Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: BobDavid on November 28, 2018, 02:07:38 pm
-
I am helping a makers space (tinkermill.org) set up a photography program. There's a lot of interest in developing black and white film and making prints. However, we're not equipped for a wet darkroom (nor do we want to go down that road). I brought up the idea of using black and white carbon inks and an Epson printer. For now, 13" wide prints will suffice.
Being a nonprofit, our budget is limited. ...any thoughts on how we can get into carbon printing without expending $$$$? Another consideration is that we're located in Colorado--super low humidity.
Any ideas?
-
I got myself one of these, Epson 1430, for the same purpose (still in process to set it up.) They are available only once and in a while. Seems there is one right now:
https://epson.com/Clearance-Center/Inkjet-Printers/Epson-Artisan-1430-Inkjet-Printer---Refurbished/p/C11CB53201-N
This printer was one of those that were used extensively using QTR with Cone or Eboni inks. May be others with greater first-hand experience will chime in...
-
There are a couple of things to consider. First is whether you want or need to use a third-party monochrome inkset rather than OEM. As Mark S noted in a discussion I had with him recently in another thread, you can get pretty good black and white with the latest generation Epson color printers. That's probably the simplest option, and there's a lot to be said for that, especially in a co-operative. But a monochrome inkset appeals to some people and it may well to your maker's program.
If you opt for a monochrome inkset, second is whether you want to print matte and gloss or just matte. I believe that the six channel 1430 nirpat89 referred to is probably only for matte. The 1430 is probably the most economical of the options, party for that reason. For gloss you'd need an eight channel printer.
Third is ease of maintenance. Printers like the 1430 and P400 have their cartridges on the print head, whereas the P600 and the 17" P800 have larger cartridges separate from the print head, which means less frequent refilling but harder to fix certain kinds of problems.
You may be better to ask this question in the black and white forum, or on some of the specialist (non-LULA) forums that deal with black and white inkjet printing, e.g. on Yahoo.
-
Sounds like a good idea to me, BobDavid. The preceding post about the Epson 1430 is tempting. That printer would fill your needs perfectly IMHO. I've used third party inks in Epson printers for two decades with never a problem related to the inks not being Epson. Auto-reset (never have to pull the carts, important!) refillable carts for this printer are available from several locations.
Visit
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/
He's extremely knowledgeable about monochrome printing and is always willing to help.
-
The drawback to 100% carbon B&W printing is that you can't add any toning color to the image. I print monochrome as opposed to pure B&W and some beautiful effects can be achieved using sepia or cyanotype tones that are impossible with pure carbon inks:
http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/floral_abstracts_portfolio
-
The drawback to 100% carbon B&W printing is that you can't add any toning color to the image. ...
With the older/original "Eboni" carbon ink from MIS Associates (inksupply.com) I could print neutral with 100% carbon, including dilute carbons which are always warmer than the MK (or PK) itself. However, when Eboni was "upgraded" (now some years ago), I found I had to compromise to get a truly neutral image. So I added a single "blue" toner in the Y position, where it is easiest to control with curves if you're using a curves or ICC approach to profiling.
(Note that you can make your own ICCs and embed curves in them. See, for example, http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Embedding_Photoshop_Curves_in_ICCs.pdf . Google my name and ICCs for more on this. QTR makes the software tools needed.)
The blue toner formula became the key issue for this single-toner approach: How could I make the very best from available inputs. I found that Canon Lucia EX Blue and Lucia EX Cyan were the best color inputs, not just based on their absolute fade rate advantages, but also on whether they were the least likely, when used together, to pull the print tone into a weird shade. Carbon is so much stronger than our color pigments that warming to the carbon hue is inevitable over the very long haul. I wanted that fade path to be as straight as possible.
The toner formula I recommend and use is explained in this PDF: http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/3880-Eboni-Variable-Tone.pdf . There is a further explanation of the approach to the toner there.
