Hi John,
I actually switched my inks from one of the piezotone inksets, so I can't say anything really, about a comparison to the original UT-2 set, but I will say the quality of my results equals if not bests the set I was using previously, since the only control available for those inks was provided in the form of a pre-made ICC profile, that in my case printed too dark.
So, although the inks are excellent, I was constantly having to fiddle with correction curves, and never did get to a point where my results were consistent, (I didn't have a densitometer yet, and couldn't create a satisfactory curve in QTR to control them). Needless to say, I'm very happy with the results I'm getting now. FWIW The highlights are as smooth as I was hoping they'd be.
As for curves, I'm in the process of building/fine tuning mine right now, and would be more than willing to make them available for download on my website, as soon as I've got them done in the next couple days. Right now, I'm only using Hahnemuhle Photo Rag (188 gsm), Epson Premium Glossy, Epson Semi-Gloss and Illuminata Photo Cotton (Cool tone), so I'm not sure if any of them would be of much help. Let me know though (I'm hoping to get some more variety in the next few weeks, and if you'd like I can let you know when I've got curves for them).
I just picked up an x-rite 32R and am just learning how to use it. Unfortunately, the built in display apparently only shows the density to the hundredths place and the additional accuracy (thousandths) is only available if you've got it hooked up to a computer?!, so I'm having to tweak the results slightly in a trial and error process.
In the meantime, I should think you'd have pretty good results, even without using the scanner, by just opening one of the UT-2 curves for the paper you're using, and add the fourth gray ink with a value somewhere in the range of 6-8%, then building the new curve. I should think the linearization would still be pretty close. You could at least try it and see if you like the results. I haven't tried this as I'm generally building my curves from scratch. But, I probably should to see if my results are worth the extra effort or not.
Best regards,
Eric
www.ericashworth.net
On Sep 10, 2005, at 10:18 AM, John Vitollo wrote:
I just changed my 1280 from MIS' CFS to the spongeless carts using UT 2 inks. I also
switched the sepia ink to the lightest full-spectrum gray ink... but used the warmer ink
(UT- FS-Y).
I was suprised how light the ink is compared to the next lightest gray ink. Do you find an
improvment in the highlights as the orginal 1280/ UT2 ink set did an admiral job to begin
with.
I'm going to build a few profiles using a scanner as I don't have a densitomer yet. But I was
wondering if you could email me any profiles with the new light gray to get me in the
ballpark?
I'm on a Mac.
Best,
John V.
SPONSORED LINKS
Digital wedding photography Learn digital photography Digital photography college Digital photography Digital photography web site Digital photography course
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS