Piezo Driver /Cone /MIS FS Inkset Comparison
2002-02-17 by wolfkphotos
I've just completed a comparative test between the Cone inks and the MIS FS inks using the Piezo driver that I thought might be of interest to this forum. I'm shutting down my darkroom and want to see which ink set would be preferable before converting my 1200 to a CIS. I shoot editorial and corporate, and sell the B&W's not as "art" prints, but as the end product of the commissioned shoot. I've compared digital vs wet, and digital is definitely the way to go, hence my comparison of the two ink sets. I originally started with the Cone inks / Piezo driver, and created a number of very lovely 12x12 prints. I then switched to a cart of the MIS FS inks, and reprinted a number of the same prints (3 actually, of varying subject matter), without changing the original files in any way to see just how the MIS inks worked with the Piezo software and paper profiles . I was very pleasantly surprised to see how well the MIS inks worked with the Piezo- a minute tweaking of gamma and contrast, (and I do mean minute) was all it took to align the two ink sets. I then presented the three pairs of prints to the close scrutiny of 4 people (separately, I might add) with wide experience looking at B&W prints, and asked them which they preferred, and why, without informing them what the variables were. We also examined them under three different light sources- daylight, tungsten, and fluorescent to see if metamerism would prove a deciding factor. The results were quite interesting in that they were absolutely unanimous! Everyone picked the same two photos, under all viewing conditions, that were printed with the MIS inks, and everyone, including myself, preferred 1 particular photo as printed with the Cone inks. Objectively, everyone commented that the Cone inks were warmer, shifting to the yellow / greens, while the MIS were colder, leaning towards the purples in the mid to darker tones, more like a traditional fiber print that had been slightly selenium toned. Everyone found the Cone inks far too green under fluorescent lighting, and best when viewed under tungsten, while the MIS inks displayed little color shift under the different light sources. Subjectively, the comments were that the subject matter was what made the difference with the one Cone ink print that everyone preferred, it again being unanimous that that particular image worked best with a warm look. Comments about the other two photos were that the MIS exhibited more "depth" and had more "snap" than the Cone versions. When I explained what it was we had been looking at, and gave my judges a breakdown of the cost differential between the two ink sets, the opinions were again unanimous- none of my judges, and I'm including myself in this group now, could justify the considerable price difference of the Cone inks. All were actually quite shocked that there could be that great a difference in cost, and wondered if perhaps there was some 'secret ingredient' to the Cone inks, and all pressed their noses to the prints again to see if there was something they had missed! On a technical note, I had been experiencing very fine horizontal banding with the Cone inks that no amount of alcohol / windex / genuflection could eliminate. I ran a control strip (21 step gray scale) before and after changing the Cone carts with the MIS, and the banding was evident in both. However, after printing 4 12x12's and then running another control, the banding had cleared! The MIS inks had somehow purged the heads, and to date my jets have stayed clear. I have not included the archival issues between the two ink sets as a criteria since 90% of my work is for current use rather than exhibition or display, but if it can be proven that one ink set is clearly more permanent than the other then this would probably prove to be the determining factor. Regards, Wolf Kutnahorsky.