Digital BW, The Print

I want to reliably and with repeatability create exhibition quality gallery b&w prints. It 
would be nice to do some color as well, but it is not my priority. After further research, I 
feel my choices are:

A) buy used (mint) 4000 and use epson uc inks
B) buy used (mint) 4000 and use third party inks (indicate which)
C) wait and buy the new 4800 in june and use the new UC K3 inks
D) none of the above

what do you all think?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "gradyvillejb" 
<jb1@g...> wrote:
> I want to reliably and with repeatability create exhibition quality 
gallery b&w prints. It 
> would be nice to do some color as well, but it is not my priority. 
After further research, I 
> feel my choices are:
> 
> A) buy used (mint) 4000 and use epson uc inks
> B) buy used (mint) 4000 and use third party inks (indicate which)
> C) wait and buy the new 4800 in june and use the new UC K3 inks
> D) none of the above
> 
> what do you all think?

How much work do you want to put into the project?

Easiest is C with any of the new x800 printers or the 2400 for 
smaller work.

Best is a hard call at the moment since the new printers aren't in 
too many hands right now, and those that are out are preproduction 
samples.

If you really want to work, mix your own third party inks, and use 
one of the available RIPs to drive the printer.

Better get your order in for (c ) now.  At least in the UK they ship in the
first week of June but will likely be in hot demand.

> From: dfaprinting <dfaprinting@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 21:15:50 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: A Multiple Choice Question:
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "gradyvillejb"
> <jb1@g...> wrote:
>> I want to reliably and with repeatability create exhibition quality
> gallery b&w prints. It
>> would be nice to do some color as well, but it is not my priority.
> After further research, I
>> feel my choices are:
>> 
>> A) buy used (mint) 4000 and use epson uc inks
>> B) buy used (mint) 4000 and use third party inks (indicate which)
>> C) wait and buy the new 4800 in june and use the new UC K3 inks
>> D) none of the above
>> 
>> what do you all think?
> 
> How much work do you want to put into the project?
> 
> Easiest is C with any of the new x800 printers or the 2400 for
> smaller work.
> 
> Best is a hard call at the moment since the new printers aren't in
> too many hands right now, and those that are out are preproduction
> samples.
> 
> If you really want to work, mix your own third party inks, and use
> one of the available RIPs to drive the printer.

I don't mind the work - it sort of falls in with what i do for a living, so i can write off all 
expenses etc... Which third party inks would you recommend the most?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting" <dfaprinting@y...> 
wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "gradyvillejb" 
> <jb1@g...> wrote:
> > I want to reliably and with repeatability create exhibition quality 
> gallery b&w prints. It 
> > would be nice to do some color as well, but it is not my priority. 
> After further research, I 
> > feel my choices are:
> > 
> > A) buy used (mint) 4000 and use epson uc inks
> > B) buy used (mint) 4000 and use third party inks (indicate which)
> > C) wait and buy the new 4800 in june and use the new UC K3 inks
> > D) none of the above
> > 
> > what do you all think?
> 
> How much work do you want to put into the project?
> 
> Easiest is C with any of the new x800 printers or the 2400 for 
> smaller work.
> 
> Best is a hard call at the moment since the new printers aren't in 
> too many hands right now, and those that are out are preproduction 
> samples.
> 
> If you really want to work, mix your own third party inks, and use 
> one of the available RIPs to drive the printer.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "gradyvillejb" 
<jb1@g...> wrote:
> I don't mind the work - it sort of falls in with what i do for a 
living, so i can write off all 
> expenses etc... Which third party inks would you recommend the most?
> 


Just about everyone here would recommend the MIS UT series inks, but 
it also depends what you want to do. If B/W  with selective tones is 
the major focus, then those would be fine/best. If you want to do B/W 
with selective areas of color, then it gets a little harder (until 
the new printers come out). The new 3 black inks should yield 
slightly better prints than the two blacks of the "current" printers, 
four blacks would probably be better. A driver that is better than 
the Epson drivers (a RIP) would also be a key in repeatable prints, 
with the most control, and therefore should produce the best results. 
Now you can set the point where the different shades mix together 
into one channel, and send jobs in CMYK, or atleast make your output 
profiles in CMYK so that you can control the black generation. With 
good control of the color and black channels, you should be able to 
send an image that has both B/W and color elements within the same 
image, and get completely neutral grays with no metamerism, as well 
as beautiful color. Inks will of course play a major role too, do you 
stay with the OEM inks, or stray onto the path of third party inks. I 
like experimenting so it's third party inks for me, but that's a 
personal choice. And then there are the paper choices, way to many to 
go into...

