Photo Printers

[BubbaOtep]

Can someone point me to the forum for discussions on art quality inkjet printers, please

 

tia

[ed_farmer]

I think that you are here . . .

[Ed_Ingold]

How do you define "Art Quality Inkjet" printing?

 

High quality printing is largely shared between Epson and Canon. These are subdivided between dye-based and pigment-based inksets, with the latter somewhat more archival, and better suited to darker tones. Higher end printers will accept a variety of heavier art papers, in larger sizes. While there are several excellent printers with 13" carriages, "art" printing seems to start at 17", which will produce prints up to 16x20" (or 24") in size. RIP (raster imaging processing) software (e.g., ImagePrint) is fully implemented only with 17" and larger printers.

 

My current "art" printer is a Canon Pixma Pro-10, dye-based, with 10 divided ink tones (including gloss black and a clear final layer). At 55 lbs and 24" wide, it needs its own print stand for full access to the front and rear trays.

[Wayne Melia]

Printers and Printing Forum: Digital Photography Review

Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks

[JDMvW]

As an aside,

 

Inkjet printing is only "art quality" when it is titled giclée

;)

[paddler4]

Ed's post is the place to start.

 

Any dedicated photo printer by Canon or Epson (not multifunction printers) can produce superb prints. Many galleries will only accept them if they are printed with pigment inks on museum grade papers). However, if you aren't going to submit to galleries, this won't matter. The difference in print quality you will see if comparing Canon's cheapest dye-based printer (the Pixma Pro 100) and my expensive Canon Prograf 1000 is very small. I know because I have printed with both side by side. I would bet good money that if shown just one print, not the pair, virtually no one would be able to say which was printed on which.

 

I've rarely heard anyone use the term giclee.

 

So, if you don't need archival inks, I suggest you consider a Pixma Pro 100. If you wait for the periodic sales, you can pick one up very cheaply. In my experience, if hung behind UV glass and not exposed to direct sunlight, prints from that printer are good for 10-12 years or more. I don't know anything about the Epson model or models that compete with the Pro-100.

 

BTW, if you want to go with Canon, as I have, there are a few other details. The Pro-100 and Pro-10 print only to 13 x 19. The next step up, the Prograf 1000, prints to 17 x 22 but is a lot more expensive. Of the three, only the Pro-100 uses dye-based inks. The Pro-10, which is intermediate in price, uses pigment inks. See https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/pixma-pro-10.

 

The only reviews I have read carefully over the past few years were for the Prograf 1000 and the nearest Epson competitor, which I think was the P800. My conclusion is that the quality of the prints is very similar. The Epson will print from rolls of paper, which the Canon can not. Epson users have reported problems with feeding sheets of fine art paper, which I have never experienced with the Canon.

[BubbaOtep]

Printers and Printing Forum: Digital Photography Review

Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks

Thank you

[BubbaOtep]

How do you define "Art Quality Inkjet" printing?

 

High quality printing is largely shared between Epson and Canon. These are subdivided between dye-based and pigment-based inksets, with the latter somewhat more archival, and better suited to darker tones. Higher end printers will accept a variety of heavier art papers, in larger sizes. While there are several excellent printers with 13" carriages, "art" printing seems to start at 17", which will produce prints up to 16x20" (or 24") in size. RIP (raster imaging processing) software (e.g., ImagePrint) is fully implemented only with 17" and larger printers.

 

My current "art" printer is a Canon Pixma Pro-10, dye-based, with 10 divided ink tones (including gloss black and a clear final layer). At 55 lbs and 24" wide, it needs its own print stand for full access to the front and rear trays.

 

 

Art, as in, comparable to archival silver gelatin prints. No fading. Waterproof. Color fast. High accuracy and resolution. Will last longer than me.

 

I do want larger than 24” but I have no idea how to dry mount past that size. That’s about as large as my dry mount press can handle.

 

I don’t know what RIP is. Why can’t I just print from Photoshop?

 

If I am primarily going to be printing in black and white, is there a particular printer for that?

[Ed_Ingold]

RIP = Raster Image Processor. Specialized software for high quality printing, replacing the print driver and drawing from a vast library of print profiles.

 

I take my prints to a local franchise, "The Great FrameUp", which has a large vacuum press for dry mounting. No wrinkles, no bubbles, no lifting edges. I prefer to use archival foam core matting board. It's double-surfaced and stays flat.

[Ed_Ingold]

I print from Photoshop when I need more control than available in Lightroom. I tried the "home version" of ImagePrint, but saw no obvious advantages. Only the advanced version comes with print profiles, for 3x (or more) the price. If you use a Mac computer, be sure to download and install the manufacturer's print driver, rather than rely on the Apple universal default, or use ImagePrint.

 

Some people use proprietary ink sets for B&W printing, which voids your warranty. I'm satisfied with results I get with the manufacturer's inks. Rather than pure blacks and greys, printing B&W in color is warmer and more flexible.

 

Making prints is expensive, in terms of ink, paper and time. Making large prints costs proportionately more. Large format printers have larger ink cartridges, expensive, but much less per ml than desktop printers. To minimize the cost, it is important to calibrate your monitor and make (or buy) profiles for your printer/paper combination. Trial and error is not a good solution. You also need a reliable light source to evaluate your results. Light booths can cost thousands. I have a Fiilex desk lamp ($200) for my meager needs.

[Sanford]

Reading the above post reminds of the who frustrating & expensive experience I went through trying to make my own prints. Don't forget the mat cutter.

[paddler4]

Art, as in, comparable to archival silver gelatin prints. No fading. Waterproof. Color fast. High accuracy and resolution. Will last longer than me

 

I don't know about waterproof, but a good pigment-based printer can do the rest. If you want something that looks like silver gelatin prints, a baryta paper might be your best bet, such as Canson Baryta Photographique, which is my most commonly used paper.

 

I do want larger than 24”

 

That's a big issue. Large printers are expensive. For example, in the Canon Prograf line, you can get up to 17 x 22 for about $1300, but anything more than 24" will cost you around $3,000 or more.

 

If I am primarily going to be printing in black and white, is there a particular printer for that?

 

Perhaps, but I don't know of any. In theory, it would be a lot cheaper--simpler machinery, and a lot less ink. Perhaps someone else here has a recommendation.

 

Re costs: with one caveat, printing isn't all that expensive. With my Prograf 1000, a 16 x 24 print costs about $3.50 in ink. See Cost of Inkjet Printing Report Canon PRO-1. A sheet of the Canson paper in that size, which is a very high-end paper, is about $4.00. However, the caveat is that printers waste a good bit of ink during routine head-cleaning, and the ink is expensive. I don't know the capacity of the waste ink tank on my printer, so I can't estimate the waste well, but I suspect it adds at least 10% to the total ink cost of printing.

 

Re what software to print from: I have used only Lightroom and Photoshop for printing. I tried Photoshop, which is much more cumbersome, because people kept telling me that it is much better for uprezzing and output sharpening. I finally did some tests myself and didn't find any appreciable difference, so I use Lightroom. It's a quite straightforward printing interface.

 

If size doesn't make this all moot: there is a lot to learn when you first start printing yourself, but after you get the hang of it, it is fairly quick and simple.

 

Many commercial labs uses processes that are less durable than pigment ink jets, so if you go that route, be sure to check which processes they use.

[John Di Leo]

A bit OT:

Monitor calibration. I am on an iMAC 27" 5K 2017 running 10.14. The MAC has a monitor calibration in the "System preferences" folder. Is that sufficient to achieve WYSIWYG in the print? Or, must a separate calibration tool be used like a ColorMunki or Spyder?

I saw a JToolman video that said the "$500" model must be used to calibrate the monitor and to put the monitor and the printer on the same page, that the cheaper models ($129-149) are not sufficient for that task. Maybe I heard him wrong?

Do you use a separate monitor calibration tool? which one?

With the cost of this endeavor it would seem that, as pointed out above, Trial and error can be pretty expensive.

[Ed_Ingold]

The Mac calibration is based on visual comparison, without any reference standard. You need a physical measuring device and software to produce a useful monitor profile. I have an X-Rite Color Munki, which is a filter photometer with good sensitivity for calibrating emissive devices like monitors and projectors. You need a reflective spectrophotometer, like an X-Rite i1 Studio, to measure and profile printers. This device can also profile monitors (emissive mode), though not as well as the photometric version.

 

Spyder devices do the same job, but IMO X-Rite software is superior.

[conrad_hoffman]

When all is said and done, it's a remarkably expensive way to make big monochrome prints that look like silver gelatin prints, compared to just getting an enlarger and making actual big silver gelatin prints! OTOH, for smaller sizes within their limits the Canon printers do an excellent job for a reasonable price.

[Ed_Ingold]

When all is said and done, it's a remarkably expensive way to make big monochrome prints that look like silver gelatin prints, compared to just getting an enlarger and making actual big silver gelatin prints! OTOH, for smaller sizes within their limits the Canon printers do an excellent job for a reasonable price.

