OK, time to complete my workflow : printer

[sf]

Bronica RF645 - - - - 645 frame - - - - scanned on the Multi Pro at 3200dpi into a very large file - - - - where from there?

I currently print on an 8x10 Pixma IP5000. Great printer, but only one black for printing B&W. THe resolution is high, but with only one ink, it can only be so high with very detailed and tonal images.

I want to really use the image quality I'm getting from the camera and scanner. I want to print 13x19, B&W only, and I don't know what to do.

Epson R2400 or HP 8750?

The R2400 is generally thought to be the best 13x19 printer out there, but the 8750 is generally considered the best B&W printer.

I've read Amateriat's words on the 8750, and on the R2400 from others. Would I be better off buying a NEW 8750 for $400 or a used R2400 for $560?

 

[Peter S]

Shutterflower,

I am using the HP8450 on Ilford Gallerie paper for my black and white and I really love it. Used to have a Canon with special inkset (limited gamut), but was unable to get my B&Wprints right.

I now have my screen callibrated and am a little bit more aware of colour management and that, in combination with my HP, makes for good B&W prints. Sometimes even better then I used to get out of my old wet darkroom.

Not sure about cost of Epson vs HP. Ink for HP is not cheap, but I do not care I am throwing away a lot of prints less.

There is this group on Yahoo where they talk a lot about B&W printing, maybe have a look there as well?

Good luck

 

[nksyoon]

If you're thinking of buying an Epson R2400, here's an interesting comparison
of running costs compared to an Epson 4800.

Blog: The Online Photographer
Post: Digital Myth #1: Pro Printers are More Expensive
Link:
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/04/digital-myth-1-pro-printers-are-more.html


Your current budget may not stretch to a 4800, but running costs will be an issue.

 

[Terence T]

I really like the Epson K3 inks when it comes to b/w prints. I've been working on b/w prints on a 4800 Stylus all of last week and it beats anything I've used before. True looking blacks, no bronzing and yet shadow details are nicely preserved (if your file is in good shape of course). I've used the R1800 with similar results too and I would think the R2400 would be the same.

 

[sf]

If you're thinking of buying an Epson R2400, here's an interesting comparison
of running costs compared to an Epson 4800.

Blog: The Online Photographer
Post: Digital Myth #1: Pro Printers are More Expensive
Link:
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/04/digital-myth-1-pro-printers-are-more.html


Your current budget may not stretch to a 4800, but running costs will be an issue.

I'm more interested in the HP 8750 than the Epson, partly for its pricetag, and partly because it gets good reviews for B&W work. Head clogging is another plus for the HP. Price is a definite problem area, given my funds, but it's not like I'm going to be printing 13x19 highly dense negs all the time. And I've really got to let the first 2/3 of my imaging gear out to play.

 

[nightfly]

I know you say you don't like the all black results you're getting but I've had very good success with an Epson 1280 using MIS Ebony and printing black only. Tonally the results are very much like a cold toned darkroom print that can be warmed up by paper choice. This website has lots of good info and has been updated for the newer Epson with the multiple black inkset:

http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

 

[sf]

Well, I like the results from the Canon, but in some areas, there is visible inkjet grain where the tone is too difficult for hte printer to handle using just black/grayscale. Actually, it might even use color in its B&W.

THe prints are very high resolution - details are clearly defined down to less than 1/3mm.

I just want a bigger print and smoother tonal scale.

What use is $4000 in camera and scanner gear if you're printing 8x10s on a limited printer? It's just a horrible bottleneck.

It would be fine to stick with the canon as a proofing printer, leaving the real jobs to the 8750, but I would like to sell my work, put it up around the house, etc. Lately, when people show interest in my pics, I run off to the lab and they print me some Lightjet prints that are pretty nice - but at $16 per print, I've already seen over $300 go that way. Surely cheaper to do it at home.

I crave prints large enough to show off the RF's powers - and although the earlier Epsons are well reviewed and can take the MIS inks, the HP has been called even better - and it prints 1200x1200 dpi in B&W - which is pretty impressive.

