What printer gives the best B/W prints?

[Shootar401]

80% of my work is B/W with the occasional colour nude or landscape. I've been eyeballing some printers from Epson and Canon and can't really see the same print side by side to compare. For those of you who have either one or knows something more than I do, if you had to buy today which printer would you buy for B/W prints? Colour is equally important also. I need enough width to print 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20. My 3 most common print sizes, 90% glossy prints.

Thanks

[Peter Mounier]

Ask your dealer for a couple of comparison prints from each printer. They should be happy to provide you with some if it means making a sale.

[ScottPhotoCo]

A lot of it has to do with calibration, set up and papers. That said, I really like my Epson 3880.

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[sully75]

I'm sure it's probably a toss up. Epson's are real good. If I was to buy again, I'd be more interested in reliability, ink prices, etc. If you know what you are doing I'm sure you'd be able to make an awesome print with either. If you don't, you are screwed either way.

[Lenny Eiger]

The printer that gives the best b&w prints is one that is filled with Jon Cone's inks. (inkjetmall.com). I have two printers, one set for color and one set up with b&w. Of course, any time one uses the word "best" you have to ask "best" for whom, or best by based on what criteria. If you are in upstate NY, zip over to Vermont and take a look for yourself... at Cone Editions...

Lenny

[Kirk Gittings]

For b&w with OEM inks I prefer the Canons now. I've done many side by side comparisons and the Canons just have some hard to describe life to the tones that I just can't get with Epson's and OEM inks. Having said that I prefer Cone inks in a Epson printer.

[GG12]

+1 to the use of Cone inks. What they get out of their inks is nothing short of remarkable. That said, a friend printed some images with a large HP printer, and got pretty wonderful prints that looked like Agfa 111 silver prints. I'm pretty happy with Epson 4900 and Imageprint, but a lot has to do with the paper as well. If I could just go BW in the printer, Cone inks for sure.

[Brian Ellis]

I'm partial to Epson printers but IMHO the ink, paper, and the skill of the person doing the printing, are more important than the brand of printer. Since you apparently won't be dedicating a printer to b&w the Cone inks aren't an option. I use an Epson 3800 with Epson inks and QTR for b&w and I like that combination. I don't know that it's "the best" for a printer that combines color and b&w but it looks very good to me.

[Kirk Gittings]

Also again talking b&w only (sorry OP). Peter De Smidt (member here) has shown me prints using pure carbon inks developed by Paul Roark that are not as warm as Cone's pure carbon inks and have great potential both as the most archival injet inks tested to date and are quite beautiful in tone. See:

"For the the most lightfast inkjet prints, specify maximum carbon content, matte paper, and no third party color including blended gray inks. See http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/ for comparative fade testing. While ultimate longevity is not the most important factor for most prints, where it is critical, do the research. As a benchmark, see test ID#144 (click on AaI_20091208_SN003Lf) and note the average delta-e of 0.3 after 120 Mega Lux hours of exposure. Not all 100% carbon pigment inks and prints do quite as well as this, but the real trouble may be from the colors in gray inks that can fade differentially, causing a print tone shift, sometimes to greenish. It takes a lot of good R&D to match the fade rates of color pigments that are used to cool carbon, with HP Z3200 gray/PK pigments probably being on top of that list and what I use. Also not that it generally takes more color to cool carbon on glossy paper than on the best matte papers.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/"

[paulr]

Cone's Piezo inks are the best I've seen. I used his old 4 ink set, and made prints that were often better than anything out of my darkroom. I haven't had a chance to use the 6 or 7 ink sets.

I've been printing some black and white work for other people using the OEM inks on an epson 3880 with Roy Harrington's Quadtone Rip. This is the best non-monochrome ink b+w system I've seen. It's quite a bit better and more versatile than the printer company's built-in solutions. Subjectively I'd say it's about 3/4 of the way to piezography quality from printing in RGB black and white.

The problem with Canon printers is that Quadtone RIp and Piezography don't currenly support them. I assume this is going to change. Cone says he's working on a system for canon printers, and he uses a tweak of QTR to make piezography to work. It may be a little while before we see as robust a black and white ecosystem on canon.

Overall I'm have a much better time printing with the 3880 than with any ink printer I've had. The others were all consumer quality printers, and they spent more time torturing me than printing. I'd strongly suggest a pro level printer for piezography. The print quality won't be better, but the reliability and paper handling and the bigger ink cartridges will all make your life better.

[tiggert]

IMHO the Cone inks are the best I've seen/used to date. Using an Epson 2880 and the Selenium with Gloss overcoat on Epson Signature Glossy I have made prints that fool other photographer (large format at that) friends compared with Ilford SG version...especially if finished the same (trimmed & dry mounted). The Matt papers are amazing as well, and save the extra Gloss coat step. It also has a plus of being able to make amazing enlarged digital negatives (by simply swapping out 2 inks) that I am having a blast with.

