Digital BW, The Print

I am a photographer and thinking of purchasing the Epson Pro 4800.  I 
was wondering if anyone thinks positively or negatively about this 
printer.  I have thinking this might be the printer to purchase for in 
house printing of color and black and white prints.

I've been using the 4800 for about 5 weeks, having moved up from a 2200. So far all of 
my printing has been monochrome using the Epson inks with Photo Black and printing 
through the Advanced Black and White (ABW) feature of the Epson driver. I've been 
extremely pleased with the output on Premium Semi Matte paper. For the first time I feel 
that I am matching my fiber prints on Agfa Classic paper. I surmise, from other comments 
on this forum, that the paper handling characteristics of the 4800, which seem excellent, 
are a substantial improvement over the 4000, its predecessor. I believe that the color 
output from the 4800 is similar to that of the 4000, which is very good (I have done some 
color printing on the 4000). I also gather that printing on the true matte papers, for 
example the art papers, which requires the use of the Matte Black ink is about the same as 
that of the 4000. In other words, the real improvements have been with the Photo Black 
printing on glossy papers. On the 4000 it required the use of a third party RIP, such as 
Quad Tone Rip or Image Print, to get good output on the matte papers. I am not clear 
whether the ABW feature on the 4800's driver is a good substitute for these RIPs on matte 
paper. At any rate Quad Tone Rip and Image Print are both available for the 4800. I like 
the printer a lot. Good luck with your decision.

Richard Goldman

Richard:

> I've been using the 4800 for about 5 weeks, having moved up from a 2200. So far all of 
> my printing has been monochrome using the Epson inks with Photo Black and printing 
> through the Advanced Black and White (ABW) feature of the Epson driver. I've been 
> extremely pleased with the output on Premium Semi Matte paper. 

I have a 7600 and use it with the US inks, printing with Photo Black on Semi-Matte with 
ImagePrint, but I would never consider selling these prints because of the bronzing, gloss 
differential and the "veiled" look  of the blacks. My solution is to laminate the prints whicg 
eliminates these problems and greatly increases the dmax and dynamic range.

I've been interested in the 7800, intially having heard such good things about the K3 inks, 
but, now, someone very knowledgeable has stated:

>>>There really is very little difference between K2 and K3.  The bronzing is improved but 
the gloss differential is essentially the same as before.  Most users who have the machines 
have said it's not eliminated so you still need to laminate.<<<

--Mitch/Bangkok

I think the K3 inks are a considerable improvement on the K2.  Are they
perfect? No.  But a considerable improvement:  gloss differential is gone
except for where there is next-to-pure white in an image and the paper has a
different gloss to that of the ink; bronzing is dramatically reduced; and
colour saturation is improved on matte papers (but black dMax remains the
same as the MK ink has not changed and is weaker than MIS Eboni).  But there
are a lot of other factors that go into a printer choice.  The 4800 handles
media 4in wider than the 2400 yet Epson photo paper rolls are only 16in wide
and hence if you want to use that media then the gain is a mere 3in.  The
4800 is a robust, professional machine of undoubtedly superior build quality
to the consumer 2400 (and below) machines.  A 7800 would likely over greater
flexibility and true gain in terms of image size but is obviously more
expensive.  The Advanced B&W driver provides an easy to use solution for
many many B&W photographers.

> From: Mitch Alland <mitcha@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:45:25 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Looking for cooments on the Epson Pro 4800
> 
> Richard:
> 
>> I've been using the 4800 for about 5 weeks, having moved up from a 2200. So
>> far all of 
>> my printing has been monochrome using the Epson inks with Photo Black and
>> printing 
>> through the Advanced Black and White (ABW) feature of the Epson driver. I've
>> been 
>> extremely pleased with the output on Premium Semi Matte paper.
> 
> I have a 7600 and use it with the US inks, printing with Photo Black on
> Semi-Matte with 
> ImagePrint, but I would never consider selling these prints because of the
> bronzing, gloss 
> differential and the "veiled" look  of the blacks. My solution is to laminate
> the prints whicg 
> eliminates these problems and greatly increases the dmax and dynamic range.
> 
> I've been interested in the 7800, intially having heard such good things about
> the K3 inks, 
> but, now, someone very knowledgeable has stated:
> 
>>>> There really is very little difference between K2 and K3.  The bronzing is
>>>> improved but 
> the gloss differential is essentially the same as before.  Most users who have
> the machines 
> have said it's not eliminated so you still need to laminate.<<<
> 
> --Mitch/Bangkok

The few quick tests I've show that the K3 photo black ink is very glossy in itself.  Printing on 
Ep Prem Luster as a test, the "subtle" sheen of the paper disappears under the gloss of the K3 
PK---didn't really look at the gloss diff cuz I doesn't matter to me (I frame), but it didn't 
stand out.

It is dramatically different (the ink gloss) from the original UC PK which on P Luster sort of 
maintains the "subtle" sheen.

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mitch Alland" <mitcha@m...> 
wrote:
> Richard:
inks, 

> but, now, someone very knowledgeable has stated:
> 
> >>>There really is very little difference between K2 and K3.  The bronzing is improved but 
> the gloss differential is essentially the same as before.  Most users who have the machines 
> have said it's not eliminated so you still need to laminate.<<<
> 
> --Mitch/Bangkok