Very happily, the same toner mix works for both matte and glossy carbons.
[Note that my first toner formula was more dilute than what I currently recommend. It was aimed at the 1430. See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-Variable-Tone.pdf . As noted in that PDF, when the new (75% base) is used as opposed to the original (90% base), the older profiles for the 1430 need the ink limit for the toner to be divided by 2.5.]
MIS Associates has cloned my blue toner, but using their third party inks. While third part carbon ink is as good as any, the third party color inks are often not as strong as the best OEM color inks. As such, MIS's pre-mixed blue toner should not be expected to be as lightfast as the Canon based toner I use. For most users it's fine, simple and inexpensive. For top fine art, I recommend the Canon Lucia EX colors (NOT their newer inks) and mixing your own toner. If you want a more "selenium" type hue, kick up the Blue EX ink percentage slightly in the toner mix.
Note that I recommend the vast majority mix a single toner as opposed to trying to balance the color inks with profiles. Most photographers cannot make a good B&W profile with color inks themselves. A single cooler-or-warmer tone dimension is vastly simpler to profile.
I've designed and used a lot of inksets over the years. Now all I have running are these single-blue-toner, remainder carbon (matte or glossy) inksets. They are, in my view, the best for the least amount of money (and work) if you're into dedicated B&W printing and doing things yourself. At the same time you have the full range of 100% carbon to neutral by simply altering the toner ink load in QTR. Note also that where you want a warm print, only a single nozzle is idle. That is, the smoothness of the print is not noticeably compromised. Obviously for the best smoothness and lack of inkjet artifacts you want as many nozzles firing as possible.
While I post all my profiles and have made a number that can be downloaded from my various PDFs, don't expect a turn-key, all papers supported type of approach. Being able to linearize your system -- most simply by using the tools QuadToneRip supplies -- should be expected. Neither I nor Roy (QTR) are in the ink business. We both make and sell fine art landscape photography.
Good luck.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Before you go down the rabbit hole of using any dedicated “carbon” workflows you need to test something. Download a trial version of the monochrome software, QTR, quad tone rip.
The fact is all of the gray inks of the three OEM companies, Epson, Canon, and HP are almost all carbon. According the fade tests of aaardenburg imaging, our only source for sound permanence data, all of the bw prints in the neutral or warm neutral realm are extremely long lasting. The fact is the inkjet recptor coatings on even the best papers are probably going to show discoloration before any these inks for bw fade or shift ( unless you are doing sepia with a lot of yellow ).
I have all these set ups here, Hp Vivera beautiful with extreme longevity and with some papers and extended patches 4 values and no color inks needed, the Canon Lucia inks with the True Black and White software and no color needed but easily toned if needed, the Epson k3 with QTR, and Piezography Carbon k7 ( warm) and Neutral k7 ( less permant than all the above but not to bad on Canson media ).
As far as flexibility, ease of use for anyone including students, and easy switching between pure neutral, warm neutral, cool neutral, and anything else that is easily repeatable as saved curve presets, QTR is just by far the biggest bang for the buck and works equally well on small and big Epsons. I use a QTR curve consisting of 60% warm curve and a 40% cool curve on Rag Photographique or Platine for probably the cleanest neutral print color I’ve seen from a easy to figure out work flow. You have 3 curves slots to blend if you want to experiment with easily created split tones.
The Piezography k7 warm Carbon is the most beautiful and dimensional monochrome printing I’ve ever done, especially in the very subtle high values, but your printer is dedicated to that monochrome color only. Inkjet mall is supposed to releasing a new carbon neutralized k7 set in January that I’m interested in looking at if it pans out. I don’t really like the print color of their other inksets besides the very warm pure Carbon set. It’s very very close to a palladium print and super permanent, but kind of specialized for most people. I do all my personal work with it, with a good file it’s just spectacular and better the bigger the prints go.