[GG12]

Have used Imageprint on Epson for years, now with 4900. Good quality BW. Has anyone compared it with Quadtone RIP for BW? Is there a major difference? The newest version of IP (v. 9) is much improved for user interface, finally.

[Michael Graves]

Before I dropped money into my printer, I took the time to go around to a couple of places that did digital printing as a service. As a result I had the same file printed on an Epson, a Canon and an HP...all the "professional" lines. Every print looked good, but every print looked different. My personal preference was the Epson, even though it was the most expensive of the three. I'm about to place an order for the Cone setup, based on all the positive reviews I've seen. Saving money and getting better results at the same time sounds too good to be true.

[Jim Noel]

The darkroom produces the best B&W prints if the printer is skilled.

[Michael Graves]

The darkroom produces the best B&W prints if the printer is skilled.

True. But I'm sure the OP had a very good reason for posting this question in the Digital Hardware section instead of the Darkroom section.

[Kirk Gittings]

The darkroom produces the best B&W prints if the printer is skilled.

From every negative? Absolutely not. I think I might qualify as a "skilled" darkroom printer having taught it at two universities, had 90 + shows (most with all but almost all with some silver), and had 51 years of practice (yes I started in the 6th grade). There are things I can do with some negatives in inkjet (if one is skilled :) ) that simply won't come close in a traditional darkroom and vice versa.

[paulr]

I agree 100% with Kirk. Working digitally offers vastly more control, which is of course more important in some situations than others. But there are other differences. With an ink set like piezography, you can have completely linear tonal separation all the way from dmax to paper-white. You're under no obligation to use this … you can create any shaped curve you like. The implications of this alone are hard to appreciate unless you've worked with it. Imagine the potential of a longer tonal scale than a palladium print, with a higher dmax.

The biggest advantages my silver prints offered were a glossy surface, and the accompanying deeper dmax. This meant that some of my images just looked better in silver for these basic reasons.

Now, though, you can print on gloss papers with these inks. I haven't tried it. Next time I have a black and white printing project, I'll have to set up a printer for this and try it out.

[Peter Langham]

Frequently it is a matter of intent. When the process matches the intent of the image maker, the finest result is produced (assuming a suitable skill level). This is regardless of process. I have produced images from inkjet that absolutely would not have been as good from the darkroom. I spent 20+ years in the darkroom and have some skills. I have received comments from others (dedicated traditional process proponents) indicating surprise at the quality of the output. These are knowledgeable people with strong biases against my process, but reacted positively to my prints. I urge Mr Noel to seek out some of the best of the digital printmakers, (not me!) whose vision and technique are aligned.

[Kirk Gittings]

Intent is absolutely a major factor. I have actually gotten to the point in the field where I can pretty much know whether it will work best one way or another. With enough practice it becomes part of the pre-visualization process just like seeing a scene and knowing it will work better in b&w vs. color.

[Michael Graves]

From every negative? Absolutely not. I think I might qualify as a "skilled" darkroom printer having taught it at two universities, had 90 + shows (most with all but almost all with some silver), and had 51 years of practice (yes I started in the 6th grade). There are things I can do with some negatives in inkjet (if one is skilled :) ) that simply won't come close in a traditional darkroom and vice versa.

Good point. I have a photograph of a dead tree that looks positively eerie on the darkroom print (Oriental VC Fiber). I haven't been able to get a decent computer print of it to save my life. I have another negative that I thought was hopeless before I got my 3880, that turned out a very nice print after scanning it and tweaking the contrast in PS. Each method has its intrinsic value.

[paulr]

I have actually gotten to the point in the field where I can pretty much know whether it will work best one way or another.

I guess wrong often. It doesn't come up when photographing ... I never previsualize in the talked about sense ... but even when printing I'm sometimes surprised by what will work better in ink or in silver. It would seem easy: you want deep blacks? Silver. You want a long, delicate scale? Ink. But the results defy my expectations all the time.

My experience is still limited to older versions of piezography on matte papers.

[Brian K]

Probably a Roland Davinci.

I use an Epson 9900 with OEM inks and StudioPrint as my RIP. If I had space for a second 9900 I might consider the Cone inks, but StudioPrint allows me to produce very neutral B&W prints using color inks as well as the best color printing.

And regarding Paul's statement that if you want deep blacks silver being the rule. Well that's not true anymore. Inksets using photo black can meet or exceed the dmax of silver depending on the paper used.

[paulr]

And regarding Paul's statement that if you want deep blacks silver being the rule. Well that's not true anymore.

