Jump to content

Modern Print Technologies for a Digital Workflow


Recommended Posts

<p><strong>Objective:</strong> I'm interested in a comprehensive list of the different printing technologies available for a digital workflow. That is, with digital files from my dSLR or from my own scanned prints. I'd also like to know which labs use which technologies, but that's not the main purpose of this thread. Let me say up front I'm <strong>not</strong> interested in which labs produce the best color correction; I edit my images on my color-managed monitor & only wish for a lab to recreate exactly what's in my file (ideally what's on my monitor, give or take gamut differences, etc.).</p>

<p><strong>Background:</strong> I've been printing on my Epson R2400 using a color-managed workflow. Prints have been great; they match my profiled Dell S-IPS monitor. But now I want larger prints, & also no longer wish to deal with Epson's notorious clogged heads problem that results in banding across midtones. And I have no idea where to turn to b/c the internet is a muddled mess when it comes to printing technologies. Most labs don't even state their printers/technologies... I have to call & ask. And even then they just tell you the brand of the printer which then prompts me to Google what printing technology that printer uses. Only sometimes am I successful.</p>

<p><strong>The problem:</strong> I can't find a website devoted to comparing photographic printing technologies that summarizes the technologies behind a given print lab & its printer options. Heck, I can't even always find what printer a given print lab uses for a given size/paper! Are my Google-ing skills that poor?</p>

<p><strong>Data collected thus far: </strong>From labs I've looked into thus far (MPix, WHCC, West Coast Imaging, Denver Digital Imaging, etc.), here's a summary of technologies used:</p>

<ul>

<li>LightJet/Chromira (Laser/LED source), Durst Theta 76 -- digitally print to photographic paper using RA-4 process</li>

<li>InkJet prints (also termed 'Fine Art Giclee')</li>

<li>Noritsu</li>

<li>Fuji Frontier</li>

</ul>

<p>These are the most common options I find when I call up printing houses. But they leave me with many questions:</p>

<ol>

<li>What technology do the Noritsu's typically use (e.g. 3011?). Local photo house said it prints on photographic paper, so is it similar to LightJet?</li>

<li>Why do some places only allow 'Fine Art Giclee' prints via Epson printers on 'fine art' papers like WaterColor? What if I just want an Epson inkjet print of a landscape on regular luster or something? e.g. <a href="http://bayphoto.com/bayweb/pro_giclee.htm">BayPhoto</a>, used by SmugMug, does this.</li>

<li>Does anyone use color laser printer technology on digital paper? I wonder b/c the Noritsu 31 Pro that MPix uses says it can use its laser system to print on 'digital paper' (as well as photographic paper)... doesn't this mean <strong>not</strong> continuous tone (i.e. <strong>bad</strong> if you only are printing at 300dpi!)</li>

<li>Are (Epson) inkjet prints truly sharper than LightJet/Chromira/Noritsu (photographic) prints? West Coast Imaging claims so. Looking at my Epson prints vs. MPix's Noritsu print <strong>I</strong> think so. But I understand this can be somewhat subjective b/c DPI is not a good measure of sharpness since inkjet uses <em>dithering</em> while photographic prints offer <em>continuous tone</em>...</li>

</ol>

<p>Question #3 particularly irks me. Noritsu's own site says that its laser imaging system can print to both 'digital paper' & 'photographic paper'... how? Doesn't 'digital paper' actually require dyes/pigments to be sprayed on it, which would then require dithering to produce colors? In which case a 300dpi printer would pale in comparison to a 1440dpi Epson inkjet?</p>

<p>Are there labs that use Noritsu printers without photographic paper? If so, how are those images produced (are they continuous tone) & how do they compare to prints on photographic paper & Epson inkjet prints?</p>

<p>Experienced photographers who've printed their work, especially landscape photographers who like to print large, sharp images, please offer your opinions. I really wish there were some reference that compiles all the latest printing technologies & compares them. 'Fine Art Printing for Photographers' by Steinmueller & Gulbins comes close, but doesn't review the technologies behind a given Noritsu or Frontier, etc. I'd like to know this information before I send out a bunch of prints to different labs to evaluate the best option in my own opinion.</p>

