Bob Michaels
nobody special
Joe, there certainly is a learning curve to printing. Either digitally or in a traditional darkroom. But trust me, it is well worth it.
Printing digitally requires a solid foundation in the basics of Photoshop or PSE. There is no way around it. But it is not difficult to get acceptable prints. Then you will be constantly improving forever. Again, well worth it.
Personally I am using an Epson 2400 now with the ABW mode. That has greatly simplified things from previous models. It seems the 2880 is basically the same. My 2400 has been bulletproof for the 3+ years I have had it. I have no quarrel with anyone using the other brands. It just seems that a majority of the fine art printers use Epsons.
I love the control from printing myself. Plus there is the pride in knowing that I am responsible for the entire process. Also very convenient as I can work at home whenever I want without reliance on anyone else. Come to think of it, those are the same reasons I process my own film. But then, I remember you don't.
back alley
IMAGES
i used to process my own film and do my own wet darkroom work, was a pretty good printer iissm.
now, it's digital or use a lab to process my film.
joe
wintoid
Back to film
From what I've read, printing directly from Lightroom sends the image to the printer in the ProPhotoRGB colourspace. If your printer driver doesn't understand ProPhotoRGB, you'll get results like what you've described. I had this problem, and have switched to printing with a different program (Qimage). Problem gone!
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Thanks for the tip! Photoshop is the same way, for me. Maybe I should try printing out of IrfanView or something. Anyway, at the moment, I am reluctant to mess with my formula...I'll wait until I'm done printing this show.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I don't know anything about Lightroom. But I do know in Photoshop you can select whatever color space you wish to work and output with. If Lightroom does in fact lock in into their choice of color spaces, that would seem to be a big detriment that everyone would be talking about.
Can you not select what color space you wish to use in the printer profile using Lightroom? It sounds very problematic to me if you have a file in one color space and a printer profile in another.
Or, am I just not understating your comment?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I have Lightroom. You can use Prophoto, Adobe RGB, or sRGB as your default colorspace. You are certainly not stuck with Prophoto RGB. You ave to open the preferences and set this, as Prophoto is the one it is set with from the factory.
When printing, you can choose a printer profile if you have a profile supplied by the paper or printer manufacturer, or a custom profile. This is done under the PRINT tab on Lightroom. Lightroom allows the same color management freedom as Photoshop, you just have to set it up correctly.
When printing, you can choose a printer profile if you have a profile supplied by the paper or printer manufacturer, or a custom profile. This is done under the PRINT tab on Lightroom. Lightroom allows the same color management freedom as Photoshop, you just have to set it up correctly.
marquinius
Newbie
another way of looking at printing
another way of looking at printing
I'm new on this forum (active on Leica user forum mostly), but this topic is very interesting. Without wanting to sound like a teacher (I'm not
, I'm just very enthusiastic about what I learned from others), I'd like to share some of my findings.
I've been playing with B&W conversions, printing on an Epson R2400. I do my post processing in LR with some editing in CS.
Some thoughts:
- I calibrated my monitor. I didn't believe it either, but it's the only way to a consistent output. I use a Spyder, but there are more tools with a normal price setting.
- I use good quality printing paper (I use Harman FBaI gloss, but there are many VERY good papers out there).
- In Lightroom I check that the right settings for paper and printer are selected (I downloaded the curves for Harman from their website, as is possible with most paper manufacturers).
Last but not least, I invested $50,- and downloaded "Quadtone RIP" from Roy Harrington. It is a magnificent tool for printing B&W images. The results are simply stunning. And you can try it out for free.
Marco
another way of looking at printing
I'm new on this forum (active on Leica user forum mostly), but this topic is very interesting. Without wanting to sound like a teacher (I'm not
, I'm just very enthusiastic about what I learned from others), I'd like to share some of my findings. I've been playing with B&W conversions, printing on an Epson R2400. I do my post processing in LR with some editing in CS.
Some thoughts:
- I calibrated my monitor. I didn't believe it either, but it's the only way to a consistent output. I use a Spyder, but there are more tools with a normal price setting.
- I use good quality printing paper (I use Harman FBaI gloss, but there are many VERY good papers out there).
- In Lightroom I check that the right settings for paper and printer are selected (I downloaded the curves for Harman from their website, as is possible with most paper manufacturers).
Last but not least, I invested $50,- and downloaded "Quadtone RIP" from Roy Harrington. It is a magnificent tool for printing B&W images. The results are simply stunning. And you can try it out for free.
