Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] OT: Epsonizing experiences, cont
From: "Dan Post" <>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:20:40 -0400
References: <>

I would like to hear more about the problems with the MIS archival inks. I
was considering their contiuous flow set-up, and figured that since it was
so economical, that I would switch to the archival ink for everything. Now,
it appears from your post that there are some real downsides to it. BTW- I
use the Epson 1200 too, and use it about three or four times a week- would
that count as 'neglect'?, insofar as ink clogging the head
Dan (Like the cat that ate the cheese- waiting with 'baited' breath) Post
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff S" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 6:18 PM
Subject: [Leica] OT: Epsonizing experiences, cont

> The MIS-Epsonizing experiments continue, and following the teardown and
> cleaning of my neglected Epson 1200 printer, most of the clogging
> problems I was experiencing with the MIS Associates archival ink are a
> thing of a the past. I'm still having some problems with the black ink,
> but I expect that'll be fixed with a more thorough print head cleaning.
> I
> think the problems were due more to letting the printer run dry rather
> than any compatibility issues on the part of the new ink.
> So far the MIS ink fade tests look promising: Three weeks ago, I cut a
> print in two and placed half on a sunny window sill. Today, I can still
> piece the two together without noticing a difference between the halves.
> Next experiment will be to put a sample print near an ozone generator
> like a photocopier.
> I've finally gotten around to trying out "cover weight" Somerset Velvet
> paper, which I had cut down from large sheets to 11 x 15" size. It's a
> little tricky feeding it through the printer due to the thickness but
> seems to work okay. It softens the image slightly and maximum black is
> adequate rather than exceptional, and the overall look is pleasant but
> kind of muted. Me, I think I'll move on and try out Legion's Somerset
> Photo Enhanced, which is a coated paper especially designed for inkjet
> printing. Best paper prices I'm seeing so far are at .
> Epson SO41141 Photo Paper (revisited): I still don't like the oily sheen
> that I get when printing pure black onto some coated papers, but when
> said areas are small and the rest of the photo is Zone V or better, wow
> vivid results! Taking the biggest scans off my Pro PhotoCD disk, I get
> around 500 true DPI filling the better part of my 8.5 x 11" paper.
> Initial impression is that the prints have fantastic detail though in
> fact they don't--some of the microtexture seems to be due to the very
> fine dot patterns and banding in the photo but stand back a little ways
> and it sure looks good. No doubt I could be choosing my print and file
> resolutions better--file res was set around 550 and printer res, 720-a
> strange combo. I plan on experimenting with leaving the printer set to
> 14400 and Genuine Fractal-izing that 550 DPI image. With luck, this
> won't require an insane amount of RAM.
> How to experiment with scanners without having to buy one first? I want
> to compare the Nikon LS2000 versus my Pro PhotoCD scans. In
> astrophotography, a commonly used technique to extract low level detail
> is to make many exposures and create a composite image in Photoshop. Now
> maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but if some LS2000 multiple-pass
> trickery could extract details from the densest parts of the negative,
> that'd be a whole new ball game as far as I'm concerned, because
> alternative of drum-scanning the image is $40 locally, and I got a lot
> of color photos I'd like to scan.
> Jeff Segawa
> Boulder, Colorado