<p>Many thanks in advance for any help.<br />Rishi</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Another well-accepted technology for digital prints is dye-sublimation (more exactly, dye-diffusion). The ink is coated on a thin plastic film, which is held in contact with the substrate with a heated head, which causes the dye to transfer to the substrate and embed itself in the surface. The paper and film are moved together under the head, and each color is applied in a separate pass. The paper is moved back and forth using steel and rubber rollers. Modern dye-sub printers apply a fourth, clear coat to protect the image and provide a nearly waterproof, UV-resistant coating, which can withstand handling very well.</p>

<p>The results are very similar to those on photographic paper, exposed with lasers (or conventional darkroom technologh), capable of much higher gloss than inkjet prints, and close to continuous tone. Each "pixel" displays a composite of all three colors blended together. Each color can be applied in 256 (or more) shades. This mixing and blending makes individual pixels run together, increasing the "continuous tone" effect, at the expense of acuity (e.g., compared to inkjet prints).</p>

<p>By comparison, inkjet prints are composed of tiny ink dots in an 8x8 array, which emulates continuous tone by applying more or fewer dots and distributing them in a pseudo-random manner. Colors are interleaved with relatively little physical blending, but the dots are so small you can't distinguish them without high magnification. Modern inkjets vary the dot size to multipy the basic 64 shade capability. Because of the technology involved, a 300 ppi dye-sub or Noritzu/Fuji print is comparable in resolution to a 2400 dpi inkjet print.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks Edward. I'm aware of dye-sub, but I thought it's extremely non-archival. Epson pigment ink prints are more archival than dye-based prints, no?</p>

<p>I'm also aware of the continuous tone vs. dithering concepts. IMHO, with the Epson R2400, inkjet prints finally seem on par with 'continuous tone' techniques. I rarely see any dots in my prints & if I do it's only upon extremely close visualization (aided by my myopia) in darker midtones where sometimes black dots are sprayed to darken the tone. Again, this is rare.</p>

<p>Given that LightJet/Chromira do continuous tone, I can see why they'd be nearly as sharp at 300/400dpi as a 1440 or 2880 dpi inkjet printer.</p>

<p>But I'm still left wondering what technology exactly do these different Noritsu & Frontier printers use?</p>

<ul>

<li>Are Noritsu's that print on photographic paper similar to Lightjet?</li>

<li>How do Noritsu's print on 'digital paper'? Are such prints 'continuous tone'?</li>

<li>MPix's paper sampler & target calibration print, printed on Kodak Endura paper by a Noritsu 31 ProTurbo, while nice are noticeably less sharp than my Epson R2400 prints. Why? What technology exactly do they use?</li>

</ul>

<p>Things become more confusing still b/c some printers only print up to a certain size, so labs will switch to a different printer for larger sizes... but they don't spell out this information for you on their website.</p>

<p>There should really be some website that keeps up-to-date information about labs, their technologies/printers correlated with size & price, etc. Since the labs themselves are extremely variable in whether or not they provide this information (they're the ones that should, of course!).</p>

<p>Rishi </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Rishi, I think all this agonizing over technology is a waste of time. There are a lot more factors than simply the technology, particularly how the processing is handled. The only way to deal with this is to test the services and see who produces the best print for your needs. I've stopped doing my own printing since I started using mpix. I'm in a show this Sunday, I did all my printing with mpix. First time I've done that, but they look great.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks guys. Opinions do matter from actual photographers, so I'll take those recommendations seriously!</p>

<p>Since I do all my processing & consider myself to be quite well-read in the departments of color theory, input/output sharpening, resolution, etc., I basically just want the printing house that'll offer me proper color management/profiles & that will tell me the technology they're using so I can select an appropriate PPI & upscaling algorithm & then try my own tests.</p>

<p>Then maybe I'll document everything & put it on my blog but no promises as I still have pending blog entries from our epic <a href="../film-and-processing-forum/00ROOo">film vs. digital debate</a> I haven't even gotten to! Mauro Franic, where are you ;)</p>

<p>-Rishi</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Some quick info -<br>

The common Frontier and Noritsu use RGB lasers to expose common Type-C photo papers as does the Lightjet and Durst Lambda. The Chromira and Durst Theta use an LED array for exposure. The RGB lasers in the Lambda and Lightjet are more robust as they image faster and are more capable to image backlit film materials, an important product of this printer class. </p>

<p>The typical Durst Lambda can hold 5 different 100 foot+ rolls of material at a time such as gloss paper, matte paper, metallic paper, flex film, and backlit film and make prints from 20 inch, 30 inch, 40 inch, or 50 inch wide by 100+ feet using resolutions settings of 200 ppi or 400 ppi. Although designed for photography 20 years ago, this machine became a favorite of the exhibit / trade show and advertising industries because of its massive throughput and 24/7 uptime.</p>

<p>The typical Lightjet is limited to one roll at a time from the same size and type of material above but the max image length is 10 feet. There is also a Lightjet model that can image from 72 inch wide rolls. Common resolution settings are 200 ppi or 300 ppi. This machine especially became a favorite of landscape photographers beginning about 10 years ago because owners were more traditional photo labs who catered more directly to photographers as opposed to advertising agencies or the signage trade.</p>

<p>Durst Thetas (254 ppi) and Chromiras (300 ppi) eventually made use of less expensive (but slower) LED exposure methods and targeted the school portrait industry for package printing on narrower rolls of paper. Therefore, prints are not as wide or as long as above.</p>

<p>And finally, the Frontier and Noritsu, designed for the mini-lab segment, primarily using 5 inch, 8 inch, 12 inch wide papers at approx 300 ppi for sizes up to 12x18 inches from their built-in scanners of film negatives or positives up to 6x7 cm. The machines can also image raster files from other computers.<br>

The same print papers used for traditional photo labs were initially used in all these machines but nowadays, some have been been designated "digital" because they have lately been improved for more color gamut, deeper blacks, etc. </p>

<p>All of these machines still produce state-of-the-art photo quality now 15 years later.</p>

<p>Among landscape photographers, FujiFlex from a Lightjet, Lambda, or Chromira is a favorite. Also, because all these printers, materials, and processes are so similar, it is possible to "proof" a photo from a Frontier in your neighborhood and outsource a large 48 inch print to a remote wide-format provider.</p>

<p>So, for a landscape photographer, the imaging is the easiest part. Capturing, framing (including packaging and shipping), and selling are far more difficult and costly, in my opinion.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<ul>

<li>Are Noritsu's that print on photographic paper similar to Lightjet?</li>

<li>How do Noritsu's print on 'digital paper'? Are such prints 'continuous tone'?</li>

<li>MPix's paper sampler & target calibration print, printed on Kodak Endura paper by a Noritsu 31 ProTurbo, while nice are noticeably less sharp than my Epson R2400 prints. Why? What technology exactly do they use?</li>

</ul>

<p>1. They both expose sliver media but the Lightjet is a much higher end product with a much higher end imager (we can get into the differences if you want but Stephen summarized it well). Another similar high end product is the Lambda. In the old days, the “which is better, Lightjet or Lambda” arguments were as common as which is better, Canon or Nikon. Owners of each technology have their own opinions. There are some donwsides to using silver media, especially with labs that do not provide really good process control or do a really good job of washing (the effect being a severe loss in longevity). The upside is cost per print (silver media is still inexpensive). <br>

2. Yes silver paper. The term continuous tone could be used for any number of other printing processes (Ink Jet, Dye Sub etc). IOW, it is not exclusive to a <em>Chromogenic</em> process. <br>

3. Because there are some real advantages to ink jet these days! The disadvantage is cost per print (but look at the differences in buying the printers themselves as well as maintenance). Output sharpening is still not a well implemented process! Its possible this is at least <em>part</em> of the differences you see. </p>

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Jeff... Unless you're printing a ton of photos, seek out quality vendors. I have an Epson 4800 and hardly use it anymore.

 

Mpix delivers superb B&W, especially using their real B&W paper option. WHCC is also great.

 

Even my local Costco does outstanding large 20x30" prints. From an Epson 7880. For $8.99. Was super

impressed with the quality, too.

www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Stephen & Andrew: so when the Noritsu <a href="http://www.noritsu.co.jp/english/products/qss31pro.html">website</a> says it can make "high-quality prints of 300dpi on both digital paper and conventional photographic paper", this 'digital paper' is actually still chemically developed? I'm confused. It doesn't function like a color laser printer (not chromogenic), which is very sub-par, correct?</p>

