QTR-Quadtone RIP

Yikes!    I think I have been relying solely on my recollections of results with MIS's black inks for Epson printers. (That is my major interest.  Color is just for "cheap thrills".  Nonetheless, there's no point in starting with absurdly expensive cameras and then being cheap about the material that goes on the wall.)

I have a subscription to Aardenberg's site, but I haven't checked it for a while.

Any idea why Epson's color pigments are significantly more archival than MIS's?  I can't recall the company from whom MIS gets their pigments, but it's a pretty substantial company, as I recall.  I would have expected them, whoever they are, to stay within striking distance of the state of the art. 

Myron

On 2011-05-25, at 8:38 PM, Tom Mallonee wrote:

> Myron,
> 
> I fade tested them and they did pretty miserably against the Epson OEM inks.
> In fact they were doing so poorly against the Epson K3s I pulled them from
> the test assembly after about 1,000 hours to make room for something else.
> Aardenberg's tests of the R800 inks show them to be many times more
> vulnerable to light fading (at least comparatively). The MIS Epson
> "equivalent" inks (especially the color ones) are made with the same base
> and pigments. PK and of course Eboni are extremely stable. 
> 
> I like MIS a lot and do lots of business and testing with them and their
> products, most of which are excellent. Unfortunately the K3 equivalents
> don't live up to their billing. They do look and work great and are of
> course far less expensive, so on balance it doesn't mean you shouldn't use
> them. I'm sure prints from them will still outlive us and most traditional
> color chemical prints as well.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Tom
> 
> Yes, they currently call them "K4 pigment K3 Epson equivalent".
> 
> On 2011-05-24, at 1:05 PM, Tom Mallonee wrote:
> 
> > Myron,
> > 
> > Which MIS inks are you substituting? Are they the MIS K3 "equivalents"? 
> > 
> > Tom Mallonee
> > www.ovimaging.com
> > 
> > And finally: I have stuck with MIS inks because they look good 
> > generally, they are *much* less expensive than Epson's, there are at 
> > least a few independent tests showing good archival properties, *and* 
> > Paul Roark uses/recommends/works-with them. The other full color 
> > alternatives make me a little nervous, since truth-in-advertising is not
> rampant in this business.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
> > 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 



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