Cone inks, Canson paper, Epson R3000

[hlockwood]

As the title implies, I'm using Canson (Rag Photographique 310 gsm) paper with Cone (K7 Neutral carbon pigment) inks for B&W printing on an Epson R3000 printer.

Firstly, the prints on this paper are beautiful - sharp and contrasty. So far I prefer it to Han Photo Rag. These both are the kind of archival papers that are routinely tested by Aardenburg Imaging for their conservation quality.

Some time ago I submitted the first sample print on the Canson paper to be tested by Aardenburg. Early results show that the Can Photo Rag is holding up nicely with the Cone inks and has passed the preliminary test for Conservation grade for this combination of paper and ink. Further light exposure tests (>10 Mlux hr) are expected shortly.

My attitude toward photography is that the captured image (digital or film) doesn't really exist until there is a print. Obviously, I want that print to be archival. As an amateur, I don't sell prints, but I still want my "customers" (family, friends, etc.) to have the best quality archival print available.

HFL

 

[coelacanth]

I've got nothing to really contribute to the thread (just got R3000, using with stock inks on Epson Exhibit Fiber Paper), but love to follow the conversation. I'm now really keen to learn the best possible archival b/w printing methods with inkjet printer, in terms of both the picture quality and longevity of the print.

 

[SausalitoDog]

Be interesting to hear if the ink/printer combo work well together over time.

No secret that Epson and Canon claim only their own inks will work well ...

Tom

 

[hlockwood]

Be interesting to hear if the ink/printer combo work well together over time.

No secret that Epson and Canon claim only their own inks will work well ...

Tom

I've been using Cone (piezography) B&W carbon pigment inks for many years and MIS carbon inks before that. Originally, the most archival paper was considered to be Hanemühle Photo Rag. More recently, however, I've switched to the Canson paper because it's less warm than the Hanemühle paper. Neither paper contains optical brighteners, which invariably quicken the rate of fading. And both are pure cotton rag. As I said in the OP, the Canson paper is holding up nicely in the Aardenburg tests.

For an example of completed Aardenburg test results to quote here, I looked at Epson ABW prints on Epson Hot Press Natural (no OBAs), under various lighting conditions and printed with pigment (not dye) inks.

In an interior home hallway or storage area with low lighting, the expected life (to noticeable fading) is about 1000 years. (!)

That same print in a commercial gallery setting yields a lifetime of only about 11 years, while in a typical brightly illuminated home (but not directed exposure and not southern exposure!) the lifetime estimate is about 50 yrs. And in a south-facing storefront window, the lifetime drops to a couple of years.

Obviously, individual users can decide what is archival "enough" for their purposes.

Anyone interested in this subject can access many of the Aardenburg results, there are hundreds, without becoming a member.

HFL

 

[mfogiel]

The Cone inks only work on matte papers, right?

 

[Bob Michaels]

..... No secret that Epson and Canon claim only their own inks will work well ...

Not surprising since consumer ink jet manufacturers us the time proved Gillette razor blade business model where they price the initial purchase as a loss leader then make their profit on the subsequent consumable purchases.

 

[arseniii]

I was considering piezography, even ordered some sample prints from InkjetMal. My r3000 is still under warranty so I decided not to void it with a third party inks until it expires. I'm pretty happy with oem inks and my b&w output using quadtone RIP. As for the papers I prefer HM over Canson. The two cansons that I liked were a baryta photografique and platine... never actually digged into their archival qualities.

 

[Vince Lupo]

The Cone inks only work on matte papers, right?

No they do offer inks for glossy paper. What you have to do is make the print with the inks, then feed the paper through the printer again using the GO curve (gloss overlay).

I tried the Piezography Selenium inks, and in the end I went back to Epson inks for my 3880 and Exhibition Fiber Paper. I personally didn't see the advantage, and the added expense and hassle was not worth it to me. Plus I do occasionally print colour for clients.

 

[Bob Michaels]

..... My r3000 is still under warranty so I decided not to void it with a third party inks until it expires. ......

I cannot believe the legend that using 3rd party inks voids the manufacturers warranty lives on. This has been untrue for at least 16 years, probably before ink jet printers were invented.

There are very clear fair trade laws in the US the EEU, and I strongly suspect Canada as well, that directly state a manufacturer cannot terminate a warranty from use of 3rd party consumables. Otherwise Ford Motor Company could require you to use only their Motorcraft brand motor oil.

Actually Epson did a warranty replacement for me many years ago when I honestly told them the internal contact pins on my brand new printer had been bent out of shape by a missing chip on a 3rd party ink cartridge. But I would not want to try that one again.

 

[thompsonks]

(First, to clear up what might be a bit of confusion in the thread: piezography/Cone inks aren't 3d party color inks, they're 7 or 8 shades of black/gray carbon-based inks for BW printing.)

Vince, could you say more about why you went back to Epson inks in 3880 for BW? Was there really no gain in image quality from Cone inks, or were they just too much trouble for a relatively small gain? I've thought of ordering some of his sample prints, but without printing the same file with both inksets – as you've probably done – it would be hard to make a comparison.

Like Coelacanth/Sug above, I've started using a Leica Monochrom, and the files contain 'large-format' gradations of tonal detail. So BW inkjet printing becomes even more challenging.

Besides considering a Cone inkset, I've been using Tony Kuyper's luminosity masking software (www.goodlight.us). In the latest version he roughly approximates the Zone System, so you can pick out a narrow range of tones to modify (more accurately than with regular Curves).

I'm currently printing on Harman Baryta Warmtone Gloss, because it looks so much like classic Portriga 111. I've been using Canon 6300 inks – matte or glossy black + gray + light gray – with the slightest warm toning (+.01R). But if something might work even better, let us know!

Kirk

(PS, re: a comment on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag, above: I believe it does contain just a pinch of optical brightener?)

 

[Vince Lupo]

Sure, be more than happy to elaborate....

In addition to the inks, you have to get a set of empty carts from them. You then carefully remove the little chips off the Epson carts and place them underneath the chips on the Cone carts (taking care to put the right chip with the right cart). Next, you have to fill the carts with the ink (can be a messy job if you're not careful). After you install the carts, then you need to purge the printer of all the old inks. So that requires at least 3 deep cleans, which uses up a fair bit of ink (and $$$). Then of course once you've done all that, then you need to install the profiles for your paper, make various tweaks here and there to make sure that the prints are coming out just right (more ink used). So a lot of setup involved (at least to me). Then when all is said and done, you end up with prints that to my eye didn't look much different than prints from Epson inks (and yes, I did side-by-side comparisons with the same images that I had printed with the Epson inks). My prints were no sharper, and there was no more detail revealed than in my Epson ink prints. I was expecting an 'oh my God' moment from these prints, but unfortunately it didn't happen. So after all the expense (about $600) and what I will call 'hassle', I switched back to Epson.

Here again, this was strictly my personal experience with them -- others may get fantastic results and be totally happy. But for me - who is a pretty experiences printer - they just didn't work to my expectations.

I should also point out that Dana and Jon at Inkjet Mall (Cone Inks) were very responsive and tried their best to help. The inks just weren't a good match for me.

 

[hlockwood]

Sure, be more than happy to elaborate....

In addition to the inks, you have to get a set of empty carts from them. You then carefully remove the little chips off the Epson carts and place them underneath the chips on the Cone carts (taking care to put the right chip with the right cart). Next, you have to fill the carts with the ink (can be a messy job if you're not careful). After you install the carts, then you need to purge the printer of all the old inks. So that requires at least 3 deep cleans, which uses up a fair bit of ink (and $$$). Then of course once you've done all that, then you need to install the profiles for your paper, make various tweaks here and there to make sure that the prints are coming out just right (more ink used). So a lot of setup involved (at least to me). Then when all is said and done, you end up with prints that to my eye didn't look much different than prints from Epson inks (and yes, I did side-by-side comparisons with the same images that I had printed with the Epson inks). My prints were no sharper, and there was no more detail revealed than in my Epson ink prints. I was expecting an 'oh my God' moment from these prints, but unfortunately it didn't happen. So after all the expense (about $600) and what I will call 'hassle', I switched back to Epson.

Here again, this was strictly my personal experience with them -- others may get fantastic results and be totally happy. But for me - who is a pretty experiences printer - they just didn't work to my expectations.

I should also point out that Dana and Jon at Inkjet Mall (Cone Inks) were very responsive and tried their best to help. The inks just weren't a good match for me.

(I stand corrected on the optical brightener comment. The Han Photo Rag does has a "low" OB content according to Aardenburg, but the Canson Rag Photo does not. Thanks, Kirk)

The extra step of adding the OEM chips under the chips on the Cone carts as described by Vince applies to the 3880 but not to the R3000. In the event, it does appear to be a simple enough procedure.