<p>I hear you on the advantages of inkjet... I love the prints from my Epson R2400. Art Wolfe's gallery downtown uses Epson plotters. But I dislike the fact that 75% of my prints have banding. And it's not just me. Art Wolfe's gallery in SoDo Seattle had large prints with slight banding in midtones last I went. <strong>Art Wolfe's gallery</strong>! B/c someone didn't 'pixel peep' each print I guess... The Epson 9900 at school bands all the time. Usually a head cleaning fixes the problem... for me many head cleanings & alignments are required & it's just the biggest headache & drain on my wallet ever. I don't know if I got a bad copy (it was refurbished from Epson) or if this is just a facet of piezoelectric inkjet technology. I hear of less troubles with Canon's thermal inkjet technology... maybe the heating helps keep the heads unclogged?</p>

<p>While we're on the subject, I wish printer manufacturers just wrote in <strong>BIG BOLD LETTERS</strong> how you're supposed to take care of the printer when not in use. I had to read 'Fine Art Printing for Photographers' by Steinmueller & Gulbins to learn that you should turn your Epson printer off when not in use, but then turn it on once a week for cleaning. Turning it off caps the head which is better than leaving it on continuously. It's different for a Canon printer (can't remember). I see debates over these forums even where people are of different camps in terms of leaving the printer on or off. The manufacturer knows best; why don't they just spell it out for the user? The entire instruction manual for the Epson R2400 doesn't even mention that turning the printer off parks the heads & is the best option for when you're not printing for a while!</p>

<p></rant></p>

<p>-Rishi</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don’t know what they mean by digital paper but its got to be silver based! <br>

Yup, Art’s a big Epson guy (I’ve taught there a few times). I don’t recall seeing “banding”. One simply would not print unless all the heads are perfectly clean. The Nozzle check will show you this on plane paper in a few seconds. Head alignment only needs to be conducted once or if the printer is moved. As to turning off printers, I’ve heard the opposite, leave them on all the time if you print often. I know the Canon goes through a regular self cleaning routine when on. I’ve had very little clogging issues on my 3 Epsons but it could be the humidity (or lack thereof) where I live. </p>

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I'm aware of dye-sub, but I thought it's extremely non-archival.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are quit correct. Despite all that BS about a fourth UV resistant coating, in side by side tests, dye sub is embarrassingly short lived.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don’t know what they mean by digital paper but its got to be silver based!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Higher paper speed, so they can get by with the lower exposure levels of laser based printing systems. Papers for "old fashioned" optical printing have to have nice sensiometric curves. Put a computer in the optical path, and you can "fix" ugly curves, so you can deal with the higher contrasts and sharper shoulders that go with high speed papers.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To be fair, Andrew, I only saw the banding upon very close viewing & it was on 2 prints & he has a continually rotating gallery so maybe I just happened to go during a time where someone overlooked this.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, on my R2400, even when the nozzle check is completely perfect, I might still get banding, easily visible on smooth midtones (where there's no other pattern to mask the banding). It seems like head alignments sometimes fixes the problem, but maybe it's just the process of the head moving around when I do all the head alignments that gets rid of the banding (sometimes). I don't know. Constantly aligning the head drives me crazy, but alas I don't know what else to do when the nozzle check comes back clean & yet I still get banding!</p>

<p>Re: turning the printer off-- I was referring to when you don't want to do any printing for extended periods.</p>

<p>Interestingly enough, I just talked to a girl at our local Seattle Costco & she mentioned that banding was the bane of her existence too on their Epson 7880 until they found a fix. She described some part that the head rests on that she manually cleans with a cloth/cleaner. She said that even though the nozzle check might come back clean, when the head comes back to rest on this 'foam' (I think) even after a head cleaning, it picks up dust b/c there's chronically dust build-up on this foam (or whatever the head rests on). So she manually cleans this & for months now they no longer have banding. She certainly seemed to know what she was talking about... Thoughts??</p>

<p>Thanks,<br />Rishi </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Costco guys:</p>

<p>I called up two local Costco's in Seattle. The 1-hour photo center uses an Epson 7880 w/ Dry Creek profiles (great!) but only up to 20"x30". Their Print & Copy center, however, does print 24"x36" on their Epson 7880, but they had no idea what I was talking about when I mentioned a printer profile. He said they just use a Color Burst RIP. The lady at the 1-hour Photo center said 'they're not required to use profiles'. </p>

<p>So... you guys that mentioned you can get a 24"x36" print -- do they use appropriate printer profiles at your Costco?</p>

