Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2005-09-29 by Joel Belmont
I know this question has NEVER been asked here, BUT, I am just learning more about digital printing (work in large format film) and am trying to deduce which digital printing process is most similar in quality, ambience and permanence to a traditional fiber print? Pigments last a long time, but don't look as good? Dyes look great but don't last long? Any advice would be great! Thanks, ~Joel Belmont JoelBelmont@... www.joelbelmont.com
2005-09-29 by Mark Savoia
I hear a large can of worms opening! On Sep 28, 2005, at 11:53 PM, Joel Belmont wrote: > I know this question has NEVER been asked here, BUT, I am just > learning more about > digital printing (work in large format film) and am trying to > deduce which digital printing > process is most similar in quality, ambience and permanence to a > traditional fiber print? > > Pigments last a long time, but don't look as good? Dyes look great > but don't last long? > > Any advice would be great! > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2005-09-29 by Andre
> On Sep 28, 2005, at 11:53 PM, Joel Belmont wrote: > > Pigments last a long time, but don't look as good? Dyes look great > > but don't last long? > > > > Any advice would be great! > > How do you know this ? You've read the posts over at photo.net right ?
2005-09-29 by john dean
Your premise is wrong. Pigments have improved dramaticly in regard to gamut. --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Andre" <am1000@v...> wrote: > > On Sep 28, 2005, at 11:53 PM, Joel Belmont wrote: > > > > Pigments last a long time, but don't look as good? Dyes look great
> > > but don't last long? > > > > > > Any advice would be great! > > > > How do you know this ? You've read the posts over at photo.net right ?
2005-09-29 by Paul Roark
Joel, > ... I am just learning more about digital printing (work in large > format film) and am trying to deduce which digital printing > process is most similar in quality, ambience and permanence to a > traditional fiber print? As you can tell from previous responses, reasonable people can have rather different opinions on the issues you've raised. Overall, however, I'd guess most on this forum feel that carbon-based pigment inksets provide the best B&W solution so far. The ones that are most often used are probably the MIS, Epson UC, and Piezography pigments. Although matte prints have a different look than the air-dried fiber prints I used to make, most of my serious work is on matte, acid-free paper. When framed under glass, they look very much like my older prints. Not having to dry mount them is a huge plus. The matte finish allows simple tape hanging, which is preferred by conservationists and much easier. The measured dmax of matte paper is low (e.g., 1.65 v. 1.9 for real world silver print) but the lack of reflections often offsets this difference. Once I got used to the matte look, I found I preferred it for most work. The main problem I have with it is that it's fairly fragile -- being subject to physical damage or abrasion if, for example, one rubs a finger across a dark black area. For prints I'll ship today or tomorrow, that are not framed or matted, I'll spray them with "Lascaux Fixativ" to help be sure they don't get damaged in transit or when the buyer mounts and frames them. The latest pigments from MIS and Epson can also print on RC paper and have a higher dmax than the silver prints. Wilhelm Research rates the Epson Premium line of these papers as archival (more than 200 years of dark storage). While I disliked the wet process RC prints, I use Epson Premium Semimatte and, especially when sprayed with a lacquer (PremierArt Print Shield) and dry mounted, I think it looks very close to a silver print. It also has a surface that can actually be cleaned with a damp cloth. For prints that are not going to be behind glass or acrylic, this may be the best approach. I'm currently making a 2 x 4 foot reproduction for a local museum using this approach. Frankly, I need to be able to print on both types of paper. They serve different uses and markets, but both can be archival and very good looking. I don't expect to ever make silver prints again; my enlarger is now just taking up space in my darkroom. I don't have any interest in the current dye technology. The latest swellable emulsion papers give the B&W dyes fair longevity, but still not in the same class with the predominantly carbon inksets. If one uses good cotton paper, the display life of dyes is very short. Hope this helps. You might want to browse the information I have put on line concerning the MIS inksets I've been involved with. See http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/index.htm Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2005-09-29 by Christer Rosewelll
Andre
What kind of comment is this?
If you want to help, do - if you want to be sarcastic be it somewhere
else!
C
Christer, AKA Christer Rosewell
"It's the artist's job to accomplish two things-to stir the emotions of
the viewer
and to lay bare the soul of his subject." Jousuf Karsh
Member EP (Editorial Photographers)
http://www.ChristerArt.com
3.8 million visitors to date..
