new inkjet printer

S

shaaktiman

Guest
So, I've been working on getting decent prints from my epson 820 and I've done a pretty good job. I think I'm ready to step up to something better though. I've heard that the R800 makes much nicer B&W prints with less metamerism than other printers. Does anyone have any experience with it?

What printer/ink combo do you use for black and white? Are you happy with it?

Thanks. I'd love to get some feedback before I spend 800+ on a printer.

adam
 
shaaktiman said:
So, I've been working on getting decent prints from my epson 820 and I've done a pretty good job. I think I'm ready to step up to something better though. I've heard that the R800 makes much nicer B&W prints with less metamerism than other printers. Does anyone have any experience with it?
Click to expand...

I have an R800, and I am not very pleased with its performance for black-and-white prints.

My biggest complaint with it is that transitions between very-dark to medium-dark and very-light to medium-light areas are not smooth -- the tones form irregular, jagged bands instead of a continuous "ramp." Also, when printing grayscale images using the color inks (necessary to get the finest dot pattern) there are subtle color differences among different shades of gray.

It's no worse in these respects than any other photo-inkjet printer I've owned (I'm on my fourth) but it isn't really satisfactory, either.

Of course, maybe I'm pickier than most people. But then again, maybe you are, too!



I'm hoping for better results from the new Epson 2400 printer, which uses both light-black and dark-black inks and has a special printing mode for b&w. But it's very expensive (about $850) and I won't want to invest that much unless I can make sure it has better b&w performance. I might also try out one of the H-P printers, which also have multiple black inks -- although its permanence doesn't seem to be as good as the Epson's except for a fairly limited selection of papers.

I realize that there are people who feel they get good results with various third-party inksets, RIP software, etc., etc. -- but since you have to shell out for these up front and THEN see if they work, and then wonder how long the cottage-industry manufacturer is going to stay in business before you have to standardize on something else, I'd just as soon avoid that approach if I can.

At any rate, if you're fairly critical about your black-and-white printing, don't expect to get great out-of-the-box b&w performance from an R800 (although I have no complaints about it as a color printer.)
 
I have an Epson 2200 and get great results with "Black Only" printing method. Basically you open and edit an image, select print, when the Epson print software opens go to where the paper and ink selection windows are and choose "Black" for the ink instead of color. It works well with Epson's enhanced matte paper and matte ink. That is the simplified version, for a more detailed explantion go to this page and click on the bullets to read more :http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm .

This is not a process that is comparable to traditional wet processing but it satisfies most peoples tastes for no extra cost, try it!

Todd
 
Thanks. I am actually very picky when it comes to quality. I'm planning on checking out one of the HP machines that have 3 colors of black. I'm going to buy it from adorama so I can return it if I feel like it.

The 2400 looks promising, but I don't have the 850 bucks. Little steep for me right now.
 
shaaktiman said:
Thanks. I am actually very picky when it comes to quality. I'm planning on checking out one of the HP machines that have 3 colors of black.
Click to expand...


If you are very picky about quality then you should investigate getting one of the black inksets from MIS or one of the other companies, these produce museum quality prints and are archival for longer than you will last.

I have investigated BW inkjet printing alot, I am curious, did you try black only printing? I shoot portraits on the side and happened to be in a customers house the other day. She had several 11x14 prints on the wall that I had done for her (of her children). The prints were hanging next to some BW prints that were done a few years before from a large "chain" studio, mine had better tonality and richness compared to the others.

I have used the HP before, despite having the extra grey, I didn't see enough of an improvement in tonal grads to warrant changing from my Epson 2200 and 1280.

Bottom line is, if your picky about the results for BW printing you should get an enlarger and go traditional, after all isn't that what we are trying to emulate? :)

Todd
 
Black-only printing is certainly worth a try. Whenever I've tried it, I've always felt the ink-dot pattern is too visible. This is particularly a problem for me because I often use fast, grainy films; the printer dots interact with the grain pattern to produce "grain aliasing," which makes the grain appear more prominent than it would in a continuous-tone print.

On the other hand, the black inkdot pattern resembles the pattern of a gravure print (in which a continuous-tone image is broken up into tiny dots by covering the printing plate with a random pattern of tiny particles in a "dusting box" before exposure) and this can be a very pleasing effect on some types of images. I just don't want to be stuck with it when I don't want it.
 
You might want to wait and take a look at the new Epson 2400 when it comes out (supposed to be soon). Similar to the 2200, I think, but it has a new ink set with 3 shades of black. I am interested in it myself, but will wait for some reviews. Anyone seen this printer yet?

Cheers.
 
Oops. Sorry. I somehow skipped over the 2400 comments already posted. I'm just excited to see this printer.
 
Traditional enlarger wet darkroom... haha, yeah right! I don't think so.

I did try black only printing. On my 820 it looks terrible. Worse than terrible. You can barely make out the image. But the 820 is about 4 years old and technology has gotten a lot better since then. The 2200 has at least 2 blacks, right? That may be why it looks acceptable. I wouldn't think to make the switch to HP if you have a 2200 already, but I'm working with nothing. Besides, the hp 7960 is only $160... nice and cheap.

I've heard mixed things about the MIS inks, but I'd be interested to try them. Does anyone have any experience with them? Part of me is thinking "screw it, just charge the 2400." I may.
 
I have seen the HP 7960 as low as 99.00 at SAMS Club during the Holidays, pretty cheap considering it was around 250.00 when it first came out.

Yes, the 2200 has 2 inks, grey and black, but when printing black only it only uses the black ink.

I wouldn't scoff at the wet darkroom approach, it's still the benchmark that everyone in the inkjet realm is using to compare their results too. I have been tempted to pick up an enlarger and "find my roots" on many occasions, it's just easier to press print and see the results in seconds, I'm laaaaaazy I guess :)

Todd
 
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not scoffing silver at all. The equivalence of a silver print is still the look that I am trying to achieve with my digital prints.

The reason I would never go wet is twofold. I was recently taking classes in traditional darkroom techniques and decided to abandon it. There is a big learning curve with wet processes and the time and monetary investment loomed large. After a long day of working the last thing I felt like doing was trudging over to my rented darkroom only to take the subway home hours later at night. On the other hand, I've been a graphic designer for 10 years and am already an expert in photoshop and have a high-end workstation at home for freelancing. So going wet would be like starting over for me, whereas digital is just the next step in a natural progression.

The second reason is space. I don't have any place to do a wet darkroom. I would have to rent space, and as I said above, renting ain't all that. I barely have room to store my chemicals for film processing. Right now they are on my kitchen floor next to the stove.

Yep, traditional is out for me.
 
Shaaktiman: I have been using the MIS inksets on an Epson 1280 for a couple of years now. The current UltraTone 2 inkset is just tops. It is almost as good as silver, with more control over the tones. There is a black ink, several shades of gray, and one or more "toning" inks that either compensate for or accentuate the natural brown of the carbon pigment.

Basically, you have to dedicate a printer to B&W. The inksets work on a number of Epson printers available very cheaply. You can buy a used or refab Epson 1270 or 1280 at very reasonable cost, and dedicate it. The inkset is very easy to use. You just convert your final B&W file to color, apply a tone curve in Photoshop, and then print the false-color image. There is also a way to print "right out of the box," but the curves give better results.

There are curves for a variety of popular papers and various warm and cool tones, and the "Epson Enhanced Matte" curves work fine on Epson Matte Heavyweight, available in any CompUSA store for routine work. The UT2 inks can even do glossy and matte prints with the same ink, up to a point, although absolute best results on glossy require a change of black ink.

There is also a UT7 inkset for the 2200 and other Epson printers designed for the new Ultrachrome inks.

See:
http://www.inksupply.com/bwpage.cfm
http://www.inksupply.com/qn.cfm
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/UT2-Readme.htm

One caveat is that you need to print something about once every week or two to avoid clogging the jets.

Hope this helps!
--Peter
 
Given your space restraints and PhotoShop expertise, you may want to do what I did... forget printing B&W on a home inkjet at all.

Pro lab prints are cheap. MUCH cheaper than fooling around with inkjet stuff after you factor in purchase, consumables, buying a descent RIP, your time, etc.

I use my Canon S9000 for proofing now and that is it. Everything else is printed at Desktop Digital, a pro lab here in Jacksonville. Kodak pro paper and blacks like you will NEVER get with an inkjet.

Tom
 
Disclaimer: I'm no B+W expert nor printing expert :) plus it depends on your budget of course.

I really like the prints from my HP 7660, and you can switch back and forth between B+W and colour (since the print head is in the cartridge). The B+W ones really are impressive, with no colour casts. They look really good on Ilford Smooth Pearl.

Then there is the new HP series now, reviewed on photo-i.

What is nice about the HP is how easy it is to get good quality prints without loads of futzing about, no worries on blocked nozzles even when not printing regularly, it just works. The main downside is that the ink cartridges cost more, but then you don't waste any on cleaning cycles....

If you only want to print to A4, the 7960 for $99 would be a damn good option.

Paul
 
Huh, Tom I never really thought about that! That's a GOOD idea. I didn't really know it was an option.

Here in NYC there are plenty of great pro digital shops. Maybe I'll try that out for the time being. I only really print a few shots a week anyway... I could save myself a lot of time and $$$.

Just for comparison, how much do you pay for an 8 x 10? 16 x 20? Do you know what process/equipment they use? If you have something that's working for you I'd like to ask around and get the same deal.

thanks!
 
At my lab, 8x10's are $1.75. 16x20's are $15.95

If you are searching based on price alone, you will probably be able to beat these prices easily. But this is a pro quality lab that give me pro quality service in little old Jacksonville Florida. I'm sure the Big Apple has at least one lab capable of doing this too. :p

Tom
 
wow. big dif between the 8x10 and the 16x20. It might be one of those digital printing things where the 16x20 has to be run on a larger machine so the price goes bananas once you bump it up.

I'm not looking based on price alone but I wanted to have an idea beforehand. Both so I could make an educated decision about forgoing the inkjet and also so I didn't end up paying 5 times what you are and think it's normal. But around $2 a print is good for me.

Do you know what kind of prints they are? Iris, digital c?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom