View Full Version : need help - b&w printer?
back alley
05-25-2009, 06:09
i'm toying with the idea of printing my own files, not really happy with my lab since they stopped printing tiff files and will only print jpegs.
plus, images that look good on a monitor seem to print poorly at times.
my 'needs', print size most used is 5x7, sometimes 8x10 to 11x14 max, black and white only.
i have never investigated or researched printers so i know nothing, this is my first look at them.
joe
mabelsound
05-25-2009, 06:31
Joe, I am planning on doing the same thing. I bought an Epson Stylus 1400, a very cheap refurb from the Epson site, and am now exhausting the stock color inks printing a show I have coming up. When I've done that, out they go, and I will be installing the UT14 black and white inkset from inksupply.com:
http://www.inksupply.com/ut14_black_and_white.cfm
The printer works marvelously and to be honest I can't waiting until the color ink is gone so I can get working on my B&W printing. I highly recommend this printer--I've had no trouble with it save for a bit of banding that was cured by the cleaning cycle, prints are fantastic, it has a small footprint, and prints on up to 13x19 paper. Which I didn't think I'd use, but lo and behold, that's what my show is on.
mabelsound
05-25-2009, 06:32
Oh one more thing, I find that I have to increase brightness in lightroom by 20 points to get the black level I'm seeing on the screen. At least with the stock inks, prints are very deep and dark by default. FWIW, this is slightly irritating, but much better than if it were the other way around!
Two quick recommendations:
Callibrate your monitor using a device like colormunki.
Don't use 3rd party inks. Every time I've used 3rd party inks (such as QuadBlack and others) or 3rd party bulk-feed ink systems the end result has been hopelessly clogged print heads - two 13" printers in the garbage.
sevres_babylone
05-25-2009, 07:26
not really happy with my lab since they stopped printing tiff files and will only print jpegs.
Have you tried converting to jpeg before taking it to your lab, and comparing the result with a print from a tiff file? I thought the main problem with jpeg compression comes when you do repeated edits and saves following the compression.
mabelsound
05-25-2009, 07:47
Two quick recommendations:
Callibrate your monitor using a device like colormunki.
Don't use 3rd party inks. Every time I've used 3rd party inks (such as QuadBlack and others) or 3rd party bulk-feed ink systems the end result has been hopelessly clogged print heads - two 13" printers in the garbage.
I thought about a calibration program, but I have a workflow down now that gets me what I want.
My research on the UT14 set seems to indicate the opposite, BTW--they clog less and work great. I would definitely like more input on this, though, if other people have experiences with them.
back alley
05-25-2009, 08:09
Have you tried converting to jpeg before taking it to your lab, and comparing the result with a print from a tiff file? I thought the main problem with jpeg compression comes when you do repeated edits and saves following the compression.
when i first started scanning my negs/using digital i had several images printed using both tiff and jpeg and i found the tiff prints much better.
my problem now is contrast range. the image on the monitor looks good but the prints are too contrasty.
i figure it would be easier/more convienient to have my own printer to work out the settings i need to get a print i am happy with.
joe
...also in the same boat here, Joe.
I was looking at the HP b9180 printer as I've read on the net that it does bw pretty well (I think there's one in Kijiji Edmonton for sale - might want to check that out).
I haven't done too much reading on the MiS inks and all that.... just want the simplest way possible to produce bw images.
Chriscrawfordphoto
05-25-2009, 10:48
Joe,
Your monitor needs to be calibrated properly if you buy an inkjet and expect the prints to match your screen. I went through that many yrs ago when I first began scanning film and printing from the computer. There's no way around it.
I had an Epson 2200 with the Imageprint RIP driver for a long time and it did beautiful black and white. The printer died and I bought a used R2400. It doesn't work with the version of Imageprint that I have, which was disspointing because I didn't want to buy the newer version of the software (its expensive!) and I'm stuck with the old 2200 version that I can't use. However, I found that Epson had SUBSTANTIALLY improved their driver for the R2400, which does perfect BW prints without the expensive Imageprint software. If I were you I'd either buy the R2400's replacement, the 2880 (said to be even better for BW), or if you can't afford it (About $800), get a good used R2400 like I did. Mine was $300 on ebay when I bought it.
35mmdelux
05-25-2009, 11:06
HP Photosmart 8750 is pretty nice and not expensive. I believe it has been upgraded since I bought mine 2 yrs ago.
I went down that road a long time ago -- unless you print regularly, be prepared for clogged print heads and streaks. It becomes very expensive after a while.
1) I assume that you are only using one computer to do all the post-processing?
2) Do you have a Costco near you? If so, download the printer's profile from Drycreek (link below). Be sure to read the instructions on the drycreek site.
If you have one computer and download the profile to a single printer at your local Costco, then you basically have a dedicated profile for all your images, as long as you don't change your monitor and Costco does not change printers.
That's what I do, and everything works great. :D
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/Profiles/Canada_profiles.htm#CA
Good luck!
Keith,
Thanks for the drycreek info.... have you printed BW using their profile (Costco's)?
Hi Joe,
You will benefit from going through this:
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
and this:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/printers_page.htm
and if you really want to do your homework, before you spend on hardware, read this:
http://www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com/
If you are serious about the quality of your prints, and you should be, else why bothering buying all these great lenses, then you should either go with the latest pigment inks printers - this in case you like printing glossy, or you do not want to exclude glossy or matte', OR go directly to Piezography or similar multi grey ink matte' only solution, including some sort of RIP.
I use Epson R2400 in advanced B&W mode ( the shadow detail is superior to printing in RGB mode), and I have only two complaints to make: the small one is, that at times it is a PITA to switch from glossy to matte' black (especially on a Mac) the big one, is that the cartridges are ridiculously small (read the ink is ridiculously expensive), my estimate is, that you spend about 0.35 EUR per A4 page in ink. I recommend Ilford Smooth Pearl for the cheap glossy stufff and Ilford Gold Fiber Silk for the nice prints, or else the Photo Rag from Hahnemuehle if you want the matte' output.
Good luck Joe. You are about to open a can of worms. Could be messy. Could be wonderful.
A few things I've learned lately:
1. Monitor-Printer-Ink-Paper is a complex thing to get right.
2. The printer builders save most of the good stuff for their big bucks high dollar 17" printers. Very few letter size (8 1/2x11) printers use decent inks. A few 13" printers use almost all of the good stuff from the 17' printers.
3. Small ink cartridges for the 13" or smaller printers are EXPENSIVE. You'll drain a cartridge just thinking about printing.
4. You need a 13" printer with straight through paper feed to use the good matt papers like Moab Entrada.
5. Beware mixing papers ans printers. Download profiles from paper companies and pray. Moab stuff worked well with my Epson 1280 before it died.
6. Calibrate your monitor and be prepared to make adjustments. What you see isn't always what you print.
7. If you can use them up there in Canada, try Mpix online. The digital masses love them.
8. Good luck!
back alley
05-25-2009, 12:27
you guys are scaring me...so much to learn...so little brain!
mabelsound
05-25-2009, 12:29
I actually think Mpix is pretty good for color, and I will use them for color after I switch inks. But their black and white isn't so hot.
Yes, I have and do. That's my current workflow when I print. I always do my post-processing from the same desktop PC and always to the SAME PRINTER (3411) in my local Costco (which has multiple printers).
They will print up to 12x18 on-site, and will send out anything bigger. I've ordered 20x30 prints (which they send out) using the same profile, and the colors seem to be just fine as well.
The B&W do come out very nicely as well -- the blacks are black and the whites are white, and the tonality seems fine to me.
Keith
Keith,
Thanks for the drycreek info.... have you printed BW using their profile (Costco's)?
back alley
05-25-2009, 15:29
Hi Joe,
You will benefit from going through this:
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
and this:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/printers_page.htm
and if you really want to do your homework, before you spend on hardware, read this:
http://www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com/
If you are serious about the quality of your prints, and you should be, else why bothering buying all these great lenses, then you should either go with the latest pigment inks printers - this in case you like printing glossy, or you do not want to exclude glossy or matte', OR go directly to Piezography or similar multi grey ink matte' only solution, including some sort of RIP.
I use Epson R2400 in advanced B&W mode ( the shadow detail is superior to printing in RGB mode), and I have only two complaints to make: the small one is, that at times it is a PITA to switch from glossy to matte' black (especially on a Mac) the big one, is that the cartridges are ridiculously small (read the ink is ridiculously expensive), my estimate is, that you spend about 0.35 EUR per A4 page in ink. I recommend Ilford Smooth Pearl for the cheap glossy stufff and Ilford Gold Fiber Silk for the nice prints, or else the Photo Rag from Hahnemuehle if you want the matte' output.
lots of good reading for a weekend project.
thanks.
NickTrop
05-25-2009, 15:45
HP Photosmart 8750 is pretty nice and not expensive. I believe it has been upgraded since I bought mine 2 yrs ago.
I second this... Have one - well it workED. That said, I went all through this "print your own" business. MIS 3rd party inks, Epson printers... HP printers... Always ends in frustration... broken printers, banding, driver issues... But worth a try - perhaps you'll have better luck. I would stick with the HP variants, the output is terrific (while it works...) Mine is sitting, disconnected, since something went wrong with the driver (I think) and couldn't get it to work even after reinstalling, etc. Prior to this happening, I started getting banding issues... And this is a better track record than with the Epsons....
I hate inkjet technology for printing pictures.
I've arrived at something of a baseline passable state of the possible and affordable solution:
HP Officejet 7310, HP Vivera photo inks, HP Premium Plus soft gloss paper. Letter size paper only.
In a perfect world I buy a Canon iPF 5000/5100 and Moab entrada natural rag 300 paper.
Too bad it's not a perfect world.
Bob Michaels
05-25-2009, 18:30
you guys are scaring me...so much to learn...so little brain!
Joe, there certainly is a learning curve to printing. Either digitally or in a traditional darkroom. But trust me, it is well worth it.
Printing digitally requires a solid foundation in the basics of Photoshop or PSE. There is no way around it. But it is not difficult to get acceptable prints. Then you will be constantly improving forever. Again, well worth it.
Personally I am using an Epson 2400 now with the ABW mode. That has greatly simplified things from previous models. It seems the 2880 is basically the same. My 2400 has been bulletproof for the 3+ years I have had it. I have no quarrel with anyone using the other brands. It just seems that a majority of the fine art printers use Epsons.
I love the control from printing myself. Plus there is the pride in knowing that I am responsible for the entire process. Also very convenient as I can work at home whenever I want without reliance on anyone else. Come to think of it, those are the same reasons I process my own film. But then, I remember you don't.
back alley
05-25-2009, 19:10
Joe, there certainly is a learning curve to printing. Either digitally or in a traditional darkroom. But trust me, it is well worth it.
Printing digitally requires a solid foundation in the basics of Photoshop or PSE. There is no way around it. But it is not difficult to get acceptable prints. Then you will be constantly improving forever. Again, well worth it.
Personally I am using an Epson 2400 now with the ABW mode. That has greatly simplified things from previous models. It seems the 2880 is basically the same. My 2400 has been bulletproof for the 3+ years I have had it. I have no quarrel with anyone using the other brands. It just seems that a majority of the fine art printers use Epsons.
I love the control from printing myself. Plus there is the pride in knowing that I am responsible for the entire process. Also very convenient as I can work at home whenever I want without reliance on anyone else. Come to think of it, those are the same reasons I process my own film. But then, I remember you don't.
i used to process my own film and do my own wet darkroom work, was a pretty good printer iissm.
now, it's digital or use a lab to process my film.
joe
Oh one more thing, I find that I have to increase brightness in lightroom by 20 points to get the black level I'm seeing on the screen. At least with the stock inks, prints are very deep and dark by default. FWIW, this is slightly irritating, but much better than if it were the other way around!
From what I've read, printing directly from Lightroom sends the image to the printer in the ProPhotoRGB colourspace. If your printer driver doesn't understand ProPhotoRGB, you'll get results like what you've described. I had this problem, and have switched to printing with a different program (Qimage). Problem gone!
mabelsound
05-26-2009, 03:39
From what I've read, printing directly from Lightroom sends the image to the printer in the ProPhotoRGB colourspace. If your printer driver doesn't understand ProPhotoRGB, you'll get results like what you've described. I had this problem, and have switched to printing with a different program (Qimage). Problem gone!
Thanks for the tip! Photoshop is the same way, for me. Maybe I should try printing out of IrfanView or something. Anyway, at the moment, I am reluctant to mess with my formula...I'll wait until I'm done printing this show.
Bob Michaels
05-26-2009, 17:22
From what I've read, printing directly from Lightroom sends the image to the printer in the ProPhotoRGB colourspace. If your printer driver doesn't understand ProPhotoRGB, you'll get results like what you've described. I had this problem, and have switched to printing with a different program (Qimage). Problem gone!
I don't know anything about Lightroom. But I do know in Photoshop you can select whatever color space you wish to work and output with. If Lightroom does in fact lock in into their choice of color spaces, that would seem to be a big detriment that everyone would be talking about.
Can you not select what color space you wish to use in the printer profile using Lightroom? It sounds very problematic to me if you have a file in one color space and a printer profile in another.
Or, am I just not understating your comment?
Chriscrawfordphoto
05-26-2009, 17:44
I have Lightroom. You can use Prophoto, Adobe RGB, or sRGB as your default colorspace. You are certainly not stuck with Prophoto RGB. You ave to open the preferences and set this, as Prophoto is the one it is set with from the factory.
When printing, you can choose a printer profile if you have a profile supplied by the paper or printer manufacturer, or a custom profile. This is done under the PRINT tab on Lightroom. Lightroom allows the same color management freedom as Photoshop, you just have to set it up correctly.
marquinius
06-04-2009, 00:02
I'm new on this forum (active on Leica user forum mostly), but this topic is very interesting. Without wanting to sound like a teacher (I'm not :p, I'm just very enthusiastic about what I learned from others), I'd like to share some of my findings.
I've been playing with B&W conversions, printing on an Epson R2400. I do my post processing in LR with some editing in CS.
Some thoughts:
- I calibrated my monitor. I didn't believe it either, but it's the only way to a consistent output. I use a Spyder, but there are more tools with a normal price setting.
- I use good quality printing paper (I use Harman FBaI gloss, but there are many VERY good papers out there).
- In Lightroom I check that the right settings for paper and printer are selected (I downloaded the curves for Harman from their website, as is possible with most paper manufacturers).
Last but not least, I invested $50,- and downloaded "Quadtone RIP" from Roy Harrington. It is a magnificent tool for printing B&W images. The results are simply stunning. And you can try it out for free.
Marco
mabelsound
06-04-2009, 03:34
I invested $50,- and downloaded "Quadtone RIP" from Roy Harrington. It is a magnificent tool for printing B&W images. The results are simply stunning. And you can try it out for free.
Marco
I have been messing around with QTR for a week or so, and I believe it is my new printing program. The nice thing about it for me is that it is already loaded up with profiles for the Epson 1400, my printer, using the MIS inkset! I've done a couple of test prints with the new inks and QTR and they are simply marvelous. I am extremely fussy about clipping in the black and white channels--I usually like white to be right up to the limit, and for black to clip a little, unless I am trying for a low-contrast look. And QTR reproduces this flawlessly. I have to do some more experimentation before I print anything important, but so far, so good. I am going to buy it today.
Hi Joe,
Calibrating the monitor, even for BW, is essential.
I have used various Epsons over the years (2200, 2400) with inksets from Epson, Inksupply and Jon Cone. I could get good prints but it was very hard matching what I saw on the screen with what came out. In the end the head clogs forced me to give up.
I now use an HP B9180 which I love. Good match between screen and print, and the printer automatically wakes up and does a test every day - not a single head clog in all this time. The BW is very linear on the right paper (Innova, Hahnemuhle, Moab) so there is little need to tweak (although I have invested in custom Photoshop curves for various papers, being an inveterate tweaker).
I find printing very satisfying, but there is a lot to learn, as you note.
Cheers,
Kirk
marquinius
06-05-2009, 05:11
I'm consistent with this kind of software: I always pay if it's good. This was € 50 well spent indeed.
John Rountree
06-06-2009, 13:14
I will second the recommendation for the Canon 9500 printer. I have had the Epson 2200 and been very dissatisfied, especially with B&W. IMO the Epson is incredibly thirsty, and ink will disappear fast. That means a LOT of money spent on ink. The HP (not the newer 8750) that we have at the school (free standing, large carriage) is an expensive machine but pretty close to useless for B&W. It is more like green and white prints! The Canon is also one of the least expensive printers to operate for ink costs. For more info go to: www.photo-i.uk There you will find some reviews and a bulletin board dedicated to the 9500.
mabelsound
06-06-2009, 13:26
I just want to add something here...I printed all day, trying to get my B&W right...I finally got the profiles straight in Lightroom, and the prints finally began to look like what I saw onscreen. But they look awful compared to QTR--Lightroom and the Epson driver just glop the MIS inks on regardless of the paper I've chosen...way too much of everything. QTR, both in and out of Black Only mode, creates very fine prints with very little ink. I got some curves from the QTR forum that work very well, and only had to adjust the ink adjustment slider, to bring out the blacks. Now the prints are almost EXACTLY what I see onscreen, with no monitor calibration beyond eyeballing.
Jamie Pillers
06-06-2009, 13:43
Joe,
If you decide on buying an Epson printer, check out their factory refurbished stock. I bought my refurbished R2400 there (when it was still their newest model). Just go to the Epson website and look around for something about refurbished printers.
Jamie
i'm reviving this thread because i am going out of my head over this!
all the printers and inks seem to cost so much more over here as well -- which adds to the stress... i don't need huge prints but do want gorgeous and lush b/w.
i've gone backwards and forwards on various Epson, HP, and Canon printers and finally decided i'd probably get a 2880. my boyfriend has finally stepped in and thinks i should go for the 1400 with MIS inks (and, i know, the Quadtone RIP).... i'm blaming you, mabelsound! are you still happy? any problems, quirks, second thoughts?
and you, Joe, what did you decide? did you take the leap? or did you tear all hair out and say f*** it (as i am ready to do)? and, no, i wasn't being facetious -- i know you must have some hair lurking somewhere :p
this whole printer thing is making me mighty cranky!
I don't use QTR, however, I did follow the calibration procedure outlined on John Roark's site, and get excellent looking prints with the UT14 ink set and the Epson 1400. I have had no trouble with clogged heads, and I don't use the printer that often. Furthermore, I bought the empty carts and the 4oz inkset and in this way it is very cheap to run. Highly recommended.
That being said, they are not as good as wet prints.
thank you, dfoo!
to be honest, i didn't expect them to be -- but for now, with my digital prints, i'll take anything!
also kind of intrigued by Piezography.... is it really worth twice as much (or more) than the UT14?
amateriat
10-18-2009, 20:58
After some years of working with Epson printers (the last two being a 2200 with stock inkset, plus an 1160 with Lyson QuadBlack Neutral inks), I switched to an HP 8750 several years ago, and have loved the results so much I went to the trouble of tracking down a used one earlier this year–HP discontinued the printer about two years back–as a backup. (I got awfully lucky: the owner had literally made just a few prints through it before boxing it back up, as she was moving from the Pacific Northwest to New York, where she decided there wasn't enough room to keep it.) To my eye, it makes virtually dead-on neutral prints, using only three black/grey inks using the Greyscale option in the print driver, and with virtually no metamerism, bronzing or gloss differential, on matte or glossy paper*. (Including color inks, there are nine inks total, between three cartridges.)
Maintenance is a dream: besides the fact that the print heads are built into the carts themselves (new cart = new print head), the printer quietly switches itself on for about 30 seconds for self-cleaning if it hasn't been use for over a week. (Contrast this with my Epsons, which went into an elaborate–and ink-killing–cleaning mode every time I fired them up, even if I'd been using it several days in a row.) Finally, since the print heads are part of the carts, there's no need to worry about damaging the heads on account of the carts running dry, which means that if you want to try and squeeze one last print out of some near-empty carts, it's totally your call: the printer will dutifully give you a heads-up when the carts run low, but, unlike Epson, it won't stop dead in its tracks with several ml left in the carts. I'd sooner blow off a sheet of paper than have to toss still-inked carts.
