Which printer are you using to print from M8?

Dave Wilkinson said:
I did not say that equal quality was impossible - but that it needs 'something special' - if that is what you have.....fine!, and no I don't find technological progress "depressing".....far from it! 🙂
Dave.
Click to expand...
Dear Dave
I may have miss interpreted your post but it seemed to me you were implying some doubts as to the quality of printers in general in comparison to a general wet print (unless wet room standards are unusually low it would have to be something special...). I suppose 'special' is difficult to qualify but honestly an Epsom 2880 produces increadible monochrome. Not hugely rare or expensive so not really that special in my opinion. The reason I find it a bit depressing is that these printers dish it out so easilly compared to quite considerable efforts on my part the darkroom!

All the best for 2010

Richard
 
Interesting !. I have a HP8750, and using DSLR exceeds any darkroom BW print I made from MF (120) years ago (gave up on big prints from 35mm). Dont get me wrong love RF 35mm and street stuff up to 8x10 or even 11x12.
Now problem is the HP now old, uses dye based ink and its time I upgraded my printer, first priority is BW so currently researching the latest printers and looks like will have to settle on a pigment printer, maybe a roll based one. Still find it hard to better my old HP8750 dye based brilliancy for BW tho.
Watching this thread with interest.

ron
 
Well, I'm glad to hear that these new generation printers do B&W well. I was always considered a great B&W printer in college... even my teachers would ask me for tips on my process. To me, good consistently developed negatives and good exposures in the camera made printing very easy. I'm glad to hear that as long as you take similar proper precautions, printing on these new printers is rewarding. Now, I just need to figure out what one would be best for a Mac and Aperture 2. 🙂
 
I have a MAC and use it with my Epson 3800

I have a MAC and use it with my Epson 3800

I have an Imac that I bought this year and it works very well with my Epson 3800. Color is matched very well. Great combo.
 
jsrockit.
Sure you will be pleased with any of the latest printers that are designed for BW, not all are. I too was a BW printer in the darkroom and was very disapointed with inkjet when I restarted with the camera after a 30yr absence. All changed with the printers last few years, just make sure they have the extra black or grey inks for BW. The only reason I am thinking of setting up a darkroom now is for 35mm. My weakness is the scanner mine is fine for MF but not really good enough for 35mm (in my opinion !).

ron
 
I use a Canon Pixma iP6700D. It has the sharpest out of any printer ever made with 1 picoliter sized droplets. It only prints with 6 colours but it uses the same exact ink cartridges as the Canon Pro 9000, the CLI-8. It has two paper trays which make switching sizes super easy. I keep 5x7 in the bottom tray for quick prints. And 8.5x11 in the top for larger prints.

I also have an Epson Picturemate Charm with a battery for making quick
 
Last edited:
jsrockit said:
Man, I just don't feel like spending 3880 money...though I know it may be the right thing to do. It isn't about saving...
Click to expand...

You won't be unhappy with the 3880 if the 3800 is an indication. Superb printer. The question is do you need to be able to go 17 inches wide? One way to look at the 3880 (or a 3800 if you can find one) is that you are getting about $500 of ink when you buy the printer as Epson provides regular cartridges. The printer cost is therefore "only" around $800 and for its capabilities that is a bargain.
 
My go-to printer is a Canon PRO 9000. It only uses one shade of black ink. But, I wanted a dye based ink printer and my HP PhotoSmart 7160 allowed me to get it instead of a multi black ink printer that would had been pigment ink, which I didn't want.
Earlier this year the 7160 was damagede by lighting. I found a good used one on eBay to replace the damaged one. I like B&W also. I have shot it for over 50 years. The 7160 uses 4 types/shades of black/gray ink. It used to be called "that B&W printer". Unless you will use a pigment based ink printer (which I didn't want) the 7160 may be your best choice if you can find one.
 
jsrockit said:
<snip> so I don't have to wrestle with inferior equipment (cheap printers do not excel at B&W as you know). <snip>
Click to expand...

I have to disagree as I have seen b&w prints from Epsons costing under $100 that look as good as anything I have ever seen. Now they were made with 3rd party (MIS) inks that are for b&w only but still they were unsurpassed in print quality.

I have participated in numerous print exchanges from the Yahoo b&w digital printing group. So I have received way over 100 b&w digital prints from various people. I have seen some really great prints made from equipment that was just not supposed to work well (per the internet stories) and I have seen some real junk from what is supposed to be the best hardware.

I will say there is a difference in the learning curve and ease of use with some printers.

I have some prints I made on my Epson 1280 some 7-8 years ago that look as good as anything done today. But it was a bear to learn now, required a lot of maintenance, and wore out printers. (I had five 1280's)

But I do have to disagree with any comments about inferior or cheap printers.
 
Bob Michaels said:
I have to disagree as I have seen b&w prints from Epsons costing under $100 that look as good as anything I have ever seen. Now they were made with 3rd party (MIS) inks that are for b&w only but still they were unsurpassed in print quality.

I have participated in numerous print exchanges from the Yahoo b&w digital printing group. So I have received way over 100 b&w digital prints from various people. I have seen some really great prints made from equipment that was just not supposed to work well (per the internet stories) and I have seen some real junk from what is supposed to be the best hardware.

I will say there is a difference in the learning curve and ease of use with some printers.

I have some prints I made on my Epson 1280 some 7-8 years ago that look as good as anything done today. But it was a bear to learn now, required a lot of maintenance, and wore out printers. (I had five 1280's)

But I do have to disagree with any comments about inferior or cheap printers.
Click to expand...

Ok, STOCK sub-$100 printers with STOCK inks for B&W... I would be wrestling with these machines to get good prints. I can say that I would not be happy with this coming from the wet darkroom.
 
jsrockit said:
Ok, STOCK sub-$100 printers with STOCK inks for B&W... I would be wrestling with these machines to get good prints. I can say that I would not be happy with this coming from the wet darkroom.
Click to expand...
Surely the less expensive printers only use a single shade/type of black ink and can't possibly render the IQ a more expensive printer using several shades/types of black and gray inks. Example, my Canon PRO9000, with it's single available black does not give the results I get from my HP 7960, which uses several shades/types of black and gray ink. And, the Canon Pro9000 is nowhere near a $100 printer.
 
I use an Epson 1280 and have been since it came out years ago, I love it exceptional 13 x 19 prints on any kind of paper. I like using heavyweight matte and the prints are outstanding. I used to use only Epson Inks and the tried another company who's prices are about 1/4 that of Epsons and I cant tell the difference between the two. If I want hi quality 8 x 10 Glossy I use my Kodak 8500 Dye Sub and it makes outstanding prints.
 
jr_senator said:
Surely the less expensive printers only use a single shade/type of black ink and can't possibly render the IQ a more expensive printer using several shades/types of black and gray inks. <snip>
Click to expand...

While all aspects of photography, including printing, is a very personal choice; I still find the impact of a "Black Only" print cannot be exceeded by one created by various shades of K.

While I am on my second Epson 2400, having worn out the first, I still exhibit prints made years ago using the "Black Only" on my Epson 1280 as I do not think I can reprint them any better using my newer printer.

But it is a personal artistic choice, influenced by subject matter.

Maybe the overall message is that you do not need to have an expensive printer to make good prints any more than you need an expensive camera to make good images.
 
Last edited:
I ended up buying a HP B8850 for $379 plus tax since HP had instant rebates and I found a coupon code for $20. It has the mulitple black inks and does 13" which is enough for me. Hopefully it meets expectations.
 
Bob Michaels said:
I have some prints I made on my Epson 1280 some 7-8 years ago that look as good as anything done today. But it was a bear to learn now, required a lot of maintenance, and wore out printers. (I had five 1280's)

But I do have to disagree with any comments about inferior or cheap printers.
Click to expand...

Wow 5 five 1280 printers, I have one (the same but called 1290 in the EU),
what is your favorite ink you use with this printer Bob ?
I use the MIS Dye in a CFS, which gives good colors but isn't lightfast at all.
I tried the MIS-pro inks but that ink clogged the printheads seriously.
Is there a good alternative for archival ink ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom