Walker and Brian’s posts raised some questions in my mind. This is probably a better place to carry on this discussion.
CIS may have the benefit of reducing microbanding. In an R2000 or 1430, how easy is it to remove the system to store the printer or switch inks?
I believe that Walker’s comment about a CIS reducing micro-banding was in relation to printing digital negatives on film. Film is a lot fussier than paper. There was an instance here recently where someone had a single missing nozzle and got banding on digital negative film, whereas you’d almost never see that on paper. I doubt very much that a CIS would help in the first and last inch micro-banding.
I believe you would purchase a separate CIS for each ink set. Or, you could switch to carts for some seldom used ink sets or flush.
Thanks, that all makes sense.
I doubt I’d be getting a CIS for the R2000, but knowing it’s possible would be nice. It’s also nice to know that if microbanding becomes an issue, there is a possible solution. I know nothing about digital negatives, but it makes sense that film would be much more sensitive to microbanding.
I just printed some 4x6 prints for my family of some of the old pictures on glossy. The microbanding is quite obvious on these, and it’s not feasible to leave a 1" border. (I usually leave a .75" border on the larger prints. I figure that 1/4" of banding won’t be noticed for what I am doing.)
Can I remind you of my blog post outlining the lead sheet approach?
Thanks, I do remember about the lead sheet trick. These prints are for my parents and while I see the microbanding as obvious, they didn’t notice. For these prints it’s not worth using a lead sheet as you might recommend. At least, not yet. I’ve got a ton of other things to learn before I take the time to learn that trick. I did take one of these prints and print it out as a 13x19 print. In that print, the microbanding would be showing up essentially in the background, plus I use a 0.75" border. What is more noticable than microbanding in these prints is the dirt collected in the dimples of the original photographic paper. I did remove some of the dirt in Photoshop, but I don’t want to do too much lest I start losing the texture of the skin. Besides, these prints probably look better printed using Sepia toning which led me for awhile to think once again about carbon piezography. I’m still going to stick with the idea of Selenium, but I’m thinking a good second ink to have on hand is Carbon to make reproductions of these original sepia prints.
The CIS(S) decreases micro-banding in negs (what I was referring to on the QTR forum) but not the first/last inch issue. However, the major major benefit of using a CISS instead of individual cartridges is that you never take a cartridge out and thus you never introduce air into this system. In the long run this is much more cost effective if you’ve settled on one ink-set that you love. You won’t be doing as many nozzle cleanings!!
For those getting a new small format, we just intro’d our P600 with a CISS. You literally never take a cart out. When one resets, you take out the top-cover-sensor-switch and place it back into the printer and that’s it. It’s a pretty ideal system. (only supporting cone-color right now, P2/K7 coming soon.)
This would be ideal if you’re printing regularily. For me, I will likely need to store it for months at a time, and perhaps with the ability to do runs with different inks. In my case, I think I’m better off with carts.