|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Miller: I see where you are coming from. I don't know if Jon Cone has done any side by side tests. He seems to be the only one who has both Iris and Epson printers in his shop that I know of. He has also done extensive testing and formulation of inks. Maybe he could add some thoughts to this thread. Jim Davis www.visual-artists.com mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org Miller Abel wrote: > > Sorry Jim, but I respectfully disagree, I believe that the printer would > have to affect the ink absorbtion characteristics and thus the > light-fastness on uncoated stock: > > If you send the ink into the fibres under higher pressure, it will soak into > the paper better. If the ink is delivered closer to the paper it will arrive > wetter than if it is delivered from further away affecting its absorbtion. > The epson drop-on-demand system doesn't deliver the ink with the same > velocity as the Iris continuous flow system and both printers have different > head flying heights. > > I think it would be careless to disregard these effects without testing them > into insignificance. Do you know if any side-by-side tests have been done > with the same formulation using different application methods? And what > _about_ "painting" some ink on the paper or applying it with a toothbrush > and submitting that along with an actual print? :-) > > Miller Abel > Santa Cruz, CA > > - > Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate > subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.