So what does all this mean... If you want the absolute most complete 
control over the whole process, it would involve a good RIP (about 
$500 USD for the 4X00 printers), good quality hardware 
(spectrophotometer) based profile creation package that is capable of 
making CMYK, or better yet 6, 7, or 8 channel profiles, with a method 
to make a custom GCR curve for the black channel. Now within reason, 
you can put any ink into any channel, control which inks mix and 
where they mix, plus control (as well as possible) the way an image 
gets transformed from its color space, to the printer's color space.

The profiling package for this level of control will cost somewhere 
around $2000+, if you want to do the multi channel profiles, probably 
cost more like $3000+.

Now how many channels do you need in a printer? That's a good 
question, and there isn't a good answer other than the more the 
better (to a point). You might be able to use a 6 color printer for 
all of your work by removing 2 of the colors, and mixing a custom set 
of black inks (3 of them) and leave the C, M, and Y inks in for 
toning and a little bit of color work, as well as B/W with color 
elements. So you might want to look for a used 7500 to save a little 
money, and get bigger output. Or you could look at the 7600 or 4000, 
then you could build a four black, plus CMY machine. You would of 
course need to use third party inks to deal with this, and the UT 
mixed with OEM or third party CMY would be a good choice. The 4800 
would be a good choice, since it is already set for all of this, I 
would still recommend the RIP and profile creation package to gain 
the most control.

If you go with all third party inks, and want to mix your our blacks, 
I would suggest finding a supplier of the Image Specialists UltraPro 
inks. If you don't want to mix your own, the UT series inks with 
toners or CMY UltraChrome replacement inks. The UltraPro inks have 
less gloss differential than previous inks, and also a better dmax 
with the matte black than the Eboni that most people use. The gain is 
slight, but the big thing is that this matte black holds it density 
better as you overload the paper with too much ink (yes it uses a 
different carrier from the Eboni).

And all of this is just how I would approach the task, I'm certain 
there will be other opinions, and many will be much cheaper. But this 
reflects what I consider the best possible control, which in the end 
should yield the best possible results for your given needs with the 
Epson hardware (old and new). And there is one final choice... You 
could find a print shop that is really good, and let them worry about 
all the details, but you would lose some control, and you wouldn't 
learn as much as you would printing for yourself.

I've been looking closely at fine digital prints on display in
expensive Santa Fe NM galleries, talking to the photographers. 

Amazing stuff. Santa Fe is full of worthless painting and jewelry
schlock, but several photo galleries are the best I've seen anywhere.

I always ask: The printer is invariably an Epson (2200, 4000, 9600)
and the pigments are invariably OEM, both B&W and color. 

They look faaaabulous. They lack nothing Vs silver prints, and are
lots better than 90% of the "fine" Ciba...though some giant Ektacolor
prints have been startling...

The photographers simply did fine photographs and used high quality
tools to produce fine prints. They evidently weren't looking for
cheapest, newest, or "alternative" solutions. They evidently weren't
into shopping, machines, or tinkering. 

From what I've read the 2400 et al will nsume more pigments and make
credible glossy and semi-gloss prints. Since I like water color paper
and never did like glossy paper in wet photolab, hated resin paper,
the only temptation would have to do with non-resin semigloss: Not a
big temptation. 

I do hope to buy a 4000 or whatever within the year. If a 4000 it will
be an Epson refurb. If 4000 I'll sell my 2200. 

Djon

 


 





-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting"
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "gradyvillejb" 
> <jb1@g...> wrote:
> > I want to reliably and with repeatability create exhibition quality 
> gallery b&w prints. It 
> > would be nice to do some color as well, but it is not my priority. 
> After further research, I 
> > feel my choices are:
> > 
> > A) buy used (mint) 4000 and use epson uc inks
> > B) buy used (mint) 4000 and use third party inks (indicate which)
> > C) wait and buy the new 4800 in june and use the new UC K3 inks
> > D) none of the above
> >

Djon,

Great report! This matches well what I am hearing from
gallery owners (who could care less about technology
and only want what is perceived to have lasting value
and will sell).

