How much does a good B&W printer cost?

[jdvf]

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

Of course I can leave some comments. But it might take some time.

Greg

 

[crawdiddy]

I'm a little suprprised nobody has mentioned the relative permanence of silver gelatin prints vs. inkjet. Silver fibre prints are the standard for museums and collectors. I don't think there's even been enough time to evaluate the archival properties of inket prints yet. Has there?

Anyway, not trying to be a troll, just sayin'.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I'm a little suprprised nobody has mentioned the relative permanence of silver gelatin prints vs. inkjet. Silver fibre prints are the standard for museums and collectors. I don't think there's even been enough time to evaluate the archival properties of inket prints yet. Has there? ...............

I believe the scientifically estimated life of inkjet prints using good inks and archival paper is estimated to be over 200 years now so they are considered "archival".

 

[edge100]

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.

My wife (a non-photographer) and I recently went to a photography exhibit at a local art gallery, and she remarked that the silver halide prints on display looked so "real...with so much texture".

This is after seeing numerous inkjet prints of my work.

Printing is an art unto itself. I'm very, very happy with my R3000 for both B&W and colour (though I havent yet settled on a paper choice for both), but silver halide is another thing altogether.

 

[shadowfox]

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. ?

I've shared it here before, but you may find my write up on this useful:
http://www.zuikography.com/?p=851
and the continuation in which I touch on inkjet vs darkroom print:
http://www.zuikography.com/?p=868

 

[68degrees]

My wife (a non-photographer) and I recently went to a photography exhibit at a local art gallery, and she remarked that the silver halide prints on display looked so "real...with so much texture".

This is after seeing numerous inkjet prints of my work.

Printing is an art unto itself. I'm very, very happy with my R3000 for both B&W and colour (though I havent yet settled on a paper choice for both), but silver halide is another thing altogether.

When you say silver halide do you mean darkroom prints or only certain kind of papers/process etc.?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

My wife (a non-photographer) and I recently went to a photography exhibit at a local art gallery, and she remarked that the silver halide prints on display looked so "real...with so much texture".

This is after seeing numerous inkjet prints of my work.

Printing is an art unto itself. I'm very, very happy with my R3000 for both B&W and colour (though I havent yet settled on a paper choice for both), but silver halide is another thing altogether.

I don't think the print media made a difference. I suspect the stuff on display was done in large format, which does have a feeling of depth and reality that 35mm and even medium format work doesn't have, no matter how it is printed.

I have printed a lot of my images in the darkroom and by inkjet from scans of the negs. No difference in print detail or texture as long as they were printed on similar paper types (both on fiber base glossy papers).

 

[Photo_Smith]

Personally all I can say is inkjets are OK for mono . They are different to silver B&W prints certainly I've never seen one as good as my silver prints on Record rapid or Portriga or the Foma papers-but they are 'good enough' for most people.

I was a hand printer and lab owner for 25+ years, have owned many different printer types and employed some of the best people in the business.
I'd say for colour work inkjet is excellent, wider gamut than so called 'lightjet' prints and many more surfaces of paper are available. I love the weight and feel of the Fotospeed Platinum papers they are best I've found—and I've tried most.

For mono I still feel the technology is not quite there, possibly it never will be and the differences are just that and we'll just have to accept those.
I have tried to re create several of my best prints from the 1980's and 90's on all manner of papers and machines by several different people some experts in the field.
The problem I see is when the ink gets laid down on the surface in order to get the perfect Dmax you need to put down the correct amount of ink ; this has the effect of making the emerging detail look somewhat leaden or over heavy—they don't have quite the brilliance. At the other etreme even the best printers have problems with creating highlights in the same way—experts tell me its about the dither patterns and I just know it doesn't look right.

All this would be acceptable to me but the main thing I don't like is the way the portraits I always printed on ivory tinted base papers like Portriga look an inkjet, inkjets all seem to have brilliant white base papers and I have seen with off white don't have the mid tone brilliance.
Also why is inkjet paper more expensive than silver based paper? Something I find strange.

But then again I am possibly the fussiest person I know when it comes to printing, so what is not quite right for me (compared to my existing old prints) will be Ok for most.

 

[mfogiel]

Have you tried Ilford Gallerie Gold Fiber Silk ? It is slightly creamy white, not brilliant white, and it also looks great if you print with a warm cast or sepia.

 

[Frontman]

I have been using a Canon Pro 9500 printer for a couple of years now, and it's worked very well for me. I chose the 9500 because I shoot a lot of black and white, and this printer has matte black, gloss black, and gray inks.

My only complaint is that the ink tanks are rather small, so it's a good idea to keep some spares on hand.

 

[Photo_Smith]

@ M Fogiel
Yes I've tried it and it is one of the better ones, still nowhere near Portriga/Foma Chamois 542 it has that leaden lower mid tone I mentioned even with extensive profiling with my spectro— I'd hoped for better as it has a baryta base.
Nice but not near enough, I guess mimicking existing prints is a tough call and I will (do) make do with what is out there.
The best one I have found is Fotospeed Platinum Baryta which is close in tone and has a better low density look, unfortunately the surface is flat and 'waxy' as in low reflectance, so you have to light it 'just so'.
Also as mentioned I pay about £25 for 20 A4 Fotospeed and nearly £20 for 10 sheets of the Ilford these compared to the Foma are a little more expensive I pay about £18 for 10 12x16 (A3) when you add ink to that I feel I'm chasing rainbows with the inkjet while I can still get cheaper better silver paper.

 

[Dogman]

Concerning the archival nature of the silver image vs inkjets, I was very surprised by much of what I read on the subject. From websites like Wilhelm Imaging Research and Aardenburg Imaging to Richard Benson's book "The Printed Picture" and his video lecture series, inkjet prints appear to have the potential to live considerably longer than standard darkroom prints.

This came as a shock to me. I had printed in the darkroom for something over 35 years and always considered a well done black and white silver print--or a color dye transfer print--to be more archival. But there's a certain logic to the fact that artists in the 15th and 16th Centuries were making drawings with pigment on cotton rag papers and many of those works are still around today. Inkjet prints made with pigment inks and printed on 100% cotton rag art paper is really a return to one of the oldest archival methods of producing pictures.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Concerning the archival nature of the silver image vs inkjets, I was very surprised by much of what I read on the subject. From websites like Wilhelm Imaging Research and Aardenburg Imaging to Richard Benson's book "The Printed Picture" and his video lecture series, inkjet prints appear to have the potential to live considerably longer than standard darkroom prints.

This came as a shock to me. I had printed in the darkroom for something over 35 years and always considered a well done black and white silver print--or a color dye transfer print--to be more archival. But there's a certain logic to the fact that artists in the 15th and 16th Centuries were making drawings with pigment on cotton rag papers and many of those works are still around today. Inkjet prints made with pigment inks and printed on 100% cotton rag art paper is really a return to one of the oldest archival methods of producing pictures.

Depends on what pigments, exactly, are used in the inks. I had to study pigments in art school, because paints and pastels are marked with the pigment used in them. Some pigments are basically eternal, will never fade. Most browns, which are generally made with ground up clay, will last forever. Colors are more problematic. Some reds are extremely fugitive (meaning they fade fast). blues and greens now are often made using 'pigments' that are actually made with organic dyes derived from oil, like Copper Thalocyanine (Thalo blue). Testing indicates they're fade resistant, but who knows...they were invented in the 20th century, so there's not a long history of their use. Ultramarine Blue, made of ground up Lapis Lazuli, is permanent and has been used for thousands of years, but is very expensive. Scientists have deciphered its chemical composition and it is available in a cheap manmade version now.

Anyway, my point is that just because its a 'pigment' does not make it permanent. Some pigments are not very fade resistant at all, some never fade.

 

[robklurfield]

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 spent some time on Cone's site and inksupply.com. Some eye-opening reading.

 

[froyd]

For talented printers with years of experience (Photo Smith) I can see why inkjets are not quite there yet when compared with traditional fiber darkroom prints.

However, for the average printer inkjets and the hybrid analog capture/digital output process are a real boon. I printed in the darkroom for a dozen years and I finally gave up on wet printing a few years back after my last move. While I loved the process of darkroom printing, I never developed my skills beyond the amateur level. With inkjets, despite a steep initial learning curve, my attempts at BW very soon started to surpass what I had been able to do in the darkroom. Now that inkjet technology has advanced even further, that learning curve is far less steep for those not interested in getting in too deep. The multi-grey printers are a real step forward and for me, the dodging, masking, and burning of the darkroom are now MUCH more easily achieved on the computer.

All I miss is the smell of Dektol. I might just mix up a small batch to keep near the computer next time I print!