scott_fleming1 Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 I don't even have a true photoprinter yet but I had high hopes of getting one some day. The general buz is that the Epson 2200 with it's archibal inks had opened a whole new world of possibilities. Yes there were problems but with the right paper they were surmounted .... supposedly. And if one can dream one can dream of the Epson 7600 or the 9600. Before I went out and spent a lot of money however I thought I had better do some research. Where better to find out about printing than the same place I found out about LF photography? The web. Well in looking around I ran across this thread on robgalbraith.com and WOW. Frightening. One of the contributors to this thread is tremendously knowledgable about printing and ink. His handle is epicurean. If this is a subject that interests you I cannot urge you enough to read this quite long thread. http://www.robgalbraith.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=19&t=000025 Many photographers have hung their reputations on a process that may be about to ruin their lives it seems. Vertical Integration (the practice of doing all the steps in a manufacturing process within one's own company ) might just be a mistake when that process includes several highly complex technologically dependant steps. After all, none of us have thought about making our own film lately have we? I have the idea of selling prints one day. An inket printer like the Epson 7600 or 9600 holds out the alure of being able to actually make those prints and put that much more money in my pocket. Or does it? Your thoughts? Scott Fleming ~~~ River Run Ranch ~~~ Texas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 If you expect to become R&F (rich and famous) for your photographs, you'd better learn to print on photographic paper, at least for the time being. Who knows what will happen in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_fleming1 Posted February 2, 2003 Author Share Posted February 2, 2003 Bill. Rich and famous. That's a good one. I think one has to start a little earlier than I did to have a shot at the big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_ratzlaff Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 There are quite a few photographers selling prints made by the 7600, 9600 and 2200 for that matter. I have more than one print that has been stored in the dark, and it has faded too. These were photographic prints about 30 years old. Everything fades when it is exposed to the light. I have some prints made by a photoEX printer, on polaroid film that have lasted 5 years or more framed and on display. considering this ink is supposed to fade after a few months, this is not too bad. This is not archival ink, I am hoping that the new printers ink will last considerably longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domenico_foschi Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Yes, the Epson 2000p had opened a new frontier in Digital photography , yeah right! The quality is not indecent (nor is great ) , the real problem is the effect called metamerism , that you can experience even with lesser models . In a few words , you calibrate the tones and color in the computer for a correct output , only to find out that if you view the print under different light sources , the hues will shift from magenta to green and viceversa . True photographic quality they call it . AND , have you seen the prices for those Epson cartridges? Plus , the toxicity ( depleted uraniium? ) .How can something toxic be archival? That's a laugh ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_kroeger Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 While the 2000p did have problems with metamerism, the 2200, 7600 and 9600 Ultrachrome pigments are much much better. With estimate life of >50 years, lifespan is probably not a problem for you. Unles you become wildly famous, people will buy your images to display, not collect. If you maintain the digital versions, recopying CD/DVD media as necessary (they don't last forever either!) you could always offer your customers a half price reprint in 35 years. Who knows what we'll be printing on then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 <I>An inket printer like the Epson 7600 or 9600 holds out the alure of being able to actually make those prints and put that much more money in my pocket</i><P>Certainly the case for color, and I disagree that you need to learn to make 'wet prints' before making ink-jets, especially in the case for, you guessed it....color.<P>I don't trust any dye based ink-jet print on coated paper that isn't embedded in a solid block of acrylic. I do trust the Ultrachrome inks, and coupled with the epson 2200 and 9600 is superior technology over the 2000p.<P>Depleted Uranium? Where can I get some? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsc Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 The 2200/7600/9600 will give you *great* color prints. If you're thinking of B&W, however, you might be in for a bit of disappointment. I've been trying to figure out how to avoid any color tints in my B&W prints on my 2200, and have almost given in to purchasing ImagePrint RIP 5.0. From all reports, it seems as if they've licked the metamerism issue and totally neutralized the B&W prints ... the Holy Grail if it's true. Unfortunately, IP 5.0 is quite the expensive piece of software ($500-2000), so I'm still grappling with the choice of purchasing it, or living in futility printing B&W so-so prints that I would not feel comfortable selling or displaying <sigh> Be sure to be Rich before Famous with the cost of the printer, consumables AND a RIP. Best, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_kroeger Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Scott: David's right, I was