7800 220ml inks..how many prints?

[lee_gainer1]

Hello,

 

I'm about to dive into large format printing (very excited, Epson 7800) and I am

trying to get a better idea of my cost per print. Are there any 7800 users who

have a general idea of how much ink is used for a high-res (300 dpi) 24" square

color print? I have factored my printer cost and paper cost (Epson premium

glossy) but the print per cartidge info is hard to figure. I know about the

first round of inks disappearing with the initial calibration of the printer and

I am figuring that into my costs as well.

 

Thanks!

Lee

[Ed_Ingold]

Cartridges for the Epson 2400 contain about 13ml, so you will get about 20x the coverage with a 7800. I have a 2200, which is similar, which gets about 40 8x10 prints from a set of cartridges (not all empty at the same rate). The 7800 can make much larger prints than the 2200/2400, but you can estimate your cost from based on square feet of coverage. As a plus, the 7800 can use 100' rolls of paper, which is cheaper than the 30' limit on the desktop models.

 

On the other hand, if you switch from Photo Black to Matte Black, you will lose about $80 worth of ink to purge the lines. There are RIPs which get around this problem.

[dickhilker]

"There are RIPs which get around this problem."

 

Any suggestions?

[gene_e._mccluney]

There is no pat answer to this question, as the inks are used up at different rates

depending on the color and density content of the image being printed. All the cartridges

are separate, and you do not replace them all at once, just one at a time, as they are used

up. You can actually wait until the machine stops printing due to a cartridge being "out" of

ink, and you can replace the cartridge and the printer will resume printing with no

detectable "glitch" in the print being printed. Incidentally, the optimum dpi for printing on

a Epson is 240dpi, not 300dpi. That will give you all the detail you can see. 300 dpi is the

standard for providing images for publication, not for inkjet printing. This is so that there

will be no moire effects with the dot-screen process of photo reproduction by offset

lithography.

 

McCluney Photo

[Ed_Ingold]

Epson does the least resampling if the resolution is in multiples of 180 ppi (or possibly 360 ppi). This is theoretical, however, I have never noticed any artifacts as long as the resolution is over 300 ppi. A print at 240 ppi is likely to show pixelation in certain circumstances - highlights in the eyes and aliasing in diagonal lines in particular.

[Ed_Ingold]

Dick,

 

I don't remember the specifics. I believe there was an article or review in "Shutterbug" magazine earlier this year, or possibly "Digital Photo Pro" magazine. "Shutterbug" has a website and archived articles. As I recall, the "light-light" black cartridge was replaced with "matte black".

[david_simonds]

Lee, I have had the 7800 since May. It is a wonderful machine. Makes my best images great and everything else look like junk. As for ink conumption, this is not scientific but illustrative. My printer came with the 110ml inks. Approximately 35% was eaten in the charge up. I then used about 15' of the utility matt roll that comes with the printer, at 720dpi. I also made a few 8x10 images on sheet. Coincidentally, the first ink (yellow) emptied just as I finished a 24"x50' roll of Crane Silver Rag. There was 5-10% left in the other inks, but I just changed them all out. All the images on the roll were printed at 1440dpi. So, that is 100sf of Crane at 1440 plus 30sf of matt at 720 and a few odds and ends, all with some ink left over. Compared to the 220 and 2400, this machine seems quite efficient. More important is the fact that the profiles are so good, it is rare that I have to make more than two prints to match the screen. This, in my humble opinion is the key to ink usage. The Epson 2200 profiles were junk. The 2400 profiles were considerably better and the 7800 I find to be dead on with a calibrated monitor. I even use the Epson Glossy as the profile for Crane Silver Rag and Innova F. I can not recommmend these two papers more highly. I have used Pictorico White film in the past - the glossiest surface this side a Cibachrome. Eventually, I lost the taste for such a brash look.I also favored Epson's Velvet and especially the Ultrasmooth - Epson's premium matt papers. But the Dmax in the 1.8 range made blacks look like dark grey. The new papers from Crane and Innova blend the best qualities from glossy and matt stock. I get what I want from both these papers, which have different temperature colors. Since I never have to switch out the black inks, I am not flushing $80 or so down the toilet. I would encourage you to look beyond Epson's glossy paper. Your work will shine on the Crane or Innova. I am a serious amateur and have never been concerned with selling prints. Since getting the 7800, people have offered to buy my work.

[bill_t__new_mexico_]

Hello Lee -- I just hit the 400' mark on my 7800 paper usage, about 80% coverage on 24" paper.

 

According to the printer's statistics it has used 1180 ml of ink so far (presumably all colors combined). I don't know if that number included the original charging, but even so that works out to very roughly 1.9ml per printed square foot, which is (again roughly) about $0.80 per square foot of ink coverage. In any case it's a pleasure working with the larger cartridges...swapouts are now sort of milestone events rather than constant nuisances.

 

The 7800 has been giving me just great prints, I'm really pleased with it. No hassles so far, although like any printer you have to be attentive about keeping the heads clean. My best advice is to let it clean the heads when it wants to and always use the automatic mode. My panoramic prints are selling faster and easier at the larger sizes, my investment was more than worth it. "Big" seems to connect well with those who have large bare spaces above their sofas.

