QTR-Quadtone RIP

Sorry if I am not understanding this maybe someone in here can shed
some light.

If I were to purchase the UTBO set for my R1800 the 3 inks would go in
the K, PK and GLOP position. How is this different then just putting 1
ink in the K position? Since the 3 use the same ink what advantage
does that give me over using just one since they are the same color? 

I guess I am not understanding this. I want to convert my r1800, but I
want to be able to get a really nice smooth black and white.  Without
grays in the mix or a diluted version (for lighter blacks) I don't
understand how the UTBO will do a good job of this.

Please help me understand what exactly the UTBO is doing.

>If I were to purchase the UTBO set for my R1800 the 3 inks 
>would go in the K, PK and GLOP position. 

>How is this different then just putting 1 ink in the K position? 

The reason 3 inks were used in the 1800 "UTBO" or "3-MK" process is that 3
were needed to suppress banding.

> I want to convert my r1800, but I want to be able to get 
> a really nice smooth black and white. Without
> grays in the mix or a diluted version (for lighter blacks) 
> I don't understand how the UTBO will do a good job of this.

You can see the smoothness comparison -- to a certain extend -- in the scan
at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800-Image-Structure.pdf  (My main
write-up of the approach is at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800.htm )

If color printing is not needed, there is another 100% carbon approach --
Eboni-6 -- that will also work in the 1800.  See
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6.pdf  

I have not make any profiles for Eboni-6 and the 1800.  You can see from
page 9 of the Eboni-6 PDF that the dilute inks can, obviously, make an
extremely smooth print.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks Paul. I recall you saying that you don't suggest the EB6 inks
for the R1800 in here somewhere. Why is that?

Shane

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> 
> >If I were to purchase the UTBO set for my R1800 the 3 inks 
> >would go in the K, PK and GLOP position. 
> 
> >How is this different then just putting 1 ink in the K position? 
> 
> The reason 3 inks were used in the 1800 "UTBO" or "3-MK" process is
that 3
> were needed to suppress banding.
> 
> > I want to convert my r1800, but I want to be able to get 
> > a really nice smooth black and white. Without
> > grays in the mix or a diluted version (for lighter blacks) 
> > I don't understand how the UTBO will do a good job of this.
> 
> You can see the smoothness comparison -- to a certain extend -- in
the scan
> at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800-Image-Structure.pdf  (My main
> write-up of the approach is at
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800.htm )
> 
> If color printing is not needed, there is another 100% carbon
approach --

> Eboni-6 -- that will also work in the 1800.  See
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6.pdf  
> 
> I have not make any profiles for Eboni-6 and the 1800.  You can see from
> page 9 of the Eboni-6 PDF that the dilute inks can, obviously, make an
> extremely smooth print.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

The Eboni-6 inks are a little warmer in the 1.5 pl printers.  However, I've
found that with appropriate profiling I've been able to hold the Lab B of
Premier Art Smooth BW down to Lab B = 1.  So, I assume that could also be
done on the 1800.  

 

Carbon-6 is not recommended for the 1800 due to its surfactant (Photo Flo)
being too weak.  However, stronger surfactants take care of that banding
problem.  Eboni-6 has a good one that works well with the 1.5 pl printers.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

  _____  

From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of linuxgangster
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 2:04 PM
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Quick question about UTBO (R1800)

 

Thanks Paul. I recall you saying that you don't suggest the EB6 inks
for the R1800 in here somewhere. Why is that?

Shane

--- In QuadtoneRIP@ <mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
"Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> 
> >If I were to purchase the UTBO set for my R1800 the 3 inks 
> >would go in the K, PK and GLOP position. 
> 
> >How is this different then just putting 1 ink in the K position? 
> 
> The reason 3 inks were used in the 1800 "UTBO" or "3-MK" process is
that 3
> were needed to suppress banding.
> 
> > I want to convert my r1800, but I want to be able to get 
> > a really nice smooth black and white. Without
> > grays in the mix or a diluted version (for lighter blacks) 
> > I don't understand how the UTBO will do a good job of this.
> 
> You can see the smoothness comparison -- to a certain extend -- in
the scan
> at http://www.paulroar
<http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800-Image-Structure.pdf>
k.com/BW-Info/R1800-Image-Structure.pdf (My main
> write-up of the approach is at
http://www.paulroar <http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800.htm>
k.com/BW-Info/R1800.htm )
> 
> If color printing is not needed, there is another 100% carbon
approach --
> Eboni-6 -- that will also work in the 1800. See
> http://www.paulroar <http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6.pdf>
k.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6.pdf 
> 
> I have not make any profiles for Eboni-6 and the 1800. You can see from
> page 9 of the Eboni-6 PDF that the dilute inks can, obviously, make an
> extremely smooth print.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

 



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

Paul,

Thanks for clearing that up. I really like the option of going with  
the Eboni-6 for my R1800. However, I do have a few questions on that  
(sorry I am asking so many!).

1) Is it easy to profile these inks? I don't  have any sort of  
calibration unit. The only thing I have is a scanner. I plan to use  
rag based papers or maybe Barayta style papers (if they will work with  
this ink).

2) I see the eboni-6 uses 6 inks. What position would I put everything  
in on my R1800? What about the 2 extra's left? Do I just put blanks  
carts in there, or will I need something to stop it from drying out  
the heads of the printer?

Thanks,
Shane Jordan



Quoting Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>:

> The Eboni-6 inks are a little warmer in the 1.5 pl printers.  However, I've
> found that with appropriate profiling I've been able to hold the Lab B of
> Premier Art Smooth BW down to Lab B = 1.  So, I assume that could also be
> done on the 1800.
>
>
>
> Carbon-6 is not recommended for the 1800 due to its surfactant (Photo Flo)
> being too weak.  However, stronger surfactants take care of that banding
> problem.  Eboni-6 has a good one that works well with the 1.5 pl printers.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of linuxgangster
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 2:04 PM
> To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Quick question about UTBO (R1800)
>
>
>
> Thanks Paul. I recall you saying that you don't suggest the EB6 inks
> for the R1800 in here somewhere. Why is that?
>
> Shane
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@ <mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
> "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >If I were to purchase the UTBO set for my R1800 the 3 inks
>> >would go in the K, PK and GLOP position.
>>
>> >How is this different then just putting 1 ink in the K position?
>>
>> The reason 3 inks were used in the 1800 "UTBO" or "3-MK" process is
> that 3
>> were needed to suppress banding.
>>
>> > I want to convert my r1800, but I want to be able to get
>> > a really nice smooth black and white. Without
>> > grays in the mix or a diluted version (for lighter blacks)
>> > I don't understand how the UTBO will do a good job of this.
>>
>> You can see the smoothness comparison -- to a certain extend -- in
> the scan
>> at http://www.paulroar
> <http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800-Image-Structure.pdf>
> k.com/BW-Info/R1800-Image-Structure.pdf (My main
>> write-up of the approach is at
> http://www.paulroar <http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800.htm>
> k.com/BW-Info/R1800.htm )
>>
>> If color printing is not needed, there is another 100% carbon
> approach --
>> Eboni-6 -- that will also work in the 1800. See
>> http://www.paulroar <http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6.pdf>
> k.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6.pdf
>>
>> I have not make any profiles for Eboni-6 and the 1800. You can see from
>> page 9 of the Eboni-6 PDF that the dilute inks can, obviously, make an
>> extremely smooth print.
>>
>> Paul
>> www.PaulRoark.com
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Hi Shane,

>  I really like the option of going with the Eboni-6 for my R1800. ...

> 1) Is it easy to profile these inks?

One reason I did not set up the 1800 with Eboni-6 is that its Epson driver
is weird -- not amenable to control via curves due to the red and blue inks,
and no built-in cross-overs between light and dark inks.  

QTR would clearly be the best way to go.  However, the default QTR profiling
system does not, I suspect, have enough overlaps in its curves to hide the
banding that the 1800 is famous for.  So, custom QTR profiles would probably
be needed.  That may be more than you want to take on.

>... I plan to use rag based papers

OK.

> or maybe Barayta style papers (if they will work with this ink).

No, they don't work without a spray.  I don't recommend them.

 
> 2) I see the eboni-6 uses 6 inks. What position would I put everything 
> in on my R1800? What about the 2 extra's left? Do I just put blanks 
> carts in there, or will I need something to stop it from drying out 
> the heads of the printer?

I'm not sure what the best arrangement is either.  The lightest inks are the
most neutral, with LK being the warmest.  One question would be whether to
leave the 3-MK option.  I'd probably look at that first.  It might even be
interesting to be able to use the sliders to blend the approaches.  The more
I think about it, it might be interesting to see how Arches HP (uncoated)
might do with a blended approach.

My 1800 is in storage now.  I'll give some thought to setting it up and
seeing what might work, but no guarantees.  If others are interested in this
approach, let me know.

Paul 
www.PaulRoark.com

Interested? Resounding YES! You know me. :-)

Denis 

> 
> My 1800 is in storage now.  I'll give some thought to setting it up and
> seeing what might work, but no guarantees.  If others are interested
in this

> approach, let me know.
> 
> Paul 
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

I'll see if MIS will load the carts.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

____

>Interested? Resounding YES! You know me. :-)

>Denis 

_____

> > My 1800 is in storage now. I'll give some thought to setting it up and
> > seeing what might work, but no guarantees. 

