68degrees
Well-known
What kind of price range does a printer cost that prints only B&W, can print on cardstock and doesnt have that greenish tint to it. True black and white. How would it compare in quality to an optical print made in a darkroom. ?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
No one makes a BW only printer. What you do is buy a regular printer and put BW inks in it. There are several companies selling BW inksets. Jone Cone's Piezography system is the best, but is is EXPENSIVE.
I use an Epson r2400 with the standard Epson inks. The driver has an Advanced BW mode that gives true neutral prints and allows you to input a tone if you want. I also use Quadtone RIP software to run it for some photos and it, too, gives beautiful BW prints. I was an excellent darkroom printer, and I think my r2400 prints are better.
I use an Epson r2400 with the standard Epson inks. The driver has an Advanced BW mode that gives true neutral prints and allows you to input a tone if you want. I also use Quadtone RIP software to run it for some photos and it, too, gives beautiful BW prints. I was an excellent darkroom printer, and I think my r2400 prints are better.
68degrees
Well-known
Thanks Chris. What do you estimate the cost of a 8x10 not including the cost of the machine itself. Ink and paper and anything else it requires. Thanks
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yes, go with the Epson that use the K3 pigment inks. The R2400 is now well out of date ... I bought mine in 2005 and have made thousands of B&W and Color prints with it, it should die this year. ;-)
The R2880 (up to 13x19" prints) or 3880 (up to 17x22" prints) are the ones to have now.
The Epson Stylus Photo R2880 runs about $600 at B&H. A full set of inks runs about $100 (8 cartridges).
The Epson Stylus Pro 3880 runs about $1140 but B&H has a rebate that drops the price to $839 at present. A full set of ink cartridges (9 in all) runs about $460. (The 3880 tanks are substantially larger than the R2880 tanks which makes this printer more economical to run over time, if you print a sufficient amount.)
How much a print costs is difficult to say exactly without much more information because exactly how much ink you need for a particular print depends on the mix of colors (yes, even with B&W prints), size of the borders, and the type of paper you use. The largest factor in the cost of a print with either of these printers, however, is the cost of the paper — good papers cost a bit.
Over time, I figure a rough estimate of my average cost for a print on 8.5x11 inch fine art paper runs about $2.00. The paper is typically $1.25-1.50 of that cost. Proof prints on cheaper paper ... about $0.85 apiece.
G
The R2880 (up to 13x19" prints) or 3880 (up to 17x22" prints) are the ones to have now.
The Epson Stylus Photo R2880 runs about $600 at B&H. A full set of inks runs about $100 (8 cartridges).
The Epson Stylus Pro 3880 runs about $1140 but B&H has a rebate that drops the price to $839 at present. A full set of ink cartridges (9 in all) runs about $460. (The 3880 tanks are substantially larger than the R2880 tanks which makes this printer more economical to run over time, if you print a sufficient amount.)
How much a print costs is difficult to say exactly without much more information because exactly how much ink you need for a particular print depends on the mix of colors (yes, even with B&W prints), size of the borders, and the type of paper you use. The largest factor in the cost of a print with either of these printers, however, is the cost of the paper — good papers cost a bit.
Over time, I figure a rough estimate of my average cost for a print on 8.5x11 inch fine art paper runs about $2.00. The paper is typically $1.25-1.50 of that cost. Proof prints on cheaper paper ... about $0.85 apiece.
G
jmcd
Well-known
I have printed in a darkroom for twenty years and recently bought an Epson R3000. I have so much to learn but already the prints from the Epson compare well with the darkroom prints.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
We make our own prints because we want control of the entire process so that our prints are exactly the way we want them, not because it is economical.
Same applies in the decision of digital vs. silver prints. The cost of each method is very little compared to the time invested in continuously learning how to make them better and better.
Actually that economic logic is applicable to photography in general. Almost all of us could hire a professional photographer for less than we spend to make our own photos.
FWIW, I use an Epson 2400 to make my b&w prints and could not be happier. This is my 2nd 2400 and 7th or 8th printer over the last 12 years printing digitally. That followed 7 or 8 years in a wet darkroom.
Same applies in the decision of digital vs. silver prints. The cost of each method is very little compared to the time invested in continuously learning how to make them better and better.
Actually that economic logic is applicable to photography in general. Almost all of us could hire a professional photographer for less than we spend to make our own photos.
FWIW, I use an Epson 2400 to make my b&w prints and could not be happier. This is my 2nd 2400 and 7th or 8th printer over the last 12 years printing digitally. That followed 7 or 8 years in a wet darkroom.
68degrees
Well-known
Oh this is great. This dialogue is very helpful. Thank you! So is darkroom printing totally useless now or is there still some advantage/value to it?
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Traditional darkroom or silver halide printing is far from useless. Some prefer to print that way. Some prefer the look and feel of a silver print.
One cannot say if one method is better than the other. They are different, that is all. There certainly is room for both and a need for both in this world because of our personal preferences.
Morry Katz
Established
I'd rather spend 3 to 4 hours working in the darkroom than spending 3 to 4 hours working on a computer screen. Besides, I like the smell of hypo and stop bath.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
How much does a good B&W printer cost? Depends on what you mean by "good," but probably $50-80k a year.
Thanks folks, I'll be here all week.
Thanks folks, I'll be here all week.
68degrees
Well-known
a good printer costs 50 thousand dollars a year??? huh?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Depends on what you mean by good. I mean a person who prints. And a great deal depends on where he lives, what he prints, how much he prints, and how experienced he (or she) is. Some very good printers would be less expensive, some more.
In the context of the parent post, just a little joke.
...more seriously, I've been very impressed by output I've seen from the Epson 2880/3880 with the Epson gray and black pigment inks. It's different from silver-gelatin, but I can't honestly say it's worse. And it's probably more archival.
Nevertheless, I still have a wet darkroom setup because I like printing.
In the context of the parent post, just a little joke.
...more seriously, I've been very impressed by output I've seen from the Epson 2880/3880 with the Epson gray and black pigment inks. It's different from silver-gelatin, but I can't honestly say it's worse. And it's probably more archival.
Nevertheless, I still have a wet darkroom setup because I like printing.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
For me, I make better prints — more easily, more consistently, higher quality, more quickly, etc etc — using an Epson R2400 than I ever did in a wet darkroom.
That's all that matter to me in the end: top notch prints. I love to print now that it's inkjet. I always found it a tedious process in a wet lab. I printed in the wet lab for almost 30 years, and worked for a photofinisher for four years during the course of that.
Whatever works for your photographs is what you should do.
I certainly haven't spent anywhere near $50K per year on printing. ;-) I bought my R2400 in 2005 and have printed everything I've sold or shown in exhibitions (including the ones that won awards) on it. It cost me $600 then and I've pumped $1500-$2500 worth of ink cartridges and a vast amount of paper through it.
G
That's all that matter to me in the end: top notch prints. I love to print now that it's inkjet. I always found it a tedious process in a wet lab. I printed in the wet lab for almost 30 years, and worked for a photofinisher for four years during the course of that.
Whatever works for your photographs is what you should do.
I certainly haven't spent anywhere near $50K per year on printing. ;-) I bought my R2400 in 2005 and have printed everything I've sold or shown in exhibitions (including the ones that won awards) on it. It cost me $600 then and I've pumped $1500-$2500 worth of ink cartridges and a vast amount of paper through it.
G
mfogiel
Veteran
I think, that aside from debating the Dmax and surface appearance ( inkjet prints so far have not completely eliminated the problem of "white holes" in the highlights, or metamerism on some papers), the main points in favour of darkroom prints are the "depth" impression, and resolution, both factors that get more evident in case of small prints, that you would normally look at, while holding them in hand, as opposed to bigger prints framed and hanging on the wall.
To my knowledge, there is nothing more beautiful than a contact printed 8x10 or 20x24 negative on one of these special papers ( look up Smith&Chamlee). However, as the enlargment factor gets bigger, and so the prints, digital is progressively taking over, and even guys like Clyde Butcher
(http://www.clydebutcher.com/home.htm)
tend to print more and more digitally today.
If you factor in the cost, there is no contest, and an Epson printer wins hands down.
