Digital BW, The Print

Please forgive asking such a basic question, but I have been going
over Paul Roark's website, the printing guide linked to from this
group, the various MIS inkset descriptions, and other material for
nearly two hours and only getting more and more buried. It is
particularly confusing that the various materials have all been
last-updated at wildly varying times...

My question: I have a now-aging Epson 2200. Color output is vivid, but
I have always been disappointed in its B&W performance, especially
after seeing well-executed carbon-inkset prints. I am interested in
converting it to B&W-only. I am quite fond of Moab's Entrada Natural
paper and plan to keep using it unless someone thinks this is a
terrible idea.

I would greatly appreciate it if someone could please help me understand:

- What is the best low-to-medium-hassle inkset I should start with? I
have a flatbed scanner but no colorimeter or density meter, and would
prefer not to purchase either. I am willing to do some experimentation
to profile my printer but would be delighted with a reasonably good
canned profile.

- Is there a reasonably-priced (not new retail) alternative to the
2200 that would enable me to use a significantly better inkset? I
would consider getting a second printer on the used market if the 2200
would mean too many compromises. On the other hand I am happy to stick
with the 2200 if it will let me use a reasonably good inkset.

Many thanks!

Mark

Hi Mark,
are you using Quadtone Rip? 

That is the lowest hassle way to start and you can get neutral prints that way. I use the 2100 with Entrada Natural with QTR, to good effect - unless you look through a loupe, in which case Cone K7 or MIS UT7 would be far superior.

Good luck,
Richard

At 09:23 a.m. Saturday 14/02/2009, you wrote:

>Please forgive asking such a basic question, but I have been going
>over Paul Roark's website, the printing guide linked to from this
>group, the various MIS inkset descriptions, and other material for
>nearly two hours and only getting more and more buried. It is
>particularly confusing that the various materials have all been
>last-updated at wildly varying times...
>
>My question: I have a now-aging Epson 2200. Color output is vivid, but
>I have always been disappointed in its B&W performance, especially
>after seeing well-executed carbon-inkset prints. I am interested in
>converting it to B&W-only. I am quite fond of Moab's Entrada Natural
>paper and plan to keep using it unless someone thinks this is a
>terrible idea.
>
>I would greatly appreciate it if someone could please help me understand:
>
>- What is the best low-to-medium-hassle inkset I should start with? I
>have a flatbed scanner but no colorimeter or density meter, and would
>prefer not to purchase either. I am willing to do some experimentation
>to profile my printer but would be delighted with a reasonably good
>canned profile.
>
>- Is there a reasonably-priced (not new retail) alternative to the
>2200 that would enable me to use a significantly better inkset? I
>would consider getting a second printer on the used market if the 2200
>would mean too many compromises. On the other hand I am happy to stick
>with the 2200 if it will let me use a reasonably good inkset.
>
>Many thanks!
>
>Mark
>
>

____________
www.richardsmallfield.com 

   "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. " 
   --Mark Twain (1835-1910) 


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

> are you using Quadtone Rip? 
> 
> That is the lowest hassle way to start and you can get neutral
prints that way. I use the 2100 with Entrada Natural with QTR, to good
effect - unless you look through a loupe, in which case Cone K7 or MIS
UT7 would be far superior.

I've used QTR in the past but, honestly, not been greatly impressed
with the results I managed to achieve. I'm disappointed in the Epson
inkset not just for neutrality, but also for depth of blacks. I have a
print made on Entrada with Vivera inks that shows noticeably deeper
and punchier blacks than I have ever wrung out of my 2200, with either
the Epson driver or QTR.

I am hoping that a carbon inkset will be able to address both these
issues?

Mark

Hi again Mark,
I did some exhibition prints for a photographer on my 2100 with QTR on Entrada Natural. Due to the 13" limitation, one was done on a Z3100 - and actually I marginally preferred the ones from my 2100. The blacks were very similar.

I'm not sure what the problem would have been and I'm not sure septone greys would give better dmax than OEM ink. They would give far better resolution, however, and better fade resistance, without the colour pigments.

I used MIS UT  inks in a 1200 and MIS Pro colour inks in my 2100 and in both cases the hassles put me off MIS for the time-being.