On Sep 29, 2005, at 2:09 PM,
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> From: "Andre" <am1000@...>
> Subject: Re: highest quality/permanence
>
>> On Sep 28, 2005, at 11:53 PM, Joel Belmont wrote:
>
>>> Pigments last a long time, but don't look as good? Dyes look great
>>> but don't last long?
>>>
>>> Any advice would be great!
>>>
> How do you know this ? You've read the posts over at photo.net right ?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]2005-09-30 by Joel Belmont
Thanks for the info. I will probably be looking to do prints up to 20x24" and larger... assuming it is not practical (with as quickly as printers get outdated) to purchase what would likely be a large format printer, is there anywhere locally that makes these types of prints at reasonable prices? Thanks again, ~Joel --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Joel, > > > ... I am just learning more about digital printing (work in large > > format film) and am trying to deduce which digital printing > > process is most similar in quality, ambience and permanence to a > > traditional fiber print? > > As you can tell from previous responses, reasonable people can have rather > different opinions on the issues you've raised. > > Overall, however, I'd guess most on this forum feel that carbon-based > pigment inksets provide the best B&W solution so far. The ones that are > most often used are probably the MIS, Epson UC, and Piezography pigments. > > Although matte prints have a different look than the air-dried fiber prints > I used to make, most of my serious work is on matte, acid-free paper. When > framed under glass, they look very much like my older prints. Not having to > dry mount them is a huge plus. The matte finish allows simple tape hanging, > which is preferred by conservationists and much easier. > > The measured dmax of matte paper is low (e.g., 1.65 v. 1.9 for real world > silver print) but the lack of reflections often offsets this difference. > Once I got used to the matte look, I found I preferred it for most work. > The main problem I have with it is that it's fairly fragile -- being subject > to physical damage or abrasion if, for example, one rubs a finger across a > dark black area. For prints I'll ship today or tomorrow, that are not > framed or matted, I'll spray them with "Lascaux Fixativ" to help be sure > they don't get damaged in transit or when the buyer mounts and frames them. > > The latest pigments from MIS and Epson can also print on RC paper and have a > higher dmax than the silver prints. Wilhelm Research rates the Epson > Premium line of these papers as archival (more than 200 years of dark > storage). While I disliked the wet process RC prints, I use Epson Premium > Semimatte and, especially when sprayed with a lacquer (PremierArt Print > Shield) and dry mounted, I think it looks very close to a silver print. It > also has a surface that can actually be cleaned with a damp cloth. For > prints that are not going to be behind glass or acrylic, this may be the > best approach. I'm currently making a 2 x 4 foot reproduction for a local > museum using this approach. > > Frankly, I need to be able to print on both types of paper. They serve > different uses and markets, but both can be archival and very good looking. > I don't expect to ever make silver prints again; my enlarger is now just > taking up space in my darkroom. > > I don't have any interest in the current dye technology. The latest > swellable emulsion papers give the B&W dyes fair longevity, but still not in > the same class with the predominantly carbon inksets. If one uses good > cotton paper, the display life of dyes is very short. > > Hope this helps. You might want to browse the information I have put on > line concerning the MIS inksets I've been involved with. See > http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/index.htm > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com
2005-09-30 by Paul Roark
Joel, > I will probably be looking to do prints up to 20x24" and larger... The Epson 7xxx series takes up to 24 inch rolls. The 9xxx takes up to 44". The 7xxx series was the compromise that made the most sense to me. Used ones are not that expensive. > assuming it is not practical (with as quickly as printers get outdated) >to purchase what would likely be a large format printer, My 7600 is out of commission, so I'm using my 7500. It's almost as good for B&W, and these are quite affordable. In short, you don't need the latest, even if they are marginally better. > is there anywhere locally that makes these types of prints at reasonable > prices? There usually are people on this list who have appropriate printers and will do the work for a reasonable fee. Paul www.PaulRoark.com
