Yes. L values only. If you want a and b as well I can remeasure. Because the ink separation chart hasn’t been set-up to strip read, I have to hand measure. I use Measure Tool 5.0.10 on Win 7-64 using an i1 Photo V1.
[Before Jeff jumps in an tells me that I could use the ink sep chart he send me with gaps between the patches to strip-read, I printed this before he sent me that.]
Edit: Just to double clarify, I measured in LAB but only bothered to write down the L values, not the other two readings. I think the readout from the measure tool is Lch.
verification of the r1900 density measurements of WN1 ink-
K only from ink pattern page, calibration mode, 2880 uni-
Canson Rag Photographique- 1.5
Canson Baryta Photographique with GO overprint- 2.43
K in context with full K7 set, using step wedge file, QTR, 2880 uni-
Canson Rag Photographique w/ IJM H PhotoRag supplied curve- 1.597
Canson Baryta Photographique w/ IJM Gold Fiber Silk curve and GO overprint- 2.3
this, along with my ongoing 9880 results, as well as the surprising (to me) numbers in the black is black post which I had not seen, indicates to me that while the ink works very well for what it is sold for, it’s not suitable for my purposes any more… so don’t pay any attention to me!
I don’t know what other conclusion to draw. Anyone using it for film, or WN gloss prints, as currently intended, I’m sure all is very well.
This news is disappointing, and was what I feared. Would you mind confirming your batch number Tyler? Let me assure you that we always pay attention to what you say.
I hope we get a response from IJM, other than WN1 was never intended to be used on matte. Clearly something has changed with this ink, or you’ve got an unusual batch. Did it happen when we started getting this blue tinge in the bottles?
For my part, I’ve got an unopened new bottle of WN1, and as I don’t plan to print much on gloss, I wonder whether I should open it and test it, or see if I can send it back and swap it for MK. On this point I do need a response from IJM, but I’d like it to be based on testing, as Dana seemed to imply in that thread where the black numbers were discussed that she was getting a higher dmax on matte as recently as 5 months ago.
There was a change, and WN1 was never intended to be used on matte. Recently, I improved the glossiness and dMax of WN1 photo black on glossy media. I saw that as a desirable improvement to its intended use. If the unforeseen consequence of that was to reduce its matte dMax - then that is an unforeseen casualty of an experimental use of the ink. We also recently improved the glossy performance of SEL1, and an unforeseen consequence of that was an improved dMax on matte media. But SEL1 is not intended either to be a matte black.
A perfect black (works equally better on matte and photo media is not yet invented - or at least not yet offered by any OEM or 3rd party that is made of 100% pigment.)
Back in March in the thread where the black numbers were discussed, I wrote “As a universal black in which you will use matte / glossy from one - the Selenium will give more dMax on matte and the Warm Neutral will give more on glossy. So choose yours.” I also mentioned that very little shade 1 is actually printed in a K7 or K6 curve. So if you are inclined, you could design your own curves architecture to maximize dMax - but most likely at the expense of the tens of thousands of gray levels that a K6 or K7 curve produces. What you ultimately want is a convincing black. In that case - with allowing yourself only one black - right now that appears to be SEL1. (Unofficially)
Yes, you did say all those things in that other thread where the black numbers were discussed. But there were some things left unsaid. You were going to do some testing to try to resolve the apparent discrepancies, and we haven’t see the final results. Dana’s preliminary results suggested that the WN1 still had a good dMax on matte. Also left unsaid in all this was the fact that the inks had been reformulated, which I would have thought was important in the context of that discussion, but there was no hint of that.
But we are where we are, happy or not. Here is my problem. I have a brand, new unopened 220ml bottle of WN1. Can you tell me whether it’s the old or new formulation? It’s Lot #140725 expiring Jan 2017.
If it’s the new formulation, is it possible to exchange it for the new formulation SEL1? I bought this bottle back in the sales, but I was travelling at the time and so Wells delayed the shipment until I was nearly home and then there was the usual two weeks international shipping delay. So this means that it’s outside the usual RMA period, although it’s only been in my possession for a relatively short time. Perhaps an email on this would be better.
Can we get some lot numbers for the old and new batches of WN1 and SEL1? There is another user in this part of the world with SEL1 who will want to know what he recently bought, because he may be interested in an (unofficial) universal black, given some issues he has been having.
Subject to testing, it may be possible to replace it with a similar review of SEL1, in due course.