If you email Jon Cone you can order sample prints from the Piezotone inksets - which have pretty-well sold me on trying that setup as soon as I can afford it. The results are amazing. I am hoping the inkflow will be more reliable than it was for me with the UT inks.

Another option is to get a cheap Epson 1400 printer and Hextone Grey inks (eg - Cone K6) with a CIS - I'm considering that. For outlay and operating costs, a 1400 plus CIS has to be the best quality for the money. 

good luck,
Richard

At 10:14 a.m. Saturday 14/02/2009, you wrote:

>> are you using Quadtone Rip? 
>> 
>> That is the lowest hassle way to start and you can get neutral
>prints that way. I use the 2100 with Entrada Natural with QTR, to good
>effect - unless you look through a loupe, in which case Cone K7 or MIS
>UT7 would be far superior.
>
>I've used QTR in the past but, honestly, not been greatly impressed
>with the results I managed to achieve. I'm disappointed in the Epson
>inkset not just for neutrality, but also for depth of blacks. I have a
>print made on Entrada with Vivera inks that shows noticeably deeper
>and punchier blacks than I have ever wrung out of my 2200, with either
>the Epson driver or QTR.
>
>I am hoping that a carbon inkset will be able to address both these
>issues?
>
>Mark
>
>

____________
www.richardsmallfield.com 

   "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."
   --Theodore Roosevelt


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

> I'm not sure what the problem would have been and I'm not sure
septone greys would give better dmax than OEM ink. They would give far
better resolution, however, and better fade resistance, without the
colour pigments.

I'm surprised that a dedicated carbon inkset would not produce a
better DMax than Epson's OEM inks. Seems like somewhere someone must
have measured the DMax of these two inksets on some selection of
paper? Does anyone know of such tests?

Thanks for the feedback,

Mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mark_aiken"
<maiken@...> wrote:
>
> Please forgive asking such a basic question, but I have been going
> over Paul Roark's website, the printing guide linked to from this
> group, the various MIS inkset descriptions, and other material for
> nearly two hours and only getting more and more buried. It is
> particularly confusing that the various materials have all been
> last-updated at wildly varying times...
> 
> My question: I have a now-aging Epson 2200. Color output is vivid, but
> I have always been disappointed in its B&W performance, especially
> after seeing well-executed carbon-inkset prints. I am interested in
> converting it to B&W-only. I am quite fond of Moab's Entrada Natural
> paper and plan to keep using it unless someone thinks this is a
> terrible idea.
> 
> I would greatly appreciate it if someone could please help me
understand:
> 
> - What is the best low-to-medium-hassle inkset I should start with? I
> have a flatbed scanner but no colorimeter or density meter, and would
> prefer not to purchase either. I am willing to do some experimentation
> to profile my printer but would be delighted with a reasonably good
> canned profile.
> 
> - Is there a reasonably-priced (not new retail) alternative to the
> 2200 that would enable me to use a significantly better inkset? I
> would consider getting a second printer on the used market if the 2200
> would mean too many compromises. On the other hand I am happy to stick
> with the 2200 if it will let me use a reasonably good inkset.
> 
> Many thanks!
> 
> Mark


Hi Mark:  I have been using MIS UT7 inks in my 2200 for several years.
Nice prints, no clogs, even if I let the printer sit unused for
several weeks. Paula
>

Like Mark, I too am looking for the best possible Black & White
quality attainable from a 2200 (or I'll consider an upgrade). 

Currently I use the epson uc inkset and have been trying out the QTR
rip & a few papers but primarily Moab Entrada Bright (as opposed to
Natural for the extra bit of punch I seem to get from a whiter base). 

I must say that without having other inksets to compare to, I think
the quality is really good, but as an experienced old-time darkroom
printer, I know it could be still better. 

I originally opted for the UC & QTR because I wanted to be able to use
the same printer for both col and B&W. And again, like Mark, I wanted
a low hassle solution.

Now I am interested in the more recently introduced baryta papers like
Ilford Gold Fibre Silk which are more reminiscent of the old darkroom
fibre papers, but because the paper has a 'semi gloss' surface sheen,
with my current UC/2200 setup I am getting 'gloss differential' or
'bronzing' or whatever that 'solarised' appearance is called when you
angle the print to the light (particularly a top/back light). 