 

David, could you please describe the Innova F surface a bit. With the "F" I just assumed it was super glossy, but is it actually something towards mat?

[lee_gainer1]

Thank you for all your responses! 80 cents per square foot is quite good IMO. I plan to record my ink data as I print but this certainly helps just to know what I am getting into in regards to ink usage and costs.

 

Thanks!

[david_simonds]

Bill, happy to oblige. Actually, I have more experience with the Crane Silver Rag, having just finished a 50' roll. I have made only one image on the Innova, but can offer some observations. It is not a "glossy" surface in the traditional sense. It is much closer to a luster or satin, but the "tooth" is a bit more prominant. The Innova is quite white. While it has texture, it is very smooth to the touch. The Crane is a warmer white, has a bit finer texture and has more bite when you run your finger on it. The Crane does a wonderful job with images that tend to be warm. My best prints on this paper include a brownstone in NY and various moody and overcast stream landscapes. I have made a few portraits but did struggles witht he skin tones. I can not blame the paper - maybe just me. The one image I have made with the Innova is from a Velvia scan of a choise Velvia subject - a rose bush with dark green foliage accented by a few roses surrounding a pile of heavily textured driftwood. The print is a real printing challenge. The bush dissolves into black and the driftwood has strong highlights almost off the scale. There are subtle wood textures and tonal gradations and in your face green and red densities. The Innova rendered it beautifully. I used the canned Epson Glossy (250) profile. It was a dead on match in every respect - even with the light tonality. Using the same profile with the Crane paper usually rendered good colors but generally a dark print. Both the Innova and Crane give images a three dimensional quality - perhaps becasue of the tooth. I find no metamerism or bronzing. And the blacks are just gorgeous. I almost want to print darker images because they are so deep and dense. Bill, I have been through a variety of paper "phases." While these two papers do not make all others obsolete, I have yet to print an image that I thought would look better on some other stock. Its not cheap - about $1.90 a square foot. But using your ink consumption numbers, my typical 2' square image costs less than $11 in media. Not bad. Let me know if you check out this paper. Regards.

[bill_t__new_mexico_]

Thanks David, I'll try it out!

[david_simonds]

Bill, happy to help. I checked out your website. Nice images, particularly the first one of the Rio Grande - magic light. You put a great deal of stitching work into these. Is your workflow film/scanned or digital? Regards, David

[bill_t__new_mexico_]

Those are all digital stitches shot with a D70 or D2X. Most are in the range of 70 to 300+ megapixels, typically 1 to 3 rows of 8 to 20 images each. Several are more than 10,000 pixels on the short dimension.

 

Yes, good light is the thing, I usually shoot just a few minutes before sunset. Biggest problem is getting all the images shot before the light changes too much or disappears!

 

Workflow is through ACR to PTGui in .tif format for the basic "ground" set of exposures which also establishes a set of stitching control points. Then I go back to ACR to either reprocess the images for the sky, or process a darker set of "sky" images shot at the same camera positions with automatic bracketing, which are run through PTGui with the control points from the ground set. Sky and ground versions are merged in PS using layers and a mask. You gotta like 1+ gigabyte PS files to do this kind of work, and patience is a must. Come on Adobe, where's that 64 bit PS?

 

It's worth it though, giant ultra-sharp prints are marvels to behold. People go gaga picking out details from the really high reso ones, like people sitting on a rock a 1/4 mile away, someone standing in the door of a distant house, etc... You're gonna like that printer!

[david_simonds]

Bill, like I said - a lot of hard work in those images. How wide is your typical stitched print, and what is PTGui? If you really favor the glossy look, you have to try Pictorico White Film paper. A fellow on the board who runs a printing shop says it is close to a Ciba print. Regards.

[bill_t__new_mexico_]

I usually print about 55" wide, the biggest size that works out with standard 40"x60" mats and foamcore. This results in heights between 16" to 22", all of which fit well into a 27"x60" frame size.

 

PTGui is an outstanding stitching program. It allows as much "hands on" as experienced user could want, but also has a wizard mode for newbys. It is also the fastest stitcher I have used, no small thing when dealing with giant stitches.

 

PT Assembler is another great stitching program, it has a slightly steeper learning curve but can take stitching about as far as it can go.

 

Photoshop has some basic stitching capability but still leaves something to be desired.

 

If you just want to dabble at stitching, Autostitch.exe can be downloaded for free. It only handles .jpg's, gets confused about frames with only blank sky, but is otherwise almost 100% automatic and the output is surprisingly good.

 

http://www.ptgui.com

 

http://www.tawbaware.com/ptasmblr.htm

 

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html

[david_simonds]

Bill, thanks for the info. It would be cool to see a 60" wide image from the 7800, particularly if made from several tack sharp componants. Let me know if you try the papers. Best, David

[daniel_barrett]

<p>The RIP that lets you have both Photo black and Matte black loaded (avoiding the need to purge inks on the 4800, 4880, 7800, 7880, 9800 or 9880 with no loss of print quality is ColorByte Software's ImagePrint RIP. The option is included in the software--it's called "Phatte Black" printing. Information on the ImagePrint RIP is available at www.colorbytesoftware.com.</p>