Marco
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I have been messing around with QTR for a week or so, and I believe it is my new printing program. The nice thing about it for me is that it is already loaded up with profiles for the Epson 1400, my printer, using the MIS inkset! I've done a couple of test prints with the new inks and QTR and they are simply marvelous. I am extremely fussy about clipping in the black and white channels--I usually like white to be right up to the limit, and for black to clip a little, unless I am trying for a low-contrast look. And QTR reproduces this flawlessly. I have to do some more experimentation before I print anything important, but so far, so good. I am going to buy it today.
KEH
Well-known
Hi Joe,
Calibrating the monitor, even for BW, is essential.
I have used various Epsons over the years (2200, 2400) with inksets from Epson, Inksupply and Jon Cone. I could get good prints but it was very hard matching what I saw on the screen with what came out. In the end the head clogs forced me to give up.
I now use an HP B9180 which I love. Good match between screen and print, and the printer automatically wakes up and does a test every day - not a single head clog in all this time. The BW is very linear on the right paper (Innova, Hahnemuhle, Moab) so there is little need to tweak (although I have invested in custom Photoshop curves for various papers, being an inveterate tweaker).
I find printing very satisfying, but there is a lot to learn, as you note.
Cheers,
Kirk
Calibrating the monitor, even for BW, is essential.
I have used various Epsons over the years (2200, 2400) with inksets from Epson, Inksupply and Jon Cone. I could get good prints but it was very hard matching what I saw on the screen with what came out. In the end the head clogs forced me to give up.
I now use an HP B9180 which I love. Good match between screen and print, and the printer automatically wakes up and does a test every day - not a single head clog in all this time. The BW is very linear on the right paper (Innova, Hahnemuhle, Moab) so there is little need to tweak (although I have invested in custom Photoshop curves for various papers, being an inveterate tweaker).
I find printing very satisfying, but there is a lot to learn, as you note.
Cheers,
Kirk
marquinius
Newbie
I'm consistent with this kind of software: I always pay if it's good. This was € 50 well spent indeed.
John Rountree
Nothing is what I want
I will second the recommendation for the Canon 9500 printer. I have had the Epson 2200 and been very dissatisfied, especially with B&W. IMO the Epson is incredibly thirsty, and ink will disappear fast. That means a LOT of money spent on ink. The HP (not the newer 8750) that we have at the school (free standing, large carriage) is an expensive machine but pretty close to useless for B&W. It is more like green and white prints! The Canon is also one of the least expensive printers to operate for ink costs. For more info go to: www.photo-i.uk There you will find some reviews and a bulletin board dedicated to the 9500.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I just want to add something here...I printed all day, trying to get my B&W right...I finally got the profiles straight in Lightroom, and the prints finally began to look like what I saw onscreen. But they look awful compared to QTR--Lightroom and the Epson driver just glop the MIS inks on regardless of the paper I've chosen...way too much of everything. QTR, both in and out of Black Only mode, creates very fine prints with very little ink. I got some curves from the QTR forum that work very well, and only had to adjust the ink adjustment slider, to bring out the blacks. Now the prints are almost EXACTLY what I see onscreen, with no monitor calibration beyond eyeballing.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Joe,
If you decide on buying an Epson printer, check out their factory refurbished stock. I bought my refurbished R2400 there (when it was still their newest model). Just go to the Epson website and look around for something about refurbished printers.
Jamie
If you decide on buying an Epson printer, check out their factory refurbished stock. I bought my refurbished R2400 there (when it was still their newest model). Just go to the Epson website and look around for something about refurbished printers.
Jamie
cam
the need for speed
i'm reviving this thread because i am going out of my head over this!
all the printers and inks seem to cost so much more over here as well -- which adds to the stress... i don't need huge prints but do want gorgeous and lush b/w.
i've gone backwards and forwards on various Epson, HP, and Canon printers and finally decided i'd probably get a 2880. my boyfriend has finally stepped in and thinks i should go for the 1400 with MIS inks (and, i know, the Quadtone RIP).... i'm blaming you, mabelsound! are you still happy? any problems, quirks, second thoughts?
and you, Joe, what did you decide? did you take the leap? or did you tear all hair out and say f*** it (as i am ready to do)? and, no, i wasn't being facetious -- i know you must have some hair lurking somewhere
this whole printer thing is making me mighty cranky!
all the printers and inks seem to cost so much more over here as well -- which adds to the stress... i don't need huge prints but do want gorgeous and lush b/w.
i've gone backwards and forwards on various Epson, HP, and Canon printers and finally decided i'd probably get a 2880. my boyfriend has finally stepped in and thinks i should go for the 1400 with MIS inks (and, i know, the Quadtone RIP).... i'm blaming you, mabelsound! are you still happy? any problems, quirks, second thoughts?
and you, Joe, what did you decide? did you take the leap? or did you tear all hair out and say f*** it (as i am ready to do)? and, no, i wasn't being facetious -- i know you must have some hair lurking somewhere
this whole printer thing is making me mighty cranky!
dfoo
Well-known
I don't use QTR, however, I did follow the calibration procedure outlined on John Roark's site, and get excellent looking prints with the UT14 ink set and the Epson 1400. I have had no trouble with clogged heads, and I don't use the printer that often. Furthermore, I bought the empty carts and the 4oz inkset and in this way it is very cheap to run. Highly recommended.
