Takkun
Ian M.
Hi everyone. I have a gallery exhibition coming up soon, and seeing as I have access to a printer at school, I've been trying my hand at large-format printing myself instead of sending it to a lab.
And it's giving me one heck of a headache.
The materials: I'm printing TIFF files of BW scans exported from my Aperture library with an Epson 3800, on Moab Entrada paper. I really like the heavy weight and smooth rag surface of these--I think it suits the grain of Tri-X well. Both my home computer and the lab computer (both Unibody iMacs) are color calibrated, and I'm printing from Photoshop CS3.
My methods:
1- Default Epson profiles and settings for matte paper. My professor swears by them, but he also uses their cheapest Matte Presentation Paper.
2- Moab's ICC profile and recommended media settings in the dialog box.
3- Advanced BW mode, with a number of media settings (different papers, various color density settings, different Tone settings)
4- Eric Chan's method, as described on his MIT page.
In all cases I specified the paper thickness and 'wide' platen gap in the appropriate dialog box.
The results:
Banding, extremely muddy shadows, lack of contrast, areas of completely flat tone, and a lack of sharpness--almost looking like a very compressed or posterized image. Not to mention other annoyances like ink smears in the margins. I've also tried printing some color files from digital cameras, and same result--murky shadows and flat, textureless mid tone colors. These aren't even passable as drugstore prints.
The ink is fairly new--this printer gets a good amount of use for posters and architectural rendering proofs (it is in our architecture department, after all), which seem to turn out okay on cheap Epson semigloss paper. The professor I work with suggests I just stick with what works. Normally, if I weren't hanging these to exhibit and sell, I would agree.
Of those of you still using this printer, what workflow are you using, especially with fiber rag papers?
And it's giving me one heck of a headache.
The materials: I'm printing TIFF files of BW scans exported from my Aperture library with an Epson 3800, on Moab Entrada paper. I really like the heavy weight and smooth rag surface of these--I think it suits the grain of Tri-X well. Both my home computer and the lab computer (both Unibody iMacs) are color calibrated, and I'm printing from Photoshop CS3.
My methods:
1- Default Epson profiles and settings for matte paper. My professor swears by them, but he also uses their cheapest Matte Presentation Paper.
2- Moab's ICC profile and recommended media settings in the dialog box.
3- Advanced BW mode, with a number of media settings (different papers, various color density settings, different Tone settings)
4- Eric Chan's method, as described on his MIT page.
In all cases I specified the paper thickness and 'wide' platen gap in the appropriate dialog box.
The results:
Banding, extremely muddy shadows, lack of contrast, areas of completely flat tone, and a lack of sharpness--almost looking like a very compressed or posterized image. Not to mention other annoyances like ink smears in the margins. I've also tried printing some color files from digital cameras, and same result--murky shadows and flat, textureless mid tone colors. These aren't even passable as drugstore prints.
The ink is fairly new--this printer gets a good amount of use for posters and architectural rendering proofs (it is in our architecture department, after all), which seem to turn out okay on cheap Epson semigloss paper. The professor I work with suggests I just stick with what works. Normally, if I weren't hanging these to exhibit and sell, I would agree.
Of those of you still using this printer, what workflow are you using, especially with fiber rag papers?