Epson 4800 instead of outsourcing prints better option?

Hi everyone,

 

I'm considering getting the new Epson 4800 to test the waters as to

printing my own stuff vs outsourcing everything. The reason I'm

considering this is because I'm really not getting the results I'd

like from my prints and I'm tired of switching labs to finally be

happy with the quality. The best prints I've had are from The Edge

in Australia but turnaround is a little too slow for getting it to

my clients. Which are mainly couples (Wedding Photography).

 

I do know a reasonable amount about color management with digital

but I'm wondering if I'm just better off profiling my own equipment.

I'm just wondering if there's anyone out there already doing this

that could offer some advice on the idea.

 

I'm wondering with ink, paper, and my own time factored in as to

whether it's worth it. It would mainly be used for family orders

ranging from 4x6's to 16x20's. Occasionally couples order

traditional albums vs magazine style albums so I would use it for

that as well. It wouldn't be a high volume printer, but used

regularly for a couple small orders a week.

 

My next question would be the quality of the printer. Is this

printer really capable of what Epson states? Archival & image

quality that's going to be NEAR equivalent of your average pro lab?

I can't imagine.

 

Forgive me if my experience in this area is limited, I welcome any

advice.

 

Thanks,

Weston

While I've never used the 4800, I've used the older Epson 4000 for about a year and a half

now in my wedding studio. Used in a color managed workflow with an ImagePrint RIP, the

epson printer exceeds the quality and archival properties of your neighborhood pro lab.

90% of my work is color and the balance is b&w or mixed (colorized b&w). 90% of my

prints are 8x10 and smaller with a handful of 16x20s per month.

 

The archival properties of the 4000 printer are available here:

 

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/WIR_Ep4000_2004_05_01.pdf

 

Again, I haven't used the 4800 and I am not planning on upgrading since I have no

complaints about the current printer. Nor am I happy that Epson actually expects you to

swap black cartridges on the 4800.

Swapping cartridges to do Matte Black best and Glossy truly sucks.

<p>

That said, I have the 4800 - for about a month. I am going nuts printing black and white

in Advanced Black and Whilte mode using the Epson driver from Photoshop. Brilliant

results on Epson Lustre paper - I had some 16x20's hanging in a show (oddly, I was

showing proofs to a gallery who was reluctatnt about archival ink jet prints from me

before, I showed them the black and whites from the Epson and said I was arranging

Lightjets and the owners said don't bother, took five prints, framed 3 and hung them... it

was highly amusing).

<p>

If you're not catching the matte/glossy issue - the Epson 4800 has black/mid grey/lt grey.

The 'black' can be matte or glossy. To get the richest blacks from the printer on matte

paper you need Mate Black. Switching inks (you can only have one or the other loaded)

flushes the line with lot o' ink. Just keep that in mind.

<p>

I truly like this printer.

I think the 4800 will be perfect but be prepare to invest lots of money and time. As much as we would like it, we just can't get a high quality print just by plugging in the printer to a computer and hit print. 4800 is a high end printer so that means after market software will be expensive. You don't neccessarily need these software, but to achieve beautiful prints, in my opinion, it's a must.

I think the costs are higher than lab production off minilab machines. The Epson prints are more archival than any pro lab since the inks are pigment based and colour papers (and negatives for that matter) are dye based. On some papers there are problems with abrasion. This is not a problem if the are framed or stored in an album but the print surface is not as physically robust as a colour print.

 

I would say the quality is slightly worse than the best Noritsu and lightjet prints but at least as good as most of the Frontier stuff I have seen.

 

You might consider the R2400 instead of the 4800. Still have the annoyance of switching catridges but it changes the US$75 ink purge into less scary <US$10 ink purge. The paper path only goes up to 13" so you loose the ability to do 16x20.

 

The 4800 is a "desktop printer" but it is huge.

Sorry, I must disagree with danny liao. I'm getting gorgeous color & B&W prints without a

RIP. And using the Epson profiles is working very well for me. It's truly been plug-and-

play.

I see you want prints from "4x6's to 16x20's. The smallest prints the 4800/4000 printers will do are 8x10.

Well spotted Brian! I completely missed that. You can of course run off two 6x4s on a single letter sized sheet but the printer will not handle paper narrower than 8".

Epson's produced superb color and B&W (with non-epson drivers such as QTRgui) since well before the 4800...both the 2200 and 2400 will readily beat Noritsu (except for speed) unless you're devoted to glossy machine prints and can't stand bronzing...the 2400 and 4800 avoid the bronzing...

 

The older 2200 and 4000 waste NO pigment when you switch between matte and glossy, whereas the new 2400 and 4800 do bite you expensively there.

<I>I I think the 4800 will be perfect but be prepare to invest lots of money and time. As

much as we would like it, we just can't get a high quality print just by plugging in the

printer to a computer and hit print. 4800 is a high end printer so that means after market

software will be expensive. You don't neccessarily need these software, but to achieve

beautiful prints, in my opinion, it's a must.</I><P>

 

Huh?<P>

 

 

Just wanted to tag on to Beepy's post re the 4800. I've had mine for almost two months

now and am getting superb results. B&W is especially great, right out of the box using the

Epson Advanced B&W more, without the need for any RIP, software, etc.<P>

 

I've tried several Frontier/Noritsu processors, and for a time was using White House

Custom Color. While they can turn nice results, it was difficult to get a dead-neutral B&W

print. My 4800 does it every time with zero thought or hassle on my part. In the end, it

beats anything I've seen from a lab.

Danny, in general it's a pile on... :-)

<p>

I am getting gorgeous B+W's with Epson standard 4800 print driver on a Mac printing

through Adobe Photoshop (so much so I have yet to do a color image:-) I pre-ordered the

ImagePrint RIP for the 4800 - as I like the multitasking it allows me to do (FlexColor

Scanning, Photoshop Photoshopping, and ImagePrint printing all in parallel...)

<p>

I probably lean to agreeing with you on previous Epson printers needing to jerk around

with a RIP to get control over unwanted "toning" (metamerism) in prints (B+W). But even

there, profiles seem to have gotten much better from Epson. Not sure about other

company printers (HP or Canon) profiles.

Go for it - you will gain independence, turn around speed and most importedly - you will have control over final result. It will be as good as you can make it.

Swapping the blacks sounds like an expensive pain. So how about just using the Glossy blacks on the matte papers? How will this do if you build a color profile with this scenario?