That being said, they are not as good as wet prints.
That being said, they are not as good as wet prints.
cam
the need for speed
thank you, dfoo!
to be honest, i didn't expect them to be -- but for now, with my digital prints, i'll take anything!
also kind of intrigued by Piezography.... is it really worth twice as much (or more) than the UT14?
to be honest, i didn't expect them to be -- but for now, with my digital prints, i'll take anything!
also kind of intrigued by Piezography.... is it really worth twice as much (or more) than the UT14?
amateriat
We're all light!
After some years of working with Epson printers (the last two being a 2200 with stock inkset, plus an 1160 with Lyson QuadBlack Neutral inks), I switched to an HP 8750 several years ago, and have loved the results so much I went to the trouble of tracking down a used one earlier this year–HP discontinued the printer about two years back–as a backup. (I got awfully lucky: the owner had literally made just a few prints through it before boxing it back up, as she was moving from the Pacific Northwest to New York, where she decided there wasn't enough room to keep it.) To my eye, it makes virtually dead-on neutral prints, using only three black/grey inks using the Greyscale option in the print driver, and with virtually no metamerism, bronzing or gloss differential, on matte or glossy paper*. (Including color inks, there are nine inks total, between three cartridges.)
Maintenance is a dream: besides the fact that the print heads are built into the carts themselves (new cart = new print head), the printer quietly switches itself on for about 30 seconds for self-cleaning if it hasn't been use for over a week. (Contrast this with my Epsons, which went into an elaborate–and ink-killing–cleaning mode every time I fired them up, even if I'd been using it several days in a row.) Finally, since the print heads are part of the carts, there's no need to worry about damaging the heads on account of the carts running dry, which means that if you want to try and squeeze one last print out of some near-empty carts, it's totally your call: the printer will dutifully give you a heads-up when the carts run low, but, unlike Epson, it won't stop dead in its tracks with several ml left in the carts. I'd sooner blow off a sheet of paper than have to toss still-inked carts.
Of course, unless you luck out finding a sealed, NOS 8750, you'll have to go with buying used.
(*I use HP's Premium Glossy and Semi-gloss/Satin papers.)
- Barrett
Maintenance is a dream: besides the fact that the print heads are built into the carts themselves (new cart = new print head), the printer quietly switches itself on for about 30 seconds for self-cleaning if it hasn't been use for over a week. (Contrast this with my Epsons, which went into an elaborate–and ink-killing–cleaning mode every time I fired them up, even if I'd been using it several days in a row.) Finally, since the print heads are part of the carts, there's no need to worry about damaging the heads on account of the carts running dry, which means that if you want to try and squeeze one last print out of some near-empty carts, it's totally your call: the printer will dutifully give you a heads-up when the carts run low, but, unlike Epson, it won't stop dead in its tracks with several ml left in the carts. I'd sooner blow off a sheet of paper than have to toss still-inked carts.
Of course, unless you luck out finding a sealed, NOS 8750, you'll have to go with buying used.
(*I use HP's Premium Glossy and Semi-gloss/Satin papers.)
- Barrett
Last edited:
crusius
Established
I can only talk about what I have: I've got an Epson 3800 and it prints stunning B&W pictures, having dedicated gray inks. The "bad part" is the about $3 round-trip cost if you change between glossy and matte papers, but in practice that's less of a problem than it seems to be.
Check out
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800
a bunch of B&W profiles are here:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/abwprofiles.html
Regarding profiles: One of the reasons I got the 3800 is because the canned profiles were supposed to be very good. And they are. I haven't had a need for custom profiles yet.
Regarding cost: the 3800 is a "free upgrade" to the R2400
http://www.inkjetart.com/epson_3800_pro/index.html
- Cesar
Shac
Well-known
Do most labs and inkjets use the sRGB colour space?
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I have been using an HP 7960, for years now, to print up to 8x10. If you replace the black with the grey cartridge and print grey scale the results are like what Barrett says he is getting with his HP 8750. Never had any trouble with heads clogging either and the printer can sit idle for quite a while between my printing needs. When this printer finally dies there will be another HP to replace it, all be it in a larger format. It just plain works with no special inks or programs.
Bob
Bob