Lyson Daylight Darkroom vs. MIS UT7 for Epson 2200

George,

Have you tried using Harrington's Quadtone RIP?

http://harrington.com/QuadToneRIP.html

I use it with the 2200's 'stock' inkset on matt papers and am very pleased with the results. I've also used the MIS UT2 inkset and QTR with the 1280 and found the output to be nearly identical to the 2200UC w/QTR. Keep in mind I normally contact print in platinum so I have a bias towards warm tones on matt surfaces.

If you're looking for the 'silver' look (ie. 'repro' glossy output) then I don't believe either the lyson or mis would suit.

Cheers, Roger....

I concur with Roger. I'm in the process of evaluating B&W solutions for my 2200 and have found that using Quadtone RIP, there is almost no difference in the quality of prints you can make with the stock Epson inks versus the MIS Ultratone inkset. Highlights are a touch smoother and more "dotless" using the Ultratone set, which uses four shades of gray, than the Epson Ultrachromes with only two shades. But without a loupe, it's very hard to tell them apart.

-Jon

I believe a very significant factor is the factory support, user support, developed workflows, and developed curves for the MIS inks. That may develop some day for the new Lyson inkset but it doesn't exist today. When I have a question relating to workflows using MIS inks, I can think of 30-40 people I can ask for help. And, an active community to post to. With the new Lyson ink set, it's a very long shot.

Digital b&w printing certainly is not an out of the box proposition. I recommend letting some very experienced printmakers work out the kinks in an inkset. You don't want to be debugging workflows while you're also learning from scratch.

Lastly, if any ink supplier told me they were getting a D-Max of 4+, I would never again trust anything they told me. That's like the new "wonder developer" that gives Tri-X the grain of TechPan, perfect tonality and a true iso of 3200.

I have been running an MIS system on my 2100 for the last 9 months. Very very happy with the results. Indistinguishable from the original Epson inks. Physically MIS and Lysons systems are almost identical but MIS is less than half the price of the Lyson sytem (the current exchange rate helps as I am in the UK). I have found the people at MIS to be very helpful and extremely efficient. The only problem I have had is a leaky cartridge but no doubt that will be sorted with a phone call.

Wow, my first question on photo.net and immediate responses. Thank you so much. I believe I'll steer away from Lyson then at this stage, but if Quadtone Rip only uses two inks can the tonal gradation really be indistinguishable from four with MIS, and I read that MIS inks have more longevity. The carbon is more stable isn't it? What are Epsons blacks made from? Again, thank you soo much, George

Don't confuse the Daylight Darkroom with the other Lyson inks or with the MIS or Cone inks. It is supposed to be a very different approach and uses archival dye inks and special papers instead of the carbon based pigment inks that Cone and MIS use. I have been using the Cone pigment inks for 4 years, since thay came out, and recently switched to the MIS inks to be able to print from sepia to cold tone with the same ink set. The Cone and MIS inks are almost indistinquishable from each other, both work very well with mat papers. I have the Daylight Darkroom on order but it has not been available yet. Until the DD is readily available there is no way to know which way to go. It will of course depend on personal preference. If the DD works like is claimed, it should be a very different look then the Cone/MIS. I can tell you that neither the Cone nor MIS systems look like silver prints. They look more like platinum but with higher contrast. The warm inks are particularly nice in my opinion. If the DD inks truly look like traditional glossy silver prints as they claim, it will be another creative tool for artistic expression and will look very different from the Cone/MIS. I personally can't choose between the two as the look should be very different.

I've been using the MIS UT2s with my 2200 for about a year. They work very well. I usually print on matte papers, but have been playing with "toning" on Ilford Smooth Pearl. You will be able to see a difference between these inks and Epson's. I'm using InkJet Control/Open Printmaker. IJC allows you to make your own profiles and really tweak the inks. Open Printmaker is free, so check it out:

http://www.bowhaus.com/news/ijcnews.htm

It's not that QTR with the Epson inks is indistinguishable from the MIS UTs, but it's a lot closer than what you might expect. Since QTR is free to try, I'd definitely recommend experimenting with the Epson inks first.

I'm personally trying to decide if the slightly better highlight tonality of the quad set is worth the dual inconvenience of not being able to print color and needing to mail order all my inks.

-Jon

Again, thanx. Does anyone have a conviction about longevity and carbon pigment vs. Epson inks? George