assuming you were doing color. B&W is a more challenging issue for dyes and pigments...silver is still wonderful with great archivalness. As for color, both River City Silver and Adtech in San Antonio are running 9600's. RCS is using Fine Art and Somerset papers, Adtech is using Epson Premium Luster. Easy to try before you buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_luke Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 There are inkjet prints and there are inkjet prints. Setting up a digital darkroom and getting the highest quality possible for gallery/ exhibition prints is not a plug and play deal unfortunatly. Expect to do a lot of research along with a learning curve dealing with workflow issues such as scanning, color management, archive management, photoshop techniques, ICC profiling of the devices to insure color accuracy, monitor calibration, and more. At this point in time, there are a lot of variables and a lot of opinions on how to do this. Some work, some don't. There are single source workflows such as using an Epson printer, Epson paper and Epson Ink. Then there are numerous third party vendors for ink and paper. I've been in it for 4 years now and people say WOW when they see my prints. During my first year at it I was saying YUCK! I've tried many ink and paper combinations. There is indeed an art to making great prints just as there is an art to getting great fiber based prints. It takes a while to get good. I currently print on an Epson 1280, and I use a third party ink called Generations 4 that is a pigment ink. The paper I use is Hahnemuhle, an acid free paper from a 400 year old German paper company. I believe that my prints offer as much archivalness that the market can deliver right now. There are no guarantees however. I am listing some links for user groups and third party vendors that deal with the real meat of this along with the Bob Meyer site that deals with the Epson orange fade issue. (I do not believe in a proprietary system that uses all Epson all the way through ) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/archivalcolor/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital-fineart/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/ http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ http://www.inksupply.com/ http://www.mediastreet.com/cgi-bin/tame/mediastreet/index.tam http://www.digitalartsupplies.com/ http://www.digitaldog.net/ http://members.cox.net/rmeyer9/epson/menu_intro.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_c._miller Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 <p>Here's a better link to the discussion: <a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=19&t=000025">Rob Galbraith UBBS, Topic: Inkjet prints fading??</a></p> <p>Personally, I just put an Epson 2200 on order, and I'm really glad that you posted that link. Now I know what paper to buy, and what to use to coat it!</p> <p>As for rich and famous, I figured that I would subvert the whole paradigm by being notorious. Haven't figured out how yet, but something will occur in my demented mind. (I don't <i>think</i> the idea that's percolating is a felony...)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
declan_mccullagh1 Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 I bought an Epson 2200 about six weeks ago and am very happy with it. I've made prints for family for Christmas and have sold some prints as well. I would recommend it. Two points: * I use a laptop (16.1" Sony Vaio LCD) with an external CRT. For flesh tones, I've never been able to get the laptop LCD to match exactly what appears the paper, and this is after calibrating the monitor. The CRT is much closer. Others have reported better results, so perhaps it's just me. * Contrary to what other folks in this thread said, I think the b&w prints are quite good. I have noticed that setting the color space to b&w in Photoshop gives me a very slight greenish tint, but keeping it a color image and desaturating seems to work perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_luke Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Some follow ups to the Rob Galbraith forum posts: With a properly made ICC/ICM profile, a print with pigment ink will look fine. Technically, the pigments do render a slightly smaller gamut than dye ink, but you only really notice it in a side by side comparison. Avoid the Epson 2000p. That inkset for that printer has horrible metamerism (Simplistic explaination-Print takes on an displeasing cast or a color crossover when viewed under lighting other than what it was originally balanced under, such as your 5K booth) Epson papers as a whole are not acid free. (Even though they advertise some of them as being so.) Many Epson papers use artificial brightners that will burn out and make the print look yellow. Epsons paper vendors are not very consistant either. Other forums report people getting very different looking papers depending on who the reseller is, most recent problems were regarding Epson paper from Atlax. The plastic-like Epson papers, whether they are the micro-pourous or RC are very unstable. Premium Glossy Photo Paper is the least stable. Many of the problems that are giving inkjet prints a bad name are from dye ink on the plastic-like papers. Avoid this combination at all cost. RA-4 is not the holy grail either. Who knows how well the lab is running their line. I've seen those turn in a short time also. Generations-4 ink from Media Street is primarily pigment, a small amount of dye is in the black I beleive, but there have been no complaints regarding this inkset. Pigment ink works only on matte finish papers. There are a few pigment inks that will print on plastic-like papers, such as the Epson UltraChromes and Gen-5, but they are hybrids, and hence compromised. Hahnemuhle Paper from Digital Art Supplies (available