Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: teddillard on January 27, 2011, 11:39:37 am
-
I just was doing some research on the development of inkjet printing and made some interesting connections... well, interesting to me at least. :D
I think I'd seen the dp&i site, but it's a pretty great resource that I rediscovered: http://www.dpandi.com/history/ I found it through their Giclée story on the origin of the name. Have a look.
But, the point is, even though I did live through the time, I'd not really put things together in any but the common history of the development of the process. It seemed to me that everything started with IRIS, and Epson tagged on along. Once I compared the actual timelines I started rethinking, and re-remembering what actually happened- specifically, that the micropiezo process was developed in the late '80s, predating Nash and the IRIS stuff, and that the thing that truly sparked the revolution was the Epson Photo printer... a cheap, true photo quality printer.
Anyway, if you're interested, more of my ramblings (as well as a timeline) here: http://www.parrotcolor.com/store/blog/?p=565
-
That's a fascinating bit of history, Ted. Thanks for putting it together.
Eric
-
Thanks Ted, that bit of history filled in some of the blanks. 8)
-
Anyway, if you're interested, more of my ramblings (as well as a timeline)
Your timeline is ok...but I think you are wrong on the relative impact of IRIS vs. Epson inkjet. IRIS started the inkjet print as "art" potential. Originally, a proofing system IRIS, could output digital images with a photographic look–particularly on fine art paper. That was ground breaking...Nash Editions was one of the first to do this and was certainly the most prominent due to Graham's involvement. So, nothing about the traditional view of the history of fine art digital printing is changed.
Where Epson came in (and yes, I had several early Epson printers that replaced a $10K dye-sub printer but whose prints faded very quickly) was they democratized the access to digital photo printers for the masses. Epson caught the wave that was created in the demand for being able to print digital images...but make no mistake who caused hat initial wave...IRIS (and at least on the west coast, Nash Editions).
-
Of course, that's the traditional account. Maybe it depended on where you were sitting at the time. (edit: LOL! Just had a long conversation with my boss, John Lorusso, who worked with IRIS and Scitex, as well as Nash et al. Seems he agrees with you about how wrong I am, Schewe. 'Course, that only proves my point... :o)
From my perspective, having heard Nash talk at the MFA in Boston (jeese, when was that? ...a VERY long time ago) and hearing him say that archival color was "the curator's responsibility, not the printer's", then having some very expensive, and not too fabulous prints made by an IRIS printer in these parts (who shall remain unnamed, but with a stellar reputation) my own conclusion at the time was that the technology wasn't there yet, that it was far too fugitive, and simply not up to the hype. Instead of reinforcing the "Fine-Art" claim, it actually refuted it. For me, anyway.
At that point, or nearly then, Epson started using a variable dot size with a random pattern, much like photographic grain- as opposed to the regular grid array on the IRIS. It was then I stopped considering IRIS as even an option. I will say, though, people still cling to their IRIS printers, and it seems to be about that density of ink the things lay down.
Either that or they're still paying it off... ::)
If memory serves, most buyers and collectors still were not willing to take digital prints seriously- that was, oh, in the mid-'90s? I'd actually argue that not until the early '00s did the inkjet print's stigma really seem to fall away... so where does that put Nash Editions? I think you can argue that was more due to the archival, high-gamut inks that Ultrachrome represented than anything IRIS or Nash did.
-
Of course, that's the traditional account. Maybe it depended on where you were sitting at the time.
Prior to the IRIS, how did people print digital scans of photos other than halftone? Kodak took a digital printer out of the Abrams tank (used to print maps for tank commanders) and adapted it to printing dye-sub prints of photos. Those predate Epson "photo" type printers...Kodak also had some very early digital to photo output that was tied to Photo CD which also predated Epson. Fuji also had some early digital to photo printers...
What you attribute to Epson as precipitating digital printing isn't really accurate...what Epson did was to make decent digital printing at a price point that any enthusiast could afford.
Understand, I'm not trying to take anything away from Epson...it's interesting to note the Seiko-Epson got into the "printing" business in the first place for the 1964 Summer Olympics to create a printing timer for events. Epson was also bit in dot matrix printers for cash register receipts.
If you want to say Epson lead digital photo printing into the mainstream and democratized it for the masses, I agree.
But my recollection of who first started printing inkjet on fine art papers was IRIS and on the west coast the chief practitioner was Nash Editions.
To be clear, Nash Editions didn't just produce photo prints but also reproductions of paintings, etchings, drawings and other fine art. While "fine art photo dealers" took a long time accepting digital photo prints (if they actually have yet), fine artists and and art dealers jumped on digital reproductions of fine art pretty quickly because of the quality of the output and the reduced cost compared to most any reproduction method.
To relegate digital fine art printing to only photography is missing the larger picture, so to speak...
-
What you attribute to Epson as precipitating digital printing isn't really accurate...what Epson did was to make decent digital printing at a price point that any enthusiast could afford.
Well, to be precise, I'm saying precipitating digital inkjet printing. And I'd add to "enthusiast" pro and commercial photographer, since I was using it for promotion pieces and portfolios as far back as '94. Considering that it's fundamentally a different technology, and that the MicroPiezo process is what really made (and continues to make) the revolution real, and that it predated the IRIS technology... well, I think it's an arguable point.
