Should I just get a high-end ink-jet printer already?

[mh2000]

PS Pigment inkjets offer a nice "fineart" look on fiber based papers, but IMO the HP dyebased b&w on dedicated paper looks much richer, has more depth and approximates trational b&w more accurately than the pigments... which tend to look a little flatter to me. The HP dyes on HP paper will outlast pigment on fineart paper too... and probably match most traditional prints for longevity.

 

[amateriat]

The very best wet prints will blow away best inkjet prints, but once you know what you are doing with scanning, PS and printing your average prints will all be way better than your average prints from a traditional darkroom... at least that is how it worked out for me... I guess even with 20+ years experience I was never a "master photographer in the darkroom."

This crystalizes what i've been trying to say.

PS Pigment inkjets offer a nice "fineart" look on fiber based papers, but IMO the HP dyebased b&w on dedicated paper looks much richer, has more depth and approximates trational b&w more accurately than the pigments... which tend to look a little flatter to me. The HP dyes on HP paper will outlast pigment on fineart paper too... and probably match most traditional prints for longevity.

I wouldn't go so far as say this combo will outlast pigs on fine art papers (too many combinations to compare without going truly nucking futs), but it will likely hold its own...but remember, we're talking about accelerated tests here.

The ace, for me, is that in the case of my HP 8750 (and its predecessor, the 7960, and at least one other printer), there are three black inks in use, full-time, for printing sans color inks, and without the aggravating artifacts that still plague most pigment-ink-based printers (which I'll boldly abbreviate BGM: bronzing, gloss differantial, and metamerism, although the latter isn't as out of control as in the recent past, at least in the most-recent printers using OEM pigs). I'm waiting for HP (I'm off Epson for the time being) to come up with either (a) an updated replacement for the 8750, or (b) an update to the B9180/B8850 that incorporated a third black channel for b/w printing without going the "composite" route. For now, if my 8750 should croak at an inconvenient time, I'll simply hit the 'Bay for another one (maybe I should buy a new one while a few are left in the pipeline...)


- Barrett

 

[David Goldfarb]

(b) an update to the B9180/B8850 that incorporated a third black channel for b/w printing without going the "composite" route.

A great improvement, but please, no! I'm trying to stay off the insane digital cycle of upgrades. My last printer (which I used only for documents, not for photographs) lasted 12 years.

For B&W on Harman Gloss FB, by the way, with the B9180, I haven't had problems with bronzing or metamerism, but there is gloss differential, particularly if you hold the print at an angle.

 

[amateriat]

A great improvement, but please, no! I'm trying to stay off the insane digital cycle of upgrades. My last printer (which I used only for documents, not for photographs) lasted 12 years.

I fully grok this, David, though the high-end printer biz has long been busy and fickle...ever-moreso now, with at least three serious players in the market.

For B&W on Harman Gloss FB, by the way, with the B9180, I haven't had problems with bronzing or metamerism, but there is gloss differential, particularly if you hold the print at an angle.

Just curious: is this when using all inks (composite) or just the black/grey inks?


- Barrett

 

[David Goldfarb]

Just curious: is this when using all inks (composite) or just the black/grey inks?


- Barrett

With the software I'm using (CS2, HP's Photoshop plugin for printing and print previewing, and ICC profiles for the papers I have), I can't set that parameter directly (unless maybe I convert the image to grayscale), so I don't know for sure, but when I print to Harman Gloss FB with the Harman ICC profile for the B9180, I get a slightly warmer tone than I do printing the same images on other papers with other profiles, which I think must be due to some mixing of inks going on.

 

[visiondr]

Inkjet with good scans will resolve more detail than anything from an enlarger...a 4000ppi scan will pull more from the negatives than will an enlarger.

What the heck are you talking about? You're praising the quality of dots of ink vs a completely dot free, analogue print with completely - one could say - infinite variation in tone from point to point! That's nothing compared to the losses inherent in scanning and post processing. Grain aliasing in scanned negs is just one issue. Every single manipulation of the original along the image chain degrades the image. The more manipulation, the further you are from purity. Wet printing is simply a matter of projecting the image onto paper. If you have an excellent quality enlarging lens and a relatively vibration free environment, then you're good. Compare that with the systems in scanners most of us can afford (not talking an Imacon, here) you have adequate lenses at best. What your saying is meaningless.

That said, Darren should find a way to compare prints made via both systems and make the decision himself. He may find a good inkjet print is the way to go. And that would be fine, but it certainly wouldn't be truer to the original negative.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

That's only part of it. Working with a decent scan in PS (even if it suffers from nominal degradation) can easily lead to imaging--through selective exposure (burning, dodging), contrast, toning, sharpening, retouching--which might be very difficult and time- and material-consuming to equal using traditional methods.

But, yes, I shall compare negatives printed by both methods. If ink-jet printing comes close, and no I don't yet know what close is, it might be my choice simply on grounds of convenience. Naturally, I understand that ink-jet printing does involve a learning curve.

 

[visiondr]

That's only part of it. Working with a decent scan in PS (even if it suffers from nominal degradation) can easily lead to imaging--through selective exposure (burning, dodging), contrast, toning, sharpening, retouching--which might be very difficult and time- and material-consuming to equal using traditional methods.

You are absolutely right there, my friend. There is much that PS can accomplish and wet printing cannot. BTW, you don't have to sharpen a wet print. They come that way.