Anyone using Cone's K7 color inks in a 2400?

[wparsonsgisnet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am looking at Cone's 20pct sale for his K7 inks for the Epson 2400. There are of course savings ongoing. Anyone using this? Any happy stories?

 

tnx,

[norm_snyder]

Bill--

 

I do hope there is someone out their who may know, as I'm considering the same inkset for the 3800 [now that they have refillable carts]. Meantime, I wonder if there is anything on the LuLa forum...Were you thinking about the selenium set? I'd used the previous incarnation of the Cone selenium emulating inks, and was pretty happy, but for clogs. I've read they are better now. I've been using the Epson K3 inkset, and like the B&W, but tonality really was better with the Piezography.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Norm, I'm already using the piezo set from Cone in a Epson 1600 for b/w.

 

I'm considering the refillable carts for my 2400 for color printing. It seems they are cheaper but more importantly more archival. The problem is that I spent the dough for ImagePrint, so I'll ask if they have profiled the Cone K7 inks.

 

I'll think about this some more. I am surprised that no one in this forum is using these inks.

[norm_snyder]

Your using the K7 inks? Glossy or matte? Is this the K6/K7 set? It's interesting if their replacement for the K3 set is more archival than the Epson inks. If they produced B&W prints as good as OEM K3 inks, why use anything else, so long as they stay in business. I may have to [after a couple of deep breaths] give the K7 Selenium a whirl. Have you used the gloss optimizer?

[wparsonsgisnet]

Your using the K7 inks? Glossy or matte? Is this the K6/K7 set? It's interesting if their replacement for the K3 set is more archival than the Epson inks. If they produced B&W prints as good as OEM K3 inks, why use anything else, so long as they stay in business. I may have to [after a couple of deep breaths] give the K7 Selenium a whirl. Have you used the gloss optimizer?

 

Norm, I am using the neutral K6 set with the Epson 1400 and the Hahnemuhle photo rag matte. I am not doing glossy because I cannot see a difference between glossy and matte when the print is behind glass and because the photo rag is archival. I like the 200-year life of the K6-photo rag combo.

 

I like what I am getting.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Norm, I like that we're having this conversation. And, since no one seems to be using this stuff from InkJetMall, I'll give it a try shortly.

 

I have the interest because I want more archival color prints. As I understand it the inks that Epson supplies are only able to be termed "archival" because Epson and the testers have come to an agreement that 30% color fading is not noticeable to the viewer and is therefore an acceptable measure of archival quality.

 

So, Epson's inks fade by 30%, but we're too stupid to notice, and the testing community therefore deems them archival. I think I've got that right, but maybe I'm not bright enough to understand it....

 

I'll report on my experience.

 

Regards to all,

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Bill, I've posted before about my impending use of Cone inks, but didn't reply here since your question was not specific to my situation and I therefore didn't think I could add value.

 

FWIW, I currently have Epson inks in my 3800. But, I'm getting delivery soon on a 4880, which I plan to set up with K7 selenium inks with gloss optimizer. This will allow me to print on glossy (my primary papers) or matte (if I change out the black). I plan to continue using Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl and Photo Rag Baryta, my current papers for bw. But, I'll experiment with others.

 

It may be a while until I get up and running. The printer stand is back-ordered, and my good friend, and photo/computer expert is going to help me get everything set up properly once the equipment arrives. I've seen his work using Cone inks and I can't wait to try them out myself. I'll keep the 3800 for color work, and of course it could also continue to be used for some bw.

 

I chose the 4880 because of its auto head cleaning function, better paper handling, and its generally more robust build than the 3800. I only wish it had an extra cartridge bay like the 3800 so that I wouldn't have to waste inks if I change from glossy to matte. Weighing pros and cons, I decided to put the Cone inks in the 4880 rather than the 3800. I also chose the 4880 as a second printer rather than a 3880 since discounts and rebates actually made it cheaper. And, I like the larger cartridges.

 

Jeff

[wparsonsgisnet]

Thanks, Jeff. I ordered the K3 set for the 2400 today and will report on the results.

[norm_snyder]

Bill & Jeff--

Given how many B&W shooters there are on the forum, it's hard to believe that we're such a small, special interest group. As for me, now that my 3800 is out of warranty anyway, and because prints on display in a couple of local businesses, and on the walls of folks who have bought prints, in settings with lots of UV, including window light, seem not to have faded, using the last generations Piezotone incarnation of the Cone inks, I am going to consider switching to the new Cone B&W inks. I guess I should watch this space for your experience.

 

Bill- It will be interesting so hear what black and white prints from the Cone K7 color set look like. As for your continued preference for the matte papers, which I agree continue to look great under glass, I am again reminded how hard it has been to display the glossy papers [ilford GFS and Harman Al glossy papers] without them rippling slightly if not dry-mounted. I hate doing this, and you have given me motivation to reevaluate the Photo Rag, which had been my standard paper. The only reason for using the other two has been the apparent depth of the blacks, though I think, with the Photo Rag, the mid-tones are actually a bit better.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Norm, I've been using Ilford glossy with the Epson Ultrachrome inks and will be pleased to see how the Cone color inks look. I may end up switching to an archival paper as well -- tho I have a lot of Ilford paper.

 

I'm more interested in how the profiles will work on the 2400. I have ImagePrint and will ask them if they've profiled the Cone inks.

 

As for the b/w -- I really like what I get on the Photo Rag with the Cone inks.

 

I'd like to place the output in perspective with what I used to get in the darkroom with Zone VI enlarger computer and Ilford paper-base stock, but (1) I also can't make a "wet" print from my digital negs, (2) therefore don't have any comparison images, and (3) really don't want to torture myself.

 

The end result has been that I have b/w prints that are *archival* and I'm really pleased with the tonal range.

 

I want the same for the color.

 

Boy! It's taken more than 10 years to get here! What a treat to produce archival output again!

 

Regards,

[Jeff S]

...ah, yes, my old Zone VI enlarger. Good times, Bill.

 

I wonder if Fred would have gone digital in any way. Instead, my friend and photo bud has established Zone VII as a business name, and plans to carry the concept forward, dealing with old issues in a digital age.

 

Jeff

[wparsonsgisnet]

Jeff, I don't find a web presence for zonevii. Is he active yet?

 

I'll be there for sure.

[Jeff S]

Not active yet, I don't think. He registered the name and uses it for his photo sales, paid consultations and such for now. He has a real job...outside photography...and is extremely busy lately.

 

We met at a Picker workshop in 1992 and his abilities remind me of Picker, plus Picker's tech consultants, in one. He recently rebuilt a film scanner he owned, probably increasing its effective value about 5 fold. He's also a good teacher and photographer. I pick his brain often, and he has helped make my transition from film to digital far easier.

 

I'll keep you posted once there's something noteworthy.

 

Jeff

[norm_snyder]

Well, holiday's over...back to work. It looks like I'll end up taking the plunge, and probably install the new refillable cartridges in my 3800 + K7 Selenium inks. Bigger investment in this printer than I was planning on making, but I have some projects coming up that will call for larger prints, and I was happy with Cone inks before. Bill, Jeff, have you had any issues with clogging? [i hated my 1280's for that]

 

Bill, do you recall where you saw that data on the fading on the Epson inks. While I'm concerned about some B&W prints I sold with the K3 Epson ink set, I feel Ok about the buyers, who get a "lifetime" warranty from me...If a print ever fades or discolors, I'll replace it at no cost [but probably not 30 yr from now].

 

Cheers and season's greetings to all

[Jeff S]

Norm, I run Epson inks in my 3800 and have had some clogs (usually one of the blacks), but easily fixed with a quick head cleaning routine. I now make sure I run a print through regularly to keep things flowing.

 

A big reason I bought the 4880 for the Cone K7 inks is that it comes with an auto head cleaning function, which the 3800 series does not have. I'm still waiting for a backordered stand, however, so I don't have the new rig up and running yet.

 

A friend of mine just bought the 4880 and will also be running the same K7 selenium inks with gloss optimizer. He should be in action soon. I'll report back on his, and my eventual, experiences.

