Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Bill Koenig on March 15, 2007, 10:08:48 am
-
I'm about to order the Epson 3800, what inkjet paper should I include with my order to B&H?
Here is a list of papers I'm considering.
Enhanced Matte Paper for Inkjet
Premium Glossy Photo Paper for Inkjet
Premium Luster Photo Paper for Inkjet
Inkjetart Micro Ceramic Gloss
-
I'm about to order the Epson 3800, what inkjet paper should I include with my order to B&H?
Here is a list of papers I'm considering.
Enhanced Matte Paper for Inkjet
Premium Glossy Photo Paper for Inkjet
Premium Luster Photo Paper for Inkjet
Inkjetart Micro Ceramic Gloss
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106786\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're not giving us much to help you. Like what kind of printing you do, intentend uses, whether you prefer glossy or matte etc. etc.
If you are new into serious inkjet printing, my advice would be to get your hands on a few sample packs in smaller sizes and start forming your own basic opinion first. All the papers that you list are decent papers in their respective categories, but there are also other players and other categories out there.
If you are a newcomer, it would be advisable to stick with Epson brand papers at first, since you will face less problems with media handling and the Epson canned profiles that come with the printer for their papers are quite decent.
-
bob,
email me at fastford@hot.rr.com I can get you the 3800 for a better price than B&H,
Chris in Texas
-
You're not giving us much to help you. Like what kind of printing you do, intentend uses, whether you prefer glossy or matte etc. etc.
If you are new into serious inkjet printing, my advice would be to get your hands on a few sample packs in smaller sizes and start forming your own basic opinion first. All the papers that you list are decent papers in their respective categories, but there are also other players and other categories out there.
If you are a newcomer, it would be advisable to stick with Epson brand papers at first, since you will face less problems with media handling and the Epson canned profiles that come with the printer for their papers are quite decent.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106787\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
NikosR,
Thanks for the quick reply. Yes, I'm very new, this will be my first printer. Back in my darkroom days I used RC papers with a little mat as well. The papers that I listed seemed to cover pretty much the whole range from mat to gloss. I didn't see a sample pack at B&H, I will look into that.
I shoot mainly landscapes with a Nikon D200, fine detail as well as high Dmax would be a consideration. The enhanced Matte Paper is quite inexpensive, but I'm not sure if it can hold fine detail.
Inkjetart Micro Ceramic Gloss is also inexpensive, and comes in 17x25 which is a size that I would like to print to, but there is little info about this paper on the forums, I would like to here from anyone that has used this paper and profiles on the 3800.
-
I'm about to order the Epson 3800, what inkjet paper should I include with my order to B&H?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=106786\")
Bill,
B & H is an excellent place to make your purchase and I certainly spend way too much with them myself. However, you may want to look to Atlantic Exchange for your Epson purchasing. For example, look at this page on the 3800:
[a href=\"http://www.atlex.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=C635011UCM]http://www.atlex.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?...&key=C635011UCM[/url]
and compare to B & H.
Ron
-
NikosR,
Thanks for the quick reply. Yes, I'm very new, this will be my first printer. Back in my darkroom days I used RC papers with a little mat as well. The papers that I listed seemed to cover pretty much the whole range from mat to gloss. I didn't see a sample pack at B&H, I will look into that.
I shoot mainly landscapes with a Nikon D200, fine detail as well as high Dmax would be a consideration. The enhanced Matte Paper is quite inexpensive, but I'm not sure if it can hold fine detail.
Inkjetart Micro Ceramic Gloss is also inexpensive, and comes in 17x25 which is a size that I would like to print to, but there is little info about this paper on the forums, I would like to here from anyone that has used this paper and profiles on the 3800.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106799\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Epson Enhanced Matte paper holds all the detail you could expect a paper to hold, depending on the brightness range of your image. The only problem with any matte paper is its ability to differentiate shades in deep dark (such as shadow) areas; it is more limited than for non-matte papers. Epson premium semi-matte is a very pleasing paper with better rendition of deep shades, as is their Premium Luster, which is glossier. Neither of these papers exhibit the high reflectance of the pure gloss papers, which I find kind of detracts from the image. But some people like high gloss because of the crispness and maximum deep shade rendition if offers. With a 3800 you can try a range of papers and see for yourself what you like best. Just be sure to select the correct profile for the paper you are using in both Photoshop Print with Preview and in the Epson Driver.
-
Epson actually offer decent papers in most of the main categories of inkjet papers suitable for pigment ink inkjet printers. I summarise some of the most important / commonly used ones below:
Matte Papers:
Enhanced (or Archival) Matte: Decent matte paper, suitable for learning your way through matte fine-art type printing. Good for proofing for more expensive papers e.g. UltraSmooth Fine Art). Smooth surface. Decent but not the best of max density or gamut. Base colour quite neutral white. A bit on he light/thin side compared to 'proper' fine art matte papers. Might warp a bit if too much ink is applied. Contains lots of UV brighteners, the base will get more creamy / yellowy with time.
UltraSmooth Fine Art Paper: The fine art version of the Enhanced Matte, so to speak. Surface similar to Enhanced. Thicker / heavier. Warmer base due to absence of UV brighteners, 100% rag base. More archival qualities than Enhanced. Excellent paper up there with the best.
Velvet Fine Art. Medium textured fine art paper. Warmer base. Archival quality. Very good dmax for a matte paper. Excellent paper. 100% rag, some UV brighteners. Excellent paper up there with the best.
Watercolour Radiant White: Good value watecolour like surface (textured). Adequate weight. Off-white base. Not 100% rag, but very good archival qualities. Not too good details.
Glossy/luster/Pearl Papers:
Premium Luster: Probably the best of the Epson glossy type papers. Nice 'luster' type of semigloss surface. Excellent in the category.
Premium Semigloss: Pearl type of surface. Not too bad, but I would prefer Premium Luster.
Premium Glossy: Smooth semigloss type of surface. I prefer Ilford Smooth Gloss for this application.
Epson currently do not offer papers in the following two categories (to my knowledge):
1. Hi Gloss type of surface (e.g. Pictorico reminiscent of Ciba/Ilfo Chrome)
2. New category of pearl surface (with some shine and light texture) rag papers reminiscent of traditional BW photographic papers (e.g. Hahnenmuehle Fine Art Pearl, Innova, Crane Museo etc).
For the rest of the categories, most of the decent third-party papers you can buy will broadly fall in the categories of the Epson papers I have listed above, give or take some texture, base whiteness, weight, archival characteristics, dmax and gamut.
Hope the above helps.
-
Enhanced (or Archival) Matte: Contains lots of UV brighteners, the base will get more creamy / yellowy with time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106816\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The base does NOT get more creamy/yellowy with time. All that happens is that the brightener wears off, and as it wears off the base colour of the paper is exposed. Based on my experience, for prints that are not exposed to light the difference becomes noticeable after about four or five years. For prints hung on a fridge door, within a year or so the deterioration of the brightener starts being noticeable. The net result at the end of the process will be a print that has the character of un-brightened matte paper.
Enhanced Matte (which by the way has had a name change: it is now Ultra Premium Presentation Paper Matte 5* - same animal, same stock number), is more than "suitable for learning your way through matte fine-art printing". It is by far the largest seller amongst the Epson papers and used for many purposes including final output by many photographers and graphic artists from amateur to experienced pro, according to what I learned when I last canvassed a high-volume Epson supplies dealer here in Toronto (in connection with a paper selection question I was asked to address for another purpose). It doesn't have the kind of weight, texture and artsy feel that some of the much more expensive fine art matte papers exhibit, but then again the price difference is very large.
Epson Velvet Fine Art is indeed a lovely paper, but considerably more expensive than Enhanced Matte and needs careful handling, because it is much more prone to showing streaks from bits of grit or fingernails passing over it.
Most important for new users: don't be swayed by other peoples' opinions about what a paper is good for. It's good for you if it has the longevity characteristics you want, you like it and can afford it.
-
MarkDS
I don't think we are in too much disagreement here
1. Regarding the white colour. You are correct, that's what I'm implying. That's why I mentioned OBA's and 'yellowing' in the same sentence. Maybe I have not expressed it correctly (English is not my mother tongue). The end result is the same.
2. I absolutely believe that Enhanced Matte is selling much more than Velvet or Smooth. Of course pricing must have something to do with it. I do consume much more Enhanced than any 'fine art' papers. I do use better papers for 'exhibition quality' prints though. I stand by my opinion that it is a decent paper but not up to the level of other Epson or third party papers. Absolutely good value though.
3. I absolutely agree with your last sentence. Having said this, I have to say also that I was quite happy using Enhanced Matte until I tried better (IMHO) papers.
-
MarkDS
I don't think we are in too much disagreement here
1. Regarding the white colour. You are correct, that's what I'm implying. That's why I mentioned OBA's and 'yellowing' in the same sentence. Maybe I have not expressed it correctly (English is not my mother tongue). The end result is the same.
2. I absolutely believe that Enhanced Matte is selling much more than Velvet or Smooth. Of course pricing must have something to do with it. I do consume much more Enhanced than any 'fine art' papers. I do use better papers for 'exhibition quality' prints though. I stand by my opinion that it is a decent paper but not up to the level of other Epson or third party papers. Absolutely good value though.
3. I absolutely agree with your last sentence. Having said this, I have to say also that I was quite happy using Enhanced Matte until I tried better (IMHO) papers.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=106824\")
I sampled a lot of papers when I got my new 3800 in December, as I always do with new printers/ink--both Epson and 3rd party.
I found the Inkjetart Microceramic luster paper to be as nice as the Epson Premium Luster--which I've used in the past for the RC type paper. I bought a roll so I could cut a 17 x 25 but will buy sheets in the future and cut to smaller size if I wish.
The Epson Enhanced Matte (or whatever its new name is) is fine. Use it and then sample other matte/fine art papers and find the one you like. BTW--the Epson Fine Art Velvet is not made larger than 13 x 19---unfortunately-- and I've been on a hunt for something I like as well. Hahnemuhle PHoto rag is nice and I've printed on it in the past---but I have found a paper in 17 x 25 without OBAs that I like--Hawks Mt. Condor Natural. [a href=\"http://www.hawkmtnartpapers.com/]http://www.hawkmtnartpapers.com/[/url]
I don't print at all on glossy, so can't help you there.
My recommendation is to buy sample packs---both Epsons and other mfg. Try a Hahnemuhle pack, Innova, Hawks Mt., Red River--and go to Shades of Paper and get the sample pack for all the glossy rag papers (Innova, Hahnemuhle, Crane Museo) I love the Innova Semi Matte for monos.
http://www.shadesofpaper.com/ (http://www.shadesofpaper.com/) Red River papers too--their luster paper is nice---http://www.redriverpaper.com/
Try Atlex for Epson papers--great prices. Inkjetart.com has many sample packs for a lot of papers. That way you can find the papers that suit your own images.
I honestly find that I'm using no Epson papers at the moment--except for those papers and sizes I already had in stock (I used Enhanced Matte for proofing Velvet--so have some of both left. I have Premium Luster also up to 13 x 19). There are so many beautiful papers out there, profiling available--so there's no reason to limit yourself just to Epson papers anymore.
Diane
-
I sampled a lot of papers when I got my new 3800 in December, as I always do with new printers/ink--both Epson and 3rd party.
I honestly find that I'm using no Epson papers at the moment--except for those papers and sizes I already had in stock (I used Enhanced Matte for proofing Velvet--so have some of both left. I have Premium Luster also up to 13 x 19). There are so many beautiful papers out there, profiling available--so there's no reason to limit yourself just to Epson papers anymore.
Diane
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Diane, that's a nice newsy survey of some fine papers out there, and I agree with you and Nikos that the market for great papers goes well beyond Epson. That said, I see we're all agreed that Epson markets under its name a range of very satifscatory papers. I think for someone starting out, it is good to stick with the Epson papers for a while, because the variety is there, AND ALSO THE PROFILES, which I put in caps because it is so important. Epson happens to provide excellent profiles for the 3800/4800 printers, whereas sometimes profiles provided by speciality paper manufacturers are not the best. When branching away from Epson papers it is probably best to get a custom profile for each paper, which takes a bit of time and money. So once a newcomer to this kind of printing sees what the range of Epson surfaces does for them, they can better target the third-party items of interest, get them custom profiled, and then they are on their way.
By the way, how do you like your 3800 (useability and quality of output)? I'm using a 4800 and considering switching to a 3800 (so I can use various papers without wasting 150 bucks on ink). So far all I've read and some output I've seen suggests it's a great printer, apart from the somewhat flimsy outer shell/paper handling mechanism.
-
Diane, that's a nice newsy survey of some fine papers out there, and I agree with you and Nikos that the market for great papers goes well beyond Epson. That said, I see we're all agreed that Epson markets under its name a range of very satifscatory papers. I think for someone starting out, it is good to stick with the Epson papers for a while, because the variety is there, AND ALSO THE PROFILES, which I put in caps because it is so important. Epson happens to provide excellent profiles for the 3800/4800 printers, whereas sometimes profiles provided by speciality paper manufacturers are not the best. When branching away from Epson papers it is probably best to get a custom profile for each paper, which takes a bit of time and money. So once a newcomer to this kind of printing sees what the range of Epson surfaces does for them, they can better target the third-party items of interest, get them custom profiled, and then they are on their way.
By the way, how do you like your 3800 (useability and quality of output)? I'm using a 4800 and considering switching to a 3800 (so I can use various papers without wasting 150 bucks on ink). So far all I've read and some output I've seen suggests it's a great printer, apart from the somewhat flimsy outer shell/paper handling mechanism.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106844\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark, guess I was referring to custom profiles, but I agree--easy to stick with Epson to begin with since their profiles are excellent--for the 3800 anyhow. BTW--the PPLP profile works great with the Inkjetart.com MC luster--I find it better than theirs--and no need for a custom one on that paper. Not so with some others.
I like the 3800 very much. Since I print so much on fineart matte, I don't switch ink too often--and try to group papers when I print. The ink wastage seems reasonable--though it would be nice if it didn't waste any LOL.
Diane
-
Thanks for the feedback Diane. My understanding is that we won't see a 3800 size up-grade from Epson for a good while, so the non-zero wastage for ink-switching will be with us for a while - at least on Epson printers. But your opinion of the print quality confirms what I've seen myself and what some other savvy users have also remarked.
-
MarkDS,
I would wait a while before making a decision to switch from the 4800 to the 3800 if roll paper use were of any importance to me or if I was a heavy user. I have heard rumours from two dealer sources that the replacement of the 4800 will be announced within the year. I would be very surprised if the 4800 replacement doesn't use the 3800's black ink switching system.
Now these might end up being just that, rumours, but it sure seems reasonable that the 4800 will be the first printer Epson upgrades next(along with a rumoured new printer larger than the 9800).
Myself, I'm a happy 3800 user but then I'm a light user and roll paper is not too important for my needs.
-
Ugh, my browser crashed while I was trying to post my last msg.
Anyways, the 3800's output is outstanding.
However, there have been several reports of the 3800's default driver settings laying down way too much ink on Epson Enhanced Matte. This causes the paper to warp during printing and can lead to head strikes if you are printing close to the bottom edge of the paper. (Remember, the 3800 doesn't have a vaccuum system for keeping sheets flat.) This is also partly due to EEM being a generally thin paper (by matte paper standards). Of course you can work around this by controlling the ink density in the driver. And the head strikes can generally be avoided by increasing the Platen Gap. The warping of the sheet certainly goes away if you place the print somewhere and let it dry.
I'm just mentioning this here because this niggle with EEM on the 3800 has popped up quite a few times (not in these particular forums) so just wanted to pass it on.
-
Nikos, just yesterday I had a conversation with a knowledgeable person who said the 3800 won't be surpassed for at least a year, and we should not expect to see a repeat of the 4000/4800 business. While this information is useful, I think we need to get accustomed to the fact that the gestation period for new pro-printer models is in the 12~18 month range, so one buys when one wants the latest features of the new generation of printers and decides about up-grading as new options arise.