I assume this to be the case but haven't had a chance to print my own work in b/w on glossy stock. I look forward to trying. I've printed some client work on glossy baryta paper w/ OEM inks and quad tone rip. They look very good … just a bit shy of what I saw with older 4-ink Piezo inks.

One thing that helps ink is its lack of an innate shoulder. With silver you're always contending with the shoulder of the paper (which amplifies the toe of the film). My favorite papers had a very deep black, but if I printed for it, the lower midtones would be suppressed by the curve. Changes in development and toning couldn't compensate for this completely. So I usually printed shadows for the zone 2-3 values and let the darkest tones fall where they would … invariably at a lower density than the paper was capable of. In ink you can always print right to the dmax if you so choose.

Re Roland: Cone talks about using an older 12 ink printer of theirs loaded with two ink sets simultaneously, and creating custom blend curves on the fly with a rip. It sounds like an amazing system. Although he said that Epson updated Roland's license for the head technology to forbid making printers which allowed this.

This probably means Cone's working on a hack, but I haven't heard any details.

[Lenny Eiger]

Re Roland: Cone talks about using an older 12 ink printer of theirs loaded with two ink sets simultaneously, and creating custom blend curves on the fly with a rip. It sounds like an amazing system. Although he said that Epson updated Roland's license for the head technology to forbid making printers which allowed this.

This is the setup I use. I have 2 Roland Pro II's, which are 54 inches wide (one's for color). I have two sets of my own formulation of Cones ink in the b&w machine, one for Carbon Sepia and another for Selenium. I mix them for a nice neutral, and have all sorts of split tone possibilities. The StudioPrint RIP makes it all work. I like it for my own work and the clients love it.

Epson also forbid StudioPrint from addressing all 12 carts in a single print environment, which made the neutral and the dVinci color setup possible. Epson is not a nice company. Does not play nice with others.

The Roland's are built like tanks, they are easily maintained by the user. I expect to be using them for some time....


Lenny

[paulr]

Lenny, is there a way around Epson's control freakery, or does this setup require and older roland / older version of the rip?

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny, is there a way around Epson's control freakery, or does this setup require and older roland / older version of the rip?

The short answer is older versions of the Roland.

Apparently the new versions of the RIP do not disable existing features. However, each RIP has to have the codes to talk to each new machine. Epson won't let them address the 12 channels of Roland going forward (if they do, they won't give them the codes for the 9900, etc.). The last one was the Pro 2's (FJ540 and FJ600). The AJet, while having 12 cartridges as well, works in two sets of six, etc. They use the extra set to increase the speed vs increase the width of the color space.

Roland's had many advantages. They were built really well. While Epson wanted their techs to come out and service your machines at very high rates, Roland gave you a video explaining how to maintain the machine. Their is direct access to the heads. I can change a damper in one minute flat. If the heads get gummy I can spray them with distilled water and loosen things up. All the parts are metal. You can put multiple 20 foot prints a day thru this thing for months on end and it won't fail. Epson's are not built that way.

While they sell good printers (they don't actually make anything) Epson is in control of the consortium. They literally told Roland that they were not to invade the fine art market. Roland is therefore relegated to signs, banners, wraps, etc. Altho I think this machine can hold its own against anything on the market today, it won't be a serious machine going forward for fine art.

We wouldn't even have b&w inks (or alternate color choices, refillable cartridges, etc.) if we weren't protected by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Epson, which sold all their smaller models at a very low cost, depends on the ink & paper sales for their return on investment. They tried to tell everyone it would void their warranty if we used anything but Epson products, but thankfully this is illegal.

Epson printers are great, especially if you amortize your costs so that you can replace it every three years or so. Epson the company is evil.


Lenny

[Tyler Boley]

It turns out Canons have an internal "buffer" that hold residual ink, it's used for back flushing during cleanings or something. This makes it impossible to clean out for 3rd party ink installation, like a Cone system. He did get a brand new Canon that had not yet had ink installed to work with, but developing a system is expensive, and how many are willing to by a new printer, never install the OEM inks to try, just for a unique Cone setup. For a few, if it worked beautifully, it sounds intriguing, but enough people to warrant the R&D? No.
For Canon OEM ink B&W solutions, I doubt Roy is interested in supporting Canons with QTR, however "True Black and White" is a similar but more sophisticated system-
http://www.trueblackandwhite.com/
My friend John Dean uses it, as well as Cone K7s, and an HP, and likes it very much-
http://deanimaging.com/new.php
A 3rd party driver to optimize HP B&W output is probably unnecessary, and I know of none that exists, however driving it with StudioPrint, as Brian K drives his 9900, gives futher individual custom ink setup options that could be used to optimize B&W options.
For ink, the K7 systems remain the top performers in my opinion, in terms of photographic output performance, and simple beauty of print. Even so, I still use a dual quad setup, custom mixed, and tweaked and fine tuned to come as close to K7 quality as possible, yet give some hue options to clients and myself. I also have a K7 setup, but it's primarily for custom mixing and experiments, not set up for jobs. Eventually it will have a custom mix dedicated to my own work, and anyone desiring the same look. K7 at 2880 on a beautiful paper... nothing like it.. but if you don't respond to the "presence" of mid tones, like a good platinum print, and only love Silver... I think you are stuck with an overprint or spray system to really marry the ink to the paper. It's that last .1% that makes the difference. That said I do B&W photo surface work all the time for people with my 9900, OEM inks, and Studioprint, like Brian..
Tyler