But for the vast majority of photographers making prints who would love to keep that printer in use for their color work too, definately spend some time with qtr. I have it set up on an Epson 7890 and even with the supplied generic curves it is just excellent and with no headaches of special ink carts and filling carts, etc. just the standard Epson inks. If you buy a spectrometer and make custom linearization it’s even more precise. Check it out.
I am helping a makers space (tinkermill.org) set up a photography program. There's a lot of interest in developing black and white film and making prints. However, we're not equipped for a wet darkroom (nor do we want to go down that road). I brought up the idea of using black and white carbon inks and an Epson printer. For now, 13" wide prints will suffice.
Being a nonprofit, our budget is limited. ...any thoughts on how we can get into carbon printing without expending $$$$? Another consideration is that we're located in Colorado--super low humidity.
Any ideas?
-
Just thinking out loud here... If the photography program is in its infancy, might it be a better use of time and energy to get it up and running using the excellent OEM pigment inks from Epson, HP or Canon before moving to a more complex carbon-based ink set? Having the ability to print and apply subtle toning (or not) right out of the box has its advantages.
-
... The fact is all of the gray inks of the three OEM companies, Epson, Canon, and HP are almost all carbon. According the fade tests of aaardenburg imaging, ....
Check out the relevant, comparable Aardenburg testing results, summarized on page 2 of http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-Variable-Tone.pdf (with full citation to Mark's excellent original work).
The OEM gray inks are not straight carbon; they have neither the print tone nor fade characteristics of pure carbon. They are all blends. If you like their blend, they are good inks. However, if you want to be able to print a warm tone with these OEM inksets your print driver has to add yellow, one of the weakest pigments. I used the HP black and grays for a while, and they can make a very nice, neutral, monotone inkset. If one wants some flexibility in print tone, however, I find the variable tone approach that allows 100% carbon to be a better approach. No other inkjet pigment is going to come close to the lightfastness of 100% carbon. The carbon-carbon bond is the strongest in nature. (Which is probably the main reason we and all organic chemistry is based on carbon.)
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Right, the yellow is the weakest link in oem inksets and those yellow pigments are also the worst for metameric failure, which is shifting print color in various light sources but I’m not seeing that with neutral or cool prints - with Canon TBW prints, Epson and QTR, or the Piezo Carbon K7. But the Hp yellow is extremely stable, and the new Epson yellow is a big improvement over all their previous yellows, and the vast majority of oem monochrome prints people are doing have no yellow or a tiny amount. But if you are making very warm prints with the oem inks then color differences under various light sources is evident
If only the coated inkjet Media was as stable as the inks out in the real world we would be a lot better off. We have a lot to learn in that regard. Untill we have better protective sprays or better paper inkjet receptive coatings, the papers are the weakest link.
John
Check out the relevant, comparable Aardenburg testing results, summarized on page 2 of http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-Variable-Tone.pdf (with full citation to Mark's excellent original work).
The OEM gray inks are not straight carbon; they have neither the print tone nor fade characteristics of pure carbon. They are all blends. If you like their blend, they are good inks. However, if you want to be able to print a warm tone with these OEM inksets your print driver has to add yellow, one of the weakest pigments. I used the HP black and grays for a while, and they can make a very nice, neutral, monotone inkset. If one wants some flexibility in print tone, however, I find the variable tone approach that allows 100% carbon to be a better approach. No other inkjet pigment is going to come close to the lightfastness of 100% carbon. The carbon-carbon bond is the strongest in nature. (Which is probably the main reason we and all organic chemistry is based on carbon.)
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Right, the yellow is the weakest link in oem inksets and those yellow pigments are also the worst for metameric failure, which is shifting print color in various light sources but I’m not seeing that with neutral or cool prints - with Canon TBW prints, Epson and QTR, or the Piezo Carbon K7. But the Hp yellow is extremely stable, and the new Epson yellow is a big improvement over all their previous yellows, and the vast majority of oem monochrome prints people are doing have no yellow or a tiny amount. But if you are making very warm prints with the oem inks then color differences under various light sources is evident
If only the coated inkjet Media was as stable as the inks out in the real world we would be a lot better off. We have a lot to learn in that regard. Untill we have better protective sprays or better paper inkjet receptive coatings, the papers are the weakest link.
