Digital BW, The Print

As some time ago my 2200 died I'm now having an 3800+OEM inks+QTR as my printing workhorse. I'm happy with the results but the feeling that it could be even better keeps nagging me... ;-)

So, I'd like to experiment with a cheap 1.5pl printer and then in Europe the logical choice seems to an Epson 285. My key criteria are:
- matte & glossy
- as neutral as possible (within reason)
- as smooth as possible (within reason) 

Own profiling and mixing is not a problem. Use of Epson driver and tone control are irrelevant.

Pauls UT14, 1400NC2 and NC3 pdfs is great reading. Alle of them having there own appeal, with UT14 and NC2 probably most suitable for me. However, going through list of UT14 inks, they do not seem too different from the UT3D inks that are stuck om my shelf after the 2200 died. In addition I have already bulk K3 inks for 3800.

So an obvious setup would look like

MK
PK 
standard (=warm) LK + LLK  
cool UT3D-LK + UT3D-LLK 


But perhaps 3 greys is an overkill for a 1.5pl printer and I could consider:
MK
PK
warm LK or LLK (which of the two?)
cool UT3D-LK or UT3D-LLK (idem)
UT3D lab-A toner (LK density)
GLOP

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Joost

"Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> wrote:
>
>... I'd like to experiment with a cheap 1.5pl printer ...
> My key criteria are:
> - matte & glossy
> - as neutral as possible (within reason)
> - as smooth as possible (within reason) 
> ...
> So an obvious setup would look like
> 
> MK
> PK 
> standard (=warm) LK + LLK  
> cool UT3D-LK + UT3D-LLK 

I don't think the UT3D LK and LLK would be cool enough to offset the standard, warm LK and LLK, if that is what you're looking for.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

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

> I don't think the UT3D LK and LLK would be cool enough to offset the standard, warm LK and LLK, if that is what you're looking for.


Hi Paul,

Thanks for your reply. Frankly, I'm a bit puzzled. You have designed the warm and cool toners (LK and LLK) of the UT3D such that they can offset one another, as I have used successfully in my 2200. So if I just would re-use those inks that should be fine. Or not?

Maybe I'm wrongfully assuming that the warm UT3D toners (LK and LLK) are similar (perhaps even identical) to the standard OEM LK and LLK. 

Where do I miss the point?

Thanks,

Joost

"Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> wrote:

>...I'm a bit puzzled. You have designed the warm and cool 
> toners (LK and LLK) of the UT3D such that they can offset
> one another, as I have used successfully in my 2200. 
> So if I just would re-use those inks that should be fine. Or not?

Maybe I'm not understanding how you'll want to use the inks.  The 3D LK and LLK are basically neutral versions of normally warm LK and LLK.  The idea of the 3D versions was to have as little impact on the very low target gamut target area of the 3D inkset as possible.  I did not intend then to be toners.  

If you've been using them successfully already, then by all means continue to do so.
 
> Maybe I'm wrongfully assuming that the warm UT3D toners 
>(LK and LLK) are similar (perhaps even identical) to the 
> standard OEM LK and LLK. 

The 3D inkset was made as a hextone inkset -- no LK or LLK.  It worked OK in the 2200 with a neutralized LK, but even that tended to limit the effectiveness of the inkset with the Epson driver. (Frankly, I don't think it ever worked as intended in the 2400 if the Epson driver was used, and one point of the inkset was to make an inkset an RGB color profiling software could control.)

At any rate, the 3D LK and LLK are neutralized versions of LK and LLK. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 

> At any rate, the 3D LK and LLK are neutralized versions of LK and LLK. 

That's for clarifying, this is where I was mistaken. Not really an issue though as for the moment I can continue to use the UT-3D warm LK/LLK I have in stock. If I run out, I would guess I can easily use standard warmer K3 LK/LLK and adjust the tone in QTR. 

Three remaining questions:
1) Are the densities of UT3D and K3 LK/LLKs comparable?
2) In a 1.5pl printer does a K3 setup (MK+LK+LLK) make any sense or is that overdone and would a K2 setup perform equally well in practice?
3) Again in a 1.5pl printer, what would be preferable: MK+LK or MK+LLK?If I look to your comments on the 1400-NC3 approach, I would expect MK+LLK.

