 
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R260-BW-GS-Eps.pdf including some 
> graphs of the print tones on various papers.
> 
> This RC inkset is what I've recommended in the past to those who want 
> glossy printing in the 1800 as well as the 3-MK matte printing.  At 
> this point, I would probably still recommend it over the MK+Glop I'm 
> experiementing with.  Being the most recent glossy-compatible insket 
> I've mixed, it has the tones and ratios that I'm leaning toward for 
> that type of (blended) monotone inkset.  There are 3 tones and 2 
> midtone dilutions for each.  It's for the 1.5 pl printers.
> 
> Additionally, I must note on my glop experiments that I was getting 
> roller marks on some images.  These marks were not the pin-hole type 
> of pizza wheel tracks I'm accustomed to.  I printed a matte print on 
> the 1800 and was rather disturbed to see the tracks on the matte 
> paper also.
> 
> So, I cleaning the rollers by running a piece of EEM through the 
> printer with an ammonia spray across the center of the paper.  Then a 
> number of plain paper sheet were run through the printer to dry 
> things.  The bottom line on the cleaning is that lots of ink and 
> probably glop came off the rollers.  A similar cleaning procedure on 
> a 220 that I've  been using a lot for experimentation on various 
> inksets, most recently the Eboni-6 -- but never the glop overcoating 
> approach -- showed no fouling of the rollers at all.  I think those 
> who use glop heavily might want to regularly clean their rollers.
> 
> Every time I go down this glossy road, I end up coming back to matte.
> 
> I'll keep up the experimenting just because the new papers are 
> interesting but my serious printing remains 100% matte paper.
> 
> Paul   
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

>
> Paul, I'm still perfecting things, and each paper so far is 
different
> and requires different ink percents, different GO in the go down, 
and
> different GO overprint. In fact, it may not be absolutely perfect by
> the time the samples go out. I'll think I've nailed it, then a
> different image will show some little problem.
> This is a major reason for the samples- feedback to see if I should
> proceed.
> 
> Needless to say, my dmax will be nothing near the 3+ you have
> reported. But of course I'm juggling more grays.
> 
Tyler, you do the GO overprint with SP as far as I understood. QTR 
might help you there : since you go for double-pass, I'd create a GO 
channel alone in QTR and reload the print.

Now I've emptied my first cartridge set already (small 1800 
cartridges though). Annoyingly enough, when the cartrigdes get their 
new load, the output is darker for most dilutions by up to dE L*3, 
that ruins all the past effort and the curves needs to be reworked. 
Bad luck I was at the linearizing stage... So even new cartridges of 
the same ink set and you're again printing out small grey patches for 
hours. No chance any sedimentation could have happened on the small 
cartridges, I have no explanation.
Olivier

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Olivier" <odesmais@...> wrote:
...
> > Needless to say, my dmax will be nothing near the 3+ you have
> > reported. But of course I'm juggling more grays.
> > 
> Tyler, you do the GO overprint with SP as far as I understood. QTR 
> might help you there : since you go for double-pass, I'd create a GO 
> channel alone in QTR and reload the print.

Olivier, doing pretty much the same thing in the go-down with a spot channel in StudioPrint. 
Then the 2nd GO only pass.
You are correct that a GO overprint will not be the adequate by itself.

Sorry to hear of the batch problems, I'd definitely contact IJM. I haven't seen a settling 
problem with any ink in a long time, particularly these. Make sure your experience is known, 
you may get some relief, or some answers, or at least alert them to a problem.
I'm getting some inconsistant StudioPrint performance over the last few months from some 
software updates, this kind of thing can waste weeks of work.

Tyler

> Olivier, doing pretty much the same thing in the go-down with a 
spot channel in StudioPrint. 
> Then the 2nd GO only pass.
> You are correct that a GO overprint will not be the adequate by 
itself.
> 
> Sorry to hear of the batch problems, I'd definitely contact IJM. I 
haven't seen a settling 
> problem with any ink in a long time, particularly these. Make sure 
your experience is known, 
> you may get some relief, or some answers, or at least alert them to 
a problem.
> I'm getting some inconsistant StudioPrint performance over the last 
few months from some 
> software updates, this kind of thing can waste weeks of work.
> 

What do you call a "go-down" (my English is weak...) ?
It's not a batch issue, I'm using the same bottles to do the refill 
of the small cartridges, that's why I'm not understanding what's up, 
I'll mail IJM to try to understand.
Olivier

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Olivier" <odesmais@...> wrote:
...
> What do you call a "go-down" (my English is weak...) ?

sorry, the ink for the actual image, and a channel with GO, going down all together. One 
pass. Obviously this would be the preferred way to print for a marketable system, and the 
way other printers with GO work.

Tyler

Olivier,

The R1800 cartridges bought from IJM are never more than 2 months old.
We do all filling of small format cartridges in-house. SO there is no
way to purchase carts with pigment settling. You just got yours
recently. However, there is a possibility of contamination of one
shade of ink with another when refilling.

You SHOULD use one syringe for one shade and never mix a syringe used
for one shade with another. One drop of a darker shade of ink will
affect a lighter shade. It is that sensitive and that precise. So you
should have 7 syringes with 7 needles very clearly marked. 

It is better to put the safety cap back on the syringe and letting the
remaining ink stay in the syringe, than trying to wash out a syringe.
If you do go the washing out method - you really need to dry
completely and thoroughly before using it again so the drops of water
do not dilute the ink either.

The obvious of course, is not to put the wrong shade in the cartridge.
Otherwise, you should not be experiencing density changes as you
describe through normal use.

Jon




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Olivier"
<odesmais@> wrote:
> ...
> > > Needless to say, my dmax will be nothing near the 3+ you have
> > > reported. But of course I'm juggling more grays.
> > > 
> > Tyler, you do the GO overprint with SP as far as I understood. QTR 
> > might help you there : since you go for double-pass, I'd create a GO 
> > channel alone in QTR and reload the print.
> 
> Olivier, doing pretty much the same thing in the go-down with a spot
channel in StudioPrint. 
> Then the 2nd GO only pass.
> You are correct that a GO overprint will not be the adequate by itself.
> 
> Sorry to hear of the batch problems, I'd definitely contact IJM. I
haven't seen a settling 
> problem with any ink in a long time, particularly these. Make sure
your experience is known, 
> you may get some relief, or some answers, or at least alert them to
a problem.
> I'm getting some inconsistant StudioPrint performance over the last
few months from some 

> software updates, this kind of thing can waste weeks of work.
> 
> Tyler
>

> The R1800 cartridges bought from IJM are never more than 2 months 
old.
> We do all filling of small format cartridges in-house. SO there is 
no
> way to purchase carts with pigment settling. You just got yours
> recently. However, there is a possibility of contamination of one
> shade of ink with another when refilling.
> 
> You SHOULD use one syringe for one shade and never mix a syringe 
used
> for one shade with another. One drop of a darker shade of ink will
> affect a lighter shade. It is that sensitive and that precise. So 
you
> should have 7 syringes with 7 needles very clearly marked. 
> 
> It is better to put the safety cap back on the syringe and letting 
the
> remaining ink stay in the syringe, than trying to wash out a 
syringe.
> If you do go the washing out method - you really need to dry
> completely and thoroughly before using it again so the drops of 
water
> do not dilute the ink either.
> 
> The obvious of course, is not to put the wrong shade in the 
cartridge.
> Otherwise, you should not be experiencing density changes as you
> describe through normal use.

Jon, I sourced 8 new brand MIS cartridges, needles, etc... everything 
is double labelled (K shade and Oem color name). Mishandling 
probability is nil. Besides, it takes me a full hour to fill up the 8 
cartridges one at a time with all the checking and max care.

At second thought, I have a feeling that the density variation takes 
place because of contamination inside the printer at the heads level 
maybe when the heads go to the pads where there's a *LOT* of wet ink. 
It's the same situation as color contamination when BW inks get 
loaded for the first time. I'll print some more sheets and check 
readings. I see no other explanation right now.

Olivier

An hour?  Let's see...my Toyota mechanic charges $65/hr...
hmmm...8 carts @ $65..that's about $8 per cart in labor alone (not
counting the carts themselves, or the pigment), unless of course you
need to test or run into minor time-consuming challenges....

Surely your time's worth as much as a Toyota mechanic's? 

> Jon, I sourced 8 new brand MIS cartridges, needles, etc... everything 
> is double labelled (K shade and Oem color name). Mishandling 
> probability is nil. Besides, it takes me a full hour to fill up the 8 
> cartridges one at a time with all the checking and max care.
> 
> At second thought, I have a feeling that the density variation takes 
> place because of contamination inside the printer at the heads level 
> maybe when the heads go to the pads where there's a *LOT* of wet ink. 
> It's the same situation as color contamination when BW inks get 
> loaded for the first time. I'll print some more sheets and check 
> readings. I see no other explanation right now.
> 
> Olivier
>