There is also a reference on p5 of The New Piezography Manual that needs to be edited. While it’s technically true that IJM has never formally endorsed WN1 on matte, there are some strong hints around, such as that reference in TNPM.
since the ink described, it’s use, and how well it works in that description is not relevant any more. Different ink.[/QUOTE]
Tyler,
I have about 500ml or so of a very strong black that I formulated for my personal. You would have seen me printing it on the hand-made paper when you came to Vermont and we all spent the week printing together. It is not encapsulated, but I have never experienced clogging with it. I run it on my Roland and it makes the best black I have been able to obtain on uncoated handmade kozo/cotton. It’s old but seems to just go and go. If you want to try it, its yours. I will also send a bit of the new Sel1 for you to try as well. Write me off line.
I was drafting an email about a possible swap, and looking those black is the new black numbers again, I’m surprised that SEL1 does so much worse (1.90) than the other blacks (2.3) on baryta. Are those numbers still current? Do they reflect the reformulation that you spoke of, or were they done before that? (I’m also surprised about the OEM number, but that’s not really relevant here.)
Those measurements were made in Sept 2014 from ink formulated much earlier that year. We have formulated both WN1 and SEL1 since then. We will update the black is black post as soon as we can. But, we do not have a ton of users who are experimenting with a photo black as a matte black, so this is not on our front burner. Also, these are bare naked measurements and may not reflect the actual dMax of using black ink in conjunction with the 3-4 shades of ink that are underlying the black ink when a Piezography curve is used. The actual use of Piezography, whether using Sel1 or WN1 produces much more than a convincing black in actual use. These numbers are more informative for those who are capable of producing their own Piezography curves architecture in order to take advantage of more available dMax.
Well my problem is that I have a full and unopened recently-purchased 220ml bottle of WN1 that isn’t going to be much use to me. If I’m going to do a swap then I need to move on it asap, or it’s not going to be possible / reasonable. I need to decide what to do / ask Wells for in the next day or so. I don’t want to take a punt, or import all the shades 1, test them and dispose of those that give the lowest results . I need advice.
By way of explanation, I don’t do a lot of gloss printing, although I’d like to have the option of printing on gloss without having to swap carts and trigger a head clean. I often want to compare a gloss and matte print of the same image, and if I have to change carts and do a head clean every time it’s going to be a pain. K7 for gloss would cease to be a viable option.
Yes, I know that the dmax of an actual k7 curve is make up of 4 shades of ink, and in fact on the 3880 hardly any shade 1 is used at all. But on the R1900 there is a reasonable amount used in the shadows and Tyler’s measurements above indicate that the impact of the new WN1 is modest but non-trivial. So that’s my concern.
for me at least, the problems in my setup have been explained, and a way to go forward with Jon’s generous attention. Should be up and going soon, all we needed was info. Actually this is a pretty small hiccup now that we know what’s happened, and the kind of thing I’ve found I have to absorb when doing unconventional setups. It has been maddening though, until we had our answer.
Brian, why not just go forward with the new Sel1? Seems to me the answer to what you want to do, and now the only ink option for use as an occasional unofficial universal black anyway.
Thanks to all for the help, and to Brian for the measurements, actually that was what I came here for in the first place…
Tyler
You’re welcome Tyler. The reason I didn’t just ask for a SEL1 for WN1 swap straight-away is that I don’t know how the current batch is going to perform in my setup. Jon says that the ink has been reformulated, and that the published measurements are out of date. I feel like I’m flying blind. Shipping inks back and forth half-way round the world is not as simple as shipping them around continental US.
You are asking for advise. My sage and wise advice is that you use matte black (NU1) for matte printing and photo black (SEL1 or WN1) for gloss printing. The current WN1 is darker on glossy if that is essential to you. Why not just go with a P2 system so that you have MK installed and PK installed. You can simply test a P2 curve with your current setup to see if you can visually tell the difference between K6 and K7 in your printer. This way - you will at least be using the system correctly and especially so after saying you do not do much glossy printing.
Coincidentally I was thinking the same thing myself today. There are two problems with P2 from my perspective, both reflecting a certain lack of completeness of the system.
First, there are a number of notable gaps in curve availability, as discussed here. For example, there’s nothing for EEM (or whatever Epson now brands it as), nor for IGFS or ISCHW. These are pretty standard papers, especially EEM & IGFS, and surprising omissions. Second, P2 is not available for all printers. You’ve suggested P2 to me at least once before only to discover that I’m using an R1900.
Now I think I can solve the second problem. I’ve already had success in remapping x880 curves to match the ink placement of the R1900, and the linearity was as good or better than the equivalent R1900 curve. So I imagine that I could do the same to the P2 curves. The major impediment is curve availability in order to do the remapping.