[paulr]

Tyler, what differences do you see between Cone's 4, 6, and 7 ink systems?

[Tyler Boley]

Wel there are no longer any 4 ink systems... those were the PIezotones and they are discontinued. My dual quad setup is custom mixed from the K7 sets, and not something anyone is really going to get into any more. I think he is working on a dual quad variable hue setup, with GO soon.
I had a little 1400 I used briefly with the K6 special edition set, it looked excellent to me, the addition of another dilution, for the k7s, makes a technical difference, but how visible it is woulf vary for each viewer I think.
Basically, the more dilutions set up properly, the less visible dots, the higher the resolved image on paper, etc.. It's very very hard to see any mechanical image dot structure with K7s, even with a loup. I'm not sure K6 is really much of a compromise though, to the eye, I don't have old samples around to compare to k7.. how well his new dual quad setup performs in this regard will have to be seen... sorry I can't be more specific.
Tyler

[bob carnie]

I use a Epson 7800 and a Cannon 9400 and I feel you would be good to go with either system. I have never felt the need to go to the Cone piezo inks as I still print silver gelatin prints on enlargers and as well using a Durst Lambda.
The new Cannon we have is nothing short of remarkable with a proper calibration I am very confident the Black and Whites coming off it are excellent.

To the OP when purchasing an ink system one thing we found is keeping the printer in a humidity controlled condition is critical. Some months the air is super dry and if the machine does not get a lot of action there will be issues. We have had blue ink problems each January, which coincides with lack of exercise for the machine over the Holiday season. Once its a fluke two years in a row the exact same problem has made us rethink the humidity thing.



80% of my work is B/W with the occasional colour nude or landscape. I've been eyeballing some printers from Epson and Canon and can't really see the same print side by side to compare. For those of you who have either one or knows something more than I do, if you had to buy today which printer would you buy for B/W prints? Colour is equally important also. I need enough width to print 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20. My 3 most common print sizes, 90% glossy prints.

Thanks

[paulr]

Wel there are no longer any 4 ink systems... those were the PIezotones and they are discontinued.

What I'm curiuos about is a post on Cone's blog that mentions loyal users of the piezotone system, and that he agreed with them that there was something to the look of the old inks that isn't quite captured by the new ones (acknowledging that likewise, the old ones couldn't do what the new ones do).

I haven't had a chance to compare the various systems side by side. One thing I don't feel the old 4 ink system needed help with is dot size. I can't even see the dots through a loupe. Maybe they would be visible through a loupe on glossy papers?

Cone mentioned in an email that the bigest advantajes to more inks (in his mind) was that it makes it much easier to linearize the curves, and to produce curves that are much more robust in the face of paper batch variations, printer variations, etc.. I experienced some of the difficulties of the 4 ink process first hand—it took three attempts to get me a custom ICC profile could print a linear gradient.

I also had terrible problems with clogging, which Cone say's he's improved with his encapsulation methods.

At any rate it would be interesting to compare the 6 and 7 ink prints, and the discontinued 4 ink prints.

[Tyler Boley]

Clogging issues with Con's ink are a thing of the distant past. I had few problems with the Piezotones, and the K7s are the most problem free inks here. I have way more problems with the OEM Epson inks, first in the 9800 that I used for color, and now with the 9900 that took it's place.
The new ink sets are design to have consistent LAB hue values all the way through the scale. Piezotones were designed less technically, by eye to taste. Therefore they had more slight hue variation throughout the scale which adds a feeling of depth. I would say their hues had slightly more color as well, you might say they were subtlely "prettier". I have to say now though, after learning to live without them and using mixes from the k7 sets, Piezotones were mostly an old love it was hard to say goodbye to, and I'm pleased with current results.
Of course what Jon said about creating good curves with more inks is true as well. The relevance of dot size I suppose can be opinion, I do see the difference with a loup, and by eye, but the newest printers have ever smaller dots. I could point you to some on line results showing dot sizes if you like.. but they were with my older 9600 dual quad piezotone setup..
http://www.custom-digital.com/2008/09/bw-print-quality/

Every time I post this I get negative comments about it's relevance.. so take it as you will..
Tyler

[Lenny Eiger]

At any rate it would be interesting to compare the 6 and 7 ink prints, and the discontinued 4 ink prints.

