The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Piezography question

Teager

New member
I am wondering if I can get some opinions from someone that has seen the results of printing piezography in person. I am considering converting a secondary printer into a piezography special edition ink set and am hoping to get some comments as to the differences for both black and white prints and digital negative creation. I came from a 4x5 and platinum and salted paper printing background and have switched to MFD and digital negative, still working on getting something I like. I am partially satisfied with my B&W prints using the advanced black and white driver but am hoping the piezography system will get me closer to what I am looking for. Any thoughts as to the performance of the conversion? Or anyone in the San Francisco Bay Area that has prints or is using a piezography system?
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
Considering how long B&W piezography has been out, there really aren't that many resources that I have found available on the web outside of Jon Cone's website, other than a few threads or comments here and there. His website, InkjetMall - Archival inks - Color Management - Quad Black PiezographyBW has quite a few resources though you do need to stumble around quite a bit to find everything. You might also find helpful, The State of the State of the Arts in Black & White | THE AGNOSTIC PRINT

Probably the best thing to do is to order some B&W piezography prints from the various inksets to compare. I liked the selenum K7 MPS (glossy) best, so I am planning on converting my old 9800 soon to a K7 MPS piezography printer (gloss). An auto-switching printer like a 3800/3880 would give you more flexibility, unless you are committed to a single inkset flavor as I am doing. I'll probably use only handful of select papers for this system, and am hoping to push the quality of B&W printing a bit further. I'll use the 9900 for other papers or matte B&W finishes.

You're free to visit the studio once the planned conversion is complete!

ken
 

Eden

New member
I've experimented with printing the same digital files (Phase One DF/P-40+) with Epson ABW on my 7900 and with the MPS Glossy piezography K7 ink sets on an R1900, using papers Exhibition Fiber, Canson Platine, and Ilford GFS. In every case, side-by-side comparison shows much finer tone gradations, more depth, and more vividness with the K7 inks. Jon Cone also makes his own papers to match the inks; prints on his Type 5 show noticeably more presence. Refillable carts make it easy to switch from a selenium set to a selenium/warm neutral split tone, for example. The gloss overlay step is no trouble and leaves a perfectly natural and beautiful paper surface. I've printed with the K7 matte inks in the past, and continue to do so if that surface fits the image, but I much prefer the new MPS glossy sets.
Before buying the ink sets, I found their sample print pack too small to make a good evaluation, so I sent them a favorite digital file, which I had previously printed in the chemical darkroom and with Epson ABW, for a 13 x 19 print in my choice of ink and paper. It was an eye-opener!
Jon Cone's blog has lots of useful information: PiezoPress | The Piezography Website and Blog

Lynn Noah
 

Teager

New member
Thanks for the input. It looks very promising I think I will order some samples and try to narrow down the ink sets. The special edition is the one that is catching my attention at the moment. If/when I decide to choose, I will write up a detailed impression. Any other comments and/or experiences would eb very appreciated.
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
The MPS (glossy) version of Special Edition is a "custom" inkset and not yet broadly released, but it can be ordered. I'm waiting to see a sample of the Special Edition glossy. I'm still leaning towards the Selenium MPS or the Selenium Warm-Neutral split MPS, and hope to do the conversion in the next couple of weeks.
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
I'm in Carmel----and will be converting my 9800 there. You're welcome to come visit. There are other printing possibilities I'm exploring, even with my 9900, and this also might make a nice printing class for a future PIAB outing.
 

Teager

New member
That would be great. I would love to come check it out when you have it set up. I am hoping they will be at SPE this year so I can see the differences between all of the ink sets . I have always wanted to go to one of the PIAB but never seem to be able to swing the time, maybe next time.
 

eleanorbrown

New member
I had letter sized prints printed of my grayscale files...special edition, carbon, and warm neutral/selenium glossy split. ( also have the cone 5 inch samples of selenium and warm) ....after studying these samples in all lighting conditions I have decided on the warm neutral/selenium split for my 7800. I felt the special edition tended to go to much carbon in the shadows, the plain warm only was too green for me and the selenium only, tho nice, was slightly too purple for me, and the carbon was too reddish/yellowish for me. The carbon would be beautiful in "selected" images but not something i would want for all my work....Thus the warm neutral/selenium is a good compromise for me. Eleanor
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
After some gyrations, the conversion of my Epson 9800 to B&W K7 Selenium MPS glossy piezography is complete. *phew* It really should have been easier, but the instructions for conversion/workflow are somewhat spread out over different instruction sheets and locations. I'm still sorting out some workflow questions and want to add more "curves" to offer more B&W paper selections. I'll be running some comparison prints with my 9900 as well, but the initial prints from the K7 Selenium glossy look pretty darn good...

Now I gotta start doing more photography with B&W in mind....