I guess the advice I’m looking for is numerical (dmax) in nature and inevitably that takes time. I still need to deal with this 220ml bottle of WN1, which is considerable in excess of my requirements now, even if I were somehow to take your advice and switch to P2. Perhaps I could start the RMA process and the shipping delay would leave a little time to ponder the best option. I will email you and Wells.
P2 is available for any X800 or X880 printer. The 3880 happens to have two blacks already installed so we do not include it as a possible candidate because the user can automate black ink changes by installing NU1 in the MK position and one of our two photo blacks in the PK position - whereas a 7880 user would have to manually affect a black ink change because there is only one cart slot for black - where the 3880 has two. But there is no reason that a 3880 can not be converted to a P2 printer and that is how we often run the 3880s in our Santa Fe workshop. We also run the R2880s this way to make best use of our time.
You can measure your own dMax if you have a densitometer or a spectro and convert L to density. Our measuring our dMax may not reflect your current conditions. Even the measurements of our dMax today would not necessarily reflect the measurements in our print room a week from now. Certainly not last week when we hit 60% humidity which was an intolerable situation for using some of our more favored papers. We do not have a means to subtract water - only add it - as we are usually very low humidity.
If you have ever tried to linearize an Epson color printer on a daily basis - or to linearize an Epson color printer to match another Epson color printer of the same model, you will soon realize that Epson color printers fluctuate often on a daily basis. The reality is that the human eye is not sensitive enough to notice this until fluctuations become great. Monochromatic printing is much easier for a human to detect fluctuation of course. In some D50 environments and with presspersons of great experience, they may notice a deltaE difference in color fluctuation of only 2. But, the average printer operator who is not operating in a D50 environment or matching press proofs on a daily basis would probably not notice until delta E differences are quite high.
You want to have finite measurements that stay consistent from day to day or match a certain set of specifications - which we simply do not publish. The fluctuation in printers is too great. Because of this, we came up with the K7 curves architecture which has many overlaps and a long receding tail to minimize the effects of fluctuation. We believe that the linearization needs to be fairly straight. But if you map an ABW printout - you would probably be shocked by the linearization (or lack thereof). You may be striving for perfection and that is certainly your right to do - but you should engage that by using a tool like Roy’s droplet on a daily basis - or creating your own toolset as some have.
I think that it would be wise for you to use the system as we designed which is to install Neutral shade 1 matte black as your matte black. Then choose a Photo Black from between our two choices. I realize that you do not often print glossy - but I do not understand why you do not have matte black. Or do you and I am not quite getting it?? I am only filling in for Dana and Kelly who have been both absent due to illnesses - so I am not certain if you are running a 3880 as a matte printer with a photo black when you could run both blacks simultaneously. Is your system customized beyond this? Are you running a straight Piezography ink set such as Selenium K7 or Neutral K7 but choosing not to run a matte black ink when you print matte - or are you also running with some type of custom Piezography ink set where you are using shades from mixed tones? Why do you not just use our Matte Black for matte printing? That bit is escaping me - and if you do not mind telling me - it will prevent my having to go back through all the correspondence. And please excuse me if I am missing something even more obvious about what you have been trying to do - as I do not monitor this board as often as Dana and Kelly do.
You don’t need to tell me this. I know. What it also shocking is the way in which it varies from model to model, e.g. 2880 to 3880.
I hate to say it, but I think you may have confused Jeff and I. Although we post on similar topics, and sometimes in the same thread, we not only look quite different, but also have different piezo printers. Jeff has a 3880 and I have an R1900. I think that this is the point that you really missed. I’ve edited my previous post to highlight this.
I have two specific problems with your suggestion to use P2. The most serious one is that P2 has not been created for the R1900. While you were sleeping I have solved this problem myself. I took the x880 P2 curves and remapped the shades into the correct places for the R1900 and checked linearity for CRP & HPR. Allowing for the fact that my printer has drifted a little over the years it’s not bad, and easily re-linearised with Roy’s new droplet. So I can now use P2 with the R1900.
However I am missing P2 curves for EEM, IGFS and ISCHW. Can we please get these curves?? Soon? As it stands P2 is an incomplete system, because it’s missing these curves. With them I can map to the R1900 as I have already for CRP & HPR, and then I can take up your suggestion to use the NU1 for matte and either SEL1 or WN1 for gloss.
(Although I’d still prefer a universal black. In fact, we had one, but no more it seems.)
InkjetMall Information
Why buy from us
My InkjetMall account
Contact Info