Have you ever made a 16x20" print in a darkroom? I have, and it's a lot harder than using a 17" or 24" inkjet printer, and I had the use of a well-equipped darkroom.

 

For starters, I had to turn the enlarger around on its stand, and project the negative on the floor. For processing, I used 11x14" trays on the diagonal, looping the paper by hand to keep it wet, under a wooden dowel to hold it down in the tray. We had a large Paco drum dryer, which was just wide enough to run the paper lengthwise. In a pinch, you could use a resin-base paper, hanging from clips on a shower rod, with weighted clips on the bottom.

 

For 24x30" wet print, hire the job out!

 

On the other hand, a Canon Pro-Graf 24" photo-quality printer costs about $2400, and works with the lights on.

[ed_farmer]

Well . . . that's not really a fair comparison . . . Making a large print in a darkroom not at all set up for the purpose v. making an inkjet print?

 

I have made 16x20 and 20x24 inch prints in a wet darkroom. Using the right enlarger/lens combo and the right size trays, it's not that much harder than making 8x10s and I didn't have to deal with the large trays unless I was making large prints.

 

Sure, making prints on a 24" inkjet printer is easy but maintaining and paying for that printer are not so simple. There's a minimum amount of printing that you need to do to keep the system running. Otherwise, maintenance will eat up any savings over the use of a service.

[conrad_hoffman]

Yes, I've done 16x20s, but with 16x20 trays and space to do it. My point is by the time you get the large format printer, ink and supporting computer and calibration "stuff", you've spent some serious money. I bet I could set up the darkroom for less. OTOH, I've no desire to handle wet 24x30 paper. Job that one out!

[John Di Leo]

X-Rite Color Munki, which is a filter photometer with good sensitivity for calibrating emissive devices like monitors and projectors. You need a reflective spectrophotometer, like an X-Rite i1 Studio, to measure and profile printers.

Thanks for the response, Ed/

Sorry for a noob question...so, when it is said "if you're going to print your monitor must be calibrated" would this model be sufficient for that? Thanks

[Ed_Ingold]

My local Walgreens has a 24" Epson. If I give them a well-corrected image, they make a credible print, on cardboard if I prefer, for about $25.

 

I've gone through several Epson 13" printers, suffering many clogs and wasted ink clearing them, eventually to no avail. After a long hiatus, I bought a Canon Pro-10 (pigment based) printer three years ago. It has been virtually maintenance free, other than replacing ink cartridges. Unlike Epson, the print head is user-replaceable at a reasonable cost, as well as the waste ink reservoir. The cartridges hold 11 ml of ink, at a cost per ml about 1/3rd that of an Epson 2200. The Canon undergoes a periodic cleaning cycle when powered up and idle. That uses good ink, but keeps the printer ready to go.

 

For printing, both the monitor and printer must be calibrated. That is, you need a profile for each. A print profile is specific for a certain make and model of printer and paper. The options listed in the print driver are not profiles, They accommodate broad paper types according to surface type, thickness, transport speed and ink density. Print profiles adjust the colors sent to the printer based on measured results. A monitor does the same thing, but so the monitor displays the colors embedded in the file correctly. The common point is the image file itself, which should conform to the color space assigned to it.

 

Many paper manufactures provide profiles for use with popular printers, free for downloading. You can also purchase professionally derived profiles. These profiles are based on hundreds (or thousands) of color patches, measured robotically. The manual process uses (typically) printouts of 64 color patches, sometimes in two passes for fine control. I like to think any profile, prepared carefully, is better than nothing. Others might disagree.

 

I have both of these devices, plus a 20 year old i1 Pro which is no longer supported by X-Rite (nee Gretag-MacBeth).

X-Rite i1Studio Spectrophotometer

X-Rite i1Display Pro

[Ed_Ingold]

I bet I could set up the darkroom for less. OTOH, I've no desire to handle wet 24x30 paper. Job that one out!

A thermostatic water control alone costs more than a 17" printer, and that doesn't include plumbing, counters, electrical, hardware and building permits. There may be EPA restrictions on disposal of photographic chemicals. I quit long before contact dermatitis took hold in my fingers, hopefully anyway.

 

Then there are practical considerations. A grain-sharp print of any size, corner to corner, is unobtainable with affordable enlargers (weighing under 1000 pounds and occupying the corner of a studio). Grain (ie pixel) sharp prints are routine in digital printing. Modern pigment based inks are archival, good for up to 200 years per accelerated testing procedures. I have a B&W (CMYK) inkjet print facing a southern window for over 20 years, with no signs of fading or color shifts. Good luck with wet prints not treated with fixer-killer in that time frame.

[John Di Leo]

So, printer calibration is achieved by icc profiles specific for a particular printer/paper combination as well as custom profiles provided by the paper manufacturer if you send in a sample. Correct?

 

And that custom process or using supplied icc profiles STILL REQUIRE the monitor to have been calibrated for satisfactory results. Correct?

 

So, your spectrometer allows you to set your own custom icc profile, bypassing the need to involve the paper manufacturer in a custom icc, Correct?

 

The device listed above ($50 discount for only the rest of the day) would perform only the part of the calculus above involving calibrating the monitor...and then it's on the the "next step" of the proper icc profile...do I have that right?

TIA

[paddler4]

John,

 

You're on the right track, but I think this would be clearer if you separated dealing with the monitor from dealing with the printer.

 

The purpose of an X-Rite or Spyder device is to calibrate the monitor so that it displays the colors in the file accurately. This has nothing directly to do with the printer, except that if you are perceiving colors incorrectly, you won't get prints to match.

 

The printer does not need to be calibrated in the same sense. When you calibrate a monitor, you change how it displays every file sent to it. You don't make a global adjustment of that sort to the printer. However, you need to do a few things to make it produce colors accurately:

 

1. Use the ICC profile that is appropriate for the combination of the paper you are using and the specific printer. As noted above, paper manufacturers offer these free.

2. Select the appropriate medium, e.g., photo luster paper, etc. This is done in the print driver dialog box

3. If printing in color, give control over color to the software, not to the printer.

 

The last of these depends on the software you are using to print, the OS, and the brand of printer. I use a Canon printer under windows, and I print from Lightroom. With that combination, there are two necessary steps:

 

1. In the print module, tell Lightroom to take control of color. By default, it gives control to the printer, but a drop-down list allows you to select the appropriate ICC profile for the software to use.

2. In the Canon print driver dialog, set "color matching" to "none." If you don't do this, the printer will also try to control color, and the colors will end up inaccurate.

 

Re creating your own ICC profile: I have always found the ones provided by the paper manufacturers to be fine.

 

Dan

[Ed_Ingold]

A clear exposition of the principles of color editing and printing can be found in "Photoshop for Photographers" by Martin Evening. I especially like Evening's graphical representation showing how profiles fit into the data stream. You can create or use profiles for many devices, including monitors, printers, scanners and cameras. Since the core values are represented in the image file, profiles act independently of each other, with caveats. If you make adjustments based on what you see on the monitor, they will be distorted in fact if the monitor is not properly profiled.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-Photographers-2018/dp/1138086762/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2K7UYG3I2551O&keywords=photoshop+martin+evening&qid=1577804849&sprefix=photoshop+by+martin+e%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1

 

This book is updated periodically as new versions of Photoshop are released. Older editions are generally available for previous versions as well.

[conrad_hoffman]

A thermostatic water control alone costs more than a 17" printer, and that doesn't include plumbing, counters, electrical, hardware and building permits. There may be EPA restrictions on disposal of photographic chemicals. I quit long before contact dermatitis took hold in my fingers, hopefully anyway.

 

Then there are practical considerations. A grain-sharp print of any size, corner to corner, is unobtainable with affordable enlargers (weighing under 1000 pounds and occupying the corner of a studio). Grain (ie pixel) sharp prints are routine in digital printing. Modern pigment based inks are archival, good for up to 200 years per accelerated testing procedures. I have a B&W (CMYK) inkjet print facing a southern window for over 20 years, with no signs of fading or color shifts. Good luck with wet prints not treated with fixer-killer in that time frame.

 

Most of that is if you want to set up a large or commercial operation and the temp control is a bit of a red herring unless your wife flushes the toilet a lot while you're printing. Most of my printing was done well over 30 years ago and there's been almost no fading. Black and white only, as that's what the OP is talking about. What you really hit on is that digital quality surpassed film quality some time ago, save for (maybe) large format. My hit rate in terms of focus and just being able to get the shot is vastly better than when I was shooting film, and my print quality is better just because of modern software, even though I was pretty good with a dodging tool. Everything depends on your priorities. Is it money and doing it on a shoestring? Is it absolute maximum technical quality in terms of pixel level sharpness? Is it the look and feel of an actual silver gelatin print? Is it the enjoyment (or disgust) with the wet process? Is it the enjoyment (or disgust) with sitting at the computer? Fact is, I enjoy all of it!