Of course, unless you luck out finding a sealed, NOS 8750, you'll have to go with buying used.
(*I use HP's Premium Glossy and Semi-gloss/Satin papers.)
- Barrett
i'm toying with the idea of printing my own files, not really happy with my lab since they stopped printing tiff files and will only print jpegs.
plus, images that look good on a monitor seem to print poorly at times.
my 'needs', print size most used is 5x7, sometimes 8x10 to 11x14 max, black and white only.
i have never investigated or researched printers so i know nothing, this is my first look at them.
joe
I can only talk about what I have: I've got an Epson 3800 and it prints stunning B&W pictures, having dedicated gray inks. The "bad part" is the about $3 round-trip cost if you change between glossy and matte papers, but in practice that's less of a problem than it seems to be.
Check out
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800
a bunch of B&W profiles are here:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/abwprofiles.html
Regarding profiles: One of the reasons I got the 3800 is because the canned profiles were supposed to be very good. And they are. I haven't had a need for custom profiles yet.
Regarding cost: the 3800 is a "free upgrade" to the R2400
http://www.inkjetart.com/epson_3800_pro/index.html
LIKE GETTING A FREE PRINTER UPGRADE... Although the Epson 3800 is $445 more expensive than the Epson R2400 ($850), the 3800 comes with $450 more ink than the R2400 (and at a lower cost per millimeter) -- so it's almost like getting a free printer upgrade when you're willing to buy the Epson 3800 (17") over the Epson R2400 (13").
- Cesar
Do most labs and inkjets use the sRGB colour space?
Nikon Bob
10-19-2009, 03:53
I have been using an HP 7960, for years now, to print up to 8x10. If you replace the black with the grey cartridge and print grey scale the results are like what Barrett says he is getting with his HP 8750. Never had any trouble with heads clogging either and the printer can sit idle for quite a while between my printing needs. When this printer finally dies there will be another HP to replace it, all be it in a larger format. It just plain works with no special inks or programs.
Bob
There are myriad different options and all the posts so far have spoken wisdom.
It took me ages to figure out what I needed - consider it the same as trying to figure out a darkroom for the first time.
Colour calibration. Yes, it makes a difference. I bought a Spyder3 Elite, now my prints are consistent i.e. I know what I will get on the paper given what is on the screen.
I have a Epson R2880 which I am using with Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308gsm paper and the Hahnemuhle provided printer profile. The B&W is neutral and lovely.
The Epson R3880 works out cheaper in the long run as the ink tanks are bigger, but I didn't have the room for it in my house.
I had some problems until I realised that in the printer driver I needed to switch off colour calibration and enable it in Photoshop.
Whatever you decide, get a colour calibration tool.
If you only print black and white, you can use photoshop/scanner as a calibration tool. Check Paul Roakes site for more info.
mabelsound
10-19-2009, 05:28
Hey cam, I just want to second your boyfriend's recommendation--several months on, I am still doing great with the Epson 1400/MIS inks/QTR workflow. No clogs, even when i go a month or so without printing. QTR is absolutely perfect for this inkset, and I love the quality i'm getting.
Do you find the prints quite warm compared with wet prints?
thank you all for your help -- and i do have EyeMatch for calibration (i think that's acceptable?).
mabelsound -- thanks your getting back to me. (always helps because i know your work!) which of the ink sets are you using? are you printing glossy or matte? rich enough blacks and/or is the point moot because the gradations are so smooth?
orenrcohen
10-19-2009, 06:05
Buy the Epson 3800 and don't look back. Marvelous b/w prints.. really fantastic. Color is nice too!
mabelsound
10-19-2009, 06:47
Do you find the prints quite warm compared with wet prints?
I can't compare them to wet prints, I'm afraid--but the nice thing about QTR is that you can load up two separate presets, one warm and one cool, and then use sliders to adjust between the two, until you have the desired level of warmth for the paper in question. Then you can save this as a preset, and have a preset for every paper. It's very effective!
mabelsound -- thanks your getting back to me. (always helps because i know your work!) which of the ink sets are you using? are you printing glossy or matte? rich enough blacks and/or is the point moot because the gradations are so smooth?
