Modern Print Technologies for a Digital Workflow

[rishij]

<blockquote>

<p>Please pardon my reference to "poor skills." What I meant to say is that banding is often the result of machine maintainance</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fair enough! The machine maintenance part is where things fall apart. How does one maintain the printer properly? Should I write a script to print all colors once daily? I've often thought of doing that... </p>

[rishij]

<blockquote>

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree this is <em>possible</em>. I'm just saying it's not <em>always</em> the case. Clearly it's possible b/c I do have many prints that are gorgeous & banding-free. I just also happen to have many that are not, & some of these were even printed immediately after a nozzle check that showed completely clean heads, as well as self head alignment or manual alignment.</p>

<p>I do use Epson inks & only Epson paper & the appropriate Epson profiles for that paper & for the mode of printing I'm using (PhotoRPM). I make sure the nozzle check shows absolutely no gaps anywhere. And I'll still sometimes get banding. If someone doesn't believe me I'm confident I could print out a nozzle check, a set of alignment papers indicating which ones I chose, & a print after that showing banding. It's bound to happen sooner or later, in my experience. Less so on my Epson R200, which typically gives me banding-free prints if my nozzle check is perfect.</p>

<p>I guess it's possible that my Epson R2400 gets clogged right after a perfect nozzle check? Maybe picks up dust? I can see why you are incredulous. I myself am incredulous & more so incredibly disappointed when I get a print with banding right after a perfect nozzle check & good head alignment!</p>

<p>Perhaps it's worth pointing out that sometimes I have to go thru many sheets of paper to get the head alignment right. That is, I have to keep re-doing the alignment b/c none of the squares from which you have to pick are completely without a line... could this indicate a problem with my printer in general?</p>

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

[rishij]

<p>And... sorry John, I edited my post to be a bit less sardonic after your clarification :)<br>

-Rishi</p>

[anthony_murray]

<p>Rishi,<br>

With regard to Costco and COLOR prints. I have had a lot of success dealing with my local Costco for color prints. I’m not a pro, and mainly print 8x10, but have printed a couple of 20x30 there. Believe it or not, I think they do a great job “as is” with no profiles – this means sending them a file adjusted on a calibrated monitor with an embedded sRGB (yes sRGB, not aRGB) profile and letting their drivers handle the color correction. YMMV from site to site, bit mine consistently does a great job using this work flow.</p>

<p>I have also used their Dry Creek profiles (following the instructions downloaded from the Dry Creek website) and these work great too. The colors were marginally better than the above flow (looked a bit more vibrant), but since I’m not selling prints, I tend to stay with the easier “auto sRGB” flow.</p>

<p>For B/W printing (usually scanned Tri X film), I’ve found you must use the Dry Creek profiles for consistent results. I’ve had prints back with an ugly green or magenta cast using the “auto sRGB” method above. I once did a comparison between Costco and Mpix for 8x10 prints taken at a friend’s wedding (scanned TMAX 400 film). 8x10 size is printed on a Noritsu at Costco.</p>

<p>Costco: In general, I was very happy with the prints using the Dry Creek profiles. The file was soft proofed on a calibrated monitor. I requested a glossy 8x10. I was very happy with the tonal range. Next time around I will soft proof without “Simulate Paper Color”, as this made me overdo the contrast curve a bit.</p>

<p>MPix: Requested an 8x10 on their “real B/W” paper. Very happy with the tonal range, but I also noticed the print was not as sharp as the Costco version. They also don’t provide profiles (not even sure if their process uses them) and I allowed them to “perform corrections.” This may have been a mistake on my part, but I don’t really know how the Mpix process works and will probably try them again with no corrections the next time. If they don’t provide profiles, I don’t understand how they guarantee what you get on the print is what you see on your monitor. Can anyone enlighten me? To be honest, I preferred the Costco print and you can’t beat an 8x10 for $1.49, especially when this includes profiles with a choice of luster or glossy finish and you can pick up locally without shipping costs. However, if you are selling prints or archiving them for a long time, this may not be the best choice.</p>

 

[garrison_k.]