To relegate digital fine art printing to only photography is missing the larger picture, so to speak...
badda BING! (...and a good point.)
-
...the MicroPiezo process is what really made (and continues to make) the revolution real, and that it predated the IRIS technology... well, I think it's an arguable point.
Micro Piezo, as a printing process, did not predate IRIS printers.
IRIS was released in 1987.
According to Epson, the first inkjet printer they released was in 1984 called the IP-130K (in Japan, the SQ-2000 outside of Japan). However, that was a black ink document printer and didn't use Micro Piezo technology.
The first printer Epson released using Micro Piezo technology was the Epson Stylus 800 March 1993.
As far as I can tell, that means IRIS predates the Epson Micro Piezo printers, don't you agree? If you are going to put forth a history, it's useful to get the dates right...
-
http://global.epson.com/company/milestones.htm
-
Yes, I do agree... thanks, I stand corrected on that point. I was basing that on the fact that MicroPiezo was patented in 1989, and Nash was printing with the IRIS in 1990-92. I thought I remembered some of the early Epson printers were working around the '89-92 frame... Some sloppy reasoning on my part.
Now, then there's Cone... on the dp&i page (http://www.dpandi.com/history/) he claims "By 1992, Cone had added inkjet printing to his repertoire ..." Just what, enquiring minds want to know, was Cone printing with in 1992? (Answer: IRIS. http://www.cone-editions.com/ourhistory.html) Interestingly, that's a name I've always associated with Epson inkjet printing rather than the early IRIS development described on that page.)
A little less emphatically than I stated it before, I stand by the statement, though:
At best I think it’s fair to say that the two similar processes were responding to a need, but doing it in two different paths. Perhaps Nash Editions sparked some demand in the photo market and captured some imaginations, but it’s a far stretch to say that Fine-Art IRIS printing started the whole thing. The fact that “Giclée” is a word used interchangeably for both processes doesn’t help either. By the early ’00s we had ultra-high gamut printers that worked reliably. By 2010, photographic inkjet printing was surpassing silver-based processes, reliable, and a fraction of the cost of even it’s recent predecessors.
The fact remains, the real revolution here was not the IRIS process, it was the proliferation of small, cheap desktop photo-quality printing on a vast array of stock, and that came from Epson primarily, and HP and Canon following closely along.
Thanks for that link, Farmer... though my 800 was so NOT black. :D
-
Well, at least you titled your blog post correctly: Revisionist History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism))
:~)
-
Well, at least you titled your blog post correctly: Revisionist History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism))
:~)
No really! it was "putty" I swear! ::)
( from the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism): "In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word "revisionism' is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.")
Interestingly, too... in my conversations with John about this, he mentioned that around the '96 timeframe, when he was with IRIS, Epson approached them for advice on how to overcome objections to the digital printing process in the photographic and fine-art markets. He also mentioned that one of the major obstacles was the current situation with medium to small galleries carrying too much stock in edition prints- commonly serigraphs- and they saw this printing method as adding even more unwanted inventory... the plot thickens.
-
By 2010, photographic inkjet printing was surpassing silver-based processes, reliable, and a fraction of the cost of even it’s recent predecessors.
Not for nothing, but I would argue Epson's 9600 in 2002 (and baby cousin the 2200) was the first inkjet printer that surpassed silver-based processes...with the 9900, ilver-based processes have been obliterated...
-
I was trying to be conservative... (Didn't want to stir up that particular hornet's nest, but glad you did.)
I'm not sure I'd say the 9600 just because I'm not that positive about the gamut, (and really, was that as early as '02? Time flies...) but for sure, based on a conversation I had with Bill Atkinson about the 9800, that printer had pretty much blown everything else out of the water. He was the first credible source I heard say it had a gamut that surpassed any photographic process. I know my baby R2400 changed the entire game for me, what with the B/W printing capability... and I still use it today.
-
I'm not sure I'd say the 9600 just because I'm not that positive about the gamut, (and really, was that as early as '02? Time flies...) but for sure, based on a conversation I had with Bill Atkinson about the 9800, that printer had pretty much blown everything else out of the water.
Bill used the Epson 9600 and was very involved in the improvement of the linearization of the 9800 when setting the driver to no color adjustment. Back when Bill was using his 9600, he created new profiling targets and spent one whole summer figuring out a way substantially improve the output for the 9600. Between his then new targets (now available for use in most profiling software) and the improved color he was getting, he was selling 9600 inkjet prints as well as Fuji Crystal Archive prints...
Whether he thinks it was the 9800 that surpassed analog instead of the 9600, I don't know-I'll ask him. But to my way of thinking and comparing what I could get from analog prints vs prints form the 9600, I would take the 9600 prints. The "only" issue I really had back then was GD, which was really only an issue when looking at a print unframed.
And yes...it was 2002 as shown in the 9600 review (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/9600.shtml) on LuLa by Alain Briot in June 2002.
Of course, the 9800 came out in May 2005. See this review by Michael of the 4800 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/4800-1st.shtml) (seems he had a mixed review).
-
If memory serves, I visited Bill right after he got his 9800- just checked, it looks like it was in January '06. He was talking a lot about the targets you mention, as well as his "bouquets" of profiles.
Now, here's a question. When was it that the first inkjet watercolor papers like LumiJet and Somerset were released, and the MIS, Lumijet and Cone inks for the Epson printers? I only became aware of all that when I got my 1200, I figure around '98. I think. Is it possible that stuff was available as early as '96?
It really is amazing looking back at how fast this stuff moved... no wonder we were all mumbling to ourselves. :D
-
It really is amazing looking back at how fast this stuff moved... no wonder we were all mumbling to ourselves. :D
Well, to some of us, this stuff took friggin' forever!!!
I remember going to a MacWorld (can't remember the date) and showing small 5" x 7" portfolio pieces printed out on a Kodak dye-sub printer (that cost me like $14,000) and having people absolutelyfuckingamazed that I had digital prints that I could show from digital files...1994, 1995? Can't remember...it was when Live Picture held the workshop in some church theater that had no heat...that was also my first exposure to Kai Krause and his crew...yes, I bought Live Picture for $3,499.00) I still have the LR 1.3 dongle...
The history is the history...and some of us were directly involved. So, be careful how you characterize what the history was. Some old timers will dis-remember what you claim as "history"...
-
Not sure what exactly what your asking for but the first Pigment print inkjet made was in 1994. It was made with Legion Paper, and yes it was very exciting. Having created pigment prints in Evercolor and being to just send a file and it print. The watercolor paper at the time, had to hand coat the paper.
But in the early days thats what it took the ink came from Dupont. This was the image used to make the image.
-
... Kodak dye-sub printer (that cost me like $14,000) and having people absolutelyfuckingamazed that I had digital prints that I could show from digital files...1994, 1995? Can't remember...it was when Live Picture held the workshop in some church theater that had no heat...that was also my first exposure to Kai Krause and his crew...yes, I bought Live Picture for $3,499.00) I still have the LR 1.3 dongle...
Working as a teacher at the University of Gothenburg at the time(1993), we could only afford the Kodak A4 model ;D
We actually was sponsored by Hasselblad for the printer. The students had to pay $5 for each A4 sub-print!
I still got some of these prints in my archive, and I must say they are, not AFA, but pretty good.
/Sven
-
Obsessed as I'm becoming about this, I just discovered this sweet timeline on TimeToast.com: http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/2675
...and yeah, Schewe, timelines are one thing, but History isn't all that black and white. (I raise your bad pun with one of my own. ;D) Any history is about the perspective from which it's being told. That's what makes it all so interesting...
Great stuff, and thanks! Off to dig a little deeper. (@Tim, yes, that helps... the first paper I used was Somerset, then Lumijet, within about a month, and I can't find any info on the release dates of either of those products. update: Legion paper started up in '94, but no mention of inkjet media. Somerset Velvet is mentioned as "over a decade ago" on the MOAB site, which would put it at 2000, but I was using it before then. This, from chaudigital (http://www.chaudigital.com/products/consumables/?products=lumijet) about Lumijet:
Since 1947 Luminos Photo Corp. has been selling an impressive array of Black&White sensitized photographic papers renowned for the highest quality and consistency. For 55 years, Luminos has been proud of its support and commitment to traditional and digital photographic Image makers.
... the history
The Lumijet range of inkjet media was introduced in 1998 with the Original Lumijet Series ... soon to follow was the Preservation Series of fine art media and ink that set the standard for inkjet image permanence. The Portfolio Series of photographic presentation media was introduced in September 2000.)
Update: I just found this- "A 15 year History of Digital Print Technology ... 1991 - 2006" via Wilhelm (of course!). I skimmed it, gotta sit down and have a good read, but it fills in a few more blanks, for sure! www.wilhelm-research.com/ist/WIR_IST_2006_09_HW.pdf (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ist/WIR_IST_2006_09_HW.pdf)
I'm also curious. The IRIS looks like it was shut down in '99, to be re-tooled as the Vertis (strictly for proofing, once again) in '04 or so, and then retired entirely at around 2006? Is that right?
-
Talk about interpretations of history... just found this site: http://www.jeffdwoskin.com/printers/menu.html
In it Dwoskin claims this timeline (edited, my emphasis):
Timeline Overview
1930 - IBM releases Model 01 electric typewriter
1938 - Chester Carlson invents xerography process
1948 - First prototype of photocopier by Battelle and The Haloid Co.
1951 - EAI develops analog flatbed pen plotter
1957 - Transfer printing discovered
1957 - Dye sublimation process invented
1959 - Haloid-Xerox releases first production-line automatic office copier
early 1960's - Stanford - developed technology for ink droplets using pressure wave patterns
1960's - Gerber Scientific produces plotters for printed circuit boards
1970's - Direct thermal printer
1973 - HP 9862A plotter released for 9800 desktop calculator
1974 - Stored energy dot matrix printer
1976 - Inkjet technology developed
1976 - First commercial laser printer
1977 - Seimens PT-80 uses drop-on-demand inkjet technology
1978 - Piezoelectric inkjet printer
1978 - First commercially sucessful dot matrix printer - Epson's TX-80
late 1970's - Ballistic wire dot matrix printers
1980 - IBM releases 5215 golf ball printer
1982 - Thermal wax printer
1984 - Thermal inkjet printer
1984 - First disposable inkjet cartridge
1987 - First color inkjet printer - HP Paintjet
...as well as some pretty interesting references. The key to the claim of the first inkjet technology appears to be the Canon claim to have developed "thermal inkjet", or what I've always known as "bubblejet", in 1976. Does an inkjet by any other name, print so sweet?