I liked the piezotones very much. The ink seemed to have a tactile quality that added a lot. I mixed the quad inks out to 6 inks using ink base fluid and a lot of trial and error (pulldown bars, magnetic mixers and all kinds of testing). The quality of the color was very nice. However, the amount of color was not linear, from dilution to dilution. The amount of color off of a neutral gray varied considerably, there was more brown in the darker channels than there was in the lighter ones, for example. It was not very possible to swap out one color for another in a set. I liked the Carbon Sepia as is and didn't care, but a of of folks wanted to mix inks to their particular favorite color of print.

I had some clogging experiences early on but learned to do regular cleaning. I would hit the clean button if I wasn't printing that day on my way into the office. The K6 and K7 offer a better solution for this. It's the next generation of ink technology and its very good. It's also quite linear when it comes to color, and channel 3 is just as dark as channel 3 in any of the color choices.

The key to understanding a comparison between a K6 and K7 is to look at the basis for why the dilutions work so well in the first place. Consider if you had a printer with a single black channel and you wanted to reproduce a light, caucasian skin tone. You would have to lay down dots on the paper that are very far apart. This would appear grainy and likely mottled. OTOH, if you had a dilution of ink that matched this light tone you could lay down 100% coverage of ink. This would be smooth as silk (or as smooth as your printer could print).

The extra light tone (K7) would mean that you could separate out tones that are very light. For people that shoot things that have white on white, want the most delicate skies, etc. this is the ink for you. If you print a little contrasty, you will likely not see a difference. K6 will likely do very well for most of the people here. If printing is your thing, and you print like a platinum printer, you want as many channels as you can have. (If you have only 6 channels in the printer, you can also blend two of the deeper channels and keep the 7th.)

The other issue, of course is how the ink is mixed. This is done by the RIP. I am familiar with QTR and StudioPrint and they both do an excellent job. Each is better in one area vs another, managing crossovers vs linearization, etc. As you move up the tonal scale, one is using 100% ink, then a mix of two dilutions, then 100% of the lighter ink. The RIP has to make sure this happens in the smoothest manner possible.

Hope this helps,


Lenny

[Shootar401]

Thanks everybody! Looks like I'm going with an Epson with the Cone inks. Now I have to test some glossy papers to see which one give me the results I like.

[Tyler Boley]

don't forget.. the Cone gloss systems are double pass.. first pass for the imaging inks.. then dry.. then second pass for the gloss overcoat..
I find it well worth it and not that big a deal, but you should know this about it going in since it's not what people are used to with inkjet..
Tyler

[wattsie]

I'm giving this thread another breath of life, because I agree with many of the comments about Jon Cones Piezography inks in terms of their capability of delivering beautiful prints, with great shadow and highlight detail and transitions. I prefer to use the K7 Selenium inks on Canson Platine Fibre Rag or Jon's Type 5 paper. I have tried the pure carbon inks on matt papers, and while they are indeed quite beautiful, they don't work as well for the photographs I tend to take.

However, I do worry a little that the Aardenburg tests only give the K7 Selenium inks on these substrates a rating of about 37 Megalux hours. This is significantly less than prints with the OEM driver/inks, or with say Imageprint. My reading of Mark's test results is that if I keep the prints in dark storage I should still get about 300 to 400 years out of them (?) and I do tend to store my prints in archival boxes rather than have them on permanent display.

Do others who are fans of these inks (Tyler & co) share these concerns? It's a pity Jon and Epson can't combine forces for a B&W solution - that would be one hell of an inkset.

Jason

[Tyler Boley]

longevity is always worth some concern, of course. I don't use Cone's inks for gloss, so I haven't paid much attention to those results. But I think it's a beautiful process, so would not hesitate to use it given a good look at the data. I use them for matte though, and clearly sets with pigments introduced to the carbon for cooling have shorter life than pure carbon. One thing the data is most useful for, in addition to selecting materials, is care of prints. So, my prints that utilize those hues, I know what to expect from them, and I consider it a reasonable life given reasonable care. There are many processes more unstable that artists chose to use for sound aesthetic reasons, and we see those pieces well cared for in museums given the knowledge available. I also know HOW my prints will change if and when they do, and find that change livable if it does occur.
Basically, I'm not willing to give up what my prints look like to be able to claim longer life. All art has a life span, I consider what mine has, given reasonable care armed with the knowledge Aardenberg has provided, viable.
If I choose to do a body of work where ultimate maximum longevity is the goal, and the pure carbon set brings out that best in that work, I'd go that way... We still have a lot to learn about this stuff, much talk about coated papers lately, or uncoated. There's a lot of gray area in these considerations, any of us could choose materials with little life at all saying they are essential to our art, some have and do. I think the main thing is the knowledge, openly shared, and the care of the work, armed with this knowledge.
These are difficult choices to make though, and may evolve or change, and all opinions are welcome...
Tyler