> > If others are interested in this approach, let me know.
> 
> > Paul 
> > www.PaulRoark.com
>

Any word on this? I am interested as well. Right now I am still trying
to decide between this, GQ2 and piezography set.

Shane

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> 
> I'll see if MIS will load the carts.  
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> ____
> 
> >Interested? Resounding YES! You know me. :-)
> 
> >Denis 
> 
> _____
> 
> > > My 1800 is in storage now. I'll give some thought to setting it
up and

> > > seeing what might work, but no guarantees. 
> 
> > > If others are interested in this approach, let me know.
> > 
> > > Paul 
> > > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
>

Shane,

> Any word on this? I am interested as well. Right now I am still
> trying to decide between this, GQ2 and piezography set.

MIS is sending me Eboni-6/1800 carts today.  Using my 1400 as a test bed, I
think I have an ink arrangement and QTR profile structure that will work.
For the 1800 I'll double up on the Y and LM (lightest inks) and keep the
3-MK as is (MK, PK, and GL).  This should allow us to overcome the 1800's
banding problems.

The trick with the 1.5 PL printers is to hold down the increase in Lab B
from the carbon.  By avoiding the middle dilution (warmest) inks (LC and M),
I've been able to hold Lab B on Premier Art Smooth BW to about 1 in the
midtones.  

It's rather interesting how the arrangement evolved.  I started out seeing
how much I could do with just the lightest ink -- Eb6-Y -- and Eboni MK.
They are the "coolest" of the carbon inks.  Eb6-Y on PA BW goes to about Lab
B = 0 and just stays there.  So, I used as much of that as I could.  Then I
added only those inks needed to close the gap between this Y and the Eboni
so as to make a totally smooth print.  LM, the next lightest ink goes to a
max of about Lab B=1 on PA BW.  I tried to go from that straight to Eboni,
but on close inspection I could still see some roughness.  So, I sprinkled
in just enough Eb6-C to hide that.  So, there are basically 4 dilutions of
Eboni-6 used -- that is, it ended up a classic "quad."  

On the 1800, I'll just stick redundant Y and LM inks in the Blue and Red
spots to hide the banding and keep my preferred tonality.  (For those who
want greater warmth Eboni LC and M could be installed, and profiles can be
written to use more of the warmer inks.  Paper choice, of course, is the
main factor in tone control with Eboni-6.)  I'm hopeful on the 1900 banding
will not be a problem, and we'll be able to use the large number of ink
positions to do something interesting.  

At any rate, aside from using the dilutions that MIS already has on the
self, this effort started with a clean piece of paper.  What's rather
interesting is that the final result looks a whole lot like the original
PiezoBW quad arrangement -- 2 very light inks, then a large dilution gap to
a rather dark C and MK.  

I've pulled my 1800 out of storage and will set it up with this Eboni-6
arrangement.  With the 3-MK still in it, I'll be curious how the QTR sliders
work to allow further tone control.  Needless to say, at least on the 1400,
the Eb6-quad setup makes extremely smooth prints.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:

> MIS is sending me Eboni-6/1800 carts today.  Using my 1400 as a test bed, I
> think I have an ink arrangement and QTR profile structure that will work.
> For the 1800 I'll double up on the Y and LM (lightest inks) and keep the
> 3-MK as is (MK, PK, and GL).  This should allow us to overcome the 1800's
> banding problems.

There is interest in this approach from this quarter but my day job is in high season with 
barely enough time to follow these discussions.  Come winter though...

Paul, 

Thanks so much for doing this. I am eager to see how well this works
out. Once you get it going and working well, will I be able to call
inksupply.com and have them send me the same thing you did?

I think this will be a great option for R1800 users. Right now the
only good option for smooth b&w (of this level) is with the K7 set.
Everyone says to go buy a r1400, but I have 2 r1800 and rather use it
then buying another printer.