John
Coated inkjet media cost a fortune. Can't anything print on to drawing or watercolor paper with carbon inks?
Edmund
-
Edmond wrote: ... "Can't anything print on to drawing or watercolor paper with carbon inks?"
That's what I do all the time with my 9800 and 7800 Epson printers.
I found that Arches watercolor paper is capable of the best dmax, but it takes an inkload of about 126. So, you need two MK positions and a RIP like QTR.
With Arches, there is no coating to come off. That is, whereas conservators have told me that all laminates -- including coated papers -- will de-laminate with time due to differential expansion and contraction between the layers caused by humidity and temperature changes, Arches is not a laminate. It has a rather good record going back hundreds of years.
The "full sheets" that I use are 22 by 30 inches. While the prints are not as smooth as a good inkjet paper, for that size and wall display, no one will ever notice the difference. They can be mounted floating with the deckle edge showing or tape hung under a window mat. (While I like the ones showing the deckle edge, buyers don't seem to appreciate the significance. So I'll likely go back to a more traditional look of a mat board.) Note that for those who like texture, the Arches cold press appears to use the same profiles and has texture.
Back to dmax, for some reason that is lost on me, my 7800 can achieve Lab L of in the 16-17 range, whereas the 9800 is a bit lower. The dmax is never going to be equal to a good a good inkjet paper. Oddly, when I took one of these Arches prints into Gallery Los Olivos to show to some other B&W photographers & printers, one of the most experienced noted the excellent dmax. While it's certain not such by the numbers, the impression of a deep black in prints is good. I can't explain that.
As a side note, I have found that the backside of Arches Hot Press 140 lb. full sheets might be preferable to the front side -- a matter of slight texture difference and fewer arrant fibers on the paper surface to make trouble.
All carbon prints with a warm tone. However, with the right profiles, this can be held down to a Lab B rise over the paper base of about 2. That looks like a neutral print. The paper is warm, though the Arches Bright White is cooler -- still warm by inkjet standards, obviously no OBAs. To hold down the print warmth, profiles that may not be technically the smoothest are needed. Again, on the wall, and even on close inspection, the "cooler" profiles that use more dense inks still look very good.
So, again, I never recommend 100% carbon on Arches for novices, those who enjoy making B&W prints for wall display that will still look good hundreds of years from now, this is an option that may appeal. I post PDFs on what I do and include profiles for the inks and papers I use. (Be sure to iron those Arches deckle edges and remove those that won't lay flat.)
As noted earlier in this thread, I have also come up with (and posted) a blue toner formula that offsets the warmth of carbon. Those who want a neutral print on inkjet paper with the highest possible carbon content will need to use something like it. Arches, however, prints more neutrally than a coated inkjet paper. As such, it is the only paper I use for the 100% carbon, neutral looking prints I prefer for landscape work.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/
-
Yes as Paul just described one can print on traditional printmaking papers like Stonehenge, Arches Hot and Cold Press, or Rives BFK as examples with very nice results. And like he said you really need a software like Studio Print or QTR to carefully linearize the the curves as they relate to paper ink absorption and black point. However using an HP Z3200 I have been making some really successful monochrome and color prints ( not really saturated colors though) on all kinds of crazy papers including uncoated kozo, hand made Mexican cotton sheets and even hand made Indian hemp sheets and linearizing right in the printer software.
A friend of mine has been doing this for years with Arches out of Studio Print which is especially precise and the prints are beautiful and have a traditional printmaking quality to them, with the pigments more down into the surface of the paper, not unlike photo gravure prints or Platinum/ Palladium. I love this kind of work but it wouldn’t work for everyone doing all kinds of work, especially sharp color imagery.
