QTR-Quadtone RIP

I recently switched my Epson 4880 printer from MIS matt black to photo black.  

I noticed that the MIS photo black showed "gloss differential" -- i.e. deep black showed a slight "haze" in comparison with other tones and colors.

Since the 4880 is sitting next to a 3880, which is using Epson K3 inks, I printed out a page of pure black on the two printers, using Kirkland glossy paper.

The Epson black was plainly glossier (no haze at all).  I measured the densities:  Epson photo black had a density of 2.48, and MIS photo black had a density of 1.97.

The MIS result was surprising.   Even Paul Roark's tweaking of the black-only Epson 1800 (?) to allow printing on glossy papers did noticeably better. (...and this did not use the MK/PK cartridge at all.)

Are my results surprising?  If so, does anyone know what might be going on? If not, is there any alternative to using Epson's pricey ink?  (Archival properties are important!)

Myron

MyronG <goch@...> wrote:

>
>
> I recently switched my Epson 4880 printer from MIS matt black to photo
> black.
>
> I noticed that the MIS photo black showed "gloss differential" -- i.e. deep
> black showed a slight "haze" ..
>
...The Epson black was plainly glossier (no haze at all). ...
>

The short answer:

MIS glossy-compatible inks use a gloss optimizer as the base to stick them
on the paper.  The Epson and HP pigments use a coating on the particle to
stick them down.  The visual difference is, as you've noted, the coated
pigments are glossier.

My longer personal comments:

The MIS gloss optimizer approach also has significant advantages.  The glop
base holds reflective artifacts to a minimum.  See the HP PK plus MIS Gloss
Optimizer (HpGO) I have installed in the 1100:
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/1100-HpGO.pdf

(This may be the best neutral glossy inkset approach I know about for fine
art.  Because it uses MIS R800 Gloss Optimizer as the base and MIS PK, the
components are all available at very competitive prices.  I think HP Z3100
PK pigments have proved themselves to be fine art quality in
Aardengurg-Imaging tests.  See http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/   It's
easy to mix (pour bottles together 2:1 to make an LK density ink).  The 1100
beta has yet to have a single bad nozzle check.  It's my default office
printer left on 24/7.   HpGO will be half of a "Dual Quad" setup on the 7800
next.)

The bottom line for me has been that the MIS approach does very well for
wall display, and the coated approach shines at higher gloss.  The higher
gloss approaches win for cards and snapshots.

If you want super high gloss without the reflective artifacts of the coated
OEM pigments, the Claria & Epson-Noritsu advanced dyes make all the pigments
look bad, in my opinion.
See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/BW-Dye.pdf

So, I've been using a dye PK (Claria or Noritsu [by Epson] and user-diluted
LK in a 1400 for cards.
See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Card-Procedure.pdf &
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-4-Plus.pdf

It's easy to use QTR to print a black only Claria image on Red River
Metallic paper to see the look that has been fun for me lately.  See
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cardshop/scored/66-polar-pearl-metallic-framecard.html


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com




<http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/1100-HpGO.pdf>


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

Myron,

That you measured lower Dmax for MIS than EOM is not s surprise. But it surprised me how much lower. I have used the MIS PK (supposedely Image Specialist ink) and can typically hit Dmax of 2.2 on most PK papers. So you may want to check that you are using the best PK ink limits in your QTR curves.

The difference between Dmax 2.5 and 2.2 is definitely visible side-by-side. But another thing to take into consideration is that if you have a Dmax of 2.5 or more, and your image file has a lot of information in the 95 to 100% shadow range, it will take some really bright lights to open up those deep shadows to the viewing eye. When I print my images for framing and hanging on my wall, I deliberately ratchet down the Dmax to the 2.2 range, even though my system is capable of producing Dmax of up to 2.8 - after GLOP coating. But if you intend to display your images in real bright focused lights, by all means aim for the highest Dmax, because it can make a dramitic difference.

The only 3rd party PK inks to rival Epson PK I am aware of are (1) inkjetfly.com, and (2) some special formulation that I have read Jon Cone has produced for transparencies. Of course Paul Roark has been experimenting with dye based inks that may well eclipse all PKs in Dmax.

Good luck.

Shilesh

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

>
> I recently switched my Epson 4880 printer from MIS matt black to photo black.  
> 
> I noticed that the MIS photo black showed "gloss differential" -- i.e. deep black showed a slight "haze" in comparison with other tones and colors.
> 
> Since the 4880 is sitting next to a 3880, which is using Epson K3 inks, I printed out a page of pure black on the two printers, using Kirkland glossy paper.
> 
> The Epson black was plainly glossier (no haze at all).  I measured the densities:  Epson photo black had a density of 2.48, and MIS photo black had a density of 1.97.
> 
> The MIS result was surprising.   Even Paul Roark's tweaking of the black-only Epson 1800 (?) to allow printing on glossy papers did noticeably better. (...and this did not use the MK/PK cartridge at all.)
> 
> Are my results surprising?  If so, does anyone know what might be going on? If not, is there any alternative to using Epson's pricey ink?  (Archival properties are important!)
> 
> Myron
>

Although this is the QTR group, I was printing with the Epson driver, using ABW and/or black-only.  The ink load seems appropriate.

In fact things are even worse than I reported.  A few hours later I remeasured the black and it had dried further to 1.87 !!   Yikes.

Then, just for the "L" of it I sprayed the print with Krylon "Workable Fixatif", which I often use on matte papers.  On the glossy Kirkland surface it soaks in very little, so a fairly light spray quickly smoothed out.  When it dried, the surface was perfectly glossy, and Dmax measured 2.37.

So the low density I measured was probably entirely a result of the slight "tooth" or "matt-i-ness" of the ink.

This is happening *after* I switched from two years of MK (mostly MIS Eboni) printing with color and ABW.  When changing black inks, I followed the Epson instructions for changing cartridges. It requires a changing "kit" --- empty C, M & Y cartridges. The black position is left empty while the old ink charge is pumped our or drained.  I wonder whether the old matte ink was not fully drained and I am still seeing some of it mixing into the new PK.  If this has happened, things should slowly improve over time.

If anyone else can print a pure black with the Epson driver, using MIS PK ink, and measure the density on Kirkland paper, I would be interested in hearing what your result is.  Epson Premium Glossy would probably be similar.   I printed a letter sized version of the black "purge" image from the MIS website.

For what it is worth,  my lightly-selenium-toned silver prints were/are usually in the range of 2.1-2.2 Dmax, and I have never had a sense that they could be improved by deeper blacks.  Once I get Dmax into that range, improvement seems to depend mostly on subtlety of gradation, for which silver prints from large format negatives are my standards.

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.

Myron


On 2011-05-23, at 4:22 PM, shileshjani wrote:

> Myron,
> 
> That you measured lower Dmax for MIS than EOM is not s surprise. But it surprised me how much lower. I have used the MIS PK (supposedely Image Specialist ink) and can typically hit Dmax of 2.2 on most PK papers. So you may want to check that you are using the best PK ink limits in your QTR curves.
> 
> The difference between Dmax 2.5 and 2.2 is definitely visible side-by-side. But another thing to take into consideration is that if you have a Dmax of 2.5 or more, and your image file has a lot of information in the 95 to 100% shadow range, it will take some really bright lights to open up those deep shadows to the viewing eye. When I print my images for framing and hanging on my wall, I deliberately ratchet down the Dmax to the 2.2 range, even though my system is capable of producing Dmax of up to 2.8 - after GLOP coating. But if you intend to display your images in real bright focused lights, by all means aim for the highest Dmax, because it can make a dramitic difference.
> 
> The only 3rd party PK inks to rival Epson PK I am aware of are (1) inkjetfly.com, and (2) some special formulation that I have read Jon Cone has produced for transparencies. Of course Paul Roark has been experimenting with dye based inks that may well eclipse all PKs in Dmax.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Shilesh
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "MyronG" <goch@...> wrote:
> >
> > I recently switched my Epson 4880 printer from MIS matt black to photo black. 
> > 
> > I noticed that the MIS photo black showed "gloss differential" -- i.e. deep black showed a slight "haze" in comparison with other tones and colors.
> > 
> > Since the 4880 is sitting next to a 3880, which is using Epson K3 inks, I printed out a page of pure black on the two printers, using Kirkland glossy paper.
> > 
> > The Epson black was plainly glossier (no haze at all). I measured the densities: Epson photo black had a density of 2.48, and MIS photo black had a density of 1.97.
> > 
> > The MIS result was surprising. Even Paul Roark's tweaking of the black-only Epson 1800 (?) to allow printing on glossy papers did noticeably better. (...and this did not use the MK/PK cartridge at all.)
> > 
> > Are my results surprising? If so, does anyone know what might be going on? If not, is there any alternative to using Epson's pricey ink? (Archival properties are important!)
> > 
> > Myron
> >.
> 
>  
> 



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

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]

Myron,

I have the MIS PK loaded onto my 4800 - in the Cyan ink position, so I cannot use the Epson driver. But, since I had some old Kikland paper, I decided to use the K only ink limit calibration test. Sure enough, I can confirm your observations exactly. I also get similar results on Ilford Gallery Smooth Gloss paper. 

On my OEM PK 4880, I get Dmax in excess of 2.5

Shilesh



--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Myron Gochnauer <goch@...> wrote:

>
> Although this is the QTR group, I was printing with the Epson driver, using ABW and/or black-only.  The ink load seems appropriate.
> 
> In fact things are even worse than I reported.  A few hours later I remeasured the black and it had dried further to 1.87 !!   Yikes.
> 
> Then, just for the "L" of it I sprayed the print with Krylon "Workable Fixatif", which I often use on matte papers.  On the glossy Kirkland surface it soaks in very little, so a fairly light spray quickly smoothed out.  When it dried, the surface was perfectly glossy, and Dmax measured 2.37.
> 
> So the low density I measured was probably entirely a result of the slight "tooth" or "matt-i-ness" of the ink.
> 
> This is happening *after* I switched from two years of MK (mostly MIS Eboni) printing with color and ABW.  When changing black inks, I followed the Epson instructions for changing cartridges. It requires a changing "kit" --- empty C, M & Y cartridges. The black position is left empty while the old ink charge is pumped our or drained.  I wonder whether the old matte ink was not fully drained and I am still seeing some of it mixing into the new PK.  If this has happened, things should slowly improve over time.
> 
> If anyone else can print a pure black with the Epson driver, using MIS PK ink, and measure the density on Kirkland paper, I would be interested in hearing what your result is.  Epson Premium Glossy would probably be similar.   I printed a letter sized version of the black "purge" image from the MIS website.
> 
> For what it is worth,  my lightly-selenium-toned silver prints were/are usually in the range of 2.1-2.2 Dmax, and I have never had a sense that they could be improved by deeper blacks.  Once I get Dmax into that range, improvement seems to depend mostly on subtlety of gradation, for which silver prints from large format negatives are my standards.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Myron
> 
> 
> On 2011-05-23, at 4:22 PM, shileshjani wrote:
> 
> > Myron,
> > 
> > That you measured lower Dmax for MIS than EOM is not s surprise. But it surprised me how much lower. I have used the MIS PK (supposedely Image Specialist ink) and can typically hit Dmax of 2.2 on most PK papers. So you may want to check that you are using the best PK ink limits in your QTR curves.
> > 
> > The difference between Dmax 2.5 and 2.2 is definitely visible side-by-side. But another thing to take into consideration is that if you have a Dmax of 2.5 or more, and your image file has a lot of information in the 95 to 100% shadow range, it will take some really bright lights to open up those deep shadows to the viewing eye. When I print my images for framing and hanging on my wall, I deliberately ratchet down the Dmax to the 2.2 range, even though my system is capable of producing Dmax of up to 2.8 - after GLOP coating. But if you intend to display your images in real bright focused lights, by all means aim for the highest Dmax, because it can make a dramitic difference.
> > 
> > The only 3rd party PK inks to rival Epson PK I am aware of are (1) inkjetfly.com, and (2) some special formulation that I have read Jon Cone has produced for transparencies. Of course Paul Roark has been experimenting with dye based inks that may well eclipse all PKs in Dmax.
> > 
> > Good luck.
> > 
> > Shilesh
> > 
> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "MyronG" <goch@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I recently switched my Epson 4880 printer from MIS matt black to photo black. 
> > > 
> > > I noticed that the MIS photo black showed "gloss differential" -- i.e. deep black showed a slight "haze" in comparison with other tones and colors.
> > > 
> > > Since the 4880 is sitting next to a 3880, which is using Epson K3 inks, I printed out a page of pure black on the two printers, using Kirkland glossy paper.
> > > 
> > > The Epson black was plainly glossier (no haze at all). I measured the densities: Epson photo black had a density of 2.48, and MIS photo black had a density of 1.97.
> > > 
> > > The MIS result was surprising. Even Paul Roark's tweaking of the black-only Epson 1800 (?) to allow printing on glossy papers did noticeably better. (...and this did not use the MK/PK cartridge at all.)
> > > 
> > > Are my results surprising? If so, does anyone know what might be going on? If not, is there any alternative to using Epson's pricey ink? (Archival properties are important!)
> > > 
> > > Myron
> > >.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

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]

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

To clarify my use of inks, I find MIS carbons -- Eboni and PK, LK, LLK -- to
be excellent.  I'm a B&W guy, so color inks are relevant only to the extent
they are used with the carbon inks.  In my comparative fade testing, the MIS
blended carbon + color inksets did about the same as the Peizo samples I
tested with them.  I switched to OEM Lm in my 7500 some years ago.  See
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/4K+.pdf   But for most casual B&W, the
third party B&W blended inks are good enough, and MIS B&W inks are a good
value.  I think they can fill important gaps in the market.

For my fine art and museum work, I obviously prefer 100% carbon.

After that, for fine art, I prefer HP Z3100 Pk as a pigment for neutral
glossy and very neutral to cool matte prints on almost all popular papers.
 The HP PK dilution with MIS glop to stop bronzing is particularly
interesting.  But the ability to buy OEM Z3100 gray and light gray provides
us with an OEM ink solution for neutral monotone B&W that sets a baseline
for all the others, in my view.  So far, they've run well in the Epson's
I've used them in.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com


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

On 05/26/2011 02:25 AM, Paul Roark wrote:

> After that, for fine art, I prefer HP Z3100 Pk as a pigment for neutral
> glossy and very neutral to cool matte prints on almost all popular papers.
>   The HP PK dilution with MIS glop to stop bronzing is particularly
> interesting.

Paul,

An RC paper that I like to use with my HP Z3xxx printers, the Epson 
Proofing White Semimatt, shows some bronzing. The amount of Vivera gloss 
enhancer used changes it but is not totally removing it. I see it in the 
target patches I print at an angle of reflection but not dead straight. 
In a picture it is less noticeable. Despite that effect I might use it 
as that paper has no FBA content while the white reflectance is quite 
high. Together with the Vivera ink there is very little color shift 
between different light sources.

Could this bronzing be the result of a certain incompatibility of the 
Vivera Gloss Enhancer (and Vivera ink medium) to the Epson paper or do 
you see a more general bronzing effect with Vivera inks on gloss papers 
?  The HP ID Premium RC papers show it less in my experience. Would an 
overprint with MIS glop have another effect or is the bronzing set in 
the ink medium and no extra layer of glop will cure that ? Opinions 
differ on what varnishes etc do to bronzing.

I am also using the CMYK HP Vivera inks in a HP K5400DN Officejet and 
consider a B&W version of an A3+ Officejet model as a next step.  I like 
those models as they have a duplex printing facility, network, are fast, 
easy to change the separate ink carts to a CIS system and the heads can 
replaced if needed. The thermal heads used differ from the Z model heads 
but that has not given any issue so far. Using MIS glop may not be wise 
for dilution in the B&W version but Image Specialists has more up their 
sleeve on ink mediums and gloss enhancer. Could be just the same glob in 
an HP compatible disguise though.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

Ernst,

> ...
> An RC paper that I like to use with my HP Z3xxx printers, the Epson
> Proofing White Semimatt, shows some bronzing.

Epson Semimatte was what I settled on and bought a roll of the last
time I was doing wide format neutral glossy printing.  The Red River
UltraPro Satin may be similar, though brightened.

I was spraying the prints at that time.  I want to do away with spray,
however.  I'm not sure how the HP with glop will scale and print in
wide format yet.  The 7800 is next up for a "Dual Quad" setup that
will have the HP + Glop along with Eboni-4.

I think the bronzing is fairly typical of pigments -- particularly
coated pigments -- on glossy paper.  The last time I used MIS pigments
on glossy paper, they were not free of the artifact either.  So far,
this HP + glop combo, at least in the 1100 and with the papers I've
used, seems to be the most free of the bronzing artifact that I've
seen. (Dyes, of course, still have a huge edge in some respects.)
Right now, I'd probably select Canson Baryta with HP + glop midtones
(not 100%  sure of  the PK yet) as the top contender for  my 7800.

> ... The HP ID Premium RC papers show it less in my experience.

I suspect the companies  are pouring money into a way to solve the problem.

> Would an
> overprint with MIS glop have another effect or is the bronzing set in
> the ink medium and no extra layer of glop will cure that ? Opinions
> differ on what varnishes etc do to bronzing.