 

Jeff

 

PS Dana, the tech person at Cone, advises regular printing, as stated, plus agitation of cartridges and proper cleaning of machine. She sent me a detailed email on the latter. If you call Inkjet Mall and call Dana or get her email, I'm sure she can provide you with specific advice. I've found the folks there, including Wells, to be extremely helpful.

[gpleica]

To all...I'm fairly new to the forum, since August, and I am in the middle of switching over to a digital workflow, using an M9 now, an Epson 4880 which is still in the box, yet to be set up, and I too am looking at only installing the new inkset from Cone. I also have been using a lot of Zone VI equipment in the darkroom and am switching over now that what looks to be a well conceived archival B&W system is possible with digital. So everyone's comments here are incredibly well timed for me - to learn from. I have a sample pack of hte Hahnemuhle papers - and I just want to understand exactly which photo rag paper works best with these inks, in your opinion. There is an ultra-smooth, a bright white, and a photo rag (plain). This is my first investment in non-silver paper and I could really use some advice to start things off right. Of course I'll experiment, but hearing what you think works best with this ink set for a non-glossy, sturdy print that resists marring, if at all possible, would be most helpful.

 

Thanks.

 

Geoffrey

Milford, PA

[Jeff S]

Geoffrey, you might check back with Cone (Inkjet Mall) and see if they have some of your sample papers profiled. If so, they might be able to send you print samples on these papers, or tell you how you might have them print one of your images on them. Your tastes in papers can certainly vary from others.

 

As I mentioned above, I really love the Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl and Photo Rag Baryta, but these are glossy. But, that's what I used in my darkroom days, so I know the look I'm after.

 

Jeff

[gpleica]

Jeff,

You spell your name the normal way...growing up I had to tell my kindergarten teacher it was Geoffrey, like Geoffrey Chaucer. She had never heard him. I asked Jon Cone to send me sample prints and he is more that willing to do so...a good tip, great service.

 

I have always liked the way Lee Friedlander's (a mentor/teacher/friend of mine) photographs look in the books he's published - the paper, smooth, almost soft texture. I stocked up on Zone VI Brilliant paper back in the 1990s, froze it, and used it for the better part of two decades. So the pearl smooth finish is a beautiful one - I agree. But I'm interested in trying something different.

 

I just bought this 27" imac and I've read in this forum how it's best to dial it down to 90mcd so the prints match the screen. Any experience in matching the screen to the print with Cone's inksets?

 

Geoffrey

[gpleica]

On the 4800, do you plan to print on sheets or purchase a roll? I would expect the rolled stock to be tough to work with - curl, trimming, etc. Does anyone have good or bad experience in running 17" width rolls? And is it cost effective? Or is it just better to run batches of like-size paper? And is there any way to prevent what seems like the ease with which the inks on the surface of the print can be marred? I don't mean to highjack this thread but I am looking at using the same materials (Cone inks and H. papers).

Thanks for the insights.

Geoffrey

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

Geoffrey, I also used Zone VI Brilliant...great stuff, especially the early iterations.

 

I always custom profile my papers for my setup (currently using expensive Eye-One equipment owned by my photo bud). My screen is calibrated using the NEC built-in Spectraview. I think Cone offers two free profiles when you get their inks, so I'll probably take advantage of that service.

 

I actually haven't set up my 4880 yet. It just arrived late last week and the stand is backordered. For now, it's still the 3800, which I'll keep, primarily for color, which I'm doing for the first time. My friend is also beginning to use the 4880 with K7 selenium inks with gloss optimizer. I know that he will use both paper and rolls, as he's done on his earlier generation Epsons. Given his photo business, he can take advantage of the volume; and, he prints much larger than I for his client work. However, I will likely stick to single sheets.

 

I collect photo books, so I'll check some Friedlander work to see what you mean. Many books from my collection are printed to a very high standard, especially given their age, and the inks, finishes and textures can be amazing. I get as much joy from them as I do from collected prints...just in a different way. Hope Lee autographed your copies.

 

Jeff