suggestions for a bw printer?

Epson 1280 for Black Only printing with MIS Eboni black ink is the way I used to go. Old, ancient printers, but they work fine for that. If you don't go with black only printing, which uses just the one black ink cartridge, you're in deep stuff right off the bat. LOTS of expensive ink to constantly replenish, expensive software to set up your monitor, and on and on. People call BO prints digital Tri-X, and they're right. It gives a coarser image than multi ink B&W prints, but they have a "pop" that other types of inkjet prints don't have.

You can use a more modern Epson like the 1400 for that too. Here's a link to the BO process. I love my BO prints, but not as much as darkroom prints on fiber. I could print a black and white image on my old Epson at 13x19 for the cost of the paper, and pennies for the ink. Figure maybe $3 to $5 tops for a 13x19 print on 100% rag archival paper, including some small trial proofs. Hard to beat that, price wise.

http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn3.htm
 
Last edited:
I used the Epson 1280 with Eboni making Black Only prints for years. They looked really good. The problem was that the 1280 was designed for dye ink not pigment like Eboni. So they would only last about 12-18 months with reasonably consistent use. I wore out 4 of them.

I think the key is the more modern Epson 2400 / 2880 / 3000 series with the ABW b&w RIP built in. Those make excellent b&w printing close to automatic with the Epson inks. I have been very happy with a couple of 2400's for about 6 years.

Now I did say "close to automatic" because the printer prints exactly what is fed to it. The user has to be conversant with Photoshop, Lightroom or even Elements to feed the printer. It is just like sticking a piece of photo paper under the enlarger. Not too hard to get an acceptable print but 10 years later, your prints are still getting better because you are still learning more.

BTW, some will swear by HP printers. I sure they work also. In the end it comes down to the skill of the user. Just like the one camera vs. another.
 
Epson 2880 and 3000 are supposed to be great for B&W. I'll be waiting for Santa to place one under my christmas tree this year
 
The best, most archival, and richest black inkjet printer are the Epson pigment printers using the the K3 Ultrachrome inks, which come in either matte or glossy black, plus a light black, plus six colors to back them up and add density. I think the $50 Harrington Quadtone RIP is better than the Epson driver for B&W, you get complete control. Zero metarism too.

Unfortunately the smallest current printer that uses this technology is the Epson R2880, which is a $500 13x19 inch printer. The inks are pretty expensive too. The newer Epson R3000 is $650, same size, uses larger cartridges and prints a little finer using a smaller ink drop size. Then it's the 3880 for 17x22, etc. They get more expensive and larger but the ink cost goes down with size and capacity as you go up the product chain.

Nothing says you can't use Third-party inks, or a Canon, HP, or even the Epson R1400 printers ($200) to make decent prints but it's good to know what the best is.

If you want to save a few bucks, the image quality from the prior K3 Ultrachrome printers, when used with the Harrington RIP, is still superior. Look for a used or refurb Epson 2400 for $200, get the RIP and a bunch of ink and go at it.

If you use the newer Baryta papers, like Harman By Hahnemuhle Gloss Baryta Inkjet Paper, they are really nice and can fool many photographers into thinking they are darkroom prints.

Like Bob said, you have to know how to adjust your images, hit a black and white point, have some decent imaging chops.
 
Last edited:
I get perfectly good b/w prints with my Epson R2400 using stock K3 inks. I wish I had bought the next higher model instead because the ink cartridges are much bigger in higher models resulting in overall less cost per print. Overall ink and paper costs are going to dwarf whatever initial investment in the hardware anyway.
 
thank you all so much for your tips so far. i do not have room for a wet print set up, and do not think i ever will, so i'm looking seriously at the hybrid thing ...
 
Frank Version Two said:
.......................... If you want to save a few bucks, the image quality from the prior K3 Ultrachrome printers, when used with the Harrington RIP, is still superior. Look for a used or refurb Epson 2400 for $200, get the RIP and a bunch of ink and go at it. ...........................
Click to expand...

I believe the printer driver and print heads are unchanged from the 2400 on including the 3800 and 3880. I know the printer driver software is the same. I still use a 2400 with Epson inks and the Epson AWB driver and see no difference to a 3880.