I'm using the UT14 inkset, and printing matte. (Apparently you can print glossy, but the Eboni cartridge can't be used for that, and I haven't figured out yet how to configure QTR correctly for it.) The first couple of prints were a little weak in the blacks, but then I realized there is an "ink limit" slider to control that. I nudged it up to 3 and that's about perfect for the papers I'm using.
You get very, very sharp prints with smooth gradations! If you PM me your address I'll send you a sample.
I print glossy & matte with my UT14 inkset. I don't use QTR. The glossy prints look great! I've been printing glossy on the kirkland glossy paper. Matte I've used primarily the epson matte ultra premium. I have some more expensive matte paper which I haven't used.
Actually, I haven't used the printer that much over teh past 6 months since I got my darkroom set back up. The inkjet prints look great, but not as good as real silver prints.
I have the 2400 and I'm split on it. It does make great prints once you figure it out, but the inks are really tiny (and costly), I've had clogged heads, as well problems with the printer communicating with my mac (a known, but unresolved issue). It can be a very frustrating printer to work with. I've been thinking about upgrading to the 3880, but I'm not sure it's worth it to me right now.
IF you only print black and white, get a black and white inkset. They are super cheap (if you buy the 4oz containers), and you get better results.
Bob Michaels
10-19-2009, 15:35
I have prints from just about every printer made from participating in numerous prints swaps on the Yahoo b&w digital printing group.
I can say that you can make really really good prints from just about any printer made. It boils down to the learning curve, maintenance, and ink costs.
In the final analysis, it comes down to you and your skill, not the hardware you have chosen. That is a bit comforting.
johnwolf
11-20-2009, 19:22
I'm always surprised how well my monitor and BW prints match up. I use an Epson 2400, a calibrated monitor, and the paper manufacturer's profile. Soft-proofing is critical.
I get the image the way I want it in Photoshop, then duplicate it for soft-proofing, and tile the two pictures. I use curves or levels to tweak the version to be printed to match the original. Pretty simple, really.
I'd be interested in learning how other LR users handle soft-proofing.
John
back alley
12-26-2009, 10:57
a sort of update - - -
i did not buy a printer yet. i was confused and thought that maybe i should just stick with my lab. a printer's cost with ink and paper might not be worth it for the number of prints i would make.
i now seem to be getting more prints made so it might be more worth it.
i saw a new epson 1400 on sale today for 249. cdn. and that got me thinking again...
Steve M.
12-26-2009, 11:25
Be prepared for a long and expensive learning curve if you're picky about your images. I had an Epson 1400 and it's about as simple as it gets out of the box, especially if you download Paul Roarke's Quadtone RIP (free to try and $50 to buy). Using all the Epson inks I got a nice neutral B&W most every time. But it drinks ink like you would not believe, as does any system that uses all the inks. Like all inkjet printers, you'll need to try sampler packs of papers to see which ones work for you as they make a huge difference in your prints.
I had better luck using the old Epson 1280 printers and printing w/ only the black ink using the MIS Eboni black ink in a refillable cartridge. It's a totally permanent carbon based ink, and your cost per print is as low as it gets. No need for a RIP or monitor calibration (beyond the standard software on your computer). With Epson Velvet Fine Art and a few other papers I got good prints. Changing papers will give you different tones. It may take a while to find a good 1280 printer but they're worth it when they work right, and dirt cheap.
I stopped inkjet printing my B&W after going LF shooting w/ a neighbor and looking at his optically printed shots. They blew mine away. Wet prints are much better for B&W, and you can dry mount them and do away w/ frames and mats and reflective glass. Nothing looks better than a dry mounted B&W fiber print. I'm currently reprinting all of my favorite images in a darkroom, and when you compare those to the inkjet prints, well......
The HP 8750 is another decent B&W printer, but you have to use the HP papers to get archival prints, and in terms of ink usage it's like comparing a Ford Falcon to a Dodge Hemi. Ultimate ink hog.
Re. Lightroom and printing/profiles, a good podcast on "Lightroom for Digital Photographers" this week (can get from itunes or probably the podcaster's website): "Embedding ICC Profiles [for printing)". Example he uses is for a Costco lab near him.
I've had good success using Qimage (ddisoftware.com/qimage) to handle printing, the only reason I keep Windows virtual machine on my Mac. It handles everything very well, delivers excellent prints.
Rick
Bob Michaels
12-26-2009, 15:52
,snip>
i did not buy a printer yet. i was confused and thought that maybe i should just stick with my lab. a printer's cost with ink and paper might not be worth it for the number of prints i would make.<snip>
Joe: this is an easy answer for me. If you want the most economical prints, send them out to a lab. If you want your prints to look the way you want them to look, do it yourself.
It boils down to a personal choice of you being willing to pay the price to have total control of your photos. Or, where does your desire to control end? What point are you willing to turn the process over to someone else? Let's face reality that it would be cheaper to hire a professional photographer than to take photos ourselves. But some are willing to do whatever is necessary to do all the job while others are willing to only go part way. It is another personal choice.
back alley
12-26-2009, 16:11
Joe: this is an easy answer for me. If you want the most economical prints, send them out to a lab. If you want your prints to look the way you want them to look, do it yourself.
It boils down to a personal choice of you being willing to pay the price to have total control of your photos. Or, where does your desire to control end? What point are you willing to turn the process over to someone else? Let's face reality that it would be cheaper to hire a professional photographer than to take photos ourselves. But some are willing to do whatever is necessary to do all the job while others are willing to only go part way. It is another personal choice.
excellent point and really what it is all about.
i think i need to save a few more shekels and buy the 3800 epson for myself as it seems the best of the bunch for my needs.
gilpen123
12-26-2009, 17:25
I have printed B&W on a Canon 9500 Mark II that I just got and it really looks excellent on a normal Canon silk paper. I will order fine art papers and see what I can do with this printer. It looks very promising though print from Lightroom and CS3 without any profile set up.
januaryman
01-04-2010, 06:38
excellent point and really what it is all about.
i think i need to save a few more shekels and buy the 3800 epson for myself as it seems the best of the bunch for my needs.
Well, after reading all this material, I went to Epson and got a refurbished 2880 for $549 and found a code to save $15 (SAVINGS15), free shipping, no tax. I had read the 3800 is a great printer for those planning on doing massive amounts of printing, but since I anrticipate doing fewer than 25 per month, the 2880 worked out the best for my needs. Now I just need to wait for it to arrive!
Paul Roark
01-29-2010, 13:17
For lots of information on B&W digital printing and printers, see http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
I also have a lot of info on my website, below.
(I know this is a bit late, but I'm new to the forum.)
Paul
http://www.paulroark.com/
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/
Bob Michaels
01-29-2010, 14:29
For lots of information on B&W digital printing and printers, see http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
I also have a lot of info on my website, below.
(I know this is a bit late, but I'm new to the forum.)
Paul
http://www.paulroark.com/
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/
Paul Roark is a quite modest guy. For those of you who do not know who he is, I will just say that he is one of the top 5 black & white digital printers. And he is a very accomplished photographer. Paul is retired from quite an illustrious unrelated career and spends his time developing digital b&w printing methodologies and ink sets (with no economic connection to those who manufacture them). He has the epitome of credibility.
amateriat
01-29-2010, 18:13
Paul: Wow...could've knocked me over with a feather!
Better late than never: I got my fledgling start in quadtone and black-only b/w printing with your advice (with an additional shout out to Clayton Jones). Really glad to see you here.
To anyone else tuning in here: the great thing about b/w digital printing at the moment is that there are several methods–many of them initiated by Roark–which can ratchet down the frustration and cost factor considerably, while bringing stunning results. The frustrating thing is that the more you learn, the more methods you discover, the pickier you'll ultimately get. ;-)
- Barrett
mabelsound
01-29-2010, 18:26
For lots of information on B&W digital printing and printers, see http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
I also have a lot of info on my website, below.
(I know this is a bit late, but I'm new to the forum.)
Paul
http://www.paulroark.com/
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/
Welcome aboard, Paul. Your website has been a real help to me--I've especially enjoyed messing around with black-only on the Epson 1400. Thanks for these excellent resources!
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.