Thanks,

Joost

"Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> wrote:
> ...
> Three remaining questions:
> 1) Are the densities of UT3D and K3 LK/LLKs comparable?

Yes, the 3D Lk and LLK position inks match reasonably closely the densities of standard LK and LLK.

(Note that the light and dark M and C position ink densities match each other but are not the LK-LLK densities; they are darker.  Roughly, the LK is 30% PK, whereas the standard MIS UT-C matches 30% MK.)

> 2) In a 1.5pl printer does a K3 setup (MK+LK+LLK) make any 
> sense or is that overdone and would a K2 setup perform 
> equally well in practice?

It's a trade-off.  The LK is light enough that the vast majority of users will think it is very smooth.  However, the addition of an LLK density ink can make the print smoother, but few would ever see any difference.  I use PK BO for my brochures, and I doubt anyone (perhaps aside from people on this forum) would ever notice the tiny dots.  

There are trade-offs: more inks can give more smoothness, but one loses the spots for other uses and there may be more artifacts on glossy papers.

> 3) Again in a 1.5pl printer, what would be preferable: 
> MK+LK or MK+LLK?If I look to your comments on the 
> 1400-NC3 approach, I would expect MK+LLK.

Part of what influenced me in the NC3 is that the Eb6-Y is far more stable in the suspension than the denser mixes.  It's actually much lighter than needed.  In UT14 the light inks I opted for are the UT-LC density -- quite dark.  In part that is due to that density working better with the Epson driver in default settings.  Again, there are trade-offs.

I think in terms of smoothness, the MK-LK might be very good, but MK-LLK would also work fine.  In the NC2, I used LK (in part due to the HP-PK being available in Lk and that costing less per print than if someone used HP LLK).

Hope this helps.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" 

> > 2) In a 1.5pl printer does a K3 setup (MK+LK+LLK) make any 
> > sense or is that overdone and would a K2 setup perform 
> > equally well in practice?
> 
> It's a trade-off.  The LK is light enough that the vast majority of users will think it is very smooth.  However, the addition of an LLK density ink can make the print smoother, but few would ever see any difference.  I use PK BO for my brochures, and I doubt anyone (perhaps aside from people on this forum) would ever notice the tiny dots.  
> 
> There are trade-offs: more inks can give more smoothness, but one loses the spots for other uses and there may be more artifacts on glossy papers.
> 
> > 3) Again in a 1.5pl printer, what would be preferable: 
> > MK+LK or MK+LLK?If I look to your comments on the 
> > 1400-NC3 approach, I would expect MK+LLK.
> 
> I think in terms of smoothness, the MK-LK might be very good, but MK-LLK would also work fine.  In the NC2, I used LK (in part due to the HP-PK being available in Lk and that costing less per print than if someone used HP LLK).

Thanks again Paul. From your reply it's obvious that I just should start with installing the complete UT3D ink set and run some experiments with QTR using different ink combinations and see for myself. I plan to do so. Simmer holiday is coming up, so I do not know when (still have to be the 285), but I'll keep you posted on my findings. 
 
> Hope this helps.

Sure it does!!

Joost

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" > > >[..] in a 1.5pl printer, what would be preferable:  MK+LK or MK+LLK?

> > I think in terms of smoothness, the MK-LK might be very good, but MK-LLK would also work fine. 

> Thanks again Paul. From your reply it's obvious that I just should start with installing the complete UT3D ink set and run some experiments with QTR using different ink combinations and see for myself. 

Paul,

In the meanhwile I've got an R285 installed with the UT-3D inks and did first experiments. First findings:

MK+LK+LLK: extremely smooth, with the naked eye on very close distance no grain visible whatsoever, with a loupe some barely visible. Just superb, to the level one can consider it to be overdone.

MK+LK: as expected coarser in the higlights, to my taste just a bit too coarse. 

MK+LLK: prefectly smooth highlights, midtones just a bit grainy 

Of the two 2K combos, I prefer the MK+LLK one. However, I've the feeling I could sacrifice some smoothness in the highlights to improve the midtones. I guess that would require a density between that of LK (~33%) and  LLK (~16%). As I do have some base, I could create a "optimal" mix. 

Have you by chance ever looked into the optimum LK/LLK density for such a 2K setup on a 1.5pl printer?

Joost