:) ken
 

Teager

New member
Ken, thanks for all your info. I just got in the new Neutral Piezography 2 for the 4800 and will be installing in the next week or 2, I'll let you know how it goes.
 

eleanorbrown

New member
Question for those of you that are using the Cone MPS glossy inks on printers that have PIZZA WHEELS. I have a brand new 3880 that I got just for the MPS Glossy inks (Warm neutral/selenium split). When I use rear manual feed for the fine art papers the print goes under the pizza wheels (MPS ink is not dry) and gets pizza wheel marks in all areas that have somewhat smooth tonalities in mid and shadow tones. Prints with pizza wheel marks are not acceptable to me (I look closely in angled light at all of my prints to check for marks). I did not get any roller marks using the epson inks (I did extensive tests using epson inks first to make sure my printer was in top notch condition). I can use front paper feed and get away from the pizza wheels on the paper but you can't align the print head in front feed mode (only rear feed mode can you use head alignment). For this reason, front feed prints do not have the fine detail due to lack of proper head alignment.

If anyone has found an answer to this problem with printers using MPS glossy inks with pizza wheels please let me know. I spent weeks and boxes and boxes of paper and tons of the Cone inks trying every setting imaginable to correct these issues to no avail. Any suggestions welcome and thanks!! Eleanor
 

Teager

New member
Eleanor, I have heard that this might be an issue from a friend of mine that did a conversion when they first came out, his solution was to physically remove the wheels. I'm hoping it does not come to that but I have contemplated either removing them all together or using a washer to "lift" them out of the way. If I encounter this, I'll post my solution.
 

eleanorbrown

New member
Thanks! I heard that someone tried removing the wheels but that the paper started to skew as it had nothing to keep it in place. I also thought about trying to raise the wheels in some way. To get the detail that is available using the Cone MPS system you really need to use the rear manual feed (front feed equals fuzzy detail I tried raising the paper using 2 ply matte board but not only did that cause issues with the paper exiting the printer but the detail still was not what it should be). If you have a problem with the wheels please do post your solution. I have heard from the folks at inkjetmall that they have many "happy users" (quote) using this MPS system with these printers but so far I'm not one of them. Got so frustrated that I put the epson inks back in the printer for now until I hear of a solution. Eleanor

Eleanor, I have heard that this might be an issue from a friend of mine that did a conversion when they first came out, his solution was to physically remove the wheels. I'm hoping it does not come to that but I have contemplated either removing them all together or using a washer to "lift" them out of the way. If I encounter this, I'll post my solution.
 

Eden

New member
Eleanor: What papers were you using and did all of them show the same problem? Coincidentally I bought a new 3880 as a second dedicated piezography printer just before I saw your post. As you did, I installed the Epson carts and ran extensive tests in preparation for converting to the Cone inks, but I have not yet changed over. I printed on the papers which have been successful for piezography in my 1900: Epson Exhibition Fiber, Canson Platine, Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, Epson UPP Matte all printed perfectly in color and ABW. However, when I ran Cone Studio Type 5, my favorite paper which I planned to use in the 3880, I was horrified to see a large thumbprint-shape scar, filled with horizontal white lines, in the upper right corner one inch below the image top and 1/2 inch from the right edge. This appeared exactly the same on several sheets. I experimented by opening the Mac/Lightroom print dialog box and under Advanced Media Controls raised the paper thickness to 5 (3 is default for EEF). On the next Type 5 print the scar was lighter, so I raised the setting to 13 which turned out to be my lucky number: the print had no mark at all.

Later I called Epson and the tech suggested I set the platen gap to Wider. He did not know much about the paper thickness subject. In any case my 3880 now prints Type 5 OK with Epson ABW at 13 thickness and Wider gap, and I have decided to go ahead and purchase the refillable cart sets and chips in the hope that the Type 5 and K7 combo will work in the 3880. It has been flawless in my 1900, up to 13 x 19 sheets, and much superior to the many ABW test prints I have just run on the 3880. I plan to use different ink combos in the two printers.

I emailed the surface scarring as a tech support issue to Inkjetmall, asking what settings they used on their 3880s and whether they had ever seen surface marks, and I'll pass along their reply. (Their customer support has been excellent in my past experience.) I don't understand the paper thickness specs in the 3880 printer dialog box which comes up with .3 mm when you enter EEF. The label on the EEF box uses the term 13 Mil, but Google references say that is a measure of length or volume, so I got lost at that point. I also couldn't find a thickness spec for Type 5, but it looks and feels no thicker than EEF. It does feel softer. The instruction at the bottom of page 55 in the 3880 Users Manual says the paper thickness setting can affect print sharpness. If that's true the setting is an important issue, suggesting perhaps that too high may detract from sharpness, but the Manual's guidance is so vague it is no help at all.