<p>Right, Andrew, I was thinking of something else for a second here and remember way back when Mac got 16 bit drivers. I also remember that no one can tell the difference. <g></p>

[rishij]

<p>Garrison -- when you print 24x36 at Costco, do they use the DryCreek (or Epson, for that matter) profiles? The local Costco's I phoned said they don't use any profiles in the Print & Copy center...</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Rishi - your use patterns may dictate an outside lab. But if you print enough, give some serious consideration to the latest Epson printers. Their new head coatings seem to work very well at preventing clogs. As for the midtone banding you mention it may not be due to clogs. I used to see it on some R800 prints despite clean nozzle checks both before and after. But there's not a hint of it in my 3880 prints. No banding, no dithering, no pizza wheel tracks, nothing but beautiful prints.</p>

<p>I also think the later generation print technology (Ultrachrome K3 with vivid magenta; AccuPhoto HD2) takes IQ one step above non-Epson lab prints. I've got some images that never printed right either on earlier Epsons or at labs. Prints would come out with muddy shadows, or certain tones would be off despite a color managed work flow. My 3880 handles these prints with ease.</p>

<p>My only remaining complaint regarding ink jet printing is that sometimes dust will be on the paper and after printing it will flake off, leaving a small speck. It's not often, but it happens.</p>

<p>I don't think I would be happy with regular lab printing now that I've become used to the paper choices and quality offered by the 3880.</p>

[acedigital]

<p>Wow, quite the discussion, thanks for all the printer information. I will agree will Jeff, Rishi for someone who only prints here and there, OUTSOURCE it baby! I have been more than pleased (and I mention it monthly here...:) with the large (16x20/20x30) EPSON prints from my COSTCO here in CT. For all your thousands of dollars on printers and inks, you could have had more sleep and peace of mind. I have an EPSON R1800 that I use sparingly. Just use the ICC profiles from the Costco web site, it will navigate you to the page for your local store and appropriate printers.</p>

[nsibulo]

I send big printing job to nations photos lab or pepco. You can give instructions to what specifications you

want such as; they will do color adjustments, metallic ,lustre and very affordable prices on larger prints.

[digitaldog]

 

<blockquote>

<p>I also remember that no one can tell the difference. <g></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>No so. No one would imply everyone who’s tried it. Its very subtle in rare cases but saying no one would be incorrect. </p>

[digitaldog]

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=42675.0</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Where 16 bit printing CAN help is when you apply long gentle gradations (like the Gradient Filter) on otherwise very smooth tones or colors. Also if you are outputting vector graphics from Illustrator or InDesign you can see a benefit to going the output in 16 bits.</p>

</blockquote>

[garrison_k.]

<p>Interesting. Thanks. I'm looking into this a bit more. Google tells me that the last Epson driver I loaded was 16 bit. I'll perhaps dust off the Epson and see if I can print a 16-bit tif.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>Garrison -- when you print 24x36 at Costco, do they use the DryCreek (or Epson, for that matter) profiles? The local Costco's I phoned said they don't use any profiles in the Print & Copy center...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rishi, I'm not sure about the Drycreek profile for the epson. I've never loaded it for that machine. My costco says the same; that they don't upload updated profiles often so it'd be useless effort. With that said, I just ask for "no corrections, no adjustments, auto-everything off" and they come back bang-on or so darn close, I don't worry about it. If I do care, I print a smaller one out here on my epson and take it in.</p>

 

[john_doe118]

As to the original question regarding the technologies, the LASER printing systems these manufacturers are using are not the same as a "LASER printer" or "photo copier". These LASER printing systems print to photographic paper by means of actually exposing the paper with a LASER then processing that paper in traditional chemicals. "Photo copiers" use a light sensitive drum with toners. Two completely different technologies.

 

As for the "digital paper", this is a title given to the paper by the paper manufacturer, not the printer manufacturer. Usually the title refers to changing the gamuts of the paper to allow for the broader range of digital printing. (However sometimes it's more marketing than anything.) As such "digital paper" could be photographic or ink jet or dyesub.

 

Sharpness is subjective. Most commercial printers will have the image softened slightly. This is due to the fact that true film images are softer and digital images can start to look "pixelated". The general public likes the softer images (it's what they are used to). If your wanting more sharpness out of a printer the operator should be able to help you out.

 

In the end, for the best quality prints, it's always in the hands of the operator of the printer. A skilled operator can give good results, whereas a poor operator will give sub par results even on good printers.

[rishij]

<p>Interesting re: the 16-bit printing. I've never actually sent 16-bit data to my Epson R2400 or R200, but see that I can in LR and/or PS print dialogs on my Mac. Thus far, though, I've never had an image that I absolutely <strong>can't</strong> print without banding... might take a few tries and head cleanings but I always end up getting at least one print without any banding for every photo I've printed. But I've mostly been printing film scans which contain film grain noise in fine sky gradients... perhaps that helps.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for all the clarifications in this thread. They've been extremely helpful! It'd seem that my choices for large high-quality landscape prints are between:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Lambda/Lightjet - high quality prints on photographic paper</li>

<li>Theta/Chromira - same as above but uses LED as light source instead of laser</li>

<li>Epson inkjets - high quality versions of the prints I'm already getting</li>

<li>Noritsu -- similar to Lightjet, perhaps a bit lower quality, smaller print sizes</li>

</ul>

<p>I think that about sums it up?</p>

<p>I have to say that Costco's limited print sizes is stupid when they have an Epson that'll print any size. 16x20 or 20x30 are not the same aspect ratio. But I guess if I want a 16x24 I could just print a 20x30 with 2" & 3" white borders :) </p>

<p>I agree DLT & Mark about outsourcing my prints... which is why I started this thread! If the newer Epsons really are better than my R2400 in terms of clogging/banding issues, I'd be happy to give them a try. But given that the 9900 at the lab at school (School of Art, Univ. of Washington) keeps banding but then gives me a clean print after yet another head cleaning, I'm beginning to think that owning an Epson really is for someone who prints much more often than I do. Or someone much richer than I.</p>

<p>-Rishi</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>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.</em></p>

<p>Wilhelm Researchs rates Kodak Ektagraphic dye-sub prints at 22 years, which is comparable to conventional "silver" color prints. While not as durable as Fuji Crystal Archive or Epson pigmented injet prints (some papers), it is not exactly embarassing either. In some situations, waiting 8 or more minutes for an 8x10" print might prove embarassing next to a dye-sub print available in 45 seconds.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>Rishi, for the Epsons see if you can get a hold of the Epson adjustment utility their techs use to service printers. I got this for my R1800 and used it to fix banding issues. It's way more powerful than the ordinary alignment tool (but can make things worse if you use it sloppily.)</p>

<p>For longevity, look at Aardenburg research. They're not funded by manufacturers and as a result test a wider variety of printers and papers. http://aardenburg-imaging.com/acceleratedagingtests.html</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Interesting re: the 16-bit printing. I've never actually sent 16-bit data to my Epson R2400 or R200, but see that I can in LR and/or PS print dialogs on my Mac.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The actual Epson driver has to have a check box for 16-bit. I don’t think either model has this. The 2880 on up does, Mac only. So does my Canon iPF6300 using an export module. </p>

[rishij]

<p>Yes, also Dye-Sub, thanks for reminding me <strong>Edward</strong>.</p>

<p><strong>Roger</strong>, very interesting. I'd love to give that a try. Any way you could e-mail that to me? I'll send you a personal e-mail to your old address (still valid?). Apologies for falling out of e-mail exchange re: the scanning guide. You can probably see I fell of the photo.net/film scanning scene for some time to focus on actually shooting & my Ph.D!</p>

<p><strong>Andrew</strong>, thanks for that tip. I won't bother until I upgrade my printer then!</p>

<p>For those interested, I determined that MPix uses:</p>

<ul>

<li>Noritsu: smaller print sizes</li>

<li>Durst Theta: larger print sizes</li>

</ul>

<p>It would actually help if someone compiled a list of services & the printers they offer/use. Does anyone maintain anything like this? Maybe it's not worth it if print houses keep changing their hardware and/or if the print quality is variable due to operator procedure regardless of what hardware they have... still, it'd narrow down my list of print houses to try!</p>

<p>Rishi</p>

[lad_lueck]

<p>Epson banding: I wonder if your months-long disuse is allowing the pigments to settle out of suspension.. You might try taking the carts out and thoroughly shaking them, just like an initial install.<br>

I see no banding in my R1800 prints (that I might do 2-3 times a year).</p>

[rishij]

<p>Interesting, Lad. I will give that a try! The guy at Costco said that for their Epson 7880, they had a technician out from Epson show them how to do thorough manual cleanings of some of the internal components. So there's more to it than just cleaning via flushing hundreds of $$ worth of ink through the head! He was suggesting I try to talk to an Epson technician. I'll give that a shot though I honestly don't even know where to start.</p>

<p>FWIW, my latest Costco prints have no banding on them, even in smooth midtone skies. But one print came out perfect while the other came out desaturated even though I sent both pictures converted to the printer profile, discarded the embedded profile, and asked for 'AutoCorrect' off (this was Dry Creek's recommendation). Go figure.</p>

<p>Rishi</p>