<p>Also, what's up with Costco's sizes? They said they'll do a 16x20 or a 20x30. 16x20 is not a proper aspect ratio, & they said they can't do 16x24. Is that your experience?</p>

<p>-Rishi</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Make sure the banding isn’t in the document. That’s one reason to be working (and on the Mac sending) 16-bit data!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL, that was almost insulting :) I work in ProPhoto RGB 16-bit then convert to 8-bit AdobeRGB before sending to the Epson 9900 at the school lab (b/c they won't send 16-bit files to the printer).</p>

<p>To drive my point home: I know it's not my document b/c after he cleaned the head on the 9900, the banding went away. Same with my prints on my Epson R2400 -- after many head cleaning cycles I suddenly, about 25% of the time, get a banding-free print from the <strong>same file</strong>. </p>

<p>It's not in my documents. This is clear, evenly-spaced, horizontal banding in the direction of the movement of the head. It's well-documented all over the internet. I print using PhotoRPM, highest quality settings. I've had this problem to varying extents on Epson printers since 1999. It's clearly a limitation of the technology.</p>

<p>Andrew, you must be lucky with your printers. Similarly, I've been lucky with my Epson R200. It bands every now & then, but usually one cleaning cycle fixes it.</p>

<p>Maybe it's the luck of the draw. But really unacceptable for the thousands of $$ of ink I've invested in Epson.</p>

<p>Anyway, we're OT at this point. Thanks for all the help!<br>

-Rishi</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Rishi. To your point regarding the Epsons; I have two of them permanentely dedicated to individual stocks. An Epson 7880 (dedicated to USFA 24" roll and VFA sheets) and an Epson 3800 (dedicated to Ilford Gold Fibre Silk sheets). </p>

<p>I had never had any clogging or banding at all.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mauro-- Nice to see you again. It's been years! I still have your film... I've kind of stepped away from the whole film thing for a while now to focus on shooting more with my 5D. Getting into some people/couples/wedding photography. I still have every intention to return & finish up on that front.</p>

<p>Re: the Epsons-- I guess most of my problems arise from the fact that I only print every few months (or longer) or so. I bet you & Andrew print much more often than I do...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Please pardon my reference to "poor skills." What I meant to say is that banding is often the result of machine maintainance, which in turn may have to do with use of the non-Epson pigments that do often clog heads for which they weren't designed.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Clogging and midtone banding aren't inherent to Epson, they're inherent to poor skills and use of 3rd party pigments.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a bold blanket statement.</p>

<p>I don't use 3rd party pigments. I use Epson ink all the time, but I don't print as often as others might (couple of times a year). I also have extremely high standards & a discerning eye. My nozzle checks are <strong>completely</strong> clean after a number of head cleanings. Sometimes after $120 ink's worth of head cleanings. And yet I'll still sometimes get banding. Maybe after the head cleaning the head still picks up dust from somewhere. I don't know. All I'm telling you is that it clearly exists to varying degrees on every Epson printer I've printed on in the last 10+ years. The fact that the same file, using the same print settings, sometimes finally gets me a banding-free print points to the printer as the source of the problem. <em>I.e. if I repeat the same procedure of printing a file over & over again 12 times, about 4 of those prints will come out banding-free. </em>Except sometimes the printer's in a 'good mood' & I'll churn out 6 prints one after the other without any banding. Then on the next print, <strong>BAM!</strong> it's there again.</p>

<p>Clogging is just inherent to the technology. Ink dries!</p>

<p>As to why you don't experience it-- maybe you print often enough to keep the heads clean & ink flowing. Maybe your environment is different than mine. Maybe you got a good 'copy' of the printer. I don't know.</p>

<p>But just b/c you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If that were an applicable principle in all walks of life, there'd be no religious people. And many fields of science would crumble. :)</p>

<p>-Rishi</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lets put it this way. If the printer (Epson) is operating properly, its heads are not clogged, its been properly aligned, you send it really good data, correctly through the driver, banding isn’t present, even with very smooth gradients. At least not a modern, Pro printer (3880+). Note too, there are fixed media settings optimized for Epson papers. If you use 3rd party papers, some (not all) bets are off. Poor quality profiles will produce banding too. IF you have a clogged head, clean it and don’t make a print!</p>

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...