at other dealers as well) is the best media available. They re-brand it for Lyson, Luminos and others. It has a special inkjet receptor coating on one side. The paper is 100% acid free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_fleming1 Posted February 3, 2003 Author Share Posted February 3, 2003 I can tell some of the posters here think they have this issue wired and don't need to go read the thread I referenced and Brian made into an active link. (thanks Brian) All I can tell you is: You could save yourself a whole lot of grief if you would read that thread. Especially if you plan on selling inkjet prints! Personally I have printed it out and filed it. With the label in red and highlighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_kroeger Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Waring Scott: I did read the thread, and it is a mishmash of people who know what they are talking about and those that don't. More importantly, it is a diffuse discussion of about 4-5 generations of both Epson dye and pigment inks and papers... so it is difficult to extract much real usable information from the thread. There are only three critical pieces of information in the thread that you should consider. The first is that all previous generations of Epson inks, prior to Ultrachrome have longevity problems or, in the case of the 2000p, metamerism problems. The second I know to be true, and that is that Fuji Crystal Archive is the current "gold standard" for color prints. Not archival, but reasonably enduring for display. The third statement that I have not been able to verify, but is critical, it that the newest Ultrachrome inks used in the 2200, 7600 and 9600 contain dyes and pigments. That may be true, but I would like to see documentation. I haven't checked if Wilhelm have yet done accelerated aging tests on this newest generation of inks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_c._miller Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 <p>I just checked <a href="http://www.wilhelmresearch.com/">Wilhelm Imaging Research</a> and it is posted on their page that the Epson 2200 tests are coming up soon, and they should be available by the end of the month.</p> <p><a href="http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg5.htm">Livick's tests on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 188gm</a> indicate that this paper gives the best stability.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_luke Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 If we don't try new technologies, we will get left in the dust. Don't wait till it's proven technology, you'll be close to dead and there will only be something new you will have to wait again for and prove anyway. Use proper research and these discussion groups to separate the "wheat from the chaff". There are inkjet methods just as sound as the Fuji Crystal Archive "Gold Standard", but unfortunately, there are more sub-par methods and materials out there than there are sound methods and materials. Things just advanced too fast and the early Whilhelm data really put many people in a bad position. Inkjet printing is here to stay. Imagine waiting around in 1980 as a college student afraid to make any color prints at all for fear they may fade. Ever make a dye transfer print? What a pain in the rear. It would be hard to justify photo school with only one print to show for it, ( but really, really archival!). Even other comtemporary artists in other disiplines are seeing fading in pieces made 20 years ago. Simply the act of the organic earth on itself consumes artwork. Sunlight, flourescent lighting, ozone, moisture, pollution, you name it. A $20,000 oriental rug will fade if left in a sunlit room too long. Castles in England have their windows all shuttered up so the tapestries don't fade anymore. Italy has all their original statues locked away so they don't deteriorate anymore and most of what you see are duplicates. Seems sort of phony to have all this great art out there that no one can look at. My opinion- let'er rip. Make it, get it out there for all to enjoy, some may last, most will not, but people will always be makin' more. Try not to get hung up on longetivity to the extent that it hampers you from making anything at all. If we waited to make everything perfect, we wouldn't make very much if anything at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_fleming1 Posted February 3, 2003 Author Share Posted February 3, 2003 no message Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger krueger Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 I've never understood why you'd screw around trying to make B & W prints on a color printer--there are decent B & W inksets out there for those of you that have to have your inkjet, and several companies (I use Reed Photo in Denver) have Lightjets running real Ilford B & W paper. Why muck about with an inkjet when you can get a real silver image? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_c._miller Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Scott, you could always do the same thing a lot of companies have done: put a little "how to care for your print" sticker on the back. "Exposure to light will cause this print to fade. For maximum longevity, keep this print in a dark box. Remove it momentarily to look at it, and then put it away promptly. This will ensure its maximum life." (OK, it's facetious, but I'm sure you get my meaning.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dick roadnight cotswolds Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 PermaJet (Warwick UK) will be marketing their pigment inks for the Epson 2100 (=2200 in USA) this summer. For Monochrome specialists, they get round the droplet size problem by using 7 shades of grey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now