Frank, are you thinking of the 2200? That did not have the AWB driver and did need the Harrington RIP. I think Roy Harrington still asks $75 for his RIP software.

I do believe the 2400 is no longer available, even as a refurb, from Epson. When I bought my last 2400 I paid $50 more than a 2800 but that was so I could use my existing inventory of ink carts.
 
The Quadtone RIP works with the newest models too. I prefer it to the AWB driver, which I think/see still makes prints with metarism. Of course if you display prints consistently in the same light this isn't a problem. Sorry I may have missed the price increase.
 
I tried the HP printers and just got frustrated w/ prints that changed color when the light changed. You had to know what light your prints would be displayed in, and print for that. Put them in a different light, and you got colors other than black or white, which I didn't like at all. The HP prints had a more "darkroom print" look to them, but the color shifting ruined it for me.

Bob is right about the 1280's. You'll wear them out in a year or less. The 2200 would give you the same quality in BO, but those printers had more issues and were more fragile, in my experience anyway. The MIS Eboni Black ink is carbon based by the way, and is probably the most archival method of inkjet printing. Think etchings. My 2 cents on archivalness is that the pigmented inks are pretty darn archival, no matter who makes them, but when mixing color ink to produce a B&W print, which is just plain weird from an art perspective, eventually you're gonna get some color shifting. Even pigmented inks will fade somewhat over time (some colors are more fugitive than others, and these are inks, not paints) as the amount of pigment in there compared to the base is very small. It couldn't get through the tiny nozzles otherwise, and there's enough problems w/ Epsons clogging as there is.

If you use only one, carbon based ink and print on 100% rag paper, the print should last centuries IF you can isolate it from the air, which has a ton of pollutants in it. But BO doesn't work for all types of images. Still, the fact that you can get some great large B&W prints using cheap old printers, w/o having to go to expensive monitor calibrating software, and w/o having to constantly fill or replace 7 to 10 expensive ink cartridges, makes it an interesting proposition.
 
I've used an Epson r1900 that I received free with a rebate. Using the epson drivers gave me only so so results after a whole lot of tinkering. Switched to the quadtone RIP with GREAT results.
Well, i just traded a couple of cameras out of my collection for an r2400, still using the Harrington Quadtone RIP, some new inks, load the paper, and BAM... incredible b&w prints! Now, I just might have to try the Piezography inks. Will it take it up another level?
I'm just happy to have a great printer for color AND b&w.
 
Another vote here for the Epson R2400 and QTR. I agree with Frank, in that with QTR you get much more consistent results.
 
Btw, I still use an Epson 2200 (ca 2003-4) and have never had a problem with clogs. The printer is essentially worthless now, what makes them fail is when the internal waste ink reservoir fills and it isn't worth sending it out for service. But otherwise it still makes good prints with QTR (Quadtone RIP) so I'll just drive it into the ground and get the new 3000 next.

The ink carts are expensive for these level printers but the math doesn't work out for justifying a 1380 or larger, which do have cheaper per ml ink. I make about 24000 square inches of prints per year (= 300 8x10s) and that's only a couple cycles of carts. I'd have to have a business making (lotsa) prints for customers to justify anything larger.

The newer printers don't require wasteful ink switching between the matte and glossy blacks (but just use one type of paper so you don't need to switch) and have a smaller droplet size. They will make slightly better looking prints thanks to that but it is like digital cameras, a 50% improvement in a number doesn't mean your images are suddenly 50% better.

If you haven't guessed, I don't like spending money.
 
Last edited:
Whatever you get, buy it directly from Epson as "refurbished." Better than new (extra inspection) huge savings and better support than from any dealer (direct from Epson). I bought a 2200, a scanner, my current 3800, and my new Epson Workforce 635 (my office printer/copier/scanner) that way. The 3800 comes with a huge amount of pigment (as did my 3800)...far more economical than any of the smaller printers if you can afford the upfront money...
 
I used to print B&W only using MIS inks, but I gave it up, due to clogged print heads which resulted in print streaks, unusable prints and wasted ink.

Mind you, I did not print regularly; I'd typically make a few prints at a time, that not use it again for a few weeks, at which time the heads would've dried up. After a few months of this, I decided justto print using an online service.

Just something to keep in mind if you don't plan to print regularly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom