Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: jayelwin on March 25, 2006, 07:42:49 pm
-
Hello all,
I am a recent convert to an all digital photography workflow. I am an advanced amateur who's photos consist of mainly vacation shots, portraits of my kids, and stitched panoramas. I only just recently switched off of film when Canon finally made a (somewhat!) affordable full frame sensor camera, the 5D. I currently do all my post processing using Aperture and Photoshop and shoot raw with frequent shots of a WhiBal card to keep things straight. I currently just have my local photofinisher print me C prints on a Noritsu 320 LPI run-of -the-mill laser exposing C printer on Endura paper. When I was entirely film based I had my own darkroom and printed a lot of black and white, and even dabbled in analog color printing.
I have recetly entertained the notion of doing my own printing. I've tried to resesarch these two printers as being possibilities, with the price differential duly noted. I am intrigued by the Black and White capabilities of the K3 inks. I have not been happy with the typical ink jet print I've seen casually through friends but a lot of that may have to do with the lack of caring on the part of the photographer. I loathe glossy prints when getting C prints and I find that the result out of inkjet pritner lacks that "print" feel, it's sort of grippy on your fingertips.
Has anyone been happier with the output from a "pro" or "near-pro" printer in regards to overall quality, including the feel of the print (which paper most feels like endura?), the colors, sharpness, etc. Just wondering which way to go.
Also I am torn over which printer to consider taking into the account the ease of printing 4 x 6 prints which is 90% of my printing with the desire to Occasionally print a larger print. I have printed black and white up to 20 x 24 but I've used MPIX.com with good results - maybe the occasional big print can go out. It also seems that the 4800 cannot just use the 4 x 6 paper as 8 x 10 is the smalles size? is this true?
Also the question of sRGB vs. Adobe RGB? Right now the 5D is set to sRGB since there are no C printers that use a larger color space - would there be an advantage to using Adobe RGB when using an inkjet printer?
Thanks, sorry such a long post.
-Josh
-
8.5*11 inch is the smallest sheet a 4800 accepts. That much said, you can fit 3 4*6 images on one sheet and cut them after printing. I always do that when I make prints in the 4*6 size range. The 2400 is an excellent printer. The 4800s are individually calibrated to a fixed standard for the professional and near-professional market. The choice between the two should more likely depend on volume - it is a trade off between the cost difference of the machines versus the ink cost saving you get from the 4800's much larger ink cartridges.
Once you get into digital image processing with these Epson printers, you will want to start with raw files and use ARGB98 or ProPhoto colour space.
I don't know the Endura paper surface. With the 2400/4800 there are so many paper choices - check your dealer's Epson sample book, select what you like, and use the Epson profile provided for that paper when you do your printing. The profiles will be loaded onto your computer with the software. To get good results you should be sure to read-up on the correct colour management settings between Photoshop and the printer.
-
I can vouch that the 2400 is a very nice printer indeed, I'm making gallery quality prints with it, so if size isnt an option, I wouldn't hesitate with the 2400. That being said, now that some galleries are getting interested in my work I do wish I had the capability to go to 17 or 24" wide prints. I think I will go with a larger format printer when the next round of printers are available a year or 2 down the road.
-
Thanks for your replies. I guess for the difference in price I can get quite a few larger prints made professionally.
What I'd love to do is find a place that sells the printer that would let you show up with a file on a thumb drive and make you a print.
Why do you feel the need for the larger gamut color space - does the printer use it?
Thanks for the quick replies.
-
Thanks for your replies. I guess for the difference in price I can get quite a few larger prints made professionally.
What I'd love to do is find a place that sells the printer that would let you show up with a file on a thumb drive and make you a print.
Why do you feel the need for the larger gamut color space - does the printer use it?
Thanks for the quick replies.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
These are top of the line Epson printers, and many find them to be better than their predecessors. But you may want to evaluate whether the older or smaller current models can meet you need when used correctly. The 2400/4800 are definitely overkills for 4"x6" prints. If cost is not a concern, either one will work.
Note that the printer's cost is just the tip of the iceberg. These printer's media cost is much higher. To get the best prints from them, you will need to have a color managed workflow, which will cost you bundles more.
Suggestion: get an older or smaller current model for your 4"x6" prints. Start without color management and see if the prints meet your requirements. If they do, you are golden. If they don't, figure out what's wrong. You will need go down this path with the 2400/4800, but won't be burning ink/paper on them. For bigger prints, find a local walkin service to work with you.
Good luck.
-
Why do you feel the need for the larger gamut color space - does the printer use it?
Yes and no. Editing spaces such as Adobe RGB 1998 and especially ProPhoto are actually significantly larger than any printer gamut if you only consider total volume, or range of colors. But what many people misunderstand (most famously Will Crockett) is that printer color spaces and editing spaces are shaped differently, and even though printer color spaces are usually smaller overall than sRGB, they will still have some parts that poke out well into Adobe RGB 1998 and ProPhoto territory. If those parts happen to contain some of the oranges you need for your fall foliage scene, or reds you need to print that classic car properly, you'll definitely benefit from editing in ProPhoto even if it's much larger than the overall printer color space.
Using a large editing space such as ProPhoto guarantees you the ability to use the full gamut of whatever printer you may use to output your image both now and well into the future. There's no no reason not to, especially if you edit in 16-bit mode (something you should always do anyway).
-
Josh, don't get frightened by the suggestion from Chris_T above that a colour managed workflow will "cost you a bundle more". This is just not correct. If you have already invested in a 5D, Aperture and Photoshop, for another 300 or so you can buy the ColorEyes display from Integrated Color Corporation which is bundle consisting of their software and the X-Rite DPT-94 colorimeter for profiling and calibrating your monitor. Once you have the monitor properly calibrated, are using the correct Epson printer profile for the paper you are using, and have your colour management settings in Photoshop and the printer driver correctly set, you should get decent matching between the monitor and the printer. It isn't rocket science and it won't cost a bundle.
-
Josh, don't get frightened by the suggestion from Chris_T above that a colour managed workflow will "cost you a bundle more". This is just not correct. If you have already invested in a 5D, Aperture and Photoshop, for another 300 or so you can buy the ColorEyes display from Integrated Color Corporation which is bundle consisting of their software and the X-Rite DPT-94 colorimeter for profiling and calibrating your monitor. Once you have the monitor properly calibrated, are using the correct Epson printer profile for the paper you are using, and have your colour management settings in Photoshop and the printer driver correctly set, you should get decent matching between the monitor and the printer. It isn't rocket science and it won't cost a bundle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61041\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks! I actually have the GMB Eye-One color calibrator for my monitor and use it monthly. I'm hoping to be happy with the paper profiles in general and avoid buying a paper profiling setup for now.
Also about not getting a quality printer for "just 4 x 6 prints." I am most concerned about the quality of these prints especially since they are the ones that are most scrutinized, usually being viewed from a distance measured in inches. I'm much less concerned about a print hanging on the wall.
It seems that the ability to handle 4 x 6 paper, and the rarity of me making larger prints makes the 2400 the logical choice.
Thanks.
-
Correct on both counts.
-
If your primarily printing 4x6 prints, you might want to check out the Epson Picture mate printer, I have heard good things about this printer, and the cost per print is quite low.
-
If your primarily printing 4x6 prints, you might want to check out the Epson Picture mate printer, I have heard good things about this printer, and the cost per print is quite low.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61127\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I guess I want my options open, and if the 2400 handles full bleed 4 x 6 well, and the occasional larger print than it's probably the way to go. I'm not looking to throw money away, but I'm currently spending $0.25 per 4 x 6 and would be willing to spend a bit more if the result was good.
Are the 4 x 6 epson paper choices limited, or does the whole line run in that size?
-
Hi there,
I own a 2400 with which I'm very happy. I print both color and B&W on all types of paper (Moab Entrada Bright 300gm being my current favorite). The results are very nice indeed. Swapping matte and photo blacks is annoying but I've learned to live with it. I purchased the 2400 prior to purchasing a 5D however and now feel constrained by the 13x19 max print size of the 2400. As soon as Epson annouces that next iteration of the 4800 (hopefully with no black ink switching required), I'll ante up for one.
Cheers!
-
My R2400 is great as far as print quality goes, but those tiny ink carts are always on empty. I would (and will) get a printer that can take the 220ml carts...much more economical in the long run.
-
"As soon as Epson annouces that next iteration of the 4800 (hopefully with no black ink switching required), I'll ante up for one."
Could be a while. Except for the ink swap, which can be bypassed using ImagePrint, there's little to improve on. Another solution to bypass the ink swap are the new papers such as Crane Museo Silver Rag which are fixing to be all one may ever want from a paper. I am printing on this paper as I type, and the prints are nothing short of stunning.
Alain
-
...solution to bypass the ink swap are the new papers such as Crane Museo Silver Rag which are fixing to be all one may ever want from a paper. I am printing on this paper as I type, and the prints are nothing short of stunning. Alain[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62525\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Alain, if I may ask, how are you getting over the ink swap with this paper - which black is loaded in your printer?
Peter
-
Josh, I was in your position a year or so ago (when unfortunately the choice of printers wasn't as good), so I decided to test the waters and learn the craft by buying the cheap R800 - prints A4 size max, and has the gloss optimiser so produces very nice glossy prints (I know you don't like those!). Colur profiling the thing proved to be a challenge, as did learning how to overcome it's limitations in the low-value browns and greens, but now I get prints from it that greatly surpass anything I ever did in the darkroom (and I spent years in the bloody place). The point of this is, the only way forward now is to print your own images, and I assure you that once you get through the learning curve for your chosen printer, you'll never look back.
The R800 and the A3 R1800 take 4x6" paper, and that's the majority of what I print (not for art, but it's what most folk want). I'll buy a larger format printer when the Epson / HP question gets clearer (Epson does poor glossy prints, HP dye printer has inferior B&W and print robustness). If matt is what you want, the Epson is the way to go. Once you see what quality you can print (and with the resolution of the 5D), you'll inevitably want to go a bit bigger that the 2400 will allow - you won't want to send them out. If I shared your criteria, I'd go for the 4800 and buy a decent rotary trimmer for the small pics.
-
Alain, if I may ask, how are you getting over the ink swap with this paper - which black is loaded in your printer?
Peter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I use ImagePrint with Phatte black (both blacks installed at once) but you only need the photo black for Museo Silver Rag.
ALain
-
For all of us thinking about this or that model of Epson, or Epson versus HP, a word of caution: don't forget to throw CANON into the option set. Their soon to be released new generation of wide-format pigment printers with 12 inks could be the best yet - if I were in the market for a new printer at this time, I would wait for the test reports on these new CANONs before buying anything - and then I would wait a bit to see whether the quality control of the production units is satisfactory.
-
Coming from the 1280, I'm still very unhappy with the R2400's color management routine in the driver, or the lack thereof. I get best results with the Photoshop driver on "Printer color management" and the printer's driver on "Colorsync", without involving any icc files.
Can't be right.
-
You're correct - it isn't right. There is something wrong with your colour management settings when you are letting Photoshop Determine Colors. You need to check that all the relevant settings are correct in Photoshop Print with Preview, that the correct paper profile is loaded for the paper you are using, that you are using Relative Colorimetric or Perceptual WITH Black Point Compensation checked, and that in the Epson driver you have the same paper selected, you have Printer Color Management OFF (no color adjustment), preferably High Speed OFF, Microweave ON, quality set to 1440dpi and Color Mode on "Custom". Check for all of that, run a print and see what you get (oh yes - there is also running the appropriate black ink for the paper you are using). If you are using Colorsync you are on a Mac - I am on Windows so I can't help on Mac-specific issues; but one thing I do know of - there is a compatibility problem between the Epson driver and the Mac O/S - you often need to repeat all the settings at least twice over to make sure they stick before printing.
-
Thx Mark, will get to do that.
-
"As soon as Epson annouces that next iteration of the 4800 (hopefully with no black ink switching required), I'll ante up for one."
Could be a while. Except for the ink swap, which can be bypassed using ImagePrint, there's little to improve on. Another solution to bypass the ink swap are the new papers such as Crane Museo Silver Rag which are fixing to be all one may ever want from a paper. I am printing on this paper as I type, and the prints are nothing short of stunning.
Alain
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62525\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Alain,
Are you printing Silver Rag from rolls or cut sheets? I stopped into the only place in town that is going to stock it, and was told that they are still waiting for their order of rolls to come in. When asked about cut sheet sizes, he just sighed and said he hopes to see some by fall. He did mention that the president of Moab, was in the store recently, and mentioned that Moab will also have an answer to Silver Rag, hopefully later this year.
On another note, I visited your website, and took a look at your images. All I can say is "WOW" !! Do those images look that great printed? You mentioned using ImagePrint. Do you use their profiles, or did you generate your own?
-
... I would wait for the test reports on these new CANONs before buying anything...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62552\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Doing exactly that, my friend! I've been waiting for more than a year to find a printer that can do all I want of it (and I don't believe my needs are unique or demanding), and it doesn't exist yet. Is it too much to ask that a printer should be able to do matt and gloss, decent B&W and produce prints that don't smudge in the hand? Apparently it IS at the moment...
-
Yes, one would hope nothing reasonable is too much to ask. But remember - a scant 7 years ago there was no such thing as an archival inkjet printer that most of us could afford until the Epson 2000-P hit the market. And for that revolutionary printer, remember the gamut and the metamerism? Longevity wasn't in HP's lexicon in those days - they were concentrating on business printers for the corporate market and mass-market inkjets for email and Microsoft Office. Canon was there with nothing unique except their neat little portables. So far largely thanks to Seiko-Epson, when you look at the quality of the fine art photographic prints we can produce today with relatively modest effort, this is a fabulous technology which is maturing quickly, and will mature some more. Now that Canon has gotten serious about it, and HP is turning out to be no slouch either, the pace will even quicken. I think it won't be long before all or darn close to all that what we think a printer should be will be. It is going to be a good time for consumers in the fine-art printer market.
-
I'm hoping for great things from the new Canon printers, time will tell. After waiting eagerly for the release of the x800 Epson printers I was deeply disappointed with them. I even thought of buying a 7800 and an HP DJ130 at one stage, but decided to give it a year or so until HP responded to the new Epsons. If I was just doing matt then I'd have no reservations, but many people still demand glossy and semi-gloss and I'm frankly not sold on the fine art=matt arguement - I think that's been a position that has arisen due to the limitations of the technology.
The point printers are at right now compared with just a few years ago is truly amazing, no arguements there! However, we're so close to seeing a device that can produce excellent B&W, glossies with no gloss differential, and robust, lasting prints (I'd settle for far less than 200 years), that I'm prepared to wait a little longer, and my big prints are being done on friends' printers. Devotees of the HP DJ130 have tried to persude me that this printer is already there, but I have consistently failed to get well-balanced colour and neutral B&W out of one.
-
Fine art matte isn't just an argument - on this side of the World it is a commercial success - because it makes for stunning prints that discriminating buyers of fine art photographs (including private individuals, museums and various other collections) appreciate. That's a matter of taste and custom. But true, technically it doesn't suffer from gloss differential!
As things stand I'll take an Epson 4800 over a DJ130 any day - until that something else comes along which beats them both!
-
We could do the matt vs gloss arguement all day, I'm sure! I know you're right about matt sales, and I also know that a number of well-respected and renowned fine art photographers have embraced the DJ130 because they like the greater dmax of the gloss. For myself, I have prints (mostly B&W) that I prefer on matt, and those I prefer on gloss - there is no hard and fast rule as far as I'm concerned.
A colleague did a 16x24" corporate portrait last year and delivered it on Hahnemuehle Rag from his 4800. The client had seen the proofs on the website, and were disappointed with the print - said it seemed too flat compared with the on-screen proofs. He reprinted it on the DJ190 on HP satin paper, and the client preferred it. Seeing the prints side by side, the Epson was far better colour matched to the original (the HP was too yellow), but the satin finish had more contrast and was more 3-D.
I can't bring myself to buy the HP because I can't get a decent colour match from it, and next to the Epson it seems like a fragile toy. However, anything other than matt from the Epsons is frankly unacceptable due to the truly awful gloss differential issue, and (admittedly now improved) metamerism.
So I'm hoping for great things from this Canon. Hopefully they've weighed up the pros and cons of the HP / Epson competition and are about to deliver something to finally cause me to fill that LF printer-shaped gap in my workroom! DSLR domination today, printers tomorrow?!
-
I would not agree that gloss differential on the Epson x800 series prints is "truly awful". It is completely absent on lustre type papers and the Crane Silver Rag. I presume the same will be the case for the Silver Rag similars from Hahnemuhle, Innova, BreathingColor , Moab and the rest that are sure to follow. As far as high gloss is concerned , there is minimal differential on Pictorico High Film and Moab Kokapelli. You have to angle the papers to see it in the dark areas. All prints are subject to damage and protected by glass or an applied surface coating , any slight gloss differential will completely disappear. Appropriate coatings can add a very high gloss indeed. For happy snap glossies , light jet prints are still the best economic proposition. For the quick sale stuff at social events , lustre is usually fine. For corporate or domestic portraits I usually find the Hanemuhle Photo Rag or similar is highly appreciated. High gloss on skin tones does little for bloodshot eyes and blotchy faces. Sure you can desaturate red, but it is a lot of work with little economic advantage.
Further the painterly look for these papers seems to be a big advantage.With landscape, I note that luminaries such as Alain Briot and Joseph Holmes are going along the Silver Rag path. Canvasses can give a very high gloss , if required, with appropriate coating, and these should always be coated anyway if they are to be stretched.
Sure , I am looking forward to what Canon comes out with, but mainly to solve the gloss/ matte black ink changeover problem, and to increase gamut and hopefully DMax. I'm sure Epson has something up their sleeves to, which will be revealed when Canon undercuts them or/and when x800 sales start to flag. Gloss differential is, in my mind , not really a problem.
Cheers,
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
-
From the little I've heard the new Canons will overcome the matte/glossy ink change issue and they will have wider gamut because of the inclusion of R, G, B inks along with all the CMYK inks. Once the initial test reports come out I'll wait some months to see what people report about clogging and also very important: adaptability to different papers, before buying.
-
Brian; sorry sir, I have to beg disagreement on the acceptability of the gloss differential. I do agree that it's less pronounced in the current range of printers, but not enough for me. Prints are never viewed always from the perpendicular - light and viewing angle changes all the time, and I can see the differences on the semi-gloss as well as PPG.
Here in HK and other parts of Asia, there is a decided need for non-matt finishes (high gloss isn't really required except outside the 4x6 happy snaps market), and I for one am useless at applying sprays evenly and without capturing a load of dust.
We aren't well served in Asia with a wide supply of alternative papers, but after reading Alain's posting I am importing some of the Crane paper (I already import Hahnemuehle - from Melbourne, in fact) and will test it out. If the gloss differential disappears and I like the paper, then I'll write a cheque for a 7800. Changing that black though is a real issue, unless I splash out further for ImagePrint, or unless Crane would be the only paper I'd use...
Clients here love the look and feel of the HP Satin paper - shame the print smudges when they handle it!
There is scant information about the Canon printer at this point - no dealer in HK has one yet or even knows much about it, but if the initial press releases are anything to go by they've solved the black change issue, and there is an alledged wider gamut. Time though will tell - they make a number of worrying references to cheesy software options which make me wonder if they've got their market properly identified.
Peter
-
Brian; sorry sir, I have to beg disagreement on the acceptability of the gloss differential. I do agree that it's less pronounced in the current range of printers, but not enough for me. Prints are never viewed always from the perpendicular - light and viewing angle changes all the time, and I can see the differences on the semi-gloss as well as PPG.
As pointed out elsewhere, gloss differential isn't a problem with the printer per se, but a mismatch between the gloss of the ink and the paper itself. Different papers will exhibit different amounts of gloss differential. Resin-coated isn't my thing but I was quite surprised with the results on Ilford Smooth Pearl Paper. It still exhibits the same overall "sheen" as all lustre papers when viewed from the side, but gloss differential on the paper was very hard to spot ... and a lot less than other lustre/satin/semi-matte papers I've tried. I used Bill Atkinson's profiles for the 7800/9800, though on my 4800. Worth a try.
-
Stephen, an attempt Epson made (in their printer driver) at reducing the gloss differential involved them putting some ink even in the brightest highlights, where normally there would be little or none laid down. The differential is caused by the varying amount and reflectivity of ink 'droplets' sitting on the surface of the paper compared with the paper itself, as it isn't absorbed like the dye-based inks. So where this is the applied technology then it is a fuction of the printer / ink and paper combined. Papers with a textured surface should show this to a lesser effect. But I know you know all this!
For my testing I too used the Bill Atkinson as well as the standard profiles, and I see Crane have offered profiles for the new silver rag on their site. I shall use them in my testing once I get some paper.
BTW, had a peek at your site - you do beautiful work.
-
I guess I want my options open, and if the 2400 handles full bleed 4 x 6 well, and the occasional larger print than it's probably the way to go. I'm not looking to throw money away, but I'm currently spending $0.25 per 4 x 6 and would be willing to spend a bit more if the result was good.
Are the 4 x 6 epson paper choices limited, or does the whole line run in that size?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61146\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't have the 2400, but still the 2200. It handles full bleed on 8.5 x 11 terrifically (so I assume 4 x 6). I just did some oneoffs for a client (in truth, I will have hundreds done of many shots by a graphics lab, but I wanted to check my cropping from my shots, so did them on my 2200---I normally prefer a white border around all my prints--personal preference for most). I don't print on glossy--and that is handled better by the 2400 I'm sure, but on matte (I have my preferences) or semigloss, it does wonderfully. I would not turn over my printing to anyone else.
If I were going to print 4 x 6's, I would just print them on a page and cut them myself--I think that would be more economical and pretty easy.
I think, for your purposes, that the Epson paper profiles would probably suit without purchasing specific profiles, but that's a decision you can make later. I would not let te printer do the color management in any case.
I'm one of those that will probably go to an even larger format printer when the 2200 gives up the ghost, but it just keeps going--and going---as the Energizer bunny does LOL.
Diane
-
Coming from the 1280, I'm still very unhappy with the R2400's color management routine in the driver, or the lack thereof. I get best results with the Photoshop driver on "Printer color management" and the printer's driver on "Colorsync", without involving any icc files.
Can't be right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62558\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The icc files are buried in the driver. If you use the context menu to show package contents on the SPro4800.plugin (in main Library/Printers) you'll see a folder called Contents. Inside that are a bunch of folders, one of which is named Resources. Inside that folder you'll find a folder called ICC Profiles. When you select ColorSync in the driver, it looks at the media settings to determine which profile to use. You can copy them out of the buried folder for use inside Photoshop.
However, that doesn't explain why you aren't getting good results letting Photoshop handle the conversion, which is usually the more reliable route.
-
Quick question. What are the best prices you guys and gals are finding for 4800 inks?
Also, What are the various sizes available? are there two diff sizes in these carts?
Also again, Does anyone know how much ink the 2400 carts hold?
Thanks.
P.S. (edit) Anyone finding any particularily good deals on the 4800 itself...the printer. Been seeing media bundles, etc...like from Lexjet. Buy some paper, get the printer for 1595.00, Sounds good but im wondering if there are others out there.