--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> Shane,
> 
> > Any word on this? I am interested as well. Right now I am still
> > trying to decide between this, GQ2 and piezography set.
> 
> MIS is sending me Eboni-6/1800 carts today.  Using my 1400 as a test
bed, I
> think I have an ink arrangement and QTR profile structure that will
work.
> For the 1800 I'll double up on the Y and LM (lightest inks) and keep the
> 3-MK as is (MK, PK, and GL).  This should allow us to overcome the
1800's
> banding problems.
> 
> The trick with the 1.5 PL printers is to hold down the increase in Lab B
> from the carbon.  By avoiding the middle dilution (warmest) inks (LC
and M),
> I've been able to hold Lab B on Premier Art Smooth BW to about 1 in the
> midtones.  
> 
> It's rather interesting how the arrangement evolved.  I started out
seeing
> how much I could do with just the lightest ink -- Eb6-Y -- and Eboni MK.
> They are the "coolest" of the carbon inks.  Eb6-Y on PA BW goes to
about Lab
> B = 0 and just stays there.  So, I used as much of that as I could.
 Then I
> added only those inks needed to close the gap between this Y and the
Eboni
> so as to make a totally smooth print.  LM, the next lightest ink
goes to a
> max of about Lab B=1 on PA BW.  I tried to go from that straight to
Eboni,
> but on close inspection I could still see some roughness.  So, I
sprinkled
> in just enough Eb6-C to hide that.  So, there are basically 4
dilutions of
> Eboni-6 used -- that is, it ended up a classic "quad."  
> 
> On the 1800, I'll just stick redundant Y and LM inks in the Blue and Red
> spots to hide the banding and keep my preferred tonality.  (For
those who
> want greater warmth Eboni LC and M could be installed, and profiles
can be
> written to use more of the warmer inks.  Paper choice, of course, is the
> main factor in tone control with Eboni-6.)  I'm hopeful on the 1900
banding
> will not be a problem, and we'll be able to use the large number of ink
> positions to do something interesting.  
> 
> At any rate, aside from using the dilutions that MIS already has on the
> self, this effort started with a clean piece of paper.  What's rather
> interesting is that the final result looks a whole lot like the original
> PiezoBW quad arrangement -- 2 very light inks, then a large dilution
gap to
> a rather dark C and MK.  
> 
> I've pulled my 1800 out of storage and will set it up with this Eboni-6
> arrangement.  With the 3-MK still in it, I'll be curious how the QTR
sliders
> work to allow further tone control.  Needless to say, at least on
the 1400,

> the Eb6-quad setup makes extremely smooth prints.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

>...
>Everyone says to go buy a r1400, but I have 2 r1800 ... 

The 1400 is smoother than the 1800, but the big jump is to 1.5 pl drops.  I
think the 1800 is a probably still a good old workhorse.  

Today (with the 1400 still) I used the QTR slider to combine the cooler
Black Only and the smoother Eboni-6 profiles.  It ends up giving tone and
smoothness controls for yet more options.  This 1400 is amazing -- simply
the best prints I've seen.  Among other things it looks like Arches Hot
Press (uncoated water color paper) can reach photo quality for display.
It's smooth enough, at least on the 1400, and can hit a 1.6 dmax with
multiple Eboni MKs on the 1800.  (I sure hope Epson makes a 1.5 pl large
format printer.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I would love to get a R1400, but don't have the cash (or permission
from the wife) to buy one :)

If anyone here is interested in trading there r1400 for a r1800 + some
cash ($100) let me know. I have 2 r1800, one that is barely used and
only has had original epson carts in it.


I thought the R1800 was also using 1.5 pl drops....

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> >...
> >Everyone says to go buy a r1400, but I have 2 r1800 ... 
> 
> The 1400 is smoother than the 1800, but the big jump is to 1.5 pl
drops.  I
> think the 1800 is a probably still a good old workhorse.  
> 
> Today (with the 1400 still) I used the QTR slider to combine the cooler
> Black Only and the smoother Eboni-6 profiles.  It ends up giving
tone and
> smoothness controls for yet more options.  This 1400 is amazing --
simply

> the best prints I've seen.  Among other things it looks like Arches Hot
> Press (uncoated water color paper) can reach photo quality for display.
> It's smooth enough, at least on the 1400, and can hit a 1.6 dmax with
> multiple Eboni MKs on the 1800.  (I sure hope Epson makes a 1.5 pl large
> format printer.)
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

>...
>I thought the R1800 was also using 1.5 pl drops....

Yes, but Epson the 1800/800 was Epson's first 1.5 pl printer, I believe.
Judging from my samples, they've learned a bit more about building 1.5 pl
machines now.  The 1400 I have, for example, is the first 1.5 pl printer
I've seen that is able to lay down a one-ink black only without serious
microbanding.  

But, I'm using the 1400, in part, as a test bed for the 1800.  There I'll
just need more inks to hide the microbanding.  Still, the 3MK is not quite
as smooth as the singe MK on the 1400.  But, I expect much of what I'm
talking about with the 1400 to be doable on the 1800.  I'll let you know as
soon as I have carts for the 1800 to test these things on it.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul, do you foresee doing something similar to what you're
experimenting with the Eboni-6 and the R1800, but with the Carbon-6
approach? Apparently there was an issue of PhotoFlo not being strong
enough or something but another member apparently had some good luck
using Ecover RinseAid and NatureClean Rinse Agent, obtained in a
grocery store.