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" > <paul.roark@v...> > wrote: > > Joel, > > > > > ... I am just learning more about digital printing (work in large > > > format film) and am trying to deduce which digital printing > > > process is most similar in quality, ambience and permanence to a > > > traditional fiber print? > > > > As you can tell from previous responses, reasonable people can have > rather > > different opinions on the issues you've raised. > > > > Overall, however, I'd guess most on this forum feel that carbon-based > > pigment inksets provide the best B&W solution so far. The ones that are > > most often used are probably the MIS, Epson UC, and Piezography > pigments. > > > > Although matte prints have a different look than the air-dried fiber > prints > > I used to make, most of my serious work is on matte, acid-free paper. > When > > framed under glass, they look very much like my older prints. Not > having to > > dry mount them is a huge plus. The matte finish allows simple tape > hanging, > > which is preferred by conservationists and much easier. > > > > The measured dmax of matte paper is low (e.g., 1.65 v. 1.9 for real > world > > silver print) but the lack of reflections often offsets this difference. > > Once I got used to the matte look, I found I preferred it for most work. > > The main problem I have with it is that it's fairly fragile -- being > subject > > to physical damage or abrasion if, for example, one rubs a finger across > a > > dark black area. For prints I'll ship today or tomorrow, that are not > > framed or matted, I'll spray them with "Lascaux Fixativ" to help be sure > > they don't get damaged in transit or when the buyer mounts and frames > them. > > > > The latest pigments from MIS and Epson can also print on RC paper and > have a > > higher dmax than the silver prints. Wilhelm Research rates the Epson > > Premium line of these papers as archival (more than 200 years of dark > > storage). While I disliked the wet process RC prints, I use Epson > Premium > > Semimatte and, especially when sprayed with a lacquer (PremierArt Print > > Shield) and dry mounted, I think it looks very close to a silver print. > It > > also has a surface that can actually be cleaned with a damp cloth. For > > prints that are not going to be behind glass or acrylic, this may be the > > best approach. I'm currently making a 2 x 4 foot reproduction for a > local > > museum using this approach. > > > > Frankly, I need to be able to print on both types of paper. They serve > > different uses and markets, but both can be archival and very good > looking. > > I don't expect to ever make silver prints again; my enlarger is now just > > taking up space in my darkroom. > > > > I don't have any interest in the current dye technology. The latest > > swellable emulsion papers give the B&W dyes fair longevity, but still > not in > > the same class with the predominantly carbon inksets. If one uses good > > cotton paper, the display life of dyes is very short. > > > > Hope this helps. You might want to browse the information I have put on > > line concerning the MIS inksets I've been involved with. See > > http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/index.htm > > > > Paul > > www.PaulRoark.com > > > > > > > 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 > > > > >
2005-09-30 by Joel Belmont
Thanks for the info. Given that I would be doing a fair amount of printing (mostly for exhibitions), do you think it would be more effective to buy a printer in the lower range 7500/7600 or higher range (9500/9800) and the ink, or have someone else print the work? How would I calcualte the cost effectiveness between the two (ie, can you give me an idea of which paper and inks I would likely need to achieve the results you outlined, and how many prints are probable out of an inkset for mostly B&W images?) Any help would be greatly appreciated. If you have any product suggestions, I can research prices and crunch the numbers. Thanks. ~Joel --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Joel, > > > I will probably be looking to do prints up to 20x24" and larger... > > The Epson 7xxx series takes up to 24 inch rolls. The 9xxx takes up to 44". > The 7xxx series was the compromise that made the most sense to me. Used > ones are not that expensive. > > > assuming it is not practical (with as quickly as printers get outdated) > >to purchase what would likely be a large format printer, > > My 7600 is out of commission, so I'm using my 7500. It's almost as good for > B&W, and these are quite affordable. In short, you don't need the latest, > even if they are marginally better. > > > is there anywhere locally that makes these types of prints at reasonable > > prices? > > There usually are people on this list who have appropriate printers and will > do the work for a reasonable fee. > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com > > > > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" > > <paul.roark@v...> > > wrote: > > > Joel, > > > > > > > ... I am just learning more about digital printing (work in large > > > > format film) and am trying to deduce which digital printing > > > > process is most similar in quality, ambience and permanence to a > > > > traditional fiber print? > > > > > > As you can tell from previous responses, reasonable people can have > > rather > > > different opinions on the issues you've raised. > > > > > > Overall, however, I'd guess most on this forum feel that carbon-based > > > pigment inksets provide the best B&W solution so far. The ones that are > > > most often used are probably the MIS, Epson UC, and Piezography > > pigments. > > > > > > Although matte prints have a different look than the air-dried fiber > > prints > > > I used to make, most of my serious work is on matte, acid-free paper. > > When > > > framed under glass, they look very much like my older prints. Not > > having to > > > dry mount them is a huge plus. The matte finish allows simple tape > > hanging, > > > which is preferred by conservationists and much easier. > > > > > > The measured dmax of matte paper is low (e.g., 1.65 v. 1.9 