Archival Ink and View Camera Conference

**John Flavell** · 14-Nov-2005, 15:52

Kirk and all:

Information on all of these things would be helpful. As with some of the resonses, it seems to me there is just too much out there and not ALL of it can be good.

One slight problem I have with conferences is they tend to be far away, adding to the expense of trying out "the something new".

**Brian Ellis** · 15-Nov-2005, 06:24

I don't attend these conferences so I can't be there but I'd be happy to send you some prints if you like. I do, however, share some of Paul's reservations about the value of such a presentation. It's one thing to do something like this with darkroom prints as Bruce Barlow did, where the only equipment/material variables are developer and paper and the same person is doing all the printing on the same equipment. It's a whole different deal with digital where there are probably hundreds of different equipment/software variables and then on top of that you have different people of different skill levels doing the printing.

**Kirk Gittings** · 15-Nov-2005, 09:01

"It's a whole different deal with digital where there are probably hundreds of different equipment/software variables"

That is exactly the reason to do this. No one on there own could possibly try out all the possibilities or usually even see examples of the variables, but if they see wonderful prints using XYZ then they know what is possible and that maybe what they are using or what they are doing does not measure up.

Recently I ordered some samples of prints of the new Cone 7 ink cartridges, because I assumed that the samples would show what was possible with the new inks, rip etc. If It had been superior to what I could do then I would explore it further. It wasn't and I could tell that from their prints. So I didn't have to waste my money on a full ink set to try it out. It was incredibly useful to see a sample print from that system knowing the ink. rip, paper etc.

**steve_782** · 15-Nov-2005, 15:03

One of the problems I'm currently trying to get a handle on is paper profiles with K3 inks. They are totally different than the previous Ultrachrome inkset. In fact, the gamut is so much wider that my current printer profiling system will not handle the range and reduces the gamut strikingly.

My guess is either the input device or the software isn't setup to deal with a gamut that large. It easily profiled my 9600 and my 1280 with MIS inks. It doesn't even come close with the K3 inkset in my new 9800.

While profiling is not quite the same problem with B&W printing as with color, there are different dot gain characteristics between the old inkset and the new inkset - which the profile also factors into the profile.

If you want to have people do this comparison, I would suggest setting up a tech sheet that they have to fill out so that each person's print process is documented. It would be especially helpful to know profiles and how the profile was generated. Also, since RIPs can make a difference it would be nice to see a print sent through the Epson driver and the same print though the RIP.

**Andy Eads** · 19-Nov-2005, 16:19

Kirk,
Several years ago I attended the PMA conference and they held a "shoot out" for inkjet printers by size and media categories. Now PMA attracts 50,000 + photo vendors so they are able to attract the big players. However, they did generate a really useful test target which I believe was made available to members. Their target was designed to test both the RIP and printer for commercial printing applications. Never the less, the target was color managed which gave opportunity for objective measurements. To frost the cake, the prints were displayed without indication of which printer made the image. Attendees voted for the best looking image and winners were announced. It was quite the honor to be selected best of show.
Perhaps some variation that fits your needs could be devised. I hope your effort goes well.
Andy