It's be cost effective to be able to mix one's own dilutions, I would
think.

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
> >...
> >I thought the R1800 was also using 1.5 pl drops....
> 
> Yes, but Epson the 1800/800 was Epson's first 1.5 pl printer, I believe.
> Judging from my samples, they've learned a bit more about building
1.5 pl
> machines now.  The 1400 I have, for example, is the first 1.5 pl printer
> I've seen that is able to lay down a one-ink black only without serious
> microbanding.  
> 
> But, I'm using the 1400, in part, as a test bed for the 1800.  There
I'll
> just need more inks to hide the microbanding.  Still, the 3MK is not
quite
> as smooth as the singe MK on the 1400.  But, I expect much of what I'm
> talking about with the 1400 to be doable on the 1800.  I'll let you
know as

> soon as I have carts for the 1800 to test these things on it.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

> Paul, do you foresee doing something similar to what 
> you're experimenting with the Eboni-6 and the R1800, 
> but with the Carbon-6 approach? 
> Apparently there was an issue of PhotoFlo not being 
> strong enough or something but another member apparently 
> had some good luck using Ecover RinseAid and NatureClean 
> Rinse Agent, obtained in a grocery store.

> It'd be cost effective to be able to mix one's own dilutions, ...

Mixing one's own Carbon-6 is definitely cost effective, but, as you noted,
my early experiments on the 1800 seemed to indicate Photo Flo was not a good
enough surfactant or wetting agent.  The 1.5 pl printers are more demanding
than the 3 pl models.

I do think finding a good generic base for the 1.5 pl printers is something
we ought to continue to look at.  Right now I'll concentrate on seeing what
Eboni-6 can do on the 1800 (and 1900 after that).  Eboni-6 is the "bird in
the hand" that we know works in at least the 1400.  

After Eboni-6 is set up and clearly working well in the 1800 and 1900, then
I'll probably be more interested in finding a generic version of the base.  

I have some Dow samples.  The only one I've tried does print smoothly in the
1800.  However, these are not easy to buy, are of unknown safety, and are
also of unknown archival quality.  We need to find a wetting agent that is
widely available, safe and, perhaps ideally, evaporates totally or is
otherwise of known archival quality.  I'm sure there are people on this list
or otherwise potentially interested who know a lot more about such things
than I do.    

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

Seems like a very reasonable way to proceed. There does seem to be
some interest here how as to this would all apply to the R1800,
there's still a pretty sizable user base for this printer out there.
And, as I recall your saying in a previous thread, carts are more
readily available for the R1800 and there's no issue with the hassle
of auto-reset carts (as in the 1400, I think you said?).

Thanks so much for your dedicated work on this frontier,

Paul

> Mixing one's own Carbon-6 is definitely cost effective, but, as you
noted,
> my early experiments on the 1800 seemed to indicate Photo Flo was
not a good
> enough surfactant or wetting agent.  The 1.5 pl printers are more
demanding
> than the 3 pl models.
> 
> I do think finding a good generic base for the 1.5 pl printers is
something
> we ought to continue to look at.  Right now I'll concentrate on
seeing what
> Eboni-6 can do on the 1800 (and 1900 after that).  Eboni-6 is the
"bird in
> the hand" that we know works in at least the 1400.  
> 
> After Eboni-6 is set up and clearly working well in the 1800 and
1900, then
> I'll probably be more interested in finding a generic version of the
base.  
> 
> I have some Dow samples.  The only one I've tried does print
smoothly in the
> 1800.  However, these are not easy to buy, are of unknown safety,
and are
> also of unknown archival quality.  We need to find a wetting agent
that is
> widely available, safe and, perhaps ideally, evaporates totally or is
> otherwise of known archival quality.  I'm sure there are people on
this list
> or otherwise potentially interested who know a lot more about such
things

> than I do.    
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Paul! Just remembered something re: a wetting agent!

I'm a pretty serious black and white darkroom photographer and for
years used PhotoFlo when washing film after development. But recently
I heard of something better, leaves fewer spots, and is much more
effective. It's called "LFN", which stands for Low Foam Non-Ionic.
It's made by Brandess and I got mine from B & H Photo of New York. I
seriously suggest you take a look at this product. I've come to much
prefer it over Photo-Flo, in fact I tossed my remaining stock of that.
If you go to www.photo.net and search on LFN you'll find more
information it.

I hope this helps The Cause!

Paul
 
> > It'd be cost effective to be able to mix one's own dilutions, ...
> 
> Mixing one's own Carbon-6 is definitely cost effective, but, as you
noted,
> my early experiments on the 1800 seemed to indicate Photo Flo was
not a good
> enough surfactant or wetting agent.  The 1.5 pl printers are more
demanding
> than the 3 pl models.
> 
> I do think finding a good generic base for the 1.5 pl printers is
something
> we ought to continue to look at.  Right now I'll concentrate on
seeing what
> Eboni-6 can do on the 1800 (and 1900 after that).  Eboni-6 is the
"bird in
> the hand" that we know works in at least the 1400.  
> 
> After Eboni-6 is set up and clearly working well in the 1800 and
1900, then
> I'll probably be more interested in finding a generic version of the
base.  
> 
> I have some Dow samples.  The only one I've tried does print
smoothly in the
> 1800.  However, these are not easy to buy, are of unknown safety,
and are
> also of unknown archival quality.  We need to find a wetting agent
that is
> widely available, safe and, perhaps ideally, evaporates totally or is
> otherwise of known archival quality.  I'm sure there are people on
this list
> or otherwise potentially interested who know a lot more about such
things

> than I do.    
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

I am that user and it certainly is not the Holy Grail. It's sketchy at
best. They contain biodegradable ingredients and I am wondering if
it'll biodegrade in my printer and CIS... ;-) Not a good prospect.

Banding is "almost" completely gone. Probably with better profiling
and ink limits it wculd work.

Paul: have you tried diethylene glycol to replace Photo Flo? Seems it
is was the Ink Specialist do use in the Eboni and color inks accorfing
to their MSDS. It ain't good for wine but might be for ink. :0)

Denis

>
> Paul, do you foresee doing something similar to what you're
> experimenting with the Eboni-6 and the R1800, but with the Carbon-6
> approach? Apparently there was an issue of PhotoFlo not being strong
> enough or something but another member apparently had some good luck
> using Ecover RinseAid and NatureClean Rinse Agent, obtained in a
> grocery store.
> 
> It's be cost effective to be able to mix one's own dilutions, I would
> think.
>

>Paul: have you tried diethylene glycol to replace Photo Flo? ...

No, it's on the toxic side.  Propylene glycol is the more friendly version
and one of the ingredients of Photo Flo 200.  (Kodak's professional Photo
Flo 600 uses the toxic version.)

I'm not sure if it's a wetting agent as such, but it has other good
characteristics for inks.  The fact that it was in Photo Flo is probably a
good thing.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

The 1400 is an excellent machine.  Today, I saw that Epson had the
1400 (Refurb) on sale for $179.00 with free shipping.  If interested,
see at
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=63072161
or at http://tinyurl.com/6pyebv

Uncle Dannie

Question for all, especially Roy Harrington and Paul Roark.

I have an Epson 9600 UC K2 which I would like to dedicate to BW  
printing only. I prefer printing on the newer Baryta-coated semigloss  
papers like Lexjet's Sunset Fibre Elite, and Sunset Fibre Satin  
surfaces. Not so interested in any matte papers.

Which approach would you take to the conversion? I should add that I  
am only basically familiar with QTR, and have no in-house ability to  
create profiles and generate or modify curves. Would I be getting in  
over my head, or is there a fairly straight forward solution I can  
implement?

Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance for your time.

Philipp

www.rittermann.com
Member ASMP





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

Hi Philipp,

For the 9600 the only inksets that have profiles ready to use are the
UC K2 and Cone's K7.  The K7 inks are not compatible with photo papers,
and the UCs with photo black can be used they produce a fair amount of
bronzing and gloss-differential.  Because of this there aren't any profiles
for photo papers with the UC inks.

So while its a great printer all the good solutions will involve custom work
unless you can find someone who has already done some of this.

Roy

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Philipp Scholz Rittermann
<philipp@...> wrote:

> Question for all, especially Roy Harrington and Paul Roark.
>
> I have an Epson 9600 UC K2 which I would like to dedicate to BW
> printing only. I prefer printing on the newer Baryta-coated semigloss
> papers like Lexjet's Sunset Fibre Elite, and Sunset Fibre Satin
> surfaces. Not so interested in any matte papers.
>
> Which approach would you take to the conversion? I should add that I
> am only basically familiar with QTR, and have no in-house ability to
> create profiles and generate or modify curves. Would I be getting in
> over my head, or is there a fairly straight forward solution I can
> implement?
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks in advance for your time.
>
> Philipp
>
> www.rittermann.com
> Member ASMP
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Hello Paul,

I've abandonned for the time being trying to find a strong enough 
surfacant for C-6 in the R1800. I'm all out of Eboni... ;-)

Color CIS is back on and still confused and not happy with color 
printing. BW is my way. ;-)

I am very interested in your "Eb6-quad setup" for the R1800. Ready to 
order some more Eboni from MIS and might as well include some E-6 in 
the order.

Have you built QTR profiles for it yet? Or could share some of the 
1400 QTR profiles to adapt for the R1800 (by doubling up some inks?) ?

I do not want to retire my R1800 the one sample I have is very good, 
paper feeds very well, never had any clogs etc. Just love the "little" 
thing.

Many thanks,

Denis

Paul Roark wrote:

...At any rate, aside from using the dilutions that MIS already has on 
the
self, this effort started with a clean piece of paper. What's rather
interesting is that the final result looks a whole lot like the 
original
PiezoBW quad arrangement -- 2 very light inks, then a large dilution 
gap to
a rather dark C and MK.

I've pulled my 1800 out of storage and will set it up with this Eboni-
6
arrangement. With the 3-MK still in it, I'll be curious how the QTR 
sliders
work to allow further tone control. Needless to say, at least on the 
1400,
the Eb6-quad setup makes extremely smooth prints.

>...
> I am very interested in your "Eb6-quad setup" for the R1800.

So far MIS has not sent any supplies to me for this.  It'll probably be the
week of Sept. 22 before I'll be able to do anything on this.

> Ready to order some more Eboni from MIS and might as well include 
> some E-6 in the order.

> Have you built QTR profiles for it yet?

No.

> Or could share some of the 1400 QTR profiles to adapt for the 
> R1800 (by doubling up some inks?) ?

Yes the ones that use, in effect, a "quad" setup have that name in them.

> I do not want to retire my R1800 ...

There appear to be a lot of those out there.  So, I will get to it if MIS
can supply the goods.  Even if they can't the cheap CISs seem to be readily
available.  

However, at this point the quality of the 1800 with my best guess workflow
is uncertain.  On the other hand, it has so many inks, some workflow should
be able to smooth it out.  As you may have noticed with some other post, I'm
leaning toward multiple, concurrently used (via the QTR ability to use up to
3 profiles at once) partitioning sequences. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the quick answer. 

When you say "Yes the ones that use, in effect, a "quad" setup have 
that name in them."

do you mean you have some QIDF files for the 1400 in an Eboni-6 Quad 
setup? Where can they be found?

I'd be willing to plunge and buy 4oz. bottles and test on the R1800. 

Many thanks again,

Denis



--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> 
wrote:

> > Or could share some of the 1400 QTR profiles to adapt for the 
> > R1800 (by doubling up some inks?) ?
> 
> Yes the ones that use, in effect, a "quad" setup have that name in 
them.

Denis,

> When you say "... the ones that use, in effect, a "quad" setup 
> have that name in them."... Do you mean you have some QIDF files 
> for the 1400 in an Eboni-6 Quad setup? Where can they be found?

Yes, they are qidf files for the 1400 that only use 4 inks.  I can send them
off list.

I probably should not have used the name "quad" -- wasn't thinking of the
confusion that might cause.  I just used the maximum amount of Y and LM (the
lightest inks) to keep the Lab B down.  Then, of course, the 100% eboni and
a little bit of C (the darkest dilution) was needed to smooth the shadows.
So, 4 inks turned out to be very good on the 1400, and I'm hoping it'll work
on the 1800.  

Due to the banding tendency of the 1800, I'm assuming we'll have to use more
dilute inks than 4.  Whether one would want the full Eboni-6 or a subset may
vary.  Again, the hard part is to get a 100% carbon print that can pass for
"neutral-cool."  Warmer is relatively easy.  For that, however, I can see
some wanting to put in the full inkset so the warmer midtones could be used.

> I'd be willing to plunge and buy 4oz. bottles and test on the R1800. 

The Y, LM and C, as well as enough Eboni for not only the MK position but
also at least one other would be needed.  I intend to try and keep the 3-MK
workflow as is.  On some papers multiple MK channels can reach a higher
dmax, and many really like the 3MK workflow.  It's another profile that
would then be able to be mixed with the dilute Eboni-6 profile(s) to get
intermediate results.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

"I've abandonned for the time being trying to find a strong enough
surfacant for C-6 in the R1800. I'm all out of Eboni... ;-)"

Would you mind telling us what surfacants you,ve tried? I'm looking for 
one myself because I can't find Photo-Flo 200 locally.

Thanks,
Scott

I've tried mixing 50-50 bio dishwasher rinse agents:

Nature Clean and Ecover.

I'm not sure if it did better than Photoflo having never tested
Photoflo 200.

Maybe Photoflo 600 would work better (toxic it is) ?

But now with Eboni-6 reportedly working very fine on the R1800 I see
no reason to try playing with exotic wetting agents. Even less so with
dishwasher products. ;-)

See Paul's latest work:

http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6-1800.pdf

Denis

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming"
<scott_now_coming@...> wrote:

>
> "I've abandonned for the time being trying to find a strong enough
> surfacant for C-6 in the R1800. I'm all out of Eboni... ;-)"
> 
> Would you mind telling us what surfacants you,ve tried? I'm looking for 
> one myself because I can't find Photo-Flo 200 locally.
> 
> Thanks,
> Scott
>

If you're looking for another wetting agent
(surfactant) There is one made by Edwal
called LFN. You can find it on line. However,
I've not used it for this application.

On Sep 8, 2008, at 5:58 PM, the_des_bois wrote:

> I've tried mixing 50-50 bio dishwasher rinse agents:
>
> Nature Clean and Ecover.
>
> I'm not sure if it did better than Photoflo having never tested
> Photoflo 200.
>
> Maybe Photoflo 600 would work better (toxic it is) ?
>
> But now with Eboni-6 reportedly working very fine on the R1800 I see
> no reason to try playing with exotic wetting agents. Even less so with
> dishwasher products. ;-)
>
> See Paul's latest work:
>
> http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6-1800.pdf
>
> Denis
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming"
> <scott_now_coming@...> wrote:
>>
>> "I've abandonned for the time being trying to find a strong enough
>> surfacant for C-6 in the R1800. I'm all out of Eboni... ;-)"
>>
>> Would you mind telling us what surfacants you,ve tried? I'm  
>> looking for
>> one myself because I can't find Photo-Flo 200 locally.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Scott
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I don't know if this is relevant to the discussion, by LFN has been  
around for many years and has always been touted as "low foam".  (An  
old timer/pro told students at Ryerson in Toronto in the late '70's  
that "LFN" stood for "Low Foam Non-ionic". He thought it was great  
stuff in film developers.)

Given problems with bubbles and foam in cartridges, that might be a  
helpful property, assuming it works in inks the way it works in  
developer.

Yes, some well-respected photographers recommended using it in the  
developer too, to cut down on foam. It was supposed to be "non-ionic"  
has hence not affect the chemical action of the developer. It did seem  
to help with Kodak HC110, but other wetting agents might have worked,  
too. I never tried any others in the developer,  although photo  
students were often warned to be careful to rinse all the PhotoFlo off  
the reels before loading another batch of film.

Myron

On 09 Jan, 2008, at 8:17 AM, Paul Jones wrote:

> If you're looking for another wetting agent
> (surfactant) There is one made by Edwal
> called LFN. You can find it on line. However,
> I've not used it for this application.
>
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 5:58 PM, the_des_bois wrote:
>
> > I've tried mixing 50-50 bio dishwasher rinse agents:
> >
> > Nature Clean and Ecover.
> >
> > I'm not sure if it did better than Photoflo having never tested
> > Photoflo 200.
> >
> > Maybe Photoflo 600 would work better (toxic it is) ?
> >
> > But now with Eboni-6 reportedly working very fine on the R1800 I see
> > no reason to try playing with exotic wetting agents. Even less so  
> with
> > dishwasher products. ;-)
> >
> > See Paul's latest work:
> >
> > http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-6-1800.pdf
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming"
> > <scott_now_coming@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> "I've abandonned for the time being trying to find a strong enough
> >> surfacant for C-6 in the R1800. I'm all out of Eboni... ;-)"
> >>
> >> Would you mind telling us what surfacants you,ve tried? I'm
> >> looking for
> >> one myself because I can't find Photo-Flo 200 locally.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Scott
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> 



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

I was going to mention LFN also but others have already done so. Yes,
I do believe it stands for Low-Foam non-Ionic. I use it now when
developing film, have quit using Photo-Flo as it tended to foam and
get 'skanky', ie it would actually begin to grow in some odd sort of
way. Perhaps others can explain this. Anyway, I much prefer it over
PhotoFlo, but not sure if this is germane to this inkjet cartridge
issue. Just throwing it in for what it's worth...

Paul

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "scott_now_coming"
<scott_now_coming@...> wrote:

>
> "I've abandonned for the time being trying to find a strong enough
> surfacant for C-6 in the R1800. I'm all out of Eboni... ;-)"
> 
> Would you mind telling us what surfacants you,ve tried? I'm looking for 
> one myself because I can't find Photo-Flo 200 locally.
> 
> Thanks,
> Scott
>