With the help of some ddg group members I have just tried some Premier
PrintShield and it helps a great deal, but it's a bit of a pain to
spray (especially indoors in these cold northern climes).
I don't know if a different inkset would be all I need?

I am willing to dedicate the 2200 (or upgrade) to get the "ultimate"
B&W quality. Or, like I said, upgrade. So many people have their
favourite brands that they are loyal to, that it's hard to find a
definitive review - MIS, Cone, Epson, HP,....

I hope this question is close enough to join the thread. If you think
not, let me know, & I'll post a new topic (I will post on QTR group too).

Thank you,
Frank

>... I too am looking for the best possible Black & White
> quality attainable from a 2200 (or I'll consider an upgrade). 


What's best, of coures, is very dependent on subjective factors and 
preferences.

I assume there are very good MIS and Piezo options.  There are also 
new OEM printer offerings that can do all you're looking for.

> I ... have been trying out the QTR
> rip & a few papers but primarily Moab Entrada Bright 
>(as opposed to Natural for the extra bit of punch 
> I seem to get from a whiter base).

The brighteners (OBAs) give a "punch," but they are normally dyes 
that will fade, making the paper tone and image warm up.  I use 
brightened paper now and like its looks, but I worry about how that 
yellowing paper will affect the impression of quality down the road.

> Now I am interested in the more recently introduced 
> baryta papers like Ilford Gold Fibre Silk ...

So, you'll need matte and glossy compatible inks.  

How important is it to have the PK and MK in the printer at the same 
time?  

> ... I am getting 'gloss differential' or 'bronzing' ...

There are almost always reflective artifacts on glossy papers.  The 
use of a gloss optimizeer (Glop) helps.  Some inksets are better than 
others, but they almost all can be helped by a coating -- either glop 
while printing or Print Schield spray.

The glossy prints also have trouble with "pizza wheel" marks.

>... indoors in these cold northern climes ...

You may want glop in your inkset.  It helps.

> I don't know if a different inkset would be all I need?

That or just step into an existing system with a new printer that is 
up and running.

The standard UT14 and a cheap 1400 would probably the the easiest 
route -- variable tones, matte and glossy without changing inks, and 
glop installed.  
See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/UT14.pdf 


>... to get the "ultimate" B&W quality.

For me, matte paper and carbon would be the ultimate, but the search 
for the ultimate is never ending, and different for different people.

I'm currently printing with mostly Eboni-6, and I like monotone 
hextone inkset approach.  (See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-
6.pdf)  

But, for better tone, stability, and paper flexibility reasons I and 
several others are testing several new HP PK dilution approaches.  
This can make matte and glossy inksets that can vary between HP 
neutral-cool and carbon warm.  
See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf 
But these would only be for people who like to get into the inks like 
we used to get into darkroom processes.


> ... it's hard to find a definitive review - MIS, Cone, Epson, 
HP,....


They can all be very good.  There are too many variables to say one 
is the "ultimate."  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

> The standard UT14 and a cheap 1400 would probably the the easiest 
> route -- variable tones, matte and glossy without changing inks, and 
> glop installed.  
> See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/UT14.pdf 

Paul, do you recommend the UT14 here (on a new Epson 1400 printer)
rather than, say, UT7 in the existing 2200 because the UT14 inkset has
a gloss optimizer and UT7 does not?

Thanks!

Mark

"mark_aiken" <maiken@...> wrote:
>
> > The standard UT14 and a cheap 1400 would probably the the easiest 
> > route -- variable tones, matte and glossy without changing inks, 
> > and glop installed.  
> > See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/UT14.pdf 
 
> Paul, do you recommend the UT14 here (on a new Epson 1400 printer)
> rather than, say, UT7 in the existing 2200 because the UT14 inkset has
> a gloss optimizer and UT7 does not?

The 1400 is a newer printer with smaller drop size, and the UT14 is a 
newer inkset, with what I think include a better combination of inks. 
I've abandoned the Ut2/7 sepia because it has too much color in it for 
my current lightfastness targets.  I also think high gamut toners are 
harder for people to profile.  So, overall, I think the Ut14 in a 1400 
is probably a better way to do as long as you don't need the sepia 
tone.  To get the most out of it, being able to use Create ICC-RGB is 
recommended.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I have been using MIS UT-3d with a 2200.  With minimal tweaking  
(actually, none), and virtually no understanding of what is going on  
cartridge by cartridge, I have produced very nice results on both  
matte and glossy papers.

It is really, really, REALLY, nice to be able to do glossy or matte  
prints without changing anything except the "color" profile!!

The mid to high tones strike me as more subtle than I get from the 3- 
MK (three pure black) version of the R1800, although I'm very fond of  
the latter, too.

Since you seem to have the 2200 already, I can't see why you would  
want to replace it at this point.  For B&W prints up to 11x17 it is in  
no way inferior in output to the R1800 or the 4880 ("Advanced Black &  
White").

Don't be put off by the apparent complexity of using UT-3d or UT7.  If  
you know how to use color profiles when printing, you know enough to  
get yourself launched.

Paul and others seem to talk more about UT7 than UT-3d, so that might  
be the way to go.  The former will do sepia prints while the latter  
will not, but the former was supposed to be more flexible in the long  
run...

"The new UT-3D inkset takes the concept of the variable-tone inkset to  
the next step in several respects: control along all three Lab axes,  
easier linearization, and automatic monitor matching. At the same time  
it retains the best attributes of the UT2 and UT7 inksets, including  
the highest light fastness of any tested inkset, matte and glossy  
printing without the need to change black inks, and very competitive  
prices."

MYRON



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

I've thought about going with MIS again. On my 2200 I never had any
problems with clogs with the inkset with MIS PRO. The problem was it
involved too much tinkering to get the colors right. As for a
dedicated BW inkset, I'd definitely be interested if 1) it printed on
matte papers noticeably better than QTR with just the Epson UC inks
(black and light gray, along with the colored inks), 2) (and most
important) it printed on glossy and semi-glossy papers with a lack of
bronzing and gloss differential at least comparable to the 2400 and 3800.

Chris Hargens

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Myron Gochnauer
<goch@...> wrote:

>
> I have been using MIS UT-3d with a 2200.  With minimal tweaking  
> (actually, none), and virtually no understanding of what is going on  
> cartridge by cartridge, I have produced very nice results on both  
> matte and glossy papers.
> 
> It is really, really, REALLY, nice to be able to do glossy or matte  
> prints without changing anything except the "color" profile!!
> 
> The mid to high tones strike me as more subtle than I get from the 3- 
> MK (three pure black) version of the R1800, although I'm very fond of  
> the latter, too.
> 
> Since you seem to have the 2200 already, I can't see why you would  
> want to replace it at this point.  For B&W prints up to 11x17 it is in  
> no way inferior in output to the R1800 or the 4880 ("Advanced Black &  
> White").
> 
> Don't be put off by the apparent complexity of using UT-3d or UT7.  If  
> you know how to use color profiles when printing, you know enough to  
> get yourself launched.
> 
> Paul and others seem to talk more about UT7 than UT-3d, so that might  
> be the way to go.  The former will do sepia prints while the latter  
> will not, but the former was supposed to be more flexible in the long  
> run...
> 
> "The new UT-3D inkset takes the concept of the variable-tone inkset to  
> the next step in several respects: control along all three Lab axes,  
> easier linearization, and automatic monitor matching. At the same time  
> it retains the best attributes of the UT2 and UT7 inksets, including  
> the highest light fastness of any tested inkset, matte and glossy  
> printing without the need to change black inks, and very competitive  
> prices."
> 
> MYRON
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

> Myron Gochnauer <goch@...> wrote:

> I have been using MIS UT-3d with a 2200.  With minimal tweaking  
> (actually, none), and virtually no understanding of what is 
> going on cartridge by cartridge, I have produced very nice
> results on both matte and glossy papers.
> ...
> Paul and others seem to talk more about UT7 than UT-3d, ...

There is nothing wrong with the UT-3D inkset on a 2200, particularly 
if the profiles are for papers you like.  The addition of the ability 
to control the Lab A axis makes the UT3D more flexible in that 
respect, but this also ads some complexity for those who do the 
profiling.

> "jhargens2000" <chargens@...> wrote:

> ... As for a dedicated BW inkset, I'd definitely be interested 
> if 1) it printed on matte papers noticeably better than QTR 
> with just the Epson UC inks ...

