best quality printer for mix of color and b&w

I have recently created a photoreflect account but can't find much information on the quality of prints offered

by the labtricity labs (a consortium of sorts of labs that print photoreflect orders). Can someone recommend a

really good lab that offers great quality in color AND B&W prints. Or do most prefer one lab for color and

another for B&W?

I am extremely happy with my Epson R2400, which has been replaced by the R2880 so you can either get a great deal on the R2400 as photographers sell them off to upgrade, or get the latest and greatest for about $800. The K3 inks are so far advanced and there are so many great fine art and traditional portrait style papers out there that there's nothing I can't print myself in B&W or color up to 13x19. The R3800 lets you get prints up to 16x20 if you need that size. For B&W work I find the B&W printer drivers offered by Epson (and fine tuned by Greg Gorman, and others) produces exceptional quality prints with neutral tones. Or you can use QuadToneRip if you want to maximize the performance of using a full time RIP.

 

My favorite papers are Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl, Crane Museo Silver Rag, Epson's Velvet Fine Art and Moab's Satine and Luster stocks. Epson Exhibition Fiber and Hahnemuhle papers are also really nice, but can get real expensive so make test prints on a proofing paper or on smaller sizes before eating up 13x19. But the enjoyment is in finding a paper that meets your expectations and matches your photographic style.

 

http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/16/epson-r2400-and-ultrachrome-k3-ink-report/

 

Enjoy!

If you can go for it - the Epson 4880 does superb quality colour and B+W prints with the ink being a fraction of the cost of

the 2400 / 2880

I use http://www.protekcolorlab.com/

 

Been with them for 15 years. They offer ROES so you can upload all of your files to them.

If it was printed on an inkjet, it's not a photograph. Sorry to burst that bubble, but it amazes me at what people are calling a

photographic print. Last I checked, an inkjet is not a silver halide photo. Never will be.

If your customer is okay with it, then go for it. Just don't call it a photo. Call it a digital image, a giclee, a fine art inkjet.

It's a pain in the butt looking for a good lab, but once you find it and get locked into their color flow, it's all worth it.

Nobody here is taking the issue quite that seriously. So we will never call it a photographic print again, so thanks for sharing. :P

By the way, calling it a "digital image" or a "giclee" doesn't diminish it's intrinsic value. and digital prints are never going to be silver halide prints. They are a different asthetic and I'm not denying that. However you can't suggest that digital printing is inferior quality in any way whatsoever. It is, if anything, just a new way with a new asthetic. Tomato, Tomatoe.

 

To Amy and anyone else reading this, I'd recommend reading a book called Nash Editions. The history is all there and the perception is upheld that digital prints have come of age and are enjoying mainstream success from all the best in the industry.