 

[Pherdinand]

I'm a little bit disappointed in the HP products of nowadays. In general. But that's just my feeling about it.
OK, this needs a bit of explanation, otherwise it's just bullshit in the air. SO i'm disappointed with the sloppyness of assembling and the lousy cumbersome but gigantic software+drivers HP is providing with scanners and some printers. But i don't know anything about this specific printer, so don't take me too seriously.

Wouldn't it be cheaper and better if you'd find a place where you can send/upload your mega files and let them print (after you potimized your files to their machines)?

 

[jonasv]

Have you looked at some online prints services? Not saying printing yourself is necessarily a bad idea, but you should definitely consider all options.

I can order high-quality 20x30in (50x75cm) prints over here at €6,99 - hard to beat with home-printing I think.

 

[wdenies]

My conclusion:
The Canon Pixma 8500 is very good for colour work, but little bit disappointing for gallery B&W.
The new Pixma Pro 9500 (800 $) should perform better: pigmented inks (3 B&W cartridges, cyan, magenta,Yellow,light cyan,light magenta,green,red).
Did anyone already have seen results of this printer?

Wim

 

[T_om]

Just about any of the printers mentioned above will do excellent work... provided you have the ink and paper profiled. Simple.

Right out of the box, it is IMPOSSIBLE for standard drivers to be maximized for every available paper in the world. It amazes me that people even think they will come close.

Go someplace like Cathy's profiles, or one of the myriad other profiling services available, and have your particular choices profiled and you will be happy.

Tom

 

[amateriat]

After five months of fairly intense use, I still like the HP 8750 a whole lot. Black-and-white printing has never been easier for me, and this was the #1 criterion for choosing it; almost any halfway-decent inkjet can give you decent color output, and if color was all I cared about, I could've just flipped a coin. Yes, Epson's 4800 is a fantastic printer, and it was on my shortlist last year, but then I ran aground financially due to unexpected moving expenses and had to change course; meanwhile, I had already sold my Epson 2200 and 1160, and wasn't interested in doing the one-printer-for-color-one-printer-for-B&W thing any more. (And, yes, I tried the BO thing with previous printers; didn't do it for me). The 8750 does the business well, and reliably (not a single head clog thus far), Since I waste very little paper in terms or reprints, operating costs are not quite the bugbear they were with my older two-printer setup (and, of course, having one printer handle everything is a space-saver too). The printer is priced ridiculously low for its performance. Can't say much more about it.


- Barrett

 

[amateriat]

Just about any of the printers mentioned above will do excellent work... provided you have the ink and paper profiled. Simple.

Right out of the box, it is IMPOSSIBLE for standard drivers to be maximized for every available paper in the world. It amazes me that people even think they will come close.

Go someplace like Cathy's profiles, or one of the myriad other profiling services available, and have your particular choices profiled and you will be happy.

Tom

My secondary criteria for choosing a printer concerned how good the paper made for the printer was, and how fine-tuned the canned profiles were. In this case, they were surprisingly good, which made for one less thing to calibrate to death (getting the monitors to behave was enough work by itself). If I were to stray to a third-party paper and/or inkset (like I did with my Epson 1160), I'd be knocking on Kathy's door right now (figuratively speaking, of course). Using third-party paper and ink without proper profiling is like taking a nighttime drive with your headlights off.


- Barrett

 

[sf]

My secondary criteria for choosing a printer concerned how good the paper made for the printer was, and how fine-tuned the canned profiles were. In this case, they were surprisingly good, which made for one less thing to calibrate to death (getting the monitors to behave was enough work by itself). If I were to stray to a third-party paper and/or inkset (like I did with my Epson 1160), I'd be knocking on Kathy's door right now (figuratively speaking, of course). Using third-party paper and ink without proper profiling is like taking a nighttime drive with your headlights off.


- Barrett

I've heard good things about the Ilford Gallerie Smooth Pearl. I might buy a 25 pack of 13x19 and print some prints.

I found a deal on the 8750. Get the printer and Mack 3 year warranty for $408. Free shipping. Sweetness. Now, I just have to decide whether I'm moving back to LA or not. Because if i am, I might as well have it sent there!

 

[geoset]

After considerable experimentation with sevral printers and inks I have settled on using an Epson2200 (I'm not ready to dump it for a 2400) with MIS Eboni matte black and the black-ink only setting. This works particularly well on Moab Kayenta Photo matte paper, giving cool B&W prints similar to Ilford Multigrade FB paper in the chemical darkroom. Epson Enhanced Matte paper also works well as do a variety of warmer papers but none gives the great highlights of Kayenta.

This is a very economical method. It is very easy on the 2200 to swap between Epson and MIS black inks. Both ink and paper are relatively inexpensive and the resuts are superior to using the full inkset with a QuadTone RIP.(The full inkset of the 2200 used without an RIP gives prints with bad metamerism, making them useless for exhibition.) The ImagePrint RIP gives excellent B&W on a 4000 printer (same inks) but is very expensive for non-pros.

My procedures are all based on those of Clayton Jones who provides an excellent website for digital B&W printing:

http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

I strongly recommend reading his articles on printing and papers.

 

[amateriat]

I've heard good things about the Ilford Gallerie Smooth Pearl. I might buy a 25 pack of 13x19 and print some prints.

I actually have some of that paper left over from when I was using my Epsons. Haven't tried it with the HP yet.

I found a deal on the 8750. Get the printer and Mack 3 year warranty for $408. Free shipping. Sweetness. Now, I just have to decide whether I'm moving back to LA or not. Because if i am, I might as well have it sent there!

Great deal! Don't think you can lose on that one.

Didn't know you were moving; good luck with that if it happens. Moving is one of those experiences where getting there is anything but half the fun. Naturally, if you get the printer delivered to your present home, keep the box in the event that your potential move actually happens. 🙂


- Barrett

 

[sf]

I actually have some of that paper left over from when I was using my Epsons. Haven't tried it with the HP yet.


Great deal! Don't think you can lose on that one.

Didn't know you were moving; good luck with that if it happens. Moving is one of those experiences where getting there is anything but half the fun. Naturally, if you get the printer delivered to your present home, keep the box in the event that your potential move actually happens. 🙂


- Barrett

yes, I always keep boxes. I think I'm going to have it delivered to LA since I'll be there within a month anyway. I travel light. I can basically pick up and move anywhere within a week's notice, and I've only got to ship my computer and the scanner and printer. Benefits of being single, owning nothing like furniture, cars, etc.

If I get a laptop, I can probably carry the scanner with me on the plane!

I'd love to hear what you think of the Ilford paper in the 8750.

-George

 

[clarence]

I'm moving as well. I sold and gave away everything I didn't need, and I'm squeezing the rest into two suitcases, a duffel bag, a 100 litre backpack and a Safrotto (Domke) F-2-like.

The camera stuff goes into the F-2 and the backpack. And I pray for no rain, no accidents and no muggings.

Happy moving, George!

Clarence

 

[amateriat]

I salute the two of you for being able to move (not just travel) light. I think it's almost something of an art, never mind the discipline involved. When I moved last year (not a long distance, either), I jettisoned a ton of stuff that I should have ditched long ago, and I still have a lot of excess to shed. It actaually feels good once you're done with it.

George: I might have a go at the Ilford Smooth Pearl some time this week; I'll let you know how I like it. Meanwhile, I really like the look I'm getting with HP Premium Plus Glossy and Soft Gloss. The Glossy has less of a high gloss/sheen than I had initially feared (and generally dislike), and I find myself using it quite a lot for b/w prints (looks great with color, too). The Soft Gloss is wonderful in its own way. Note that HP's archival claims for prints (which are on a par with Epson's, i.e. Really Good) are based on using their Premium Plus papers. Stability ratings are a bit shorter with their Premium and Standard photo papers; YMMV with other brands.

Clarence: please keep us apprised, at your convenience, of your move. Good luck and good snaps!


- Barrett