Have Ink Jets Caught up with Chemical Emulsion?

[dwdallam]

I posted a thread recently about B&W printing, and teh consensus was that the Epson line of Ink Jets has matched or surpassed quality, even compared to traditional silver gelatin chemical processes, with a professional printer doing the work.

I'm wondering if it is true for color also?

I've had very nice prints from the Costco Noritsu printers--doing all of the processing myself of course--but I have several questions before I go Ink Jet. I mean if I can get as good or better than the Noritsu, and do it in house, that is an easy choice for me.

1. Is the paper as thick as the chemical process paper, such as the Fuji Crystal Archive paper used by Costco on the Noritsu?

2. Is paper thickness a problem?

3. I sometimes don't print for weeks. What is the Ink Life one you install it? I'd hate to use it 10 times and have to replace the ink because I didn't use it fast enough.

4. What's the cost of a 12 x 18 (13 x 19) full color image?

5. How long does it take to print the full color 13 x 19?

What printer do you recommend for up to 12 x 18 prints, from the least expensive that will do professional jobs, to the more expensive models?

[situgrrl]

Learning inkjet printing is a steep and expensive learning curve (or was when I got my 2100 - things may have improved with new tech.)  I however consider myself every bit as competant as a pro - at least when printing my own work.  I had to use professional services when I was printing larger than 13" and found things slightly frustrating - it seemed very much that men were taking a "dumb chick doesn't get technology" attitude and doing work twice leading to oversharpening etc.

The print quality of inkjet imo far surpasses anything from a Frontier or Noritsu.  People argue each way with Lightjets which are much more expensive.

To answer your questions

1 - It's as thick or thin as you like.  Printers have multiple print paths to handle media of different thicknesses.
2 - Depending on the printer, the paper, the position of the moon and the mood of your personal printer god.  Generally perseverance, patience, google and forums such as this pay off.  Or change paper.
3 - I think manufacturers rate it as a year.  You'll use it faster than that, it probably lasts longer.  Non issue.  Clogging may be more of an issue depending on your climate.
4 - More expensive than a chemical print - much more - but the quality in my mind is exponentially better.
5 - With respect, that you have just purchased one of those Canon thingies with more megapixels than were previously known to exist in the universe suggests that initial cost is not such an issue.  Also given your spangly camera, would you really limit yourself to 12x18?  I've never used something with the res you have but I would imagine it will print 24" wide without the slightest trouble.  Given that, the smallest printer I would consider is the Epson 3800.  It is a 17" (A2) sheet only printer that has significant advantages in ink prices alone over the A3 (R2400) printers.  Jeff, if he's about, will also tell you that they are better calibrated and suitable for pro use unlike the 2400.  If you need roll paper, you need to step up a model to the Epson 4880 or Canon 5100.  I will be purchasing a 3800 as soon as I've robbed a bank as my 2100 died recently and the ink costs were sickening.  As I'm shooting scanned 35mm, I will not be using it's full capability, I won't print more than 12x16.  If I were shooting with your camera, I'd be looking at 24" printers though.

HTH
Charly

[Geoff Wittig]

Black and white printing was actually a higher hurdle to jump; inkjets are clearly the method of choice for color printing and have been for a while. The gamut provided by Epson K3, HP Vivera and Canon Claria inks all exceed that provided by Noritsu/Lightjet type printers on Fuji crystal archive paper. The vast range of papers provide endless aesthetic options not available with the photochemical digital printers; and archival longevity of pigment inkjet prints far exceeds that of any photochemical process.

Paper thickness is whatever you choose to print on. Larger printers in the Epson 3800/7800/7880 class give you a wider range of choices; the 2400 doesn't handle really thick papers as gracefully.

As far as specific printers go, your budget is the real issue. The Epson 3800 is pricier than the 2400 up front, but comes with much larger ink cartridges and cheaper ink costs in the long run, and lets you print up to 17" wide. HP's 13" carriage B9180 also prints beautiful color and BW work. Larger 24" wide format printers give you lots more paper options and print much faster, but obviously take up a lot of room and cost a bunch more up front. They're cheaper to run per-print, however, due to larger ink cartridges. Epsons seem to have more clogging problems than other brands, but I've left my 7600 sitting for several months and only had to do one round of head cleaning before it printed just fine.

Time to print a 13x19" print depends on the specific printer; bigger is faster. Even for the Epson 2400 at highest quality setting, it takes about as long to run off a 13x19 as it does to get coffee. Cost per print again depends on the specific printer; a quick back-of-the-envelope estimate for my work is about $2 worth of ink for a 13x19 from a 13" wide printer, about half that for a wide format printer.

