I'm considering the Epson 3880 and 4880 as well as the Canon 5100 or 6100. With the latest rebates, the 6100 is about the same as the 5100 if you were add the stand all about the same price as the 4880 give or take the base model vs the Colorburst RIP (lite) .
Most of my work for fine art printing is archetypal 35mm documentary, which in my old B&W darkroom days = gritty, grainy documentary, pushed 35mm Tri-X on Leitz condenser enlarger 16 x 20 – 20 x 24 archival prints. Digital allows me to evolve in some way to colour as well; I'm still experimenting.
This would which would lean toward the 3880...
But then I have monkey-wrench: a large format pano project to print. Many of my un-interpolated multi gigbyte files can easily yield up to 4' x 12' so the added width of the 6100, although only 24 " is a bonus.
From what I can tell in the forums, for any of the machines with the latest built-in printer drivers I probably wouldn’t need a RIP… that is, not for anything but the panoramics.
In that case, for the 3880, which brand and model RIP does one need to get at least that 37.5 inches, and is there a RIP that will get one a longer piece of the roll, say 48 inches?
The right RIP or other workaround at the right price to get 16" x 48” panoramics might make the rest of my cogitations below redundant...
Except that anything but an inexpensive RIP begs the question: if one needs to spend $500-$1000 on a RIP, and the time on the additional learning curve, perhaps one is better to go for one of the industrial-built machines, such as the 4880 or x100s which, with roll feed, accommodate longer prints with standard drivers matching their rolled paper, that is if they don't need RIPS for the panos .
Does anyone know if the 4880 or the Canon x100s need a RIP to do the longer panos, and if so which one(s) can do the job most economically?
On the other hand, in respect of the 3880, I could simply forgo the capability of printing the longer panoramics altogether and farm that part of my needs out to a pro lab.
But then again, it only takes the purchase of a couple of custom Lambda fibres or a few custom Inkjet fibres to use up another $1000 which brings me up into the same Epson 4880/Canon x100 territory, after which point I own the means of production.
What to do, what to do...?
It is in the episodic nature of documentary work that printing happens intensively but intermittently.
What are the cost ramifications for inks drying up and clogging for a machine used this way? Is it a better bet to continue farming out the work to labs after all?
If this was a quality enlarger in analogue times that appreciated or held its value this would be a no brainer but a digital printer that effectively depreciates to near zero in 3 years or less?
The 3880 is relatively current. The bigger machines are clearly near the end of their cycle, probably with a 4990 announcement due soon and Canon X300s apparently announced in Japan recently, and presumably soon to be likewise here.
Does/should one want to invest $1000s in a machine that will be used intermittently for big projects then sit idle for great periods in between and be obsolete at least in terms of resale imminently?
One can never win at the upgrade battle unless “last year’s” discounted model will suit one fine, which is I guess one of the things I’m trying to establish. Perhaps a 3-year-old machine would be just fine, excellent even.
I need to confirm that the circa & post 2007 have more or less conquered the following issues: colour accuracy, profile accuracy, neutral grays, metamarism, bronzing, colour fastness, low contrast, shallow blacks, smear resistance, abrasion resistance, archival stability at least to roughly 100 years.
By the way, for me the blacks switching issue that otherwise militates against the 4880 for some people is probably not that big an issue in that I do not see myself printing much matte.
Bigger for me is the issue of reliability, service and support. For indeed, what hasn’t changed much is that the big photo companies such as Epson and Canon remain dominant and that there is a semi-monopolistic tyranny we end users must subjugate ourselves to if we wish to play in the this new electronic reality. Like many of us, I’ve had more than enough battles with all these companies. Earlier user reports here and elsewhere suggest that the latter company in particular has remained generally hostile/difficult/unreasonable toward end users when it comes to service, support and upgrading as it is in others of its product families. Has that changed at all?
Otherwise, point to Epson. Two points perhaps with better warranties.
Clogging… and commensurate material wastage: seems to be one, maybe two points to Canon.
3880 vs 6100; David vs Goliath, the former a hefty but easily carried by one person piece of desk real estate, the latter (as I understand it) 175 lbs delivered in two crates, a VERY large piece of furniture. 4880 somewhere in between. That probably comes down to which my family will hate the least.
Per Wilhelm June 2009 archival tests: Epson Good, Canon Better, HP Best
In terms of print quality, I did a quick and not very scientific comparison of the print results of the 4880 vs the 6100 yesterday on an Epson pearl finish paper (would have preferred a smoother stock but that was what they had at the moment...) . I was not the operator and the operator was more familiar with the Epson, and yet it was my impression that the 6100 was somehow more professional in its controls, displays, auto-feeding, speed, quietness.
In terms of print quality, and without putting an instrument on the samples it is my impression that:
• they're not very different
• the blacks of the epson were possibly slightly deeper
• there was possibly slightly less bronzing with the Epson... that is if I'm using the term correctly here (I mean a visible variation in the reflectance of the surface based on how thickly the ink is laid down)
Given that this was a quick test with probably not the correct profiling I'm not sure how valid, if at all, these impressions are, but given my lack of access to the facilities it is the best I can do for now. It would certainly be best to test each machine using best practices to strive for the best result each could yield and then compare those.
Is there anyone on this list who has tried such comparisons--but hopefully done a more thorough and accurate job--and can speak to this at all?
Final Question: What am I missing that will help me make this decision?
Apologies for the length.