[Ken Lee]

I've had some luck using Paul Roark (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/)'s recommended "Carbon on Cotton": MIS Eboni inks and Quadtone RIP with several Epson printers and 100% rag paper like Epson Hot Press Natural and Canson Rag Photographique. Choice of paper has some influence on image color.

To perform my own empirical longevity test, I left a print in a window sill for a few months - with full sunshine on it - and saw no fading.

The images are made with pure carbon pigment, and look as nice or nicer than Pt/Pd prints I have made. The resolution is higher, the paper is smoother, and the longevity is equal. As others have pointed out, the QTR gives higher resolution than obtainable with the standard Epson drivers. It's so high you need a magnifying glass to see it all, much as we do with a good contact print on silver paper.

For more information, see this short article (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/carbon/index.php).

[SergeiR]

You are lucky, Ken. I never manager to get QTR to work and i am now starting to get MIS inks dripping like crazy every other print :( (took about 3 months).

[bob carnie]

Sorry am I reading Ken that you are saying inkjet carbon prints are equal in longevity as Pt/Pd prints?


I've had some luck using Paul Roark (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/)'s recommended "Carbon on Cotton": MIS Eboni inks and Quadtone RIP with several Epson printers and 100% rag paper like Epson Hot Press Natural and Canson Rag Photographique. Choice of paper has some influence on image color.

To perform my own empirical longevity test, I left a print in a window sill for a few months - with full sunshine on it - and saw no fading.

The images are made with pure carbon pigment, and look as nice or nicer than Pt/Pd prints I have made. The resolution is higher, the paper is smoother, and the longevity is equal. As others have pointed out, the QTR gives higher resolution than obtainable with the standard Epson drivers. It's so high you need a magnifying glass to see it all, much as we do with a good contact print on silver paper.

For more information, see this short article (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/carbon/index.php).

[Ken Lee]

Sorry am I reading Ken that you are saying inkjet carbon prints are equal in longevity as Pt/Pd prints?

Yes, as far as I know. The same is true with real carbon transfer prints. Sandy King can best speak to the question, but as far as I know, the longevity of carbon pigment prints is determined chiefly by the base onto which they are printed - just as it is for properly processed prints made with noble metals like Platinum and Palladium. As I recall, Sandy told me that he once instructed a student in carbon transfer printing whose interest included rendering carbon images of deceased individuals on tombstones in... perpetuity.

In an earlier thread, Mark from Aardenburg discussed this when I suggested that we leave a print in the window as a longevity test. As I recall, he warned out that too much direct sunshine will damage the paper before the image.

You can read more about this on Paul Roark (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/)'s site.

[bob carnie]

Well Ken I doubt this very much, but would be interested to see how this goes.

We are talking about soot and noble metals here with wet prints, I would like to know the load pigment that can pass through the nossels when printing inkjet.

[sanking]

Well Ken I doubt this very much, but would be interested to see how this goes.

We are talking about soot and noble metals here with wet prints, I would like to know the load pigment that can pass through the nossels when printing inkjet.

My gut instinct is that inkjet prints made with pure carbon pigments will be very stable because the pigment itself is basically inert. Any issues would come from the binder, and how the binder holds the pigment together over the long term with the substrate.

Inkjet prints made with carbon pigments, and carbon transfer prints, are different in at least two fundamental ways. One, the agglomerate particles in a carbon transfer print are typically much larger than those used in inkjet printing. Agglomerate size by itself provides a safety net in terms of image fading. Second, the carbon relief is encapsulated in hardened gelatin, which we know from history to be very permanent. We can really only speculate at this point on the nature of the binder used in the carbon pigment inks used in inkjets.

Irrespective of the issue of permanence monochrome prints made with inkjet printers using six or seven shades of gray, on good quality rag papers, are very sharp and capable of extremely delicate upper mid-tones and highlights.

Sandy

[paulr]

Remember also that a pigment doesn't have to be pure carbon in order to be stable. Oil paintings have been around for hundreds of years and frescoes for longer ... we have a lot of experience with pigments that last unchanged a long time in display environments. And also with pigments that change a bit, and with ones that change a lot. This is a concern that's been around longer than inkjet printing. Or photography, for that matter.

