Digital BW, The Print

I would like to setup the 1280 to use the eboni-6 or carbon6 system vs 
using the ut2 inkset because I would like to go to an all carbon 
printing system.  I have no intent or plans to print either neutral or 
cold tone prints.  I've read Paul's tech notes on all this and am 
beginning to get seriously glassy eyed. 

Paul or anyone else who has put all of the workflow/s together to 
produce one flow, please let me know.  I'm ready to go from scanner 
calibration all the way through ink mixing and print testing.

HELP!!! and Thanks, Mike

> I would like to setup the 1280 to use the eboni-6 or carbon6 
system ...

 

There are various ways to do it with either inkset.  I have links to 
my write-ups at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/ 

I don't think MIS loads any of these at the moment.  So, bulk inks 
loaded into a cart or CIS is needed.

How tolerant one is of mixing and having to make ICCs to get the best 
results are considerations.  The C88 with the Carbon 13.5% (or 50:50 
mix of Eb-6 M & LC) in it is probably the easiest and cheapest route.

If I had a 1280 I'd probably buy a Superjet CIS and mix Carbon-6 per 
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf 


If you don't want to do mixing, Eboni-6 is recommended.

The Eboni-6 inks are found at http://inksupply.com/eb6.cfm

If you have an empty, re-fillable 1280, spongeless "color" cartridge 
that would be a quick way to try these inksets.  (Be sure to rinse 
the pads of the 1280 thoroughly.)


I like the workflows that use Create ICC-RGB with all 6 densities of 
Eboni-6 or Carbon-6.  But, the more ink densities that are used, the 
more work it is to mix it.  Also, these need to be controlled by an 
ICC for best results.  

One could also  make a simpler and cheaper combination that will 
print only a bit less smooth.  


If you wanted to deal with the minimum of bottles, you could just use 
2 midtone inks -- C and LC. Those are similar to the relative 
densities used in the UT-R2 inkset and warm carbon UT2 C and LC 
inks.  (But do not mix these UT inks with Eboni-6 inks.)

Eb-C can be put in the C and M spots of the 1280 cart.  Eb-LC can be 
put in the LC, LM, and Y spots of the 1280 cart.  Eboni stays in the 
K position.  

This C-LC setup should print a fairly straight line 
(reasonably "linearized") output from a 1280 with no ICC or curve 
used, and with the driver set to "Color Controls," which allows 
further control from the driver sliders and gamma settings.

This is the "EZ" version of the Eboni-6 insket.



>...  I've read Paul's tech notes on all this and am 
> beginning to get seriously glassy eyed.

I'm considering offers from sleep clinics.  




Paul   
www.PaulRoark.com

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/aai_lf_summary_list.htm

I've been using MIS K4 inks. Maybe I should rethink this.

Interesting and disturbing.

It looks like the yellow is a weak spot.  I wonder if substituting in
Epson yellow is a solution?  Any large format carts we could drain it
out of?

Roger

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt
<pdesmidt@...> wrote:

>
> http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/aai_lf_summary_list.htm
> 
> I've been using MIS K4 inks. Maybe I should rethink this.
>

> http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/aai_lf_summary_list.htm

This is an interesting test.  I'm sure there is a lot of useful 
information there.

I have not had a chance to look at all of these, but I did quickly 
compare pages 4 of the tests Epson ink v. MIS ink on Red River Pro 
Gloss paper.

Epson OEM ink test restults are at:

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/pdfs/AaI_20071008_SN002(Lf).pdf


MIS R800 ink test is at: 

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/pdfs/AaI_20071008_SN002(Lf).pdf


Look at pages "4(5 of 9)".

Compare the Epson and MIS Black (F4) and Max Black (F5) in the charts.

Both Epson and MIS PK have an excellent I* of 100.0 (the best rating).

This appears to be consistent with my testing. 

Paul   
www.PaulRoark.com

Mike, 

>...I'm ready to go from scanner 
> calibration all the way through ink mixing and print testing.


There is a shortened and slightly revised version of my notes on using 
a flatbed scanner for ICCs at 
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Making_B-W_ICCs.pdf

Paul   
www.PaulRoark.com

> I have not had a chance to look at all of these, but I did quickly 
> compare pages 4 of the tests Epson ink v. MIS ink on Red River Pro 
> Gloss paper.
> 
> Epson OEM ink test restults are at:
> > http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/pdfs/AaI_20071008_SN002(Lf).pdf
> > 
> MIS R800 ink test is at: 
> > http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/pdfs/AaI_20071008_SN002(Lf).pdf
> Look at pages "4(5 of 9)".

I suggest looking at p. 6 (7 of 9) as it is the 20 year test 
equivalent and shows you how the fading trend plays out.

> Compare the Epson and MIS Black (F4) and Max Black (F5) in the 
charts.
> Both Epson and MIS PK have an excellent I* of 100.0 (the best 
rating).

Yes, PK looks quite stable.  Too bad there's no MK test but I'd guess 
it would be at least as good.

I am strongly considering switching my yellow ink based on this test 
for color work- noticable tone shifts after 10 years aren't too 
appealing.

Does anyone know if the MIS R1800 yellow and R2400 yellow are the 
same, and thus would an Epson OEM ultrachrome yellow sucked out of a 
cart like for the 3800 work?  

Would the new MIS refill kit be able to extract this ink or would you 
have to drill a hole in the cartridge or is it impossible?  In the 
meantime I will probably reload my Epson OEM Yellow (I'm already 
using the Epson PK as it gets a better Dmax with the driver).

...
> > Both Epson and MIS PK have an excellent I* of 100.0 
> > (the best rating).
 
> Yes, PK looks quite stable.  Too bad there's no MK test 
> but I'd guess it would be at least as good.

My tests indicate it is.


> Does anyone know if the MIS R1800 yellow and R2400 yellow are the 
> same, 

Yes.

>  would an Epson OEM ultrachrome yellow sucked out of a 
> cart like for the 3800 work? 

I used 7600 carts for my Epson color inks.  An MIS bottom fill 
adapter with the end cut to 7 mm works well.  See 
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Mod_Bot_Fill.jpg  You'll note I went 
to Epson K2 LM in the later toned workflows.  The MIS cyan is good.

Paul    
www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Paul,

Since clear base stock and cleaning fluid are the same, if you were to 
mix up a batch of clear stock to use as cleaning fluid, would you leave 
out the Photo-Flo?

Thanks,
Scott

> >  would an Epson OEM ultrachrome yellow sucked out of a 
> > cart like for the 3800 work? 
> 
> I used 7600 carts for my Epson color inks.  An MIS bottom fill 
> adapter with the end cut to 7 mm works well.  See 
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Mod_Bot_Fill.jpg  You'll note I
>went to Epson K2 LM in the later toned workflows.  The MIS cyan is >good.

Hi Paul,
Thank you very much for your answers.  

Do you find there is a reason you are using the Ultrachrome ink from
older printers?  I know you prefer matte paper but I do like
flexibility to use fiber-type glossy as well at times. I thought the
newer inks had less bronzing and other benefits on gloss-type papers.  

It looks like the 7600 and 4800 both use 110ml Ultrachrome cartridges
but the 4800 ink is described as Ultrachrome K3.  The 4880 even has
220ml carts that are a bit cheaper on a per ml basis.

Quick Math:
Epson 7600 or 4800 110ML= 3.7 oz for $70
Epson 4800 220ML= 7.4 oz for $112
MIS "K4" is 4oz for $18

> "Roger" <rsmith02@...> wrote:
>
> It looks like the 7600 and 4800 both use 110ml 
> Ultrachrome cartridges but the 4800 ink 
>

They can all use 220ml carts.

Real world price is about $82 to $85 shipped for a 220ml cart.

> Since clear base stock and cleaning fluid are the same, 

They're not quite the same.  The cleaning fluid is diluted to make it 
thinner -- easier to get into glogs.

> if you were to mix up a batch of clear stock to use as 
> cleaning fluid, would you leave out the Photo-Flo?

No, the wetting agent would also make it easier for the fluid to get 
into the clogged areas.  Surfactants are primary components of 
cleaners.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

> Do you find there is a reason you are using the Ultrachrome ink from
> older printers? 

I don't think the old K2 inks are better; that was just what my 
profiles were made for.

By the way, I also tried Epson archival LM, but the 7600 LM did 
slightly better in my tests.  I never tested a K3 LM.

Paul   
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks. One last question:

I noticed somewhere that you now use the Y position for one of the 
3mk's instead of the GLOP postion.

Will the curves and/or profiles that ship with QTR work with one of the 
3 MK's installed in the Y position?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Scott




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

>
> 
> > Since clear base stock and cleaning fluid are the same, 
> 
> They're not quite the same.  The cleaning fluid is diluted to make it 
> thinner -- easier to get into glogs.
> 
> > if you were to mix up a batch of clear stock to use as 
> > cleaning fluid, would you leave out the Photo-Flo?
> 
> No, the wetting agent would also make it easier for the fluid to get 
> into the clogged areas.  Surfactants are primary components of 
> cleaners.  
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Paul (or others who mix their own cleaning fluid) -

If the Carbon-6 base is: 62 distilled water / 28 glycerol / 10 Photo
Flo, what would be a recommended mix for cleaning fluid? Something
like 80: 10: 10?

Thanks,

Mark   

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

>
> 
> > Since clear base stock and cleaning fluid are the same, 
> 
> They're not quite the same.  The cleaning fluid is diluted to make it 
> thinner -- easier to get into glogs.
> 
> > if you were to mix up a batch of clear stock to use as 
> > cleaning fluid, would you leave out the Photo-Flo?
> 
> No, the wetting agent would also make it easier for the fluid to get 
> into the clogged areas.  Surfactants are primary components of 
> cleaners.  
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Scott,


> 
> I noticed somewhere that you now use the Y position for one of the 
> 3mk's instead of the GLOP postion.
> 
> Will the curves and/or profiles that ship with QTR work with 
> one of the 3 MK's installed in the Y position?


I've had one of the MK's in the C position for a while so I could use 
glop in it's OEM position.  My reasoning for the glop there was that 
there may be a reason for Epson to do that, including having it's 
nozzle check procedure, hopefully, able to detect a problem with glop 
in that position.

But, while I make new profiles for the "C-3MK" setup, I switch the 
curves to the standard 3MK ink positions for others and for 
consistency.  It's very easy to switch things around this way in 
QTR.  So, while I have not updated the profiles for QTR, if I do 
they'll remain in the default position that people who also want the 
printer for color expect.


As the the alternatives, note that I've had a number of other 
arrangements in the 1800, but to me it is predominantly a matte 
carbon printer for non-OBA paper and where ultra smoothness is not 
needed.

I had a PK in Y last, but I removed it because my MP-PK ink was too 
prone to nozzle problems. Y now has my clear base in it. 

I left the glop in its OEM position because I can make a reasonably 
good neutral 100% carbon glossy print with it mixed with Eboni in the 
deep shadows, about 70% on -- when such is sprayed with Print 
Shield.  The glop makes it much easier to get a smooth spray on the 
heavy Eboni areas.  

I think the Print Shield makes a better looking print and more 
durable protective coating than glop.  See how neutral the tones are 
on Ilford Gold at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800-Glossy.pdf 

The main reason I'd use a glossy print is if it is not behind glass.  
For behind glazing, matte is still my medium of choice. But if I do 
need a glossy not behind class, the harder surface of the Print 
Shield is going to stand up much better than glop to abraision or 
other environmental hazards.

For casual glossy B&W prints there are lots of easier ways to get 
there.    

The 1800 is for the long haul and, for me, mostly for 3MK.  Eboni and 
clear base will hopefully keep it doing its thing for many trouble 
free years. 

Paul  
www.PaulRoark.com

By the way, I use my regular 35% glycerol mix (see 
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf ) in carts where I want 
a clear fluid.  I want moisture holding power of the glycerol on that 
pad to keep things from drying out. If you have a persistent clog in a 
nozzle that you need to clean out, that is a different matter.  That is 
when you want a lower viscosity, and maybe even a little isopropyl 
alcohol in the mix (and or windex).

Paul   
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul, Do you have the lengthy version of this procedure available.  I 
read and reread the procedure and started working on it using our Epson 
636 oldie but goodie.  Incorporating the changes somewhere along the 
line snowed me.  I guess it's a senior moment but I could use some more 
detailed description of the whole workflow.

Thanks, Mike

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
<pr_roark@...> wrote:
>
> Mike, 
> 
> >...I'm ready to go from scanner 
> > calibration all the way through ink mixing and print testing.
> 
> 
> There is a shortened and slightly revised version of my notes on 
using 

> a flatbed scanner for ICCs at 
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Making_B-W_ICCs.pdf
> 
> Paul   
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Most of what I removed were notes regarding the alternative methods 
of finding a reference.  I'm just going with the Kodak Q-13.

I'm experimenting with easier ways to do this and will report any 
successes I have.

Paul   
www.PaulRoark.com    


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mbrouphy" 
<mbrouphy@...> wrote:
>
> Paul, Do you have the lengthy version of this procedure available.  
I 
> read and reread the procedure and started working on it using our 
Epson 
> 636 oldie but goodie.  Incorporating the changes somewhere along 
the 
> line snowed me.  I guess it's a senior moment but I could use some 
more 

> detailed description of the whole workflow.
> 
> Thanks, Mike
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 
> <pr_roark@> wrote:
> >
> > Mike, 
> > 
> > >...I'm ready to go from scanner 
> > > calibration all the way through ink mixing and print testing.
> > 
> > 
> > There is a shortened and slightly revised version of my notes on 
> using 
> > a flatbed scanner for ICCs at 
> > http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Making_B-W_ICCs.pdf
> > 
> > Paul   
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
>

> >  would an Epson OEM ultrachrome yellow sucked out of a 
> > cart like for the 3800 work? 
> 
> I used 7600 carts for my Epson color inks.  An MIS bottom fill 
> adapter with the end cut to 7 mm works well.  See 
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Mod_Bot_Fill.jpg  You'll note I went 
> to Epson K2 LM in the later toned workflows.  The MIS cyan is good.
> 
> Paul    
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

I bought a 9600 cart.  I didn't have much luck getting ink out of it
using a modified bottom fill adapter and syringe with needle tip- I
was getting far too much air with the ink and ink was dribbling out
the bottom.

I tried using the fill syringe from this set:
http://www.inksupply.com/epson_oem_refill_kit.cfm

It fit perfectly into the 9600 cart and it was easy to draw out just
the ink.  If you are using Epson Ultrachrome ink in small format
printers I definitely recommend trying this approach (and you can even
refill your OEM carts using this refill set).

Roger,

Not sure exactly what you were using at first.

I use a 60cc syringe with the 7mm bottom fill adapter from MIS. No 
needle.  

I bought the set of 8 adapters. Part number MIS-FADP-8. They are just 
the normal "screw on" plastic bottom fill adapter with a very short 
piece of plastic tubing, cut at an angle.

No problems extracting or filling the 110ml/220ml carts.

Best,
Michael