Just my 2 cents, if you're looking for the most economical printer up to 13x19" at this point it's probably the Epson 3800, given its larger ink carts. Its output is also superb, as good as anything out there. The newer 7880 generation with Epson's "vivid magenta" ink has a modest increase in the already excellent color gamut. Among larger 24" printers, you can't go wrong with Epson, HP's Z3100 or Canon's IPF6100.

[DarkPenguin]

The epson 3800 has the best combination of price, size, quality and ink price.  They give you enough ink to cover the cost of going to it from the 2400.

If initial cash outlay is more of an issue the HP B9180 is also very nice.

I rarely print over 11x14 or 11x17 but if I had it to do again I'd get the bigger 3800 just for the ink costs.

[Ken Bennett]

Another vote for the 3800. I like being able to print a 16x20 now and again. I am a very occasional printer, and it may be weeks between print jobs -- then half a dozen 12x18's in one sitting. No issues with this printer at all.

A couple of thoughts:

1. It does take some time and money to start seeing good prints. Just like your first time in the darkroom -- with a box of paper and a couple quarts of chemistry, it took many hours to make your first good print.

2. You can tame the learning curve by visiting Eric Chan's wiki site for the 3800.

3. Get some inexpensive paper to start -- some Epson Professional Matte in 8.5x11 and 13x19, and maybe some Epson Gloss or Premium Lustre paper. No need to spend a bazillion dollars on super duper paper when you are learning to print.

4. Get the sample packs from Ink Jet Art. They come with 8-10 different papers in letter size, one or two sheets of each, labeled so you know which is which. It's a cheap and fun way to try many different papers.

If you are an occasional printer, like me, the 3800 is a good choice. It's small enough to sit on my desk, light enough to carry home from the store myself, and has much more economical ink costs than the smaller-format printers. If you are doing production printing, you'll want roll feed and larger ink carts, so the 4880 is probably better.

--Ken

[dwdallam]

If I were shooting with your camera, I'd be looking at 24" printers though.

HTH
Charly
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175455\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, a 12 x 18 print is framed at a minimum of a 18 x 24 inch frame and matting, which for most people, even those who live in very large 2, 500+ square foot houses, is a "large." But yes a larger print is capable even with a 5D. I've printed 20 x 30s with NO artifacting using my 5D.  With frame and mat, you're looking at a very respectable 30 x 40 display. That takes a lot of display room.

And although I can fork out the money for a MKIII, it's not like I have money to spend. I have no overhead--I live in a rented house that costs 675US per month, no family, car paid off, no wife, no kids, and not many other things to spend my money on. I live a rather boring life, reading literature, etc., occasionally trying to write, and hiking. I wear Levis and T shirts and have no inclination for the "high life" or those who live for it. Thus, I have extra money on a modest income to spend on extravagent tools. However, skyrocket ink prices would NOT be welcomed.

No to mention that that large of a printer would take up a lot of space. It would help if I could relocate the printer away from my computer, and print from a CF card after processing. Is that possible?

[DarkPenguin]

No to mention that that large of a printer would take up a lot of space. It would help if I could relocate the printer away from my computer, and print from a CF card after processing. Is that possible?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175574\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not with the B9180.  However, you can wire it to a network and place it as far away as you're willing to run a network cable.

[Ken Bennett]

Although I mentioned above that I like the 3800 for making the occasional 16x20 inch prints, I do have to laugh at myself sometimes -- and everyone else who suggests buying a huge printer.

When I was shooting back in the Film Age (some time before the Bronze Age), a 5x7-inch print was a normal size, and an 8x10 was reserved for "good" photos. I would print to 11x14 a couple of times a year, and I think I made one or two 16x20 inch prints in my entire career. Nobody that I knew had 16x20-inch trays, and I probably couldn't afford to fill them with chemistry anyway. (OK, Ansel Adams I'm not.)

Now I can knock out a 12x18 inch print without thinking twice. A 16x20? No problem. They look great. I want to hang them on my wall -- but wait! The framing costs for a 12x18 run to about $70 (if I want archival materials, and I'm willing to buy in bulk online.) My local frame shop wants closer to $150.

So I have a drawer full of very nice large prints, and nothing on the wall. Maybe it's time to go back to printing 8x10's and framing them.

[Geoff Wittig]

Although I mentioned above that I like the 3800 for making the occasional 16x20 inch prints, I do have to laugh at myself sometimes -- and everyone else who suggests buying a huge printer.

