B+W Printing Epson/HP/Canon VS. Piezography inks

[deanwork]

Your right, when this technology was introduced gloss fiber hadn't really taken over such a big part of the market as it does now.

Oh it works great with all the rc papers and it even works great with the textured fiber gloss papers like Cone type 5, Silver Rag, etc. It even looks good with the moderately textured Photorag Baryta. Its just the very smooth fiber gloss surfaces that the bronzing is evident on, and that is the worst with b&w.

Of course when behind glass it is no problem, but if you are trying to make limited edition portfolios of bw on it, the bronzing is unacceptable to me and others.

john

[shileshjani]

John,

I hope you don't mind, but I just sent 3 prints to your address I found online. Two prints are BW on Epson Exhibition with 70% GO overcoat 2nd pass. Also included a 21 step and gradient swatch. One print is color on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, followed by 2nd pass GO at 70%, followed by 3rd pass GO at 40%. All of these were printed with a 4880 and OEM K3 inks. GO was applied with a 4800 using QTR. Let us know what you think when you get these prints.

Another note: I think gloss differential can be eliminated by these methods, but bronzing can be exacerbated if one is not careful with the GO limits. Bronzing after GO: it is a different look than one classically associated with bronzing, where colors are off with viewing angle. What I see instead is this almost etched look in the high density (high ink load) area of the underlying print. You will see that most in the color print I sent.

Regards.

Shilesh

Well after a day of working with it  for black and white , I see absolutely no reason to try to run the gloss fiber prints back through the Z printers for the purpose of adding post printing coating layers of the gloss enhancer. That is what I thought, but now I know for sure.

I worked with the smoother surfaces like the Harmon gloss baryta and the Ilford Gallerie Baryta and in both cases tried second and third coatings of gloss enhancer after the print was dry.  Unfortunately this only added to the bronzing sheen. Oddly enough it actually made the bronzing sheen pinkish and therefore a lot more noticeable, not less.

My 8x10 tests included examples of the first prints having a regular economy coat with the printing, a whole page coating with the printing, and several tests of applying no enhancer while printing at all and applying one, two, or three coats of it later. None of this came close to my original procedure which is to use the economy gloss enhancer or the whole page enhancer while printing and applying three light coats of a solvent uv varnish like Hahnemuhle or Moab as the last stage after the print is dry. That procedure eliminates about 95% of all bronzing effects. Gloss differential is not visible with the standard Z gloss printing technique with my workflow, only a stubborn residue of bronzing.

So, my opinion is the HP gloss enhancer is not composed of the same compounds as the Cone MPS ( and Epsons?) go and does not do the job of eliminating the bronzing withe Z3100 gloss fiber prints when doing black and white work containing a lot of carbon pigments.

john

[TylerB]

John, my experiences revealed that GO over GO was rarely successful and when it was, had to be done very specifically for each paper. Given other reports here it's obvious this may not be universally true. However, if you have the ability to turn off the GO entirely during the image ink pass, you may have better luck with the second pass. It's worth one last test I think. Initial pass dry times were critical as well.
It's obvious GO from different sources behaves differently, so take this with a grain of salt... each paper I worked on required different amounts of go in different tonal areas, then different amounts of GO in the second pass, to be remotely successful. After I finally realized the problem, I eliminated it in the first pass and things fell into place.
Of course that was different GO, different ink, different paper, but it's still worth a try.
Tyler

[deanwork]

Hi Shilesh,

Thank you for sending the test prints with the Epson Go. I've never worked with it and I'm very interested in seeing it. I'll let you know how that compares to what I've been trying to do with the Z.

Tyler, I did try three prints with the GO completely turned off during printing. It made no difference for the final outcome.

My only acceptable print is the one I did the normal gloss enhancer procedure followed by three light coats of the Moab Desert Varnish uv solvent. And, even then there is some slight bronzing, can't get around it on very smooth fiber gloss like I want to use.

The 16x20 prints we looked at that Walker had using the 9900 and the Cone Go on Epson Exhibiton Fine Art were perfect in terms of NO bronzing at all, even with massive areas of black adjacent to bright highlight areas. Like I said this is the only time I've seen that kind of success, but I have not experimented with the Epson Go as used in their R1900 style printers. Either way you look at it this is going to require a second printer loaded with it. Good thing I have plenty to play with and to put to good use. Even then these are going to need a protective uv spray coating. That go is just too easily scratched. But we did that with his print and then it really looked like gelatin.

john

[nemophoto]

I used Piezography inks for close to 13-yrs. (Basically within the first couple years of introduction.) While I've thought of using them in my old Epson 4000, which is gathering dust these days, I have to admit that 99% of everything is printed now with my Canon iPF6100. I just love the quality, results and ease plus the ability to print on virtually any surface. I last seriously used Piezography inks with my old 7000. When I used them with my older Epson 2200, I was faced with terminal clogs, which is another issue in general with the inks. Of the three systems I've owned (Piezography, Epson and Canon), the Canon has been by far the most dependable with the least number of clogs (none!).

Piezography inks are fantastic, but do require more of a learning curve to perfect, with a more limited number of substrates to print on.

[LynnNoah]

Adding my 2 cents to the OP's question whether piezography/QTR/Epson combo prints are objectively better, I highly recommend sending a favorite file of which you've made your best print with your own equipment (digital or silver gelatin) for a comparison print using Jon Cone's new MPS Glossy (Inkjetmall at http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/.f

Since I dismantled my darkroom, I've been searching for a digital B&W print which gives me as much pleasure as the results I used to see coming up from the chemicals.  I've printed the same step wedges, test images, portraits, and landscapes with a variety of papers, inks, and printers.  I found that in side-by-side comparisons the piezography prints reveal substantially more shadow and highlight detail, with seamless gradation.  For example the same test image on Epson Exhibition Fiber using ABW on my 7900 blots together the darkest 3 or 4 shades which are clearly visible in a piezography MPS Glossy print also on EEF, and fails to print the lightest two or three which I can see on the MPS Exhibition Fiber print.  I've been printing piezography K7 matte ink on an R1800 for four years without a clot, and have recently purchased an R1900 ($290 with current Epson rebate and free shipping) for the new MPS Glossy, which has richer blacks and depth and makes available PK papers.  If you're satisfied with 13"-wide black and white prints it's a good way to get started and the 1800-1900 series uses the smallest microdots among Epson printers.

There's a lot of useful info on Jon Cone's blog http://www.piezography.com/PiezoPress/.

Lynn Noah