Any consensus on what papers are working for them?
Matte or Gloss/SemiGloss/Luster?

Thanks!

Guy
--- Djon <westsidemaurice@...> wrote:
> 
> I've been looking closely at fine digital prints on
> display in
> expensive Santa Fe NM galleries, talking to the
> photographers. 
> 
> Amazing stuff. Santa Fe is full of worthless
> painting and jewelry
> schlock, but several photo galleries are the best
> I've seen anywhere.
> 
> I always ask: The printer is invariably an Epson
> (2200, 4000, 9600)
> and the pigments are invariably OEM, both B&W and
> color. 
> 
> They look faaaabulous. They lack nothing Vs silver
> prints, and are
> lots better than 90% of the "fine" Ciba...though
> some giant Ektacolor
> prints have been startling...
> 
> The photographers simply did fine photographs and
> used high quality
> tools to produce fine prints. They evidently weren't
> looking for
> cheapest, newest, or "alternative" solutions. They
> evidently weren't
> into shopping, machines, or tinkering. 
> 
> From what I've read the 2400 et al will nsume more
> pigments and make
> credible glossy and semi-gloss prints. Since I like
> water color paper
> and never did like glossy paper in wet photolab,
> hated resin paper,
> the only temptation would have to do with non-resin
> semigloss: Not a
> big temptation. 
> 
> I do hope to buy a 4000 or whatever within the year.
> If a 4000 it will
> be an Epson refurb. If 4000 I'll sell my 2200. 
> 
> Djon
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> "dfaprinting"
> <dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
> > --- In
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> "gradyvillejb" 
> > <jb1@g...> wrote:
> > > I want to reliably and with repeatability create
> exhibition quality 
> > gallery b&w prints. It 
> > > would be nice to do some color as well, but it
> is not my priority. 
> > After further research, I 
> > > feel my choices are:
> > > 
> > > A) buy used (mint) 4000 and use epson uc inks
> > > B) buy used (mint) 4000 and use third party inks
> (indicate which)
> > > C) wait and buy the new 4800 in june and use the
> new UC K3 inks
> > > D) none of the above
> > > 
>  
> 
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail

Guy, I should emphasize that this has been seat-of-pants over the past
several months...not big science, maybe not even true this week :-)

Two of the galleries were owned by the photographers who were
showing...both genuinely exceptionally fine, one working both
traditionally and digitally in B&W, mostly printing 16X20-up (I've not
talked with this guy...need to...don't know his views, but they'll be
important)...the other a woman who photographs old vehicles, shows
huge and spectacular Epson prints (done by a small lab). She's also a
painter and her photos show that background. 

None of the digital prints were glossy or semi-gloss...just the work
of photographers intent on strong images (maybe half use digital labs,
the same way many/most traditional gallery-exhibiting photographers
use labs for dye transfer or big Ektacolor/Ciba prints). 

All of the digital prints were at least 20X24...which obviously 
figures:  galleries inherently WANT to sell big prints, why would they
bother displaying little hobbiest-budgeted prints? 

The majority of silver prints around town are small (under 16X20),
typically antiquities by the usual famous suspects...the *vast*
majority of modern images are color, whether digital or wet, and BIG,
often 30X40-ish and above.

Djon



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, guy washburn
<guido02474@y...> wrote:

> Djon,
> 
> Great report! This matches well what I am hearing from
> gallery owners (who could care less about technology
> and only want what is perceived to have lasting value
> and will sell).
> 
> Any consensus on what papers are working for them?
> Matte or Gloss/SemiGloss/Luster?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Guy
> --- Djon <westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
> > 
> > I've been looking closely at fine digital prints on
> > display in
> > expensive Santa Fe NM galleries, talking to the
> > photographers. 
> > 
> > Amazing stuff. Santa Fe is full of worthless
> > painting and jewelry
> > schlock, but several photo galleries are the best
> > I've seen anywhere.
> > 
> > I always ask: The printer is invariably an Epson
> > (2200, 4000, 9600)
> > and the pigments are invariably OEM, both B&W and
> > color. 
> > 
> > They look faaaabulous. They lack nothing Vs silver
> > prints, and are
> > lots better than 90% of the "fine" Ciba...though
> > some giant Ektacolor
> > prints have been startling...
> > 
> > The photographers simply did fine photographs and
> > used high quality
> > tools to produce fine prints. They evidently weren't
> > looking for
> > cheapest, newest, or "alternative" solutions. They
> > evidently weren't
> > into shopping, machines, or tinkering.

I would wait and see how the 4800 is reviewed after it's been out for 
a little while. The 4000 had wildly positive reviews at first but
then 
you started to hear some grumbling about the low dmax of matte color 
prints using the Epson driver (expensive RIPs appear to be a solution 
for this). My meager guess is that the 4800 will create finer b&w 
prints with QTR than the 4000 because of the lighter gray ink. It
will 
be interesting to see what kind of b&w prints the new Epson driver 
will generate. I exhibit color and b&w prints and am currently using
a 
2200 for color prints and a 1280 with MIS UT2 inks for b&w. I'm very 
happy with the quality of the prints I'm generating with this setup 
although the scale is limited and the printing speed is slow.


Best,
Jim Pegoda



> I want to reliably and with repeatability create exhibition quality 
gallery b&w prints. It 
> would be nice to do some color as well, but it is not my priority. 
After further research, I 

> feel my choices are:
> 
> A) buy used (mint) 4000 and use epson uc inks
> B) buy used (mint) 4000 and use third party inks (indicate which)
> C) wait and buy the new 4800 in june and use the new UC K3 inks
> D) none of the above
> 
> what do you all think?

Fine art photographic galleries, don't necessarily want to sell large
prints. Fine art photographic buyers don't necessarily want to buy large
prints. I realize this list is about B&W printing, but sometimes the members
forget it's the art not the engineering that makes photographs appealing. I
have been to photographic galleries selling contemporary
8" x 10" images shot with a pinhole camera, for 1,500.00. By the standards
on this list, these prints would be considered terrible (I don't disagree
with that appraisal), but they were selling.

I like everyone else on this list strive to make my prints the highest
quality possible. Every time I sell at a show, it's usually the images and
prints that I like the least, so go figure.

Gary Brown

www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown
www.gabsculpture.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Djon" <westsidemaurice@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 8:35 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: A Multiple Choice Question:


Guy, I should emphasize that this has been seat-of-pants over the past
several months...not big science, maybe not even true this week :-)

Two of the galleries were owned by the photographers who were
showing...both genuinely exceptionally fine, one working both
traditionally and digitally in B&W, mostly printing 16X20-up (I've not
talked with this guy...need to...don't know his views, but they'll be
important)...the other a woman who photographs old vehicles, shows
huge and spectacular Epson prints (done by a small lab). She's also a
painter and her photos show that background.

None of the digital prints were glossy or semi-gloss...just the work
of photographers intent on strong images (maybe half use digital labs,
the same way many/most traditional gallery-exhibiting photographers
use labs for dye transfer or big Ektacolor/Ciba prints).

All of the digital prints were at least 20X24...which obviously
figures:  galleries inherently WANT to sell big prints, why would they
bother displaying little hobbiest-budgeted prints?

The majority of silver prints around town are small (under 16X20),
typically antiquities by the usual famous suspects...the *vast*
majority of modern images are color, whether digital or wet, and BIG,
often 30X40-ish and above.

Djon



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, guy washburn
<guido02474@y...> wrote:
> Djon,
>
> Great report! This matches well what I am hearing from
> gallery owners (who could care less about technology
> and only want what is perceived to have lasting value
> and will sell).
>
> Any consensus on what papers are working for them?
> Matte or Gloss/SemiGloss/Luster?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Guy
> --- Djon <westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
> >
> > I've been looking closely at fine digital prints on
> > display in
> > expensive Santa Fe NM galleries, talking to the
> > photographers.
> >
> > Amazing stuff. Santa Fe is full of worthless
> > painting and jewelry
> > schlock, but several photo galleries are the best
> > I've seen anywhere.
> >
> > I always ask: The printer is invariably an Epson
> > (2200, 4000, 9600)
> > and the pigments are invariably OEM, both B&W and
> > color.
> >
> > They look faaaabulous. They lack nothing Vs silver
> > prints, and are
> > lots better than 90% of the "fine" Ciba...though
> > some giant Ektacolor
> > prints have been startling...
> >
> > The photographers simply did fine photographs and
> > used high quality
> > tools to produce fine prints. They evidently weren't
> > looking for
> > cheapest, newest, or "alternative" solutions. They
> > evidently weren't
> > into shopping, machines, or tinkering.





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Brown"
<baffin@c...> wrote:
> Fine art photographic galleries, don't necessarily want to sell large
> prints. Fine art photographic buyers don't necessarily want to buy large
> prints.

Maybe SOME buyers don't "necessarily want to buy large prints" but
galleries in affluent markets (Santa Fe) simply aren't bothering to
show small prints except from the usual suspects, Adams et al... Big
revenue seems to correlate linearly to big prints. 

My gues is that small prints are thought cheaper because they're the
norm in outdoor "shows" ... displayed in cubicles on the Santa Fe
Plaza within easy walking distance of all of the successful $$$
galleries :-) 

I'm not talking about my own sales because I'm not even trying. Just
describing the facts as I see them in photographic prints sales in
this region. Perhaps different in your community than in Santa Fe.
 
Djon

 I realize this list is about B&W printing, but sometimes the members
> forget it's the art not the engineering that makes photographs
appealing. 


I

Just a note about the tinkering aspect. Where would we be if people 
like Jon Cone, and Paul Roark never did any tinkering to try and find 
a different way to do things?

I don't know the history. 

Did they show Epson how to make pigments? 

Did someone show a company with roots to Sekei Mamiya (and his
Zeiss-qality Japanese cameras in WWII) how to make photographic
images? Wouldn't be surprising. 

Inquiring minds? 

Djon


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting"
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:

> Just a note about the tinkering aspect. Where would we be if people 
> like Jon Cone, and Paul Roark never did any tinkering to try and find 
> a different way to do things?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon" 
<westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
> I don't know the history. 
> 
> Did they show Epson how to make pigments? 
> 
> Did someone show a company with roots to Sekei Mamiya (and his
> Zeiss-qality Japanese cameras in WWII) how to make photographic
> images? Wouldn't be surprising. 
> 
> Inquiring minds? 
> 
> Djon


Both of them drove (or are driving) the B/W movement with these Epson 
printers. Some version of Cone inks have been available for more 
years than I can really quote.

Epson pigment inks came to market from angry customers who could 
point to third party inks as being more archival, including at least 
one pigment ink set being on the market. The Epson research could 
have been in development for many years before that, but the third 
parties went to market well before Epson (or at least Epson in the 
USA). I was using pigments in my Epson printer before Epson brought 
them to this market. Early pioneers were Mediastreet among others. 
Encad also had their pigments (the GO inks) so very long ago, but the 
gamut was often described as pale and lacking punch. Solvent pigment 
inks have of course been around forever, not sure when the first 
solvent based inkjet hit the stores. And if you go back far enough 
you find things like the Iris continuous stream inkjets that 
deflected the unwanted ink away from the page (or was it deflected 
the wanted ink onto the page?)with a fixed paper size and rotating 
drum that held the paper. The Iris printer was developed as a pre-
press proofing machine. But the people at Nash editions had other 
thoughts. They were using the Iris printers for fine art type prints 
many years ago. The Giclee name that some fling around (with out 
knowing the origins) was brought into the world to name fine art 
prints from those Iris printers.

Lyson had their "archival" dye inks 6 or more years ago. Then came 
the others like the (I think) Ilford. And soon the gamut wars started 
with several extended (and extreme) gamut dye ink sets for Epson 
printers. Mostly these relied on special papers to get any 
permanence, and didn't really prove to be archival. There should be a 
few people around that used the first Lyson archival inks, and got 
burned by the short lifetime.

In my opinion, it was people altering the printers/inks to make 
artwork that has driven the manufacturers to where we are now. And 
such very rapid turn over in hardware from the old HP 500C "photo" 
printer with it's 300x300 resolution and four colors. I had one of 
those, it was far from the photo printer it claimed to be.