So I have a drawer full of very nice large prints, and nothing on the wall. Maybe it's time to go back to printing 8x10's and framing them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175644\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quite so. There's nothing like the impact of a 24x36" print, but where do you put it? How do you handle such a beast? I've been having them laminated onto boards, which is much handier and lighter (not to mention cheaper) than framing behind glass.

I have the luxury of a large office for my day job, where I can display many large prints. Now and then someone likes one enough to buy it, which allows me to change the images on display. Works for me.

[mikeseb]

] I've been having them laminated onto boards, which is much handier and lighter (not to mention cheaper) than framing behind glass.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175649\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've been wanting to try something like this. There's a shop locally that offers color-managed printing on medium-density fiberboard and sheet metals that have been overlain with an ink-receiving white base. The printing is dye-sublimation; the dyes actually penetrate the overlying clear base and adhere to the white substrate. This method has been widely used for signage printing, but this fellow's adapting color management to it is something new, at least around here.

I think this will be my method of choice the next time I want to exhibit large work; framing and matting is just ruinously expensive.

[situgrrl]

None of the "real" photo printers can print straight from a card.  One option is to run a network cable as Dark Penguin mentioned, the other is to use WiFi printing, connecting a compatible router to it via USB.  I use this for my text printer but not my photo printer - I've no reason to believe it will work any differently, I just do!  I guess I'm stupid and superstitious but I can't afford the wasted paper!

[David Amos]

I use a 3800, It's in a different room to my computer, It's got a network socket in the back of it so it's dead easy to connect to a network.

[dwdallam]

I've been wanting to try something like this. There's a shop locally that offers color-managed printing on medium-density fiberboard and sheet metals that have been overlain with an ink-receiving white base. The printing is dye-sublimation; the dyes actually penetrate the overlying clear base and adhere to the white substrate. This method has been widely used for signage printing, but this fellow's adapting color management to it is something new, at least around here.

I think this will be my method of choice the next time I want to exhibit large work; framing and matting is just ruinously expensive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It cost me about 87.00US to frame and mat with a 4" border a 20x30 inch print on buffered acid free stock. I use a 30x40 inch frame.

I know. It's expensive.

[DarkPenguin]

I don't know if anyone else uses american frame but I've been very pleased with them.  Probably around the same price but they do most of the work for you.

[Peter McLennan]

I've been wanting to try something like this. There's a shop locally that offers color-managed printing on medium-density fiberboard and sheet metals that have been overlain with an ink-receiving white base. <snip>
I think this will be my method of choice the next time I want to exhibit large work; framing and matting is just ruinously expensive.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Since I got a CIS for my 4800 I've been printing a lot of 17X22.  Big prints do tend to accumulate in piles that are difficult to access and view and framing them all is not an option.  Lately, I've been storing them in clear sleeves backed with foamcore or corrugated cardboard.  They're light, easy to shuffle through, protect the prints from handling damage and look pretty good if you're willing to put up with the reflections from the sleeves.  I set them on a music stand if I want to really enjoy.  

[a href=\"http://www.inkjetart.com/misc/envelopes.html]http://www.inkjetart.com/misc/envelopes.html[/url]

[dwdallam]

I don't know if anyone else uses american frame but I've been very pleased with them.  Probably around the same price but they do most of the work for you.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Try this and see waht you think
[a href=\"http://www.framefit.com/]http://www.framefit.com/[/url]

But I only use the dome aluminum matte black finish frames--display frames, and nothing else. I'm not a framer, but a display-er. So other places may indeed be "better."

[sojournerphoto]

Since I got a CIS for my 4800 I've been printing a lot of 17X22.  Big prints do tend to accumulate in piles that are difficult to access and view and framing them all is not an option.  Lately, I've been storing them in clear sleeves backed with foamcore or corrugated cardboard.  They're light, easy to shuffle through, protect the prints from handling damage and look pretty good if you're willing to put up with the reflections from the sleeves.  I set them on a music stand if I want to really enjoy.   

http://www.inkjetart.com/misc/envelopes.html
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I get complaints that 15 by 10 holiday snaps don't even fit in an A4 album:)

So I've started making some of my own frames..

Mike

[dwdallam]

I get complaints that 15 by 10 holiday snaps don't even fit in an A4 album:)

So I've started making some of my own frames..

Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You can get digital 3:2 aspect ratio albums now. It's just that most people don't know the difference yet, being that there was only one aspect ratio for general use for 60 years.