I'll let you know the results when I have the K7 inks installed.

Lynn Noah
 

raywest

Member
Hi Lynn,

0.3mm is metric measure - 25.4mm is the same as 1 inch. Confusingly, one Mil is common termininology for one thousandth of an inch, so 13Mil is 0.33mm. Both measurements you mentioned are therefore near enough the same.

Best wishes,

Ray
 

Eden

New member
Thanks Ray; if I now can run down the thickness rating of the Cone Studio and other papers I will have something concrete to compare. I don't wish mindlessly to put in too high a setting, as sharpness might be affected, but clearly the paper is sensitive to too little clearance.

Lynn
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
Lynn, which piezography inkset(s) are you using? Aside from the apparent headstrike you experienced, have you experienced the pizza wheel marks that Eleanor refers to on her 3880? I'm running the K7 MPS Selenium on a 9800, love it, but also feel fortunate to have a successful conversion.

ken
 

eleanorbrown

New member
Lynn I spent weeks and many boxes of paper and lots of Piezo warm neutral/selenium split MPS inks trying to find settings that work with the inks on my 3880. finally settled on .5 paper thickness and wider for platen gap. However this really has nothing to do with the pizza wheel issues. With the epson inks I did not have any issues with pizza wheels...I looked at some of the epson ink prints and under bright light and magnification I did detect very very faint pizza wheel marks on very very dark smooth areas...In other words the pizza wheel issues was really a non issue with the epson inks because they are "set" when they go under the wheels. The Cone MPS glossy inks are another story however...the inks are NOT set whatsoever when they go under the wheels so on prints that have smooth darker areas the pizza wheel marks are easily seen (for me anyway...but I'm particular). I'm sure some people would just ignore them but they were not acceptable for me. Cone tech support told me to do front manual load and avoid pizza wheels entirely, but with front load, fine details are "fuzzy" and you can't align your print head in front load mode...only back load...so if you want the benefit of super fine detail, don't use front load. I haven't found a solution yet. Been printing via back load manual a few prints today and because they were detailed without smooth areas, no pizza wheels were evident. When I print a print that has low mid tones or shadows in areas that are smooth and lack detail, I see pizza wheels. Let me know if you find a solution. The people at inkjetmall don't use their 3880/3800 printer for MPS inks...only for their color inks. The MPS inks are the issue as they are "soft" and easily marked until the final coat of gloss optimizer is printed over. Eleanor

Eleanor: What papers were you using and did all of them show the same problem? Coincidentally I bought a new 3880 as a second dedicated piezography printer just before I saw your post. As you did, I installed the Epson carts and ran extensive tests in preparation for converting to the Cone inks, but I have not yet changed over. I printed on the papers which have been successful for piezography in my 1900: Epson Exhibition Fiber, Canson Platine, Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, Epson UPP Matte all printed perfectly in color and ABW. However, when I ran Cone Studio Type 5, my favorite paper which I planned to use in the 3880, I was horrified to see a large thumbprint-shape scar, filled with horizontal white lines, in the upper right corner one inch below the image top and 1/2 inch from the right edge. This appeared exactly the same on several sheets. I experimented by opening the Mac/Lightroom print dialog box and under Advanced Media Controls raised the paper thickness to 5 (3 is default for EEF). On the next Type 5 print the scar was lighter, so I raised the setting to 13 which turned out to be my lucky number: the print had no mark at all.

Later I called Epson and the tech suggested I set the platen gap to Wider. He did not know much about the paper thickness subject. In any case my 3880 now prints Type 5 OK with Epson ABW at 13 thickness and Wider gap, and I have decided to go ahead and purchase the refillable cart sets and chips in the hope that the Type 5 and K7 combo will work in the 3880. It has been flawless in my 1900, up to 13 x 19 sheets, and much superior to the many ABW test prints I have just run on the 3880. I plan to use different ink combos in the two printers.

I emailed the surface scarring as a tech support issue to Inkjetmall, asking what settings they used on their 3880s and whether they had ever seen surface marks, and I'll pass along their reply. (Their customer support has been excellent in my past experience.) I don't understand the paper thickness specs in the 3880 printer dialog box which comes up with .3 mm when you enter EEF. The label on the EEF box uses the term 13 Mil, but Google references say that is a measure of length or volume, so I got lost at that point. I also couldn't find a thickness spec for Type 5, but it looks and feels no thicker than EEF. It does feel softer. The instruction at the bottom of page 55 in the 3880 Users Manual says the paper thickness setting can affect print sharpness. If that's true the setting is an important issue, suggesting perhaps that too high may detract from sharpness, but the Manual's guidance is so vague it is no help at all.

I'll let you know the results when I have the K7 inks installed.

Lynn Noah
 
Top