Either the UT7 or UT3D inkset will print more smoothly than the OEM 
UC K2 inkset -- they have lighter inks and do not use high gamut 
color inks.

> 2) (and most important) it printed on glossy and semi-glossy 
> papers with a lack of bronzing and gloss differential at 
> least comparable to the 2400 and 3800.

I think the MIS B&W offerings are better with respect to reflective 
artifacts than the OEM inksets you mention.  It's been a while since 
I saw any comparisons, however.  The use of glop or a spray is needed 
for much more improvement, and the spray does a better job than glop 
in my experience.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I've been using UT-3D (with photo black installed) in R220 printing on 
Iford gold fibre silk and have been happy with the results.  I havent' 
seen any pizza wheel track on glossy prints.  I understand the desire 
to be able to switch back and forth between matte and glossy, but at 
this point, I want to simplify everything, one printer, one inkset, one 
paper.  I can't remember which curve I used, but I used QTR create icc 
utility and printfix pro to develop icc.  It can stand to be tweaked a 
bit since the curve I used (From Paul Roark's site) assumes matte black 
on glossy.  I will figure it out sometime...

I just bought a used 2200 off Craigslist last week for cheap and intend 
to switch over to UT-3D with photo black.

I'm glad that this discussion of the UT-3d inkset came up. It's been a
while since I've considered putting in a dedicated BW inkset into the
2200. I've been thinking about buying a 3800 for color and BW--and
still am--but I really don't want the 2200 to go to waste. (I can't
sell it because I removed the pizza wheels...wouldn't get much
anyway.) Further, I have a whole set of clean empty 2200 carts, from
my MIS PRO days, waiting to be refilled. I could probably get into
UT-3D for a bit over $100. At one point, I was also checking out the
HP 8750 for BW printing on glossy/satin, and fiber gloss. The quality
of the prints on HP paper is supposed to be very good, but the
drawback is that you HAVE to use HP paper, or some other swellable
paper, to guarantee you'll get the projected 70 or so years of
fade-free print life, and, of course, you also need to keep your
prints stored archivally or behind glass. And watch out for moisture.

Chris Hargens

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

>
> > Myron Gochnauer <goch@> wrote:
> 
> > I have been using MIS UT-3d with a 2200.  With minimal tweaking  
> > (actually, none), and virtually no understanding of what is 
> > going on cartridge by cartridge, I have produced very nice
> > results on both matte and glossy papers.
> > ...
> > Paul and others seem to talk more about UT7 than UT-3d, ...
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the UT-3D inkset on a 2200, particularly 
> if the profiles are for papers you like.  The addition of the ability 
> to control the Lab A axis makes the UT3D more flexible in that 
> respect, but this also ads some complexity for those who do the 
> profiling.
> 
> > "jhargens2000" <chargens@> wrote:
> 
> > ... As for a dedicated BW inkset, I'd definitely be interested 
> > if 1) it printed on matte papers noticeably better than QTR 
> > with just the Epson UC inks ...
> 
> Either the UT7 or UT3D inkset will print more smoothly than the OEM 
> UC K2 inkset -- they have lighter inks and do not use high gamut 
> color inks.
> 
> > 2) (and most important) it printed on glossy and semi-glossy 
> > papers with a lack of bronzing and gloss differential at 
> > least comparable to the 2400 and 3800.
> 
> I think the MIS B&W offerings are better with respect to reflective 
> artifacts than the OEM inksets you mention.  It's been a while since 
> I saw any comparisons, however.  The use of glop or a spray is needed 
> for much more improvement, and the spray does a better job than glop 
> in my experience.  
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

I just signed up for this list and came immediately to this message, cheers. I too am ready to convert my aging 2200 to a greyscale only printer. The information I have gathered from reading this list has been a great help, thanks to all !!
Looks like I'm going the UT-3d way. It may be a week or two but I'll let you know it works.
thanks again

I print with a 2400 using the C6 inkset,which mix myself. It prints a little warm on unbrightened papers but I like the results. The  independence from Epson control is nice.

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

>
> I just signed up for this list and came immediately to this message, cheers. I too am ready to convert my aging 2200 to a greyscale only printer. The information I have gathered from reading this list has been a great help, thanks to all !!
> Looks like I'm going the UT-3d way. It may be a week or two but I'll let you know it works.
> thanks again
>