[Brian Ellis]

"To perform my own empirical longevity test, I left a print in a window sill for a few months - with full sunshine on it - and saw no fading. "

I think that to really test fading, discoloration, etc. you need to make two identical prints, put one in a window or wherever else you choose to put it, keep the other in a light-tight box or whatever. Examine them side-by-side periodically. When you only make one print and keep it in light you have nothing to compare it to.

[Ken Lee]

"To perform my own empirical longevity test, I left a print in a window sill for a few months - with full sunshine on it - and saw no fading. "

I think that to really test fading, discoloration, etc. you need to make two identical prints, put one in a window or wherever else you choose to put it, keep the other in a light-tight box or whatever. Examine them side-by-side periodically. When you only make one print and keep it in light you have nothing to compare it to.

Sorry if my brief explanation was misleading. See this short article (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/carbon/index.php) which shows the experiment and describes it in greater detail.


"I left a pure black print on the sill of a south-facing window for 2 months, with a thick book over one corner, and a note written in ball-point ink to my family members: "Do not move: experiment in progress". As you can see from the photograph, my handwritten message faded in the bright sunshine a long time ago, but there is no evidence of fading in the carbon print. You can't tell where the book covered the print at all."


Of course my test was not rigorous. This quote from Paul Roark (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/)'s web site may be more helpful:


"MIS "Eboni" matte-paper-only carbon has now been used for a number of years and continues to be the most neutral carbon pigment as well as producing the most lightfast prints tested so far. In the most detailed and sophisticated fade testing, by Aardenburg Imaging & Archives, the best performance yet was by an Eboni print on PremierArt Fine Art Smooth paper, also sold as Epson Scrapbook paper. After 100 mega-lux hours of exposure (equivalent to 51 years of display as used by Wilhelm Research), the average delta-e (a measure of total fade and color change - lower is better) for all test patches was 0.2. The paper base delta-e was 0.5. The 50% test patch delta-e was 0.1. See ID#144 at Aardenburg-Imaging, where fade test data for many papers and inks is available from free (but I urge you to make a contribution to this tremendous photographic resource)."

[paulr]

I had an informal window test going for about 5 years. Half of each print stayed in a dark box for comparison. Everything held up better than expected, except for the tape, which kept disintegrating and had to be replaced a few times.

The c-print held up much better than the c-prints of my youth, which would fade from just a day out on a sunny counter. But it was the worst of the lot. After a year it was heavily faded. The silver prints showed no change, besides some drying and fine texturing of the gelatin itself. The platinum print's paper base bleached whiter in the first month, but then didn't change after that. The piezotone prints (which used Cone's portfolio black, not his archival black) changed infinitessimally in the darkest values. You could see the difference in strong light side-by-side with the control print, but otherwise the change was invisible. The change was first visible after a couple of years.

Unfortunately I didn't have access to color pigment inks or the newer Cone inks.

Remember that lightfastness tests are tailored to media that is primarily succeptible to light damage. Silver prints are primarily succeptible to oxidative damage. If we were applying the kind of rigor to silver print longevity that we apply to ink prints, we would be doing a different type of test entirely.

Fortunately, accelerated lightfastness tests are much easier to design than oxidative and sulfide damage tests. We can predict what spectra a print will be exposed to much better than what airborn chemicals.

[Bill_1856]

+1 to the use of Cone inks. What they get out of their inks is nothing short of remarkable. That said, a friend printed some images with a large HP printer, and got pretty wonderful prints that looked like Agfa 111 silver prints. I'm pretty happy with Epson 4900 and Imageprint, but a lot has to do with the paper as well. If I could just go BW in the printer, Cone inks for sure.

Wonder what paper he was printing on. That's as important as the ink.

[gevalia]

I've had some luck using Paul Roark (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/)'s recommended "Carbon on Cotton": MIS Eboni inks and Quadtone RIP with several Epson printers and 100% rag paper like Epson Hot Press Natural and Canson Rag Photographique. Choice of paper has some influence on image color.

To perform my own empirical longevity test, I left a print in a window sill for a few months - with full sunshine on it - and saw no fading.

The images are made with pure carbon pigment, and look as nice or nicer than Pt/Pd prints I have made. The resolution is higher, the paper is smoother, and the longevity is equal. As others have pointed out, the QTR gives higher resolution than obtainable with the standard Epson drivers. It's so high you need a magnifying glass to see it all, much as we do with a good contact print on silver paper.

For more information, see this short article (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/carbon/index.php).

Ken,
I have just started using the Eboni-6 inks on a 6-ink epson 1430 and QTR. Being new to a BO inkset and QTR, it took me a few days and maybe 30 pages of Epson Hot Press to get the curve where I want. On Hot Press I get what I would call a neutral print. I also have some Canson Rag photographique and I see you have also printed with that paper. Does that print warmer with the E-6 inks? I'm looking for a paper that prints E-6 inks medium warm.

I should have said I have some Canson Rag photographique on-order, so I'm looking for a medium-warm paper with the E-6 eboni-only inkset.

Regards,
Ron

[Roger Thoms]

I've had some luck using Paul Roark (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/)'s recommended "Carbon on Cotton": MIS Eboni inks and Quadtone RIP with several Epson printers and 100% rag paper like Epson Hot Press Natural and Canson Rag Photographique. Choice of paper has some influence on image color.

To perform my own empirical longevity test, I left a print in a window sill for a few months - with full sunshine on it - and saw no fading.

The images are made with pure carbon pigment, and look as nice or nicer than Pt/Pd prints I have made. The resolution is higher, the paper is smoother, and the longevity is equal. As others have pointed out, the QTR gives higher resolution than obtainable with the standard Epson drivers. It's so high you need a magnifying glass to see it all, much as we do with a good contact print on silver paper.

For more information, see this short article (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/carbon/index.php).

Ken, just curios, did you cover part of the print with an opaque material when you did your "sunshine" test?

Roger

[tgtaylor]

The weakest link is usually thee base upon which it is printed. A noble metal will always outlast a pigment and has. If the biblical Moses hadn't got so pissed-off when coming down from the Mt. Sinai with the Ten Commandments in hand and threw them at the flock which had resumed worshiping the calf, they would be enshrined somewhere today in a museum.

Thomas

[Peter De Smidt]

Ron, if you want pure carbon that's warmer than Eboni 6, you could add a MIS Glossy carbon in LK and LLK dilutions to your inkset. They are 100% carbon pigment as well, but they print warmer than dilutions of Eboni. I would make a warm QTR curve. That way, you could mix the warm and neutral curves to taste.

[gevalia]

Ron, if you want pure carbon that's warmer than Eboni 6, you could add a MIS Glossy carbon in LK and LLK dilutions to your inkset. They are 100% carbon pigment as well, but they print warmer than dilutions of Eboni. I would make a warm QTR curve. That way, you could mix the warm and neutral curves to taste.

Peter, where would I place the LK and LLK? K, C, LC, M, LM, or Y? I'm thinking replace the magentas, no? (M->LK and LM-> LLK)? M is 18% eboni and LM is 6% eboni.

I just realized you said MIS Glossy. I'm looking for matte only. Sorry I didn't state that. From what I have read, the only way to achieve tone changes with the EB6 matte inkset is by paper (lab B).

[Ken Lee]

Ken, just curios, did you cover part of the print with an opaque material when you did your "sunshine" test?


Yes - that was the point of the test. We can't tell where the cover was placed. This wasn't a rigorous test, but more like the Thomas Edison test of a packing crate: throw it out the window and see if anything breaks.

[Peter De Smidt]

The MIS glossy carbon prints fine on matte paper. Paul Roark has used them when he wanted warmer results on matte paper. I did that myself a few years ago on with a 4880. What inks are you running in which slots?

[gevalia]

The MIS glossy carbon prints fine on matte paper. Paul Roark has used them when he wanted warmer results on matte paper. I did that myself a few years ago on with a 4880. What inks are you running in which slots?

Just the basic EB6 kit from MIS.
BK = Eboni matte - EB6-4-K
C = 30% eboni - EB6-4-C
M = 18% eboni - EB6-4-M
LC = 9% eboni - EB6-4-LC
LM = 6% eboni - EB6-4-LM
Y = 2% eboni - EB6-4-Y

[Peter De Smidt]

Ron, you should email Paul Roark and ask what he suggests. I'm under a tight deadline right now. If you want to do neutral and warm with the same inkset, that gets more complicated. If you just want warmer, then you could replace everything except the BK with the corresponding dilutions of MIS glossy carbon. Gotta get back to Photoshop....

[gevalia]

Thanks Peter.

[Peter De Smidt]

Note that H Photo Rag will give warmer results with Eboni. There are probably others as well. If that gets you the tone that you want, that's much easier than modifying the inkset. Paul would have more suggestions.

[Roger Thoms]

Yes - that was the point of the test. We can't tell where the cover was placed. This wasn't a rigorous test, but more like the Thomas Edison test of a packing crate: throw it out the window and see if anything breaks.

Ken, thank for the clarification.

Roger

[Peter De Smidt]

For carbon pigment ink tones see: http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Carbon-Print-Tones.pdf

[nagairaj]

I use Epson 4880 with amazing results. Also depends on the paper one uses.