I have never seen any of these however that actually look like what I would call “photo” quality, as in media with a good inkjet receptor coating or gelatin silver prints. You give up qualities, , like color gamut, dmax and precise resolution or smoothness of gradients, sure but gain other things that may or not be equally important to your aesthetic.
The new Hahnemuhle Platinum Rag paper that I’ve been using for alternative process has a unique sizing that seems the closest to an inkjet receptor coating I’ve used. Like Arches, they make a natural version and one that is brighter but contains dye brighteners. I don’t know what they are using in their sizing but it is new.
The issue that is a real concern with all the current inkjet receptor coatings I know of is the characteristic they have of attracting pollutants from fossil fuel pollution into the papers surface ( even natural gas heating ). I am actually surprised we don’t see more posts about atmospheric print degradation on these websites.
We have known for many years that these coated papers that come into contact with rubber, either with the bands Hahnemuhle used to wrap their papers in which turned the roll yellow, or even certain adhesives used in the fabrication of portfolios can produce this yellowing. Usually that problem can be reversed by later putting them in sunlight for a couple of hours. But it’s very scary if it happens to you. I have had numerous portfolios made for inkjet prints by Porfolio Box company in Rhode Island and have seen no problems of any kind with the paper coatings over a 17 year storage time. Other companies apparently use quite different adhesives. There is a lot we have to learn about this stuff.
In a related note, someone showed me large prints made on Canson Rag Photographique which were sprayed with Hahnemuhle spray on the front, that were displayed by pinning them to a gallery wall in which neutral prints turned yellowish brown, I mean the color of Portriga rapid in a few months. You can easily see the paper borders going yellow and measure the changes in the b values toward yellow, from what was b .9 to b 2.6 and growing. In addition high values in the image were not only yellowing but also fading and that was easily noticeable.
I can’t say this is epidemic, a situation where showing “naked prints” without framing will cause this, because this is new to my experience, but I’ll tell you one thing I would never tell people it is cool to show inkjet prints with magnets or push pins with no glass or plexi in front of them. My philosophy has been for ten years, if you do that expect the worst. Wilhelm used to say “ozone” was a potential problem, but it’s surely a lot more complex than that. RC papers seem to hold up better ( till the oba brighteners turn yellow ) but I wouldn’t trust them either because eventually pollutants will soak into their coatings as well. You just don’t know what chemicals ( floor cleaning detergents, paint fumes, solvents, etc etc, are floating around in the modern world that you can’t see or smell. And these coating attract them like a sponge.
I know the paper manufactures are aware of these issues but I have no idea if any of them have actually addressed it with their r&d departments or have plans to revisit the nature of their coatings , ( which they damn well should ). But the coatings are in my opinion the most serious factor effecting the long term life of the prints we do, way more than the pigments. I also don’t think the perfect post coating varnishes have been thought of yet. Maybe that is something to address in a big way.
But to end this on a positive note, I have clients who have these same papers in big 40x60 prints framed behind glass and plexi hung beside big plate glass windows that have been blasted with daylight for over 12 years and they haven’t changed even a tiny amount. So untill we learn more, frame you prints that will be out there in the open environment and hope for better coatings in the future. Next time you see a rep from one of these paper companies, grill them on this issue. I certainly will.
John
quote author=eronald link=topic=127772.msg1081757#msg1081757 date=1544014005]
[/quote]
-
For those who are curious, I've posted Lab L, A, and B info (spectro #s and graphs) of what you can get with carbon on Arches standard 140 lb. full sheets.
See http://www.paulroark.com/Lab-charts-ArchHPn140-100pc-Carbon.jpg
Again, this is not a place to start for relatively new inkjet printers. It's a real niche, but 100% carbon on Arches (which I sometimes refer to as "carbon on cotton") is a photo medium option some may find interesting and appealing.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/