Digital BW, The Print

After a year of struggle, I am giving up on getting a 2200 to run with a MIS UT7 CFS. On the rare occasions when I briefly get all 7 channels working, prints are very good indeed. But the next day a channel is gone, and once I get it running, another channel has dropped out. I've decided to go to individual refillable MIS carts, so that pulling a cart doesn't mean disturbing its neighbors. I was going to fill the empty carts with the UT7 inks, but on second thought I will adopt Paul's new C-6 setup, using MIS Base. 

Any recomendations on the 7th channel? Paul's recipe uses the M dilution twice. However profiling from scratch in QTR will be easier for me if I don't do that. I'm planning to fill it with base. An alternative would be using the sepia toner from the UT7 inkset.  

--John Wilton

Not an answer to the 7th channel question

I would not recommend MIS refillable carts for 2200 - I think they still sell the sponge variety. I had a lot of problems with these carts and UT7. Better buy spongless carts - virtually all of the ones on ebay are spongless with a self-resetting chip.  I bought mine from inkjetcart.us (same price or cheaper than ebay). I run them in 2100/2200 with UT7.  I print very little  and printer sits idle most of the time, but have very few clog problems. The other advantage of self-resetting carts is that you can refill them in printer which again reduces clogging.  Maybe MIS have finally moved over to spongeless, then it is OK, but I would definitely avoid MIS if they still sell carts with sponge.

I have not used MIS CFS (nor any other CFS),  but again I believe that there are much better designs around. I understand that currently the best version is the CFS with dampers (instead of full-fledged carts) as sold by Jon Cone, Inkrepublic, inkjetcart.us and others.  

Didzis 



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

>
> After a year of struggle, I am giving up on getting a 2200 to run with a MIS UT7 CFS. On the rare occasions when I briefly get all 7 channels working, prints are very good indeed. But the next day a channel is gone, and once I get it running, another channel has dropped out. I've decded to go to individual refillable MIS carts, so that pulling a cart doesn't mean disturbing its neighbors. I was going to fill the empty carts with the UT7 inks, but on second thought I will adopt Paul's new C-6 setup, using MIS Base. 
> 
> Any recomendations on the 7th channel? Paul's recipe uses the M dilution twice. However profiling from scratch in QTR will be easier for me if I don't do that. I'm planning to fill it with base. An alternative would be using the sepia toner from the UT7 inkset.  
> 
> --John Wilton
>

Not an answer to the 7th channel question

I would not recommend MIS refillable carts for 2200 - I think they still sell the sponge variety. I had a lot of problems with these carts and UT7. Better buy spongless carts - virtually all of the ones on ebay are spongless with a self-resetting chip.  I bought mine from inkjetcart.us (same price or cheaper than ebay). I run them in 2100/2200 with UT7.  I print very little  and printer sits idle most of the time, but have very few clog problems. The other advantage of self-resetting carts is that you can refill them in printer which again reduces clogging.  Maybe MIS have finally moved over to spongeless, then it is OK, but I would definitely avoid MIS if they still sell carts with sponge.

I have not used MIS CFS (nor any other CFS),  but again I believe that there are much better designs around. I understand that currently the best version is the CFS with dampers (instead of full-fledged carts) as sold by Jon Cone, Inkrepublic, inkjetcart.us and others.  

Didzis 



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

>
> After a year of struggle, I am giving up on getting a 2200 to run with a MIS UT7 CFS. On the rare occasions when I briefly get all 7 channels working, prints are very good indeed. But the next day a channel is gone, and once I get it running, another channel has dropped out. I've decded to go to individual refillable MIS carts, so that pulling a cart doesn't mean disturbing its neighbors. I was going to fill the empty carts with the UT7 inks, but on second thought I will adopt Paul's new C-6 setup, using MIS Base. 
> 
> Any recomendations on the 7th channel? Paul's recipe uses the M dilution twice. However profiling from scratch in QTR will be easier for me if I don't do that. I'm planning to fill it with base. An alternative would be using the sepia toner from the UT7 inkset.  
> 
> --John Wilton
>

> I would not recommend MIS refillable carts for 2200 - 
> think they still sell the sponge variety....
>  I bought mine from inkjetcart.us 

I just took delivery of a set from www.inkjetcarts.us and they appear to be the typical spongeless types.  I have not tested them.  I, too, am dusting off my 2200 to test Eboni-6 or C-6 variants for use in wide format K2 and K3 printers.


...

> > Any recomendations on the 7th channel? Paul's recipe uses 
> >the M dilution twice.

I'm going to start with the Eboni-6 dilutions -- 30, 18, 9, 6, and 2.  The Carbon-6 dilution ratios have not worked will in K3 printers using the Epson driver due to the M and C dilutions being too far off the printer driver's assumptions.  With QTR this is not an issue, but I think there are situations where the Epson driver is needed.  The problem is also not an issue for K2 printers, but I may move to a K3 24".

(Note that MIS does not sell the Eboni-6 base by itself, as far as I know.)

> An alternative would be using the sepia toner from the UT7 inkset.  

I dropped that mix from the inksets newer than UT7 because it's weak in terms of lightfastness and other issues.  It looks great, but consider it a color ink, and not composed of particularly tough ones at that.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

"ragarecords" <raga@...> wrote:

A few more thoughts came to mind on the issues you raised.

> ... I am giving up on getting a 2200 to run with a MIS UT7 CFS...

Was the ink level of the CFS kept above the level of the print head?  The problems you report sound like they could be caused by the system syphoning the ink back into the tanks because they are lower than the head.

>... I will adopt Paul's new C-6 setup ...
> 
> Any recomendations on the 7th channel? Paul's recipe uses 
> the M dilution twice. However profiling from scratch in QTR 
> will be easier for me if I don't do that.

It's true that QTR's standard single partition profiling can't handle 2 inks of the same density.  However, often smoothness can be increased if there are multiple, overlapping channels and partitions.  I typically do this by having separate profiles and running them together with the sliders.  I think it might be easier to treat some of the inks as toners in QTR.  This would allow quicker re-linearizing.  I have not tested this approach, but it ought to be workable.  

Note that the Epson driver does some of this automatically.  That is, you have 3 color channels and a separate gray channel with the K2 and K3 machines.  So, if the inkset is made to work with the Epson driver, that plus QTR's Create ICC gives a very simple, very smooth output.  I think having a system that can run with the Epson driver is an important attribute of any inkset.  I'm working with a person whose image is mostly a perfectly smooth gradient, and the Epson driver with QTR's ICC is producing the smoothest, best image of any approach I've tested.  

With respect to using the Epson driver, when I set up the Y=EZY carbon approach for the 2400, the 13.5% (equivalent) density of the EZ ink actually produced a better print than a very light carbon in the Y position.  That Y position is, in effect, crossed over to the black as are the other color channels.  So, the EZ density, which is what I found long ago worked best if there is only a single density midtone in a C88 type quad setup, also may work best for the Y position in a hextone or higher system when it is run all the way to the black cross-over.  So, using this density in the Y position is someting I'm going to explore.

The 220 "R2" system was the "EZ" system for hextone printers -- that is, used the least number of different densities and ran very well with the Epson driver with no separate profiles at all.  This system used only 2 midtone densities -- equivalent to the cyan channel of Eboni-6 (30% and 9%).  In the R2 setup the ligher midtone is used for Y, LM, and LC, and the darker midtone is used in the C and M positions.  The standard Eboni-6 dilutions (30, 18, 9, 6, & 2) print lighter than optimum with the Epson driver.  It may be that increasing the average densities would work better if the Epson driver is used.  On the other hand, the R2 system did not quite give totally dotless highlights if examined with a loupe.  So, at least one ligher ink for that position might improve the system.  But the R2 approach was about simplicity.

At any rate, what I've found is that, QTR profiling issues aside, having multiple inks of the same density gives results with about the same advantages as having inks of different densities, as long as there are enough light and dark inks in the mix. For example, if the system shows some microbanding in the midtones, a duplicate midtone ink running an additional jet there will help just as much as having one that is slighly different in density.  So, having multiple inks of the same density may give smoothness with more simplicity than having lots of different densities.  The profiles just have to be set up correctly.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks for the info on spongeless from inkjetcarts.us; I've ordered a set.

MIS is driving me crazy by shipping two types of base ordered with the same part number. They both have the same part number printed on the label  (UC BASE-PT) which of course differs from their online part number (ESC-BASEPT-UC). Both say on the label "Ink color is: Base". Just above that, one says "AMBER" and the other "UC Base". The first is very very slightly amber colored, the other completely clear. I wonder if they are interchangeable for mixing with Eboni? Anyway I mixed a C-6 set with the clear version.

<< . . .  but I may move to a K3 24". -Paul>>

With 7600s going for next to nothing these days, it's hard to remain faithful to my 7500. But she makes such beautiful prints! I did replace the LM and LLC channels in her K4+ setup with base. I'll delay going to C-6 because of ink inventory and investment in profiling.

"ragarecords" <raga@...> wrote:

> ...
> MIS is driving me crazy by shipping two types of base ordered 
> with the same part number...

They've had a variety of bases.  The one used for the UT inks (aka glop) is amber and has an ammonia smell.  The one that is more generic is clear with no smell.

> I wonder if they are interchangeable for mixing with Eboni?

I found none of their then-current bases good for Eboni.  The one I chose did not used to be sold by MIS separately.  Nor did then sell the UT base separately.  I've recommended that they start selling these bases, but I have not heard whether they are.

> Anyway I mixed a C-6 set with the clear version.

It might be warmer and rougher than the actual Eboni-6 (or C6) based inks.

> << . . .  but I may move to a K3 24". -Paul>>

> With 7600s going for next to nothing these days, it's hard 
> to remain faithful to my 7500. But she makes such beautiful prints!

The 7500 may be the best for coated stock where neutral tone is the target.  The larger dots are cooler - about 1 Lab B unit per printer dot size (i.e., 7600 1 unit warmer than 7500, 1400 1 unit warmer than 7600).  I think the K2-K3 printers are a good compromise, however.  And for Arches uncoated stock, the 7500 is simply too rough for many shots.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

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

> I'm going to start with the Eboni-6 dilutions -- 30, 18, 9, 6, and 2.  The Carbon-6 dilution ratios have not worked will in K3 printers using the Epson driver due to the M and C dilutions being too far off the printer driver's assumptions.  With QTR this is not an issue, but I think there are situations where the Epson driver is needed.  


I've been working on a monotone inkset based on the HP black and C-6 base using the Eboni-6 dilution ratios.  It's running in an 1800 with Eboni for the MK and 100% Vivera Black for the PK and MIS Glop in the GO position.  The goal is a K-6 printer for both matte and glossy.  Tones so far are wonderful with papers allowing for slight variations in neutrality and I'm very happy there.  GLOP laid down with the ink deals with all the bronzing on the F type papers while RC type glossies and semi-glossies get a second coat of all GLOP via QTR and that deals with even the worst bronzing.  Qtr has been quite a challenge although workable with the rough spots in the deep shadows and unsmooth gradients.

The gradients sent me toward Paul Roark's RGB curve control/ICC work flows and there I can get silky smooth gradients but I'm running into a bit of a stump.  Inks are loaded per the 1800, around the color wheel, with the 2% dilution at Y and the  30% dilution in the Cyan position.  What I have been doing is printing a 21 step wedge (adobe rgb) with various rgb ACV curves.  The stepwedge  is printed out of CS3 with "No Color Controls"  and will get me a step wedge roughly where I need it at the 50% point.  I then apply the same ACV to the QTR "raw" file, save it, link it to the stepwedge L*a*b test printout and process it through Qtr's CREATE-ICC-RGB.  I Load the ICC and print the stepwedge out through it: (Photoshop Manages Colors, Appropriate Profile, etc.) for a final check.  What I get is a slight darkening of the stepwedge starting from about the 25% step on up when printing through the ICC.  Where I had decent separation in the stepwege printed with the curve (continuously increasing etc.) it closes up in the shadows when printing through the ICC.  I'm assuming the ICC should replicate the curve and other than a better linearity things should be relatively the same between the stepwedge printed with the curve and the stepwedge printed without the curve but through the ICC.  

I'm questioning the initial printing of the stepwedge with the curve:  No Color Control seems right to me but I may be missing something.

I also wonder if there is some unseen magic going on with the Epson driver and the use of the color inputs to control the relative ink densities.  I have been using individual RGB curves to influence light and dark areas as well as a combined RGB curve deflection starting at about 75% density to help with opening the shadows.

I'm open to any input from Curves users here.  In the meantime I'll work on the QTR approach but something tells me the gradients will just not get as smooth as they can with the Epson driver.

Thanks All.

"robert49brake" <robert49brake@...> wrote:

(This is a corrected posting.)


> > Eboni-6 dilutions -- 30, 18, 9, 6, and 2. ...

> I've been working on a monotone inkset based on the HP black 
> and C-6 base using the Eboni-6 dilution ratios.

Keep in mind that the Eb6 dilution ratios are based on the denser Eboni ink.  As such, your inkset is lighter than the already highly diluted Eboni-6 inkset.

> It's running in an 1800 with Eboni for the
> MK and 100% Vivera Black for the PK and MIS Glop in the GO
> position. The goal is a K-6 printer for both matte and glossy...



I had some HP-based dilute inksets running for a while, and had no problems with them.

> Qtr has been quite a challenge although workable with the rough 
> spots in the deep shadows and unsmooth gradients.

Again, note that you're inkset is lighter than you might have intended.


With respect to the use of Create ICC, you should get results with the ICC that look just like an RGB test file printed with the curve -- except with the ICC you also drag in the Lab L values and thus
linearize the system.

My general discussion of Create ICC-RGB is at 
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Embedding_Photoshop_Curves_in_ICCs.pdf


> I also wonder if there is some unseen magic going on with the Epson driver ...

It's just a dumb black box mapping that maps the same input to the same output,assuming the settings are the same.

I'd recommend that you start simple. Get an inkset that produces a ramp that is fairly good with just the Epson driver before going to an ICC or curves. Don't go with a ramp that has any sharp kinks in it.

I think 1.5 pl printers don't need a 2% PK ink -- way light. Recall again that the Eboni is denser than PK.  The dark ink standard used in matte inksests has been about the same as 30% Eboni.  This dark matte gray is almost as dark as HP PK undiluted.  18% Eboni is close to LK, which is about 30% PK. 

So, I suspect a darker inkset might be better.  The standard MIS dark gray is very close to 50% PK.  The standard light carbon is another 30% dilution (or about 50% standard LK).  These standard dark and light inks give a good result with most Epson printers, but the light end is not quite smooth enough on 3.5 pl printers for some. However, those standard dilutions gives you an idea of what dilutions actually result in a good Epson driver ramp.  Eboni-6 is lighter and works OK, but using Eboni-6 dilutions when you're starting with a PK is going to be very light.  This might work fine, but it might also make the darkest gray to K transition a bit rougher than optimum.  So, I'd consider darkening your mix.



Paul
www.PaulRoark.