-
Ted the paper was a watercolor paper that had to be hand coated. When inkjet was using dyes the tech for colors came from Dupont and the images and if you want to say inkset from Evercolor. Pigment really was not very viable since everyone thought that pigment could not produce a high color range. But after showing the Evercolor prints that left little doubt that it was the way to go. Hell I remember when they said a pigment particle could not get below 30 picoliters. And know Epson is at what 1.5-2.
You should have seen what Dupont was developing in the engineering backroom. Wish they would release some of those coatings but thats not what they do. They wait for others to come to them and private label it. Tim
-
I don't think the story is quite so 'all-Epson-all-the-time'. The first Epson photo printer you could actually buy came out at just about the same time as HP's first generation "Photosmart" printer. And the HP model had a number of genuine advantages: it actually used pigment ink rather than fugitive dye inks like the Epson. Prints I made with that paleolithic HP printer have held up remarkably well, even saturated greens and oranges. And HP introduced the printer along with a compact scanner that could scan 35 mm slides, negatives, and small prints. Okay, the scanner was really squirrely and buggy, but still.
I suspect that HP shot themselves in the foot by selling a completely closed system, whereas the Epsons were amenable to hacking and using home-brewed inks ala Jon Cone. And the HP printer was a big, clumsy Pizza-box sized gadget that couldn't print any bigger (8x10") than the Epson. But still, it seemed pretty cool at the time.
-
No mention of the Encad Novajets, the first model appeared in 1991, the second version could print a decent photo for that period. There were pigment inks developed for it in the years after 1991. In the sign industry it was the most common printer between 1991 and 2000. Colorspan was another model of that period. All HP licensed thermal head technology. I doubt they were never used to print art. It may not have been the nest image possible in that period but I have seen nice results even then. Affordable printers became available before Epson introduced the 3000 and later on the 7/9000. True the last had an impressive image quality.
I think HP's printers then had pigment ink for the black but not on the color channels, a combination they still have on office printers.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
I don't think the story is quite so 'all-Epson-all-the-time'.
Absolutely...HP had a color inkjet printer before Epson. And in the EU, HP had been the dominant brand and is still entrenched in prepress proofing until of late. Encad was also an important printer developer as well as Mutoh. I think Ted is giving Epson way too much unilateral credit.
-
I think that one should differentiate the difference between dye and pigment based. As we all know dyes were alot easier in the beginning but since none of us are using dyes today since they fade. It should clarified between the two. And Jeff you are absolutely right about Encad. The first pigment printer was with Encad and watercolor paper that was hand coated using DuPont pigments. Don't remember who's heads they were but I think they were HP. I believe the first pigment canvas inkjet we made was in March-April of 1995. Hope this helps. T
-
Don't remember who's heads they were but I think they were HP.
Maybe HP but I think I remember they may have been Mutoh heads-I recall a relationship between Encad and Mutoh...don't hold me to that. Mutoh also has piezo heads...I think under license to Epson but don't hold me to that either.
-
Mutoh (Agfa, Kodak), Mimaki (Stork) and Roland, their wide format inkjet activities all started in 1999-2000 with Epson 9000 DX3 heads. Must have been the most widely produced DOD piëzo head, production licensed in China too.
The decade before was dominated by HP thermal heads, possibly with Lexmark in between as they had a license on HP patents but added their own technology. There was the infamous Topaz (Calcomp, Summagraphics) Crystaljet that had its own DOD piëzoheads but production and patent issues killed that quite capable 36" printer shortly after its introduction but before Epson launced the 9000's. There was hot wax/resin piëzo technology as developed by Tektronics for A3 size proof printing, graphic design shops, and there must have been a wider printer based on that technology. Océ had a similar development going on for 10 years that at last resulted in the Colorwave 600 launched at the Drupa 2008. There were some resin printers that resembled smaller size sublimation printer technology. Expensive but at that time quite weatherfast technology.
Fuji developed their own piëzo printers around 2000 too, more directed to sign and a bit ecosolvent based too AFAIK but dropped them not long after that. For the photography business they switched to Epson models. Kodak has been in bed with all inkjet printer manufacturers meanwhile but has their own piëzo heads for more industrial applications, web inkjet etc. I recall a rebranded Mutoh with legs in a K shape. Agfa also rebranded Mutohs and more. Ilford, Encad?, Colorspan, Epson. Océ as well with the Colorwave as an exception.
All the other piëzo heads were used in more industrial environments: textile printing, solvent, UV curing inks.
Xaar, Spectra, Seiko, Konica, Hitachi. More joined the party later on. Epson had some success in the ecosolvent models of Roland etc after third party developers adapted Rolands to that kind of inks. Mutoh and Mimaki followed then.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
I think Ted is giving Epson way too much unilateral credit.