For these few SPECIAL negatives, that you might want to print in a darkroom, there is a hybrid solution now - labs that make baryta darkroom prints from a digital file: you can download a profile, use it on your computer to proof print your image, then you send the file to the lab, and the lab sends you back your darkroom prints. This is more costly than inkjet, but would be justified for these prints, that you absolutely want to be perfect for close up inspection.
In Europe there are labs like PICTO in Paris, but I know you can do the same in the states - apparently one of these labs is advertising to the Leica Monochrom buyers.
To my knowledge, there is nothing more beautiful than a contact printed 8x10 or 20x24 negative on one of these special papers ( look up Smith&Chamlee). However, as the enlargment factor gets bigger, and so the prints, digital is progressively taking over, and even guys like Clyde Butcher
(http://www.clydebutcher.com/home.htm)
tend to print more and more digitally today.
If you factor in the cost, there is no contest, and an Epson printer wins hands down.
For these few SPECIAL negatives, that you might want to print in a darkroom, there is a hybrid solution now - labs that make baryta darkroom prints from a digital file: you can download a profile, use it on your computer to proof print your image, then you send the file to the lab, and the lab sends you back your darkroom prints. This is more costly than inkjet, but would be justified for these prints, that you absolutely want to be perfect for close up inspection.
In Europe there are labs like PICTO in Paris, but I know you can do the same in the states - apparently one of these labs is advertising to the Leica Monochrom buyers.
V-12
Well-known
I think you would find it hard to beat an Epson R3000 at the moment.
It can pretty well match a darkroom print, and outdo a darkroom print if you want the finer aspects of duo-tone, tri-tone, quad-tone and other toning effects. It is true that a darkroom print does have more depth, but it is only a trade off in expectations, not a 'better or worse' scenario. The R3000 also has larger ink tanks than the regular models, but not as large as the R3880, so it is far more economical to run that say a top end Canon, but the R3880 would be the commercial choice for genuine day-in-day-out use.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I think he meant you could hire a skilled craftsman to make your prints, as an employee, for 50k a year.
jdvf
Established
Epson Stylus C86 + MIS
Epson Stylus C86 + MIS
Returning now to the initial question: Maybe an Epson Stylus C86 equipped with MIS EZ Ultratone ink from Inksupply would be the most economic solution for the beginning?
I cannot judge the quality from my own experience as I am waiting for the delivery of the ink. But this combination has been recommended a couple of times by other members, e.g. here. In combination with the C86 (C84 and C88 will work as well) the MIS inks are very easy to handle.
If you find a C86 in working condition on ebay and buy a set of MIS your initial investment might not exceed 100 USD.
Greg
Epson Stylus C86 + MIS
Returning now to the initial question: Maybe an Epson Stylus C86 equipped with MIS EZ Ultratone ink from Inksupply would be the most economic solution for the beginning?
I cannot judge the quality from my own experience as I am waiting for the delivery of the ink. But this combination has been recommended a couple of times by other members, e.g. here. In combination with the C86 (C84 and C88 will work as well) the MIS inks are very easy to handle.
If you find a C86 in working condition on ebay and buy a set of MIS your initial investment might not exceed 100 USD.
Greg
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Nah, I married mine. Loves printing; doesn't bother with colour any more; and is wonderfully economical to run. A single box of Ilford Art 300 keeps her quiet for days of nonstop printing (weeks and months if she does other things too). The only difficulty in winter is getting her out of her nice warm darkroom.
Cheers,
R.
rickp
Well-known
more info please......
more info please......
i sure would like to hear how you make out with this setup??? could you pls post a few comments on this thread when you're ready?
thanks
rick
more info please......
i sure would like to hear how you make out with this setup??? could you pls post a few comments on this thread when you're ready?
thanks
rick
Bob Michaels
nobody special
This is a very important point. No inkjet printer will make good prints just as no enlarger will. It is similar to no camera being able to make good photos.
It is almost all the operator and very little the tools they are working with.
Always remember that the printer is no more than a tool, just as a camera is. What you do with them is a function of your personal skill. And the cost of the tools will almost always be insignificant in relation to the time required to learn how to utilize them.
It is like someone with a $100 camera and 10,000 hours experience will always make better photos than someone with a $10,000 camera but only 100 hours experience.