Flushing the system of the OEM inks on the R3000 also requires using up some of the Cone inks, but not an inordinate amount. I found that the equivalent of 2 power flushes was sufficient if followed by printing a few pages of the yellow-position ink, it being the lightest shade of gray on the R3000. And the cost is actually quite insignificant, especially if one is creating a dedicated B&W printer. Furthermore, buying the (Cone) inks in bulk compared to frequently replacing OEM carts would absolutely override any cost considerations. However, if one switches back and forth between color and gray-scale inks on the same printer, then Vince's objections would certainly hold. If I were a pro, however, I would certainly have 2 printers, one for color and one for K7 B&W.

Installing the profiles is a trivial step (download and double click to install,) and contrary to Vince's experience I found no need to tweak them. And I wouldn't know how; these are not ICC profiles.

The bottom line is this: If the quality (especially improved tonal range) of the B&W prints doesn't justify the hassle (such as it is) then converting to a B&W-only printer doesn't make sense. In my case, first with an R2400, now with the R3000, the results speak for themselves.

Finally, since I sound like a salesman for Cone, I had better add that I have no connection, financial or otherwise, with Jon Cone's company.

HFL

 

[hlockwood]

The Cone inks only work on matte papers, right?

Please confirm pm sent to you today.

HFL

 

[Mahler_one]

The Epson 2880 is very convenient to use with the Cone inks. There are no lines to purge, and a few simple cleaning cycles are all that is needed when changing inks.

Nevertheless, if one visually sees no advantage to using the Cone inks then it would be silly to consider using such.

 

[thompsonks]

Followup: I sent for the Piezo samples on Type 5 paper, which is nearest to the paper I normally use. A friend whose business is color management checked them out with me. I assumed we'd be duly impressed and I'd soon set up an Epson 3800 as a dedicated BW printer. But we were underwhelmed, and I remain unconvinced without seeing a different sample image.

The sample prints are very small, making it hard to observe an extended range of tonal transition. The image emphasizes the upper and lower Zones more than midtones (where I hoped to see more extension). For $43 (including postage), I was expecting something easier to evaluate.

None of the inksets seem truly neutral – all, including Neutral, are far from gray card / ColorChecker gray. The 'WarmNeutral' sample, to our eyes, is too red, and the Carbon and Selenium tonings seems extreme, like 'special effects.'

The sample prints are inconsistent, as if the profiles weren't made or used correctly. Some have considerably more shadow detail than others, which I didn't think would vary so much with the tone of the inks. Only the Carbon and Special Edition samples displayed good separation in the lower tones/Zones.

The prints don't look very good at normal light level, because one can't see into the shadows very well. You might say they have 'sub-visible' shadow detail, in the sense that they brighten up and reveal lots more shadow detail if you hold them quite near to a 5000K light source. But that's not the intensity of any light-source used in a gallery.

In viewing light of 'normal' brightness and intensity (5000K plus a tungsten source to turn off and on, looking for variation), we both preferred the prints I'm currently making with Canon 6300 (3 black inks) on Harman Warmtone Gloss Baryta +.01 Red. Some of the difference could be attributed to the small size of the samples, which keep one from seeing broad areas of tonal transition, and to the choice of an image that placed so much emphasis on the lower Zones and didn't consistently differentiate them very well. The Canon system was doing a better job of differentiating the Ansel Adams Zones II-III-IV.

As I said at the beginning, we expected to see something convincing in tonal gradation and shadow/highlight detail, but we didn't find the samples especially impressive in these respects. I wouldn't spring for the Piezo system without sending them one of my own files to print with their most neutral ink at exhibition size. If/when doing so, I'd be willing to bet – and even give modest odds – in favor of my present BW printing workflow.

Kirk

 

[hlockwood]

Followup: I sent for the Piezo samples on Type 5 paper, which is nearest to the paper I normally use. A friend whose business is color management checked them out with me. I assumed we'd be duly impressed and I'd soon set up an Epson 3800 as a dedicated BW printer. But we were underwhelmed, and I remain unconvinced without seeing a different sample image.

The sample prints are very small, making it hard to observe an extended range of tonal transition. The image emphasizes the upper and lower Zones more than midtones (where I hoped to see more extension). For $43 (including postage), I was expecting something easier to evaluate.

None of the inksets seem truly neutral – all, including Neutral, are far from gray card / ColorChecker gray. The 'WarmNeutral' sample, to our eyes, is too red, and the Carbon and Selenium tonings seems extreme, like 'special effects.'

The sample prints are inconsistent, as if the profiles weren't made or used correctly. Some have considerably more shadow detail than others, which I didn't think would vary so much with the tone of the inks. Only the Carbon and Special Edition samples displayed good separation in the lower tones/Zones.

The prints don't look very good at normal light level, because one can't see into the shadows very well. You might say they have 'sub-visible' shadow detail, in the sense that they brighten up and reveal lots more shadow detail if you hold them quite near to a 5000K light source. But that's not the intensity of any light-source used in a gallery.

In viewing light of 'normal' brightness and intensity (5000K plus a tungsten source to turn off and on, looking for variation), we both preferred the prints I'm currently making with Canon 6300 (3 black inks) on Harman Warmtone Gloss Baryta +.01 Red. Some of the difference could be attributed to the small size of the samples, which keep one from seeing broad areas of tonal transition, and to the choice of an image that placed so much emphasis on the lower Zones and didn't consistently differentiate them very well. The Canon system was doing a better job of differentiating the Ansel Adams Zones II-III-IV.

As I said at the beginning, we expected to see something convincing in tonal gradation and shadow/highlight detail, but we didn't find the samples especially impressive in these respects. I wouldn't spring for the Piezo system without sending them one of my own files to print with their most neutral ink at exhibition size. If/when doing so, I'd be willing to bet – and even give modest odds – in favor of my present BW printing workflow.

Kirk

Kirk,

Having been a happy user of Cone Neutral inks for years, I find these comments disturbing. It seems to me that Jon Cone should be copied and asked to respond in detail.

In addition, I'd be willing to print your file with K7 Neutral inks on Canson Rag Photographique. I typically print at 360 dpi with no resampling. This results in a print that is somewhat larger than 10 x 15 in. on 11 x17 in. paper.

I make this (no charge) offer because I too want the best archival (a la Aardenburg) print possible from my R3000, and if there is a better system than I'm now using, I'll consider switching.

Respond here or pm me. I'll contribute the time, the paper and the inks; you contribute the postage for the print.

HFL

 

[thompsonks]

That sounds fine to me! And it would help others if we agree in evaluating the results. I can send you a couple of files and a couple of prints so you too can see both versions. I can also include a couple of the sample prints that seemed to us to be inconsistent in their shadow detail.

I'd prefer not to bring Jon Cone into the discussion until we've seen the evidence. IMO it's something to see, not something to talk about. And if the results favor his system, I'll happily become one of his customers.
You can e-mail me your address at thompsonkirk@hotmail.com, and I can send materials early next week.

I'm quite pleased to have this chance to check things out! Looking forward to collaboration on this.

Kirk

 

[hlockwood]

That sounds fine to me! And it would help others if we agree in evaluating the results. I can send you a couple of files and a couple of prints so you too can see both versions. I can also include a couple of the sample prints that seemed to us to be inconsistent in their shadow detail.

I'd prefer not to bring Jon Cone into the discussion until we've seen the evidence. IMO it's something to see, not something to talk about. And if the results favor his system, I'll happily become one of his customers.
You can e-mail me your address at thompsonkirk@hotmail.com, and I can send materials early next week.

I'm quite pleased to have this chance to check things out! Looking forward to collaboration on this.

Kirk

Kirk,

That's great! My email address is hflockwoodATverizonDOTcom. However, I believe you will have to send such a large file via, say, Dropbox. And I assume it is a large file, otherwise there's little point. If you are to send prints, you will need my home address; pm with same to follow.

Full disclosure: I had already sent copies of our exchange to Jon Cone before getting your note. Sorry. I felt his reputation as a master printer was at stake, and he deserved a chance to respond.

HFL

 

[thompsonks]

For those quivering with expectations, or at least mildly interested, in this: Harry and I have agreed to exchange some files and prints. By this weekend I'll have mailed or UPSed some materials to him. No rush, because if his Piezo prints are convincingly better, I still have until Aug 31 to buy an R3000 with massive rebate and load it with the Cone inks.

Kirk

 

[Calzone]

Harry,

Thanks for starting this thread.

I own a 3880 and have yet to load the OEM inks. Took advantage of a $250.00 rebate to secure the Epson at a killer price.

At Photo Plus Expo last year I looked at some great prints on Canson papers and like the look.

I see an obvious airbrushing like effect from the dithering with OEM color inksets and OEM driver that I don't care for. To me this is lower resolution, especially if you want to print big.

Cal