I'd agree. Thanks for the great discussion, I hadn't checked in over the weekend. Lots of threads to follow...My own awareness of this entire thing started around '92, and I was totally in the Epson camp, for sure, and only really aware of IRIS as an option. It was a big surprise to learn that HP had an inkjet printer before Epson.
Great stuff, and I think it's time to revise my revisionist history. :D Even at that, it seems to me that the IRIS-centric claims for fine-art printing are still very much self-serving.
In my defense, though, this is the introductory statement in my blog post:
In spite of what they tell you, today’s inkjet printing technology did not spring straight from the loins of a pile of altered IRIS printer parts on the floor of a certain rock-star’s garage.
Like most technological developments, things went along on several parallel paths, sometimes bumping into themselves, sometimes in completely different directions. Here’s what I’m talking about.
Clearly, I have to add the pre-1990 "paths" to the story...
-
Mutoh (Agfa, Kodak), Mimaki (Stork) and Roland, their wide format inkjet activities all started in 1999-2000 with Epson 9000 DX3 heads. Must have been the most widely produced DOD piëzo head, production licensed in China too.
The decade before was dominated by HP thermal heads, possibly with Lexmark in between as they had a license on HP patents but added their own technology. There was the infamous Topaz (Calcomp, Summagraphics) Crystaljet that had its own DOD piëzoheads but production and patent issues killed that quite capable 36" printer shortly after its introduction but before Epson launced the 9000's. There was hot wax/resin piëzo technology as developed by Tektronics for A3 size proof printing, graphic design shops, and there must have been a wider printer based on that technology. Océ had a similar development going on for 10 years that at last resulted in the Colorwave 600 launched at the Drupa 2008. There were some resin printers that resembled smaller size sublimation printer technology. Expensive but at that time quite weatherfast technology.
Fuji developed their own piëzo printers around 2000 too, more directed to sign and a bit ecosolvent based too AFAIK but dropped them not long after that. For the photography business they switched to Epson models. Kodak has been in bed with all inkjet printer manufacturers meanwhile but has their own piëzo heads for more industrial applications, web inkjet etc. I recall a rebranded Mutoh with legs in a K shape. Agfa also rebranded Mutohs and more. Ilford, Encad?, Colorspan, Epson. Océ as well with the Colorwave as an exception.
All the other piëzo heads were used in more industrial environments: textile printing, solvent, UV curing inks.
Xaar, Spectra, Seiko, Konica, Hitachi. More joined the party later on. Epson had some success in the ecosolvent models of Roland etc after third party developers adapted Rolands to that kind of inks. Mutoh and Mimaki followed then.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
Where does Canon fit into this picture? All I've been able to find is the mention of them supposedly discovering "thermal inkjet". And yes, I completely forgot about the Xerox wax process, something I was, frankly, astounded by when I first started using in. I had a friend put a lot of effort into profiling one of those printers for his promo/portfolio printing and it was remarkable how high the quality was... Lemmee see, that was '92?
-
Where does Canon fit into this picture? All I've been able to find is the mention of them supposedly discovering "thermal inkjet". And yes, I completely forgot about the Xerox wax process, something I was, frankly, astounded by when I first started using in. I had a friend put a lot of effort into profiling one of those printers for his promo/portfolio printing and it was remarkable how high the quality was... Lemmee see, that was '92?
I think Canon stayed within the office environment for their larger printers next to the consumer desktop market. Inkjets up to A3 size but the rest with (Xerox) electrostatic technology. In the last decade the 6 and 12 ink (2005?) wide format inkjet models appeared. The 6 ink models more in competition with HP Designjet models. One of the things often overlooked is the dominance of HP Designjets in the copy shop, architect, engineering market. Epson isn't so present there.
There is a good summary of technology and history here.
Google: 08_Ink-Jet.pdf
and here
http://www.printhead911.com/inkjet-history/
Canon and HP developed independently their drop on demand thermal head systems. Side shooter versus roof shooter etc. Patents swapped though. Lexmark followed. Heating instantly a picoliter of ink to 300 degrees Celsius to shoot ten ml of ink in front of it through a hole is basically the same for all but the details are important.
I'm considering to give my print shop the description: First Digital, Electronic, Electric, Steam powered Print shop :-)
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
When looking at history, it's good to place it in some perspective of which developments were truly significant in terms of their usefulness to which market segments. Machines that are leading edge, prototypes, extremely expensive in their day of course were the technological innovators and pace setters. The history becomes even more interesting when these developments are re-engineered, packaged and commercialized to be accessible to a large scale market. For anyone in the photographic marketplace wanting to make *permanent* photographs at home, it really wasn't practical or affordable until Epson produced the 2000P. I believe this came to market around 1999 - I'd need to check the date - but around then. It was the first pigment-ink printer I know of that was reasonably priced, sat on a desktop and produced prints which could be considered archival apart from the OBAs in the more popular papers associated with it at the time. It had issues of narrow gamut (say compared with the 1270 dye-based model at the time), slow speed and color inconstancy (wrong alias *metamerism*), but it was a true path-breaker for the commercial market wanting affordable and convenient print permanence. At least as far as the Epson printers are concerned, subsequent models represented significant improvements in the development of that line of technology thence-forward.
-
I think all that's very true, Mark. That's mostly the reason this train of thought interested me in the first place, I've always had it in the back of my mind that this all started with IRIS and trickled down from there.
The fact is, though IRIS did make some of the first Fine-Art digital prints, (I say this in this way, because I'm not sure if and what was actually acquired by museums and such of the stuff early guys, like Cone, in the '80s were doing), and Nash (as well as Cone and others) did make a big noise centered around IRIS, but the fact is a print that could stand up in terms of archival quality (from an inkjet) didn't show up until that Epson 2000 printer, in spite of the print speed and nasty color gamut. I think you're right, that was around '99, 2000 or so, that's about when I started at Calumet.
The next step was that archival quality with a decent color gamut, and that was the Ultrachrome inks. (Right? Don't have a chance to verify which inkset did that atm.) So the reality of the timeline is, regardless of what you see as the relative importance of the various contributors to the process, the Epson 2000 (7500/9500) inks set a benchmark, then the Ultrachrome printers next. For me personally, the Advanced B/W step was the next breakthrough, and really was the first time I saw a decent B/W print without a RIP or third-party inksets. From then on it's been simply refinement and elaboration... at least in my opinion.
Now, keeping in mind that, as Schewe kind of hinted at, Fine Art digital prints even now aren't universally accepted by collectors, but if you argue they are, you honestly can't say they have been since until around the early '00s, and the IRIS went away as a current product around '99, then I have to ask- how can you say that it played all that much of a role in truly bringing this technology to the place it is today? You can't really say that these prints are accepted because of IRIS, in fact, it's arguable that IRIS may have, with it's very limited archival quality, done more damage to that acceptance than inkjet.
..and sorry about my tortured syntax. need. more. coffee. (and the snow to go away) :D
-
Check carefully what existed just before the Wilhelm data of the Epson 2000p, 7500, 9500, 10000CF Archival pigment ink became available:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/additional_wir/WIR_Permanence_06_2000.pdf
there is another one that already contained the Mediastreet's Generations results.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
There was another printer in the late 90s that played a part in fine art level inkjet printing and that was the ColorSpan Giclee Printmaker.
Like the Iris, it was a drum-based printer but used 8 inks instead of 4, with HP heads. At one point, the Wilhelm numbers with ColorSpan's Endurachrome inks were 75 years on Arches Cold Press watercolor paper, about twice the life of any competing Iris ink set. It had a short commercial lifespan, dropped by ColorSpan after two or three years. My color darkroom was the first in the SF Bay Area to install one and I used it to show a lot of my Cibachrome customers what digital printing could do. It proved very popular and helped pave the way for the printers from Epson and others that followed.
-
Now, keeping in mind that, as Schewe kind of hinted at, Fine Art digital prints even now aren't universally accepted by collectors, but if you argue they are, you honestly can't say they have been since until around the early '00s, and the IRIS went away as a current product around '99, then I have to ask- how can you say that it played all that much of a role in truly bringing this technology to the place it is today?
I was talking about fine art photo dealers, not collectors not really accepting digital. Collectors buy what dealers talk them into and dealers still like traditional media more than digital mainly because of the issue of scarcity...a digital print can be printed over and over which no effort not uniqueness. A chemical print is thought of as being hand made...
However, that's the photo market...the fine art market goes way beyond just photography (which you seem to keep forgetting). For traditional fine arts, there's simply not the stigma against digital prints vs a variety of other printing methods. No, it's not an original "painting" but print making itself has been an art for generations.
You really need to broaden you understanding beyond photography...
-
I was talking about fine art photo dealers, not collectors not really accepting digital. Collectors buy what dealers talk them into and dealers still like traditional media more than digital mainly because of the issue of scarcity...a digital print can be printed over and over which no effort not uniqueness. A chemical print is thought of as being hand made...
However, that's the photo market...the fine art market goes way beyond just photography (which you seem to keep forgetting). For traditional fine arts, there's simply not the stigma against digital prints vs a variety of other printing methods. No, it's not an original "painting" but print making itself has been an art for generations.
You really need to broaden you understanding beyond photography...
...well, I was talking dealers and collectors, too, really... and in agreement with you basically since their relationship is so entwined, as you describe. And I did start the discussion based on a photography perspective, what with me being a photographer and this being a photography site and all, but thanks for the clarification. I'm really only concerned with Fine Art photography prints, and photographers trying to make them, and the tools that evolved to do so... not sure what your point is in terms of that discussion.
-
I'm really only concerned with Fine Art photography prints, and photographers trying to make them, and the tools that evolved to do so... not sure what your point is in terms of that discussion.
Exactly...your view of "fine art digital printing" is ignoring the fine arts which makes your perspective narrow.
You also ignore the impact of reasonably priced digital cameras hitting the markets and the resulting uptick in the desire for reasonably priced methods of printing...it was the combination of photographers getting digital cameras and wanting to make prints that combined to create a big demand for inkjet printers.
-
Exactly...your view of "fine art digital printing" is ignoring the fine arts which makes your perspective narrow.
You also ignore the impact of reasonably priced digital cameras hitting the markets and the resulting uptick in the desire for reasonably priced methods of printing...it was the combination of photographers getting digital cameras and wanting to make prints that combined to create a big demand for inkjet printers.
Astute observation, because of course the industry needs to be optimistic about a market before committing the big bugs to develop and market the technology. This is complemented by the importance of cross-fertilization of technology between the higher-priced large format machines destined for the smaller pro/lab markets, and the smaller less expensive machines going to the much larger prosumer and consumer markets. What one propels in terms of technological challenge, the other propels in terms of large volume and high cash-flow - especially the consumables.
-
Exactly...your view of "fine art digital printing" is ignoring the fine arts which makes your perspective narrow.
You also ignore the impact of reasonably priced digital cameras hitting the markets and the resulting uptick in the desire for reasonably priced methods of printing...it was the combination of photographers getting digital cameras and wanting to make prints that combined to create a big demand for inkjet printers.
...well when I start on my "The Complete History of Digital Imaging" book, I'll know where to go for some feedback. :D
For now, though, I'm just concerned with this tiny segment of digital imaging, narrow as it may seem to you (and, not particularly well pieced together in any one spot. Yet.) I mean, how can you stop at digital cameras, without including Color Management... Adobe's huge part in the process, for that matter? But thanks again for the perspective.
-
Google: 08_Ink-Jet.pdf
and here
http://www.printhead911.com/inkjet-history/
Great links, Ernst, I finally had a chance to pour through them... thanks!
-
I mean, how can you stop at digital cameras, without including Color Management... Adobe's huge part in the process, for that matter?
No, you don't quite get it. Until there were reasonably priced digital cameras only pros did digital capture or high rez scans from film because of the price of cameras ($25K +) or really good scanners ($10K+). Pros didn't complain about expensive output devices...my 1 page dye sub printer cost $10K.
However, when cameras became high enough rez (prolly the first Canon and Nikon not made by Kodak) to make really nice page size prints, that's when inkjet printers for the desktop took off. You got all these new users with all these digital images...how are you gonna print them?
It's called a "golden convergence" when two separate technologies combine to create an all new (and often unexpected) advancement of technology and demand.
Color management was really just a byproduct.
Adobe has indeed contributed (particularly Thomas Koll for developing both Photoshop and Camera Raw) but to be honest, it's really more serendipity on Adobe's part. They keep being in the right place at the right time with the right product. I don't call it luck, but more like good karma...
-
No, you don't quite get it. Until there were reasonably priced digital cameras only pros did digital capture or high rez scans from film because of the price of cameras ($25K +) or really good scanners ($10K+). Pros didn't complain about expensive output devices...my 1 page dye sub printer cost $10K.
However, when cameras became high enough rez (prolly the first Canon and Nikon not made by Kodak) to make really nice page size prints, that's when inkjet printers for the desktop took off. You got all these new users with all these digital images...how are you gonna print them?
It's called a "golden convergence" when two separate technologies combine to create an all new (and often unexpected) advancement of technology and demand.
Color management was really just a byproduct.
Adobe has indeed contributed (particularly Thomas Koll for developing both Photoshop and Camera Raw) but to be honest, it's really more serendipity on Adobe's part. They keep being in the right place at the right time with the right product. I don't call it luck, but more like good karma...
heh... well, we certainly do see it from completely different perspectives.
As far as the digital camera thing goes, I saw a lot more people scanning film with good, relatively cheap desktop scanners and printing from that, than even owning, nevermind printing from digital cameras in the mid-to-late '90s. Camera sales over scanner sales that I saw, personally, only started taking over in the early and mid '00s. People were buying scanners and printers to print their film images... I just don't see a correlation you're trying to make.
As far as Adobe goes, I can't imagine any of this happening without Photoshop, and arguably first. ..and Color Management working, especially where printing is concerned? That was a huge, huge thing.
But honestly, any one of these subjects is worth talking a good look at in terms of it's own timeline before you can fit it all together, no? How can you understand how it all fits together if you don't understand how each part developed? Which is why I'm finding the information about the inkjet/giclee (and other printing methods) development in the '80s so interesting - something I really had no awareness of at the time.
I do understand your point about converging and enabling technologies, I actually understand quite a bit more about that than you give me credit for, and have given it a fair amount of study in various disciplines, although I don't happen to see it the way you do in this case.
Again... the fascinating part of revisiting these details - the different perspectives.
-
Camera sales over scanner sales that I saw, personally, only started taking over in the early and mid '00s.
Scanner sales pre 2000 was a drop in the bucket compared to post 2001 digital camera sales. Canon quit counting actual camera sales and reverted to "tons shipped". They (Canon) knew the weight of a "box of camera" and stated sales in tons instead of the number of units sold.
Really...to get a page sized scan prior to 2001 was not a simple process. It was really after flatbed scanners could do reasonable scans of medium and small format film that "photographers" started getting scanners and scanning film to make prints.
But that is a relatively recent advancement. Prior to say, 1999 or 2000, "film scanners" that could do good film scans were still expensive.
When the cost of digital cameras started competing directly with film scanners is when "photographers" started looking for "photographic" type prints from digital cameras. That really didn't happen until after the cost of digital cameras started falling. That's when the convergence started happening...