I think the use of a gloss optimizer at the time of printing can have
some effect, and a subsequent over-coating can help further.  I was
going that route for  a time but found too many negatives.  The sprays
do a better job and the solvent based ones dry with a harder coating.
I don't  want either step in my workflow.


> I am also using the CMYK HP Vivera inks in a HP K5400DN Officejet and
> consider a B&W version of an A3+ Officejet model as a next step...

> ...The thermal heads ... MIS glop may not be wise
> for dilution in the B&W version ...

The chemistry for thermal heads differs somewhat.  I suspect glop
would not be a good idea in an HP printer.

Have you seen any evidence of  the thermal heads getting hot and not
producing even plain, dense areas?  I've  heard that allegation
regarding the HP printers, but have no experience with such.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hello Myron,

the same effect appears on my ink seperation test charts or whenever i drive the ink limit over a certain level with some papers: beyond a certain total ink level (including PK) the DMax and gloss decreases with increasing total ink amount. I use the UT3D inkset of MIS on an 3880; the PK should be the same you use. 

Tobias 

--- In QuadtoneRIP@...m, "MyronG" <goch@...> wrote:

>
> I recently switched my Epson 4880 printer from MIS matt black to photo black.  
> 
> I noticed that the MIS photo black showed "gloss differential" -- i.e. deep black showed a slight "haze" in comparison with other tones and colors.
> 
> Since the 4880 is sitting next to a 3880, which is using Epson K3 inks, I printed out a page of pure black on the two printers, using Kirkland glossy paper.
> 
> The Epson black was plainly glossier (no haze at all).  I measured the densities:  Epson photo black had a density of 2.48, and MIS photo black had a density of 1.97.
> 
> The MIS result was surprising.   Even Paul Roark's tweaking of the black-only Epson 1800 (?) to allow printing on glossy papers did noticeably better. (...and this did not use the MK/PK cartridge at all.)
> 
> Are my results surprising?  If so, does anyone know what might be going on? If not, is there any alternative to using Epson's pricey ink?  (Archival properties are important!)
> 
> Myron
>

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]

> the same effect appears on my ink seperation test charts or whenever i drive the ink limit over a certain level with some papers: beyond a certain total ink level (including PK) the DMax and gloss decreases with increasing total ink amount. I use the UT3D inkset of MIS on an 3880; the PK should be the same you use. 
> 
> Tobias 
> 
Hmmm.  I haven't used UT3D for quite a while (---major problems with my 2200), but I really don't remember gloss differential or a suspiciously low Dmax on Kirkland glossy paper.  But it's been quite a while, and my skills and judgment keep improving.

Myron



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

> Have you seen any evidence of  the thermal heads getting hot and not
> producing even plain, dense areas?  I've  heard that allegation
> regarding the HP printers, but have no experience with such.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Not at all. I am printing kind of hard edge art for a customer and stack 
several images on a 44" roll in one print run, say 5 feet long. On the 
Z3100 and Z3200. There are no differences between left and right or up 
and down. There is a lot said about thermal head printers that is not 
true in my experience. The total of 12 heads running on my Z models are 
all out of warranty, over a average of 3 years for all I had to replace 
two and the printer told me to replace them.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst

Try: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

Myron,

I certainly have no idea why Epson's pigments are more archival. Or maybe
what's more pertinent is why MIS's are less so. Epson's pigments are claimed
to be "encapsulated" as are other inks, although I remain pretty skeptical
that that fits the "visual" (little people wrapping each pigment particle in
Saran Wrap) since what we're talking about are chemical properties. There
are many color pigments in artwork over the ages that have proven to be
extremely archival, but getting them into a solution and through an inkjet
printer is the rub. 

One thing is for certain: Epson/HP/Canon's ink formulations are as closely
held secrets as nuclear codes. The same is of course true of Kodak's/Fuji's
films and chemical papers. Hmm... If there are any disgruntled Epson
employees lurking here, maybe you could contact Julian Assange for us...

But again, I wouldn't worry, especially if it's for cheap thrills. I make
some color prints for personal use, experimentation and to adorn my friends'
walls - and some have been made with the MIS K3 "equivalent" color inks. My
guess is that they're going to outlast any color photograph made up until
maybe 10 years ago - including dye transfer and Ilfochrome.

Best,

Tom
www.ovimaging.com




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