peter_glass1

John...good point.

Howard...this is the type of info I'm looking for. So, glossy paper is a possibility?

Thinking about replacing my 2200 with the 2400. I've been using the 2200 for

almost three years now and I dedicated it as my B/W printer using MIS UT7 inks

and QTR RIP. I print color with an R1800 and am quite pleased with it. I

generally like the results with the 2200, and I particularly like the ability

to adjust tones through the RIP. But I keep reading about the superiority of

the 2400 in producing black and whites. I searched the archives and I came

across a lot of threads dating back to when the 2400 first came out, and a lot

of theoretical stuff from non owners of the two machines. Now that the 2400

has been around for quite a while, maybe some fresh answers to old questions

might be helpful.

 

How does the 2400 perform on b/w on glossy papers? If it is limited to matte

papers, am I just better off keeping the 2200? How does it do with color

glossy prints? My printing is about 50% monochrome/50% color. Thanks in

advance.

I like Sheldon's crop, but he's also made the image brighter and a little more saturated.

I echo Paul's response, on all points. The R1800 is wonderful with glossy COLOR prints (I own one). Why proof on matte paper?

 

I also wonder how much B/W printing you will do to warrant the 2400 which excells in b/w and color matte printing? I don't own the 2400, and I wonder how it does on glossy paper with color? Everything I've read is the 2400 works with matte paper. What about the new Canon and HP printers with pigment inks? Have you investigated them? Maybe the best of both possible worlds. For me, I use the R1800 for color glossy, and a 2200 with MIS inks as a dedicated b/w printer.

I realize I didn't answer your last questions. I've tried a lot of different software with my Epson 4870, but the one I keep going back to is the Epson software that came with it. It's easy to use and produces nice results. If your prints are clean and dust free (use a soft brush and canned air to clean), you shouldn't need digital ice. You can use Photoshop Elements to clean up any imperfections (cracks in the emulsion, fading, etc.).

Heh, Chris...the Epson flatbeds you mention will be fine for what you are trying to do, as long as the resulting prints aren't significantly larger than the originals. Take at a look at the 4870 too. Some good prices on these now.

For what you're trying to achieve, there's no question. Get the Epson 4870. Not great, but more than adequate for medium format, particulary from a Holga.

Actually, this is an excellent idea. This was practised years ago. The name of the studio/photographer was imposed directly on the image. (How did they do that?) In historically significant photographs, the value is enhanced because of the authentic "signature" documenting its source.

 

I would think a small signature in silver in the corner of the print, something that is indiscrete, would be appropriate. In this age of digital, where prints are not always dry mounted to mount board, where would a signature appear? Not to long ago everyone signed the mount board (I know I did). Why? Did the photographer create the mount board? Hummm?

They will screw it up, probably. Ask about the files, but don't assume they will follow up. In my commercial days, I would say about 50% of the time the art directors screwed up everything. Once you release the images, only god knows what will happen. What happens after the images are published? What can you say when a corporate brochure prints everything backwards, when all the lettering is reversed? What recourse do you have? When you deal with corporate accounts, you are dealing with idiots, so keep that in mind.

Just get a Canon A620 and be done with your decision. From what you describe, it would be stupid to do anything else.

Lex said: "Any of those should be intuitive for your wife to grasp fairly quickly."

 

Are you kidding us?

Spend more on a dedicated film scanner.

 

Take a hard look at your 1000s of negatives. Are they really that good?

This is a sound strategy, Peter. The R1800 does a great job on glossy, as you point out. The more I think about it, it would be pretty dumb to get rid of it. Maybe I will leave things as they are.

Thanks for the info. Helen: I'm not familiar with Cone K7 inks. I'll google tonight.

The situation: I have two Epson printers. I use a 2200 with MIS inks

exclusively for black and white (about 80% of my printing). I also use an

R1800 for color printing. I'm very happy with the R1800; it is relatively

quiet, fast, and has great color rendition on a variety of papers.

 

I'm only fairly satisfied with the 2200. The MIS inks work much better for

B/W than the Epson inks, but I keep reading rave reviews of the black and

whites produced by the Epson 2400.

 

So, my question is: Should I sell my two printers and get down to one

effective printer? It certainly would save valuable office space, I would

only have to keep one set of inks in inventory, I wouldn't be concerned about

inactivity and needing cleaning. It would make life simpler.

 

Other information: I print on Moab papers. I have occassional small exhibits

and also compete withn 13x19s in a camera club. The R1800 is only about 6

months old and has relatively little paper through it, so it is in premium

condition and I could get decent money for it on Ebay. The 2200 is in good

shape also (about 3 years old).

 

Basically, is the quality of the 2400 so good that I can sell these units?

Anyone done anything similar?

Edward said: "The reason I quit digital and moved back to film is that I was never satisfied with the color and look of the files."

 

I thought you said it had to do with style and time efficiency. I guess this qualifies as a stylistic qualifier.

Buy an Epson flatbed for the 4x5s. My 4870 does the job well. I get beautiful 13x19s out of it. Printing on Moab paper on Epson 2200.

Buy an inexpensive Minolta Dual Scan IV for the occasional 35mm scan. It is adequate and can deliver 11x14s if the original is high quality and scanning is done well.

You've spent less than $600 (much less if used)here and have everything you need. Your wife will just have to get over it.

Edward said: "I have studied the matter thouroughly and decided that film suits more my shooting style and time restrictions. This is a personal choice not based on resolution charts but on practical reasons."

 

I'm trying to wrap my arms around how purchasing and shooting film, having it developed, scanned, photoshopped, etc is more time efficient than just shooting digitally. Shooting style? Edward takes different photographs when using film?

Mike Ferris makes a good point. The 1.5 crop factor for a 180 is significant. He may be exaggerating about being on a 8' chair, though. You need to see subjects through the lens to determine if it is suitable. A 100 sigma macro is equivalent to 150 (w/crop factor), and I think this would be ideal. It's not too far, and close enough for you to get intimate with the subject. You also have to consider magnification ratio. Are both lense 1/2 life size? Will you extension tubes for 1:1?

Ditto, at least for the Entrada paper, in my experience. I've found the results are virtually identical between the Epson matte paper and Entrada when using the Enhanced Matte setting.

Uli,

I own a Canon i9900, and to the best of my knowledge (limited), there is no provision for black only (BO) printing. "Grayscale" printing is the only way (I think) to produce a B&W. That said, the Canon grayscale setting produces pretty good tonal gradation. But - you're right - it doesn't have the look and feel that an Epson produced BO print has.

 

I also have an Epson 2200 I use for BO prints when I want something more permanent with pigment inks. If you absolutely need this arrangement, there can be had some very good deals on used and refurbished Epson machines. My preference is for printers using pigments. Search this site and others for recommendations on where to find the best deals.

I believe in the old adage...If you want the job done right, do it yourself.

 

But that's just me. Many times I don't know HOW to do the job, but the real reward is LEARNING and ending with a product I'm totally responsible for.

Assuming good camera technique, exposure, focus, good lens, etc, getting a 13x19 out of a 10D is quite easily performed. I've gotten sharp 13x19s out my 4 megapixel Canon A80 point and shoot. Digital out-performs 35mm film. From someone who spent 30 years shooting film in various formats and doing extensive darkroom work, I'm totally sold on digital tools.

Uh...organize in them folders?

Wonderful invention...the scissors. Those nifty paper cutters work great too!

 

Those damn English and Americans are such backward people!