Eric, this is interesting and disturbing information. One would have hoped that Epson had tested for all this kind of stuff before they released the printer, but stranger things have happened. When seeing such reports, one wonders whether it is a design defect, or a few people with out-of-kilter machines who've had a problem that isn't necessarily generic to the model. One shouldn't discount the possibility of shipping and handling damage being the cause. I'd like to learn more about this issue and intend to follow-up on it - thanks for bringing it to our attention. I wouldn't like to have to play around with ink density in the driver - this is tricky business and has a major impact on image quality.
-
Ugh, my browser crashed while I was trying to post my last msg.
Anyways, the 3800's output is outstanding.
However, there have been several reports of the 3800's default driver settings laying down way too much ink on Epson Enhanced Matte. This causes the paper to warp during printing and can lead to head strikes [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106959\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric, just a follow-up: when you say you find the quality outstanding, two questions: (1) have you used Epson Enhanced Matte and found the results outstanding with that paper, and (2) have you experienced the over-inking issue you refer to? This is quite important to me because it is the paper I use most.
-
Hi Mark,
Yes, I brought up the EEM issue specifically because I am aware that you use this paper extensively and thought you should be aware of it.
My big disclaimer here is that I have not personally used EEM on my 3800 yet. I am familiar with EEM and have used it on my older (and now retired) 2200. But I have not tried it on the 3800.
What I am mentioning above are reports from other users from other forums who have made calls to Epson Support because of their dissatisfaction with the results they are getting with the default settings on EEM on their 3800 machines. Now, in some cases, Epson Support determined that the customer's particular 3800 machine had a defective print head (sorry, I have no specifics here on how Epson Support made that determination) and sent a new 3800 to the customer overnight.
So it is entirely possible here that the reports only correspond to specific machines but not to the 3800 product as a whole. Still, I've been keeping an eye on it because the only negative reports I've seen regarding over-inking and too-dark prints coming out of the 3800 are with regards to EEM, and there's been a few (not a lot) of posts about this.
I may pick up some EEM paper before long (it's relatively inexpensive, after all) and do some tests myself, in which case I'll report back here.
The only two matte papers I've tried so far on the 3800 are Epson Velvet Fine Art and Moab Entrada Fine Art Natural 300, both with outstanding results, particularly the former. However, in both cases I am using custom RGB profiles (not the Epson-supplied or Moab-supplied profiles) and custom ABW profiles.
When I build custom profiles, I do experiment with the different Media Types, even for Epson's own papers. (Interestingly, the UltraSmooth Fine Art Media Type produced a deeper black on the Velvet Fine Art paper than when using the Velvet Fine Art Media Type ...). I did notice for both papers that the Enhanced Matte Media Type driver setting put down considerably more ink (or at least had a much darker curve) than either the USFA or VFA Media Types.
-
Nikos, just yesterday I had a conversation with a knowledgeable person who said the 3800 won't be surpassed for at least a year, and we should not expect to see a repeat of the 4000/4800 business.
I don't quite get what you're saying here. I'm not talking about the 3800 being surpassed, I'm talking about the 4800 being replaced. The 4800 was introduced May 2005 so a 2007 replacement won't be too surprising, especially considering the emerging competitive landscape and the infamous ink swap wastage problem.
As I said, these are only rumours which might well prove wrong.
-
Eric, thank you very much for clarifying all that, and once again thanks for bringing it to our collective attention. I do hope you test EEM on your machine and let us know what you find. (If I'm in your neighbourhood it will be worth at least a bottle of wine!) I find on my 4800 the ink laydown is substantial in the sense that the prints do come out a bit damp, and the deep shades are indeed deep. But overall, the image fidelity is excellent - when the print has been allowed to dry overnight and then compared with the monitor image (my monitor is calibrated at 110 cd luminance, 6500K white balance, which coheres well with Solux D50 illumination and matte paper - counter-intuitive but it works reliably). So I've looked upon this as normal for the media. Now if the 3800 is overly aggressive in this respect it would be an item of great interest. I take your point that this could be largely a defective printer issue rather than a generic model issue, and worth keeping an eye on.
Cheers,
Mark
-
I don't quite get what you're saying here. I'm not talking about the 3800 being surpassed, I'm talking about the 4800 being replaced. As I said, that's only rumours which might well prove wrong.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107004\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I actually missed the point about replacing the 4800 with the 3800 LOL. Have you considered just adding it as Jack Flesher did (I think) to maybe his 7800 to avoid an ink switch? Using one for PK and one for MK?? That way the one you use most for roll paper can be the 4800. Just a quick thought.
Diane
-
I don't quite get what you're saying here. I'm not talking about the 3800 being surpassed, I'm talking about the 4800 being replaced. As I said, that's only rumours which might well prove wrong.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107004\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh - let me clarify that - my interpretation of what I was told in the context of the discussion I was having, is that in the 17 inch size range, nothing new will appear for at least a year, whether you think of it as a better 3800 or a better 4800!
-
I actually missed the point about replacing the 4800 with the 3800 LOL. Have you considered just adding it as Jack Flesher did (I think) to maybe his 7800 to avoid an ink switch? Using one for PK and one for MK?? That way the one you use most for roll paper can be the 4800. Just a quick thought.
Diane
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not the one who is thinking about replacing the 4800 with the 3800. MarkDS said he was. I just commented that the 4800 might be up for replacement by Epson.
(This is confusing )
-
OK, I hope I've de-confused it to the extent I can. My source of information is not "the horse's mouth" but in my opinion more reliable than rumours with an unknown basis - I don't know if that should provide more comfort or less . But I think the key point is what I've mentioned above - unless one has definitive information about a new model release within the time frame of interest, the most sensible strategy is to discount the future heavily and buy what one thinks better meets current needs at the time, Especially if the investment is not monumental. For example, if I were contemplating a Z3100 at 4000 USD, I'd be much more concerned about the product cycle and the depreciation rate than if I bought a 3800 for 1300 USD. I can still sell my 4800 on eBay for at least 1000, so the net re-cycling cost doesn't add-up to a high impact risk of regrets over timing.
I've thought of the two printer strategy - for a number of people this can make a lot of sense. It depends on how much space you have and how much printing you do. With limited space and a moderate throughput, a good all-round one printer solution is probably more practical, but in a higher-volume studio environment I can see the two or more than two printer solution as being ideal.
-
One of the nice points about the 3800 is that it's relatively small for a 17" printer.
Here's a picture I snapped of my old 2200 sitting on top of the 3800 (let's hope Epson doesn't see this picture and void my warranty ... ):
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/tmp/e...0_on_ep3800.jpg (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/tmp/ep2200_on_ep3800.jpg)
As you can see, it's not much wider than the 2200. It's definitely deeper from front to back (not shown in the image) but not much taller.
-
What I am mentioning above are reports from other users from other forums who have made calls to Epson Support because of their dissatisfaction with the results they are getting with the default settings on EEM on their 3800 machines.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106986\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi, Eric
I replace a few days ago my Epson 2100/2200 by a 3800. I used the most the Epson Mate Paper, called here (spain) Archival Mate. The first think I realized was that the prints got out wet, soaky, i.e. too much ink as you said. No problem with Epson watercolor or Hahnemuehle photo rag 308, both perfect. But the Mate paper much better with the 2100.
Compared with the older 2100, blacks with the 2100 are blacker that in 3800, and contrast is higher, although detail in the shadows and overal color reproduction are better in the 3800. And with nothing changed, prints with the 2100 look sharper than the same print in 3800 (using always the epson profiles). Hahnemuehle photo rag 308 prints are definitively better in the 3800 (Hahnemuehle icc profile in photoshop and watercolor in the printer driver)
If I cannot solve the Mate Paper issue (reducig the ink amount?) I'll be forced to keep the 2100 for Archval Mate and use Epson Watercolor as normal paper for the 3800 (Hahnemuehle photo rag 308 is only for special ocassions...).
That's my experience so far with the 3800 out of the box.
Manuel
-
Mark Segal and I have been discussing the issue with Enhanced Matte and the 3800 (we actually think it may be a more general issue with Ultrachrome K3 vs the original Ultrachrome). We hope to get some input from Epson soon about this.
-
Mark Segal and I have been discussing the issue with Enhanced Matte and the 3800 (we actually think it may be a more general issue with Ultrachrome K3 vs the original Ultrachrome). We hope to get some input from Epson soon about this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109157\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've upgraded to the latest firmware (o02269, which, eventually, is a lower number than the firmware the printer had previously --> check with the remote panel and do not trust on the firmware numbers) and things with Mate seem to improve, althought I've to perform some more tests. I'll keep you informed.
Manuel
-
I've upgraded to the latest firmware (o02269, which, eventually, is a lower number than the firmware the printer had previously --> check with the remote panel and do not trust on the firmware numbers) and things with Mate seem to improve, althought I've to perform some more tests. I'll keep you informed.
Manuel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109160\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Manuel, please do keep us informed about your findings.
Whether the print comes out of the printer more or less damp is not really the determinative issue. The determinative issue is what you see on the paper the next morning after the print has been allowed to dry. By then, the paper should be flat and the print quality should look much crisper and cleaner.
Eric and I both tested the same printer target file on our respective machines (3800/4800). (We do not live in the same cities, so we are doing this by email.) When we examine the prints under bright light, we can see traces of a mottly, greyish uneven splotchiness in the deep tones. This is the problem. The status of this issue as it has evolved between Eric and me right now is that the kind of effect he is observing in the dark tones on EEM coming out of his 3800 are similar (but perhaps more intense) to what I see coming out of my 4800. On examination of older prints I did NOT find this effect on prints from my previous 4000 using original Ultrachrome. This is mainly why we think it may be more related to K3 ink than to the printer model.
Interestingly, at least for me with the 4800, the angle at which the light hits the paper and at which you view the print determines whether you see this effect or not. It is there, but not equally bothersome at all lighting and viewing angles.
The reference to Epson is that I shall bring these target test prints to PSWorld in Boston next week and show them to people in the Epson Booth, and see what they advise about it.
Meanwhile I think it would be very helpful if 3800 and 4800 owners reading this thread could contribute their observations - not so much about the prints coming out of the printer damp, but whether or not the next morning you see what appear to be greyish or muddyish blotches in deep-tone areas of the prints.
-
Examples of the splotchiness that Mark refers to:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink1.jpg (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink1.jpg)
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink2.jpg (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink2.jpg)
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink3.jpg (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink3.jpg)
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink4.jpg (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink4.jpg)
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink5.jpg (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink5.jpg)
FYI, this is Atkinson's Lab Test Image printed on Enhanced Matte and photographed with the light arranged at an angle so as to maximize the splotchiness effect (i.e., this is a worst-case scenario). These are Epson 3800 prints (I have tried this on 2 different 3800 printers with the same results).