-
Scanner sales pre 2000 was a drop in the bucket compared to post 2001 digital camera sales. Canon quit counting actual camera sales and reverted to "tons shipped". They (Canon) knew the weight of a "box of camera" and stated sales in tons instead of the number of units sold.
Really...to get a page sized scan prior to 2001 was not a simple process. It was really after flatbed scanners could do reasonable scans of medium and small format film that "photographers" started getting scanners and scanning film to make prints.
But that is a relatively recent advancement. Prior to say, 1999 or 2000, "film scanners" that could do good film scans were still expensive.
When the cost of digital cameras started competing directly with film scanners is when "photographers" started looking for "photographic" type prints from digital cameras. That really didn't happen until after the cost of digital cameras started falling. That's when the convergence started happening...
Right... I agree. But it doesn't negate my point- clearly the explosion happened in the early 2000 timeframe and by then scanners and film were falling away, and the printers were booming... but before that people were using scanners before cameras for acquiring images to print. That certainly helped things start coming together... speaking to your earlier point, actually.
I'm trying to remember when I got my first Nikon LS2000, I just found it boxed up in the cellar. It had to be around '96... (edit- looks like it was released in late '97) and I used it for scanning and printing my portfolio, as well as some prints I was selling (as "fine art"). Before then I'd been using a service that had a Leaf 4x5 scanner. - AND making prints on my Epson... :) I can remember talking to the lab at that time about how spendy the Leaf was... and how slow it was as well. That's when I started to understand there was what the industry called "good" as you do above, and "good enough" which was what I needed for my book and website... wish I could remember how much the Nikon cost me.
What with essentially the demise of any film scanners other than the (Imacon) Hasselblads, (the Creo iQsmart was just discontinued last year...) that would be a pretty interesting subject to look into time-line-wise as well...
By the way... for a really interesting read on how various technological developments converge, take a look at "Bicycle: The History" (http://www.amazon.com/Bicycle-History-David-V-Herlihy/dp/0300120478/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1296911901&sr=8-1) Whether you're particularly interested in bikes or not, it's a great analogy for any type of developing technology. It was not until several almost completely unrelated parts came together, particularly the roller chain, tube steel, pneumatic tires as well as public interest (bicycles in one form or another had several waves of intense popularity throughout the 1800s, only to die out as the novelty wore off...) it wasn't until all these "enabling" technologies came together in a two-wheel, chain-drive lightweight and affordable machine that they had the staying power to become a viable product.
...don't even get me going on batteries (http://evmc2.com/). ::)
-
The history is the history...and some of us were directly involved. So, be careful how you characterize what the history was. Some old timers will dis-remember what you claim as "history"...
...reminded of the parable of the blind wise men and the elephant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant).
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen
And hell, as an oldtimer messef, I don't trust what I remember... nevermind anyone else of my vintage. Now where are my glasses... ::)
-
In searching for historical data on some technologies you may find usefull the following links:
http://www.hpl.hp.com/hpjournal/pdfs/IssuePDFs/hpjindex.html
http://www.hpl.hp.com/hpjournal/dtj/past.htm
http://www.hpl.hp.com/hpjournal/tandem/index.html
-
...just when I thought I'd got my reading done and was ready to take a stab at a MASTER TIMELINE! :D
But thanks!
-
huh. Check it out, the HP Computer Museum: http://www.hpmuseum.net/divisions.php?did=4
-
OK, it's a work in progress, but have a look:
http://www.parrotcolor.com/store/blog/?p=637
I still have some holes, and have to verify stuff, along with crediting sources, but my boss wants me to actually get some work done. Imagine. :)
If you see something that seems wrong, let me know...
-
Only brief mentions in here of the original HP PaintJets of the late 1980s, and none at all of the early 90s DeskJets... Any of these things produced prints that faded if you looked at them cross-eyed, but they were instrumental in bringing early near-photo-quality color printing to the masses. When an IRIS cost $126,000, a PaintJet was $895, and within a few years a DeskJet was $295. At first, they were three-color, and couldn't print a true black, but four-color models came along fairly quickly, followed by six and eight-color models. An eight-color PhotoSmart (at some point, they started calling multicolor DeskJet models PhotoSmart) 7960 from 2003 still makes a respectable, if ephemeral, print, as do various dye-based Epsons and Canons of the same era. The first pigment printers that could match these dye printers for gamut were the Epson 4880/Canon iPF5000/DesignJet Z3100 generation. Of course, the best current pigment printers far exceed anything any dye printer could ever do (for that matter, I can't think of ANY color printing process of any time that can match an iPF8300 or an Epson 7900).
-Dan
-
Of course, the best current pigment printers far exceed anything any dye printer could ever do (for that matter, I can't think of ANY color printing process of any time that can match an iPF8300 or an Epson 7900).
-Dan
Right, on gamut and on preserving that gamut in time. Sometimes I think few realise how much has been improved in prints since we abandoned analogue-chromogene processes. Black and white was a harder nut to crack and may still not achieve the centuries of longevity of archival analogue prints but for the rest there is little to complain about and a lot to praise.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm