|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Jerry Olson wrote about MIS inks: > >Question: If a custom profile was made, could you get further brilliance >from these inks? Could this be done while keeping the monitor image >accurate and correct? With all these adjustments, the picture on the >monitor looks garish, and this is no way to work. I eagerly await the >Fotonic Inks. These are far more brilliant than the MIS inks. I think we >have all been spoiled by the brilliance of the Epson inks. Also, I >notice you have to clean the heads far more frequently than you have to >do with epson inks. Is this normal? > A good profile helps but few of the archival inks to date have provided as broad a gamut as the Epson OEM. The Fotonic inks might do it on Somerset or Arches. Printing a CMYK file through a RIP (rather than the RGB driver) helps a little bit. Beyond that the only real solution is a coated paper. Concorde Rag works quite well with MIS inks (although it is a rather cream colored paper and has some bleeding at high ink loads). The Luminos line of papers (especially Flaxen Weave) look quite stunning with MIS Archival inks and I've seen no problems at all --except cost! There are also a number of other good coated papers rumored soon to be released that will work very well with the MIS inks. Just not plain old uncoated watercolor. I've not had to clean heads more frequently than with Epson inks (on a Stylus 3000). Dan Culbertson - Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users