-
NikosR,
Inkjetart Micro Ceramic Gloss is also inexpensive, and comes in 17x25 which is a size that I would like to print to, but there is little info about this paper on the forums, I would like to here from anyone that has used this paper and profiles on the 3800.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106799\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've use their matte papers for years, exclusively. It's a good thing to standardize on paper at the beginning of your printing experience. Later, once you have things dialled in, is a good time to experiment with different papers. My pal, who also prints on a 4800, chose the Micro Ceramic Gloss and loves it. The savings are significant in large paper sizes, especially with matte, since it's double-sided. His prints (and mine ) look great. We both use the Epson profiles for these inkjetart papers. I didn't like the InkJetArt profile as much as the Epson profile. I set my printer driver to the watercolour paper setting. Longevity does not seem to be a problem. We both hang unframed prints in sunlight and see no fading after at least a year.
-
Examples of the splotchiness that Mark refers to:
.............FYI, this is Atkinson's Lab Test Image printed on Enhanced Matte and photographed with the light arranged at an angle so as to maximize the splotchiness effect (i.e., this is a worst-case scenario). These are Epson 3800 prints (I have tried this on 2 different 3800 printers with the same results).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109182\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric, good you posted these - this will help readers see what we are targeting.
Cheers,
Mark
-
I have experienced this same effect with A3 prints from a 2200, yet the same print cropped to letter size does not have the problem printed on letter size sheet.
I cut a sheet and ran it through my 875 dye printer with the same effect.
After looking at a blank sheet with strong sidelighting, I came to the conclusion that the blotchiness is in the coating itself. It appears to me that Epson got a bad batch of paper.
The letter size I bought about a year ago, the A3 size about three months ago.
Just some of my observations. As a result I have started using Moab Kayenta and Epson profile for my A3 prints with excellent results.
Rich
-
Rich,
That batch of paper would have to have been ultra-huge in light of the time span involved. Furthermore, the effect I've seen, corroborated in Eric's posted examples, I reproduced on letter-size EEM. You are correct that EEM seen under a strong sidelight has a sort-of "pock-marked" surface. Kayenta's surface however is smoother. I like your idea of trying a print on Kayenta -I happen to have a sheet handy so I'll try the test target with it, let it settle overnight and see if the effect is replicated there too.
-
Rich,
That batch of paper would have to have been ultra-huge in light of the time span involved. Furthermore, the effect I've seen, corroborated in Eric's posted examples, I reproduced on letter-size EEM. You are correct that EEM seen under a strong sidelight has a sort-of "pock-marked" surface. Kayenta's surface however is smoother. I like your idea of trying a print on Kayenta -I happen to have a sheet handy so I'll try the test target with it, let it settle overnight and see if the effect is replicated there too.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109202\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The time span: I forgot to mention: I was comparing test prints from June 2006 and March 2007.
-
Thanks Mark,
It is quite possible I'm sniffing up the wrong trail here. Wouldn't be the first time I got off on some tangent.
I am very grateful to you and Eric for your detective work on this problem. Everone will benefit from your efforts.
Rich
-
Thanks Rich,
I ran a couple of Kayenta prints just now. I'll let them dry overnight and report back tomorrow morning.
As I've been sitting here printing, I'm thinking of Manuel's post, where he says the paper came out of his 3800 "soaking". "Soaking" means really wet. EEM just out of my 4800 is very slightly damp, nothing near soaking. That may be indeed cause for concern - counter-intuitive.
-
I would say my EEM prints coming out of the 3800 are slightly damp, definitely wouldn't use the term 'soaking' here. The paper is wavy and wrinkly, but flattens out after about 10 minutes. Just FYI.
-
My EEM coming out of the 4800 isn't even "wavy and wrinkly"; just slightly damp; if it is a very dark print overall, there may be an ever-so-slight cratering of part of the paper surface, but it flattens within ten minutes or so.
Now, turning to the Kayenta, Rich Owens has a point - not I think that EEM had a defective batch, but EEM in general has a unique behvioural property with 3K inks, because on the Kayenta result from my 4800 last night, I had to really look very, very hard under intense illumination to find even a trace of the effect you see in Eric's images. There is no problem seeing it on my EEM target test print from March 17th (12 days ago).
I agree with Rich that on the whole the EEM profile works very well with Kayenta; however a custom profile may still be worthwhile, because the tonal separation at the dark end of the gray scale is somewhat better on EEM with the EEM profile than it is on Kayenta with the EEM profile. Otherwise, you can't tell these prints apart.
-
I would say my EEM prints coming out of the 3800 are slightly damp, definitely wouldn't use the term 'soaking' here. The paper is wavy and wrinkly, but flattens out after about 10 minutes. Just FYI.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109334\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"This paper is soaking" was my first impression wen I took into my hands the first print in Archival Mate I did with the 3800, after years printing with the P2100. The paper was wavy, smelled ink, looked wet and it took about one hour to flatten and dry (it was a A3+ print with lots of black). Perhaps soaking was a bit exagerated, but I was used to a perfet flat and dry paper comming out the P2100, and acted on the impression...
Being the print mostly blacks, the "traces of a mottly, greyish uneven splotchiness in the deep tones" described by Mark were visible, and they accentuated or completely vanished depending on the direction of the ligth. And I agree that this is the real problem.
As said before I upgraded the firmware but had no time (until this week-end) to re-print the picture to check for improvements. I hope the solution is not discontinuing the Mate Paper in the 3800.
Regards
Manuel
-
I hope the solution is not discontinuing the Mate Paper in the 3800.
Regards
Manuel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Manuel, I hope not either. But based on my test of MOAB Kayenta last night on the 4800 reported above, if you or Eric can reproduce a similar result on the 3800 (i.e. virtually no patchiness), and if there is no repair to the EEM problem, then switching to Kayenta for Matte work would be the obvious solution. Kayenta is a bit more expensive than EEM, but it is printable on both sides of the paper if that is something you would do; very nice paper (actually brighter than EEM, and can be used with EEM profile, though as mentioned above I would try custom-profiling it. The added brightness may be a concern in terms of what happens when the brightener fades. I don't know what is underneath because both sides are coated, and brighteners do fade, eventually giving you a print that has the whites of the paper base.
I would still be concerned by the wetness of prints coming from the 3800, as well as reports of head-strike/platen gap issues reported in a parallel thread. These are matters I hope to be able to learn more about next week at PSWorld.
-
There is a definitely a slight physical waviness to matte prints that come out of the 3800. This is true not just of EEM, but also of thicker papers which go through the Rear Feed, such as Velvet Fine Art (260 gsm, 19 mil, compared to EEM's 192 gsm, 10.3 mil).
That is to say, if you hold the print at an angle to the light, you can see places where the paper rises up and where the paper sinks down. If you let it lie on a flat surface (e.g., a flat table), then initially the paper doesn't come in full contact with the underlying surface because of ripples in the paper (some parts in contact, others are not).
However, there is zero splotchiness/mottling with the Velvet Fine Art paper (on all 20+ test prints I've done so far from a single batch of VFA 13" x 19" paper). I have also seen zero splotchiness on Moab Entrada Fine Art Natural 300 (printed using the UltraSmooth Fine Art Media Type).
The ripples suggest a heavy ink load, but as noted earlier, they do go away. My EEM and VFA prints lie perfectly flat now. And the VFA prints are really gorgeous. I would say the same of the EEM except for the mottling.
Another consideration for a matte paper similar to EEM besides Kayenta (which I believe has been discontinued by Moab) is Red River Paper's Aurora.
-
Eric, fortunately, Kayenta is not discontinued Moab Kayenta (http://www.moabpaper.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=42); also sells on B&H for a couple of bucks less.
About the wetness of the prints, regardless of its final impact on print quality, it raises questions about how much ink the 3800 consumes. My accumulated track on the 4800 is now running at 1.79 ml/sq.ft. EXCLUDING ink used for routine cleanings and clogs; this over an accumulated total of about 1270 sq.ft.
-
Hi Mark,
I only have limited data since my 3800 is relatively new, but I have accumulated some data from the prints I've made (by exporting the job history logs reported by the driver). If I divide the total ink consumed (added over all print jobs) by the total square footage, I'm seeing 2 mL / sq ft when printing at 1440 dpi, and about 5% to 10% more when printing at 2880 dpi. Again, this is early data, but I'm just offering it here FWIW. (This is mostly on Velvet Fine Art and Moab Kokopelli Studio Semi-Gloss.)
Regarding the status of Kayenta, etc. Moab Paper was acquired by Legion Paper and their papers are undergoing a restructuring/rebranding/renaming process. Andy Biggs, who helps out Moab (I think with making profiles) and who also posts here sometimes, posted a message on another forum which I quote here:
There is a new line of papers that will be replacing the Kokopelli and Kayenta papers, and it will be called Lasal. There will be a glossy, luster and matte. Only the matte paper will be double sided.
Perhaps I should say that Kayenta isn't necessarily being discontinued, but appears to be undergoing at least a renaming process (though at this point I'm not sure if the actual paper/coating itself will change).
In the meantime, as you noted Mark, Kayenta is still widely available from many places, including Moab's own online store.
-
Hi Eric,
Your ink consumption data seems to be in the right ball-park. Do you know if that ink is only for prints, or does it also include routine cleanings?
Thanks for the up-date on the Moab Paper story. Kayenta is good stuff - let us hope they don't wreck it.
Re the reported issue of the head mechanism banging at the ends of transport, I can confirm that I've not had that issue on any of the three wide-format Epsons I've owned (2000P/4000/4800). Really does sound as if something is wrong.
-
Your ink consumption data seems to be in the right ball-park. Do you know if that ink is only for prints, or does it also include routine cleanings?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109504\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I believe it is only for the prints. To my knowledge, the job histories reported by the printer are for ink consumed during the print itself, no more, no less. If I do maintenance work before a print (e.g., a head alignment, which uses some ink, or an automatic nozzle check/clean), the job history ink numbers don't appear to be any higher than usual (thereby suggesting the job history reports ink consumption for the print alone).
-
Eric,
If the data is job history reports, what you are saying sounds right. Let me ask you this: when you do a nozzle check and print it, do you get a print out that shows ml "Pre.InkCount" and "Cur.InkCount" ? If you do, those numbers mean accumulated ink usage ALL TOLD from the last nozzle check to the current one. Once you know your start points and end points for both ink usage and printing activity, you can get both the with and without cleaning analysis - as done in my model. But a reliable accumulation of data requires several months of activity, so its too soon to be conclusive.
However, if your job reports are so far indicating 2 ml per sq. ft., and mine 1.78, (both without cleaning cycles), it would seem to suggest that your 3800 is laying down about 12% more ink than my 4800. It's the same ink, but the dithering is different, and you've also been using a range of different papers whereas I've been on a fairly steady diet of EEM, so it is hard to tell whether your 3800 is bleeding more ink than my 4800, paper-for-paper. Even if the comparable difference were 12% one wonders whether this would be enough to produce big differences in apparent dampness of the paper emerging from the printer.
-
In my quest for greater clarity about the apparent prevalence of mottly ink effects in very dark tones of prints from the 3800 (ref. Eric's image file links above) I decided to go straight to the source and discuss this issue with Epson America. They were very helpful and forthcoming, and even offered to perform a comparison test for me between the 3800 and 4800 and send me the results. I took them up on that offer and asked them to use the Atkinson printer target test image, EEM paper, their own profile and Driver, and Photoshop Determining Colors with RelCol Rendering Intent (to be comparable with stuff of my own and what Eric has been testing with). They obliged and the results appeared at my door this morning. I looked at these results under two kinds of lighting - close-up under a Solux D-50 lamp in my office, as well as in a professional light booth at a studio. Before writing this post, I called Epson and notified them of my intention to report my results here, and they had no objection.
Seen under the comparatively diffuse lighting of a professional light booth, tilting the prints in various ways, the mottling effect we have been discussing is virtually absent in both of the test prints (4800 and 3800) from Epson.
But, examined close-up under intense Solux D-50 at particular angles, the "mottling" effect appears on three prints in the blacks and very deep green in the background of the image of the rose - the 3800, 4800 and one done on an HP Z3100 (discussed below) . The z3100 print was done on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag matte, which is a relatively textured paper without brightener. Interestingly however, even under my Solux lamp I did NOT see this effect on Kayenta paper. Kayenta is not much heavier than EEM (205 vs. 192 g/m2), but it has a smoother finish than either EEM or the Hahnemuhle. Hence, I am increasingly led to hypothesize that what we are seeing is an interplay of dark ink on the uneven surfaces of both EEM and Hahnemuhle Photo-rag matte against intense light at certain angles, rather than a problem with the ink lay-down per se, otherwise one would expect the same issue on Kayenta paper, considering that I printed the Kayenta with the same K3 inks, Epson EEM profile and Epson 4800 I used to make the EMM print in my 4800 that does show the effect, which Eric also sees from his 3800 using EEM and the same inkset etc..
It has been a working hypothesis in this discussion that the apparent "mottling" is related to an excessive laydown of ink on EEM paper in the 3800 printer. Eric and I have compared notes on ink usage. This ink usage comparison is imperfect, but fwiwi, his 3800 seems to be laying down about 12% more ink per sq. ft. than does my 4800; noting however that his machine is new with much smaller sample size; as well he has used a greater variety of papers than I have. Nonetheless, one wonders even if there were as much as a 12% difference of ink laydown, whether this could cause a major difference of wetness between 3800 prints and 4800 prints. I should also mention that for the part of the Epson 3800 test in which I collaborated with Michael Reichmann back in December (as reported in his review) I do not recall the prints coming out of the machine he borrowed as being particularly wet. That is something I would have remembered, as I am accustomed to the slight dampness and curvature of prints emerging from my 4800, as well as the fact that they flatten within ten to fifteen minutes (letter size).
All this would seem to suggest several things: (1) There may be no relationship between "wet" prints and the "mottly effect" so well demonstrated in Eric's file links above. (2) This effect may be how dark ink reflects under particularly intense light at certain angles of viewing and illumination on relatively textured matte papers, due to the paper texture. (3) People getting worse results than what I am describing here (i.e. alot of wetness, apparent uneveness of ink where there should not be) may have maladjusted printers and should seek technical support.
As an aside, I was able to get printed (NOT by Epson, but elsewhere here in Toronto), the same Atkinson printer test target on an HP z3100 equipped with the latest firmware. Readers will recall there have been complaints that the Z3100 did not perform very well on matte paper and had problems reproducing reds - they were said to be orange. Well, with the latest firmware up-date in that machine, I find neither is the case, and when I compare the 3800, 4800 and z3100 target test prints, the print quality is hard to tell apart save for two things - the Epson 3800 has slightly more saturated red than either the 4800 or the z3100 (but the paper used for the Z3100 print is not brightened like EEM). The difference is mainly visible in the strawberries image, but I emphasize - the difference is slight and may be due to the paper difference. As well, the z3100 shows a more yellow yellow in the squares and stripes than observed in either of the Epsons, but in the images of the yellow flowers and foliage, all three results are fine - hard to tell one from the other. Readers unfamiliar with the Atkinson printer target test image may find this discussion more useful by downloading it here (http://homepage.mac.com/billatkinson/FileSharing2.html) - it is third from the bottom on the right side of his downloads page.
-
Further to my latest post (#48 above) I have just performed a "most recent" data pull for ink usage and paper coverage on my Epson 4800. Between December 24th 2006 and March 30th 2007, I have chaulked-up 160 sq.ft. of paper coverage on EEM and consumed 309.8 ml of K3 ink (excluding ink used in cleanings), amounting to 1.93 ml per sq.ft. This is really very close to what Eric is reporting for his experience with the 3800.
-
Thanks for the info, Mark. My (early) data so far has been printing on Epson Velvet Fine Art (a MK paper) and Moab Kokopelli Studio Semi-Gloss (a PK paper) using the Premium Luster Media Type in the Epson driver.
This is a bit apples/oranges because for VFA I was doing 1440 dpi and for MKSSG I was doing 2880 dpi. I did run some tests on 2880 dpi vs 1440 dpi on MKSSG and found that 2880 uses about 5% to 10% more ink than 1440 dpi -- early tests again, since I only printed a few images and checked the job history.
-
Just chiming in here. Yes, Moab by Legion Paper has discontinued Kayenta, and will be replacing Kayenta with Lasal Photo Matte, a more updated dual-sided paper with a newer coating. Profiles should be available by the time the new papers ship in late April.