for real > > world > > > silver print) but the lack of reflections often offsets this difference. > > > Once I got used to the matte look, I found I preferred it for most work. > > > The main problem I have with it is that it's fairly fragile -- being > > subject > > > to physical damage or abrasion if, for example, one rubs a finger across > > a > > > dark black area. For prints I'll ship today or tomorrow, that are not > > > framed or matted, I'll spray them with "Lascaux Fixativ" to help be sure > > > they don't get damaged in transit or when the buyer mounts and frames > > them. > > > > > > The latest pigments from MIS and Epson can also print on RC paper and > > have a > > > higher dmax than the silver prints. Wilhelm Research rates the Epson > > > Premium line of these papers as archival (more than 200 years of dark > > > storage). While I disliked the wet process RC prints, I use Epson > > Premium > > > Semimatte and, especially when sprayed with a lacquer (PremierArt Print > > > Shield) and dry mounted, I think it looks very close to a silver print. > > It > > > also has a surface that can actually be cleaned with a damp cloth. For > > > prints that are not going to be behind glass or acrylic, this may be the > > > best approach. I'm currently making a 2 x 4 foot reproduction for a > > local > > > museum using this approach. > > > > > > Frankly, I need to be able to print on both types of paper. They serve > > > different uses and markets, but both can be archival and very good > > looking. > > > I don't expect to ever make silver prints again; my enlarger is now just > > > taking up space in my darkroom. > > > > > > I don't have any interest in the current dye technology. The latest > > > swellable emulsion papers give the B&W dyes fair longevity, but still > > not in > > > the same class with the predominantly carbon inksets. If one uses good > > > cotton paper, the display life of dyes is very short. > > > > > > Hope this helps. You might want to browse the information I have put on > > > line concerning the MIS inksets I've been involved with. See > > > http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/index.htm > > > > > > Paul > > > www.PaulRoark.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > >
2005-09-30 by John Moody
In my very limited experience, it does not matter much if the printer is local. The print needs to be packed and protected to get it to the framer, etc. so other than shipping cost, locality is not so important. Also, there is not a large number or printers providing fine art BW services. What do you call a reasonable price? Is $20/sq-ft reasonable? That is my personal assessment for top-notch quadtone printing on photo rag. Are you are looking for a printer to develop a relationship with, or just to make a print or two? Best regards, John Moody
-----Original Message----- From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Joel Belmont Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 10:03 PM To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Digital BW] Re: highest quality/permanence Thanks for the info. I will probably be looking to do prints up to 20x24" and larger... assuming it is not practical (with as quickly as printers get outdated) to purchase what would likely be a large format printer, is there anywhere locally that makes these types of prints at reasonable prices? Thanks again, ~Joel [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2005-09-30 by Paul Roark
Joel, > Given that I would be doing a fair amount of printing (mostly for > exhibitions), do you think it would be more effective to buy a > printer in the lower range 7500/7600 or higher range (9500/9800) The size of prints you'll be making is the issue with respect to size of printer. The 7xxx and 9xxx printers of the same era are otherwise the same. I would buy whatever you need to do your work. Between the older 7500 and latest 7800, budget is, of course, a major issue. Each generation gets better, at least in some respects. I didn't like the dmax of the 7600, so I need to use a rip with that, but those are now reasonable in price. Of course, if you do any color, the 7800 is the one to get. The latest K3 printers also are going to allow the best control yet of print tones. On the other hand, we've been doing rather well with the older ones also. It's debatable whether 99% of the people can see any difference in quality from the 7500 with good B&W inks and the 7800. > or have someone else print the work? I have not worked out the cost comparison you outlined. Frankly, from my experience, if you are very close to a top notch service bureau and do enough volume of work to deal with them easily, then that is a real option. It never has been for me, however. Either due to my pickiness or whatever, even when I was in L.A., the inefficiencies of working with service bureaus was a major reason I went with inkjet technology and bought the best scanner I could afford as soon as I could. It allowed me to move all my production in-house, and that has been a huge advantage. Having control of the full process is just critical to me, but I fully understand that for many that is not an issue. My formula was to get an older printer (e.g., 7500 -- now $580 used on eBay or $1500 refurbished), MIS inks (bulk ink is about $50 per pint, about the amount that is in a four $69 Epson 7600 carts), and reasonably priced, top notch paper (like PremierArt 205 -- 24" x 66' roll for $122; see http://www.atlex.com/premier/fine-art-205.htm). At $50 for a pint, per-print ink costs become almost irrelevant. Additionally, with that much ink, your consistency is better, because ink batches do vary even for Epson inks. Paper is the more expensive variable. The roll paper is probably the way to go there. While many prefer thicker paper, once matted there is no difference that I've been able to tell. In fact, dealing with the curl of the paper is easier with the thinner papers (but not a major problem with 300 gsm cotton paper either). Hope this helps. Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2005-10-01 by Joel Belmont
What I need to do is determine the cost effectiveness of printing myself, or having someone else do it. If I had someone else do it, I would be an ongoing thing with a considerable amount of prints. I have no way yet to determine a basis to guage your quote of 20/sq. ft., but off the top of my head it sound a little high, though I am sure your services are worth what you charge. Regards, ~Joel Belmont --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody" <moodymz3@y...> wrote:
> In my very limited experience, it does not matter much if the printer is > local. The print needs to be packed and protected to get it to the framer, > etc. so other than shipping cost, locality is not so important. Also, there > is not a large number or printers providing fine art BW services. > > What do you call a reasonable price? Is $20/sq-ft reasonable? That is my > personal assessment for top-notch quadtone printing on photo rag. Are you > are looking for a printer to develop a relationship with, or just to make a > print or two? > > Best regards, > John Moody > > -----Original Message----- > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Joel > Belmont > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 10:03 PM > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: highest quality/permanence > > Thanks for the info. > > I will probably be looking to do prints up to 20x24" and larger... assuming > it is not > practical (with as quickly as printers get outdated) to purchase what would > likely be a large > format printer, is there anywhere locally that makes these types of prints > at reasonable > prices? > > Thanks again, > ~Joel > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2005-10-01 by Joel Belmont
Thanks Paul. Here's my bag: I generally would not print color, however, some of the B&W work I do has an intense sepia look to it (which would require some color). You can find some examples here: http://www.joelbelmont.com/pregnant.html Would using a cheaper/older printer (such as the 7500) be able to handle this need well, or would I be better off considering investing in something newer? Thanks for your time. ~Joel --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Joel, > > > Given that I would be doing a fair amount of printing (mostly for > > exhibitions), do you think it would be more effective to buy a > > printer in the lower range 7500/7600 or higher range (9500/9800) > > The size of prints you'll be making is the issue with respect to size of > printer. The 7xxx and 9xxx printers of the same era are otherwise the same. > I would buy whatever you need to do your work. > > Between the older 7500 and latest 7800, budget is, of course, a major issue. > Each generation gets better, at least in some respects. I didn't like the > dmax of the 7600, so I need to use a rip with that, but those are now > reasonable in price. Of course, if you do any color, the 7800 is the one to > get. The latest K3 printers also are going to allow the best control yet of > print tones. On the other hand, we've been doing rather well with the older > ones also. It's debatable whether 99% of the people can see any difference > in quality from the 7500 with good B&W inks and the 7800. > > > or have someone else print the work? > > I have not worked out the cost comparison you outlined. Frankly, from my > experience, if you are very close to a top notch service bureau and do > enough volume of work to deal with them easily, then that is a real option. > It never has been for me, however. Either due to my pickiness or whatever, > even when I was in L.A., the inefficiencies of working with service bureaus > was a major reason I went with inkjet technology and bought the best scanner > I could afford as soon as I could. It allowed me to move all my production > in-house, and that has been a huge advantage. Having control of the full > process is just critical to me, but I fully understand that for many that is > not an issue. > > My formula was to get an older printer (e.g., 7500 -- now $580 used on eBay > or $1500 refurbished), MIS inks (bulk ink is about $50 per pint, about the > amount that is in a four $69 Epson 7600 carts), and reasonably priced, top > notch paper (like PremierArt 205 -- 24" x 66' roll for $122; see > http://www.atlex.com/premier/fine-art-205.htm). > > At $50 for a pint, per-print ink costs become almost irrelevant. > Additionally, with that much ink, your consistency is better, because ink > batches do vary even for Epson inks. > > Paper is the more expensive variable. The roll paper is probably the way to > go there. While many prefer thicker paper, once matted there is no > difference that I've been able to tell. In fact, dealing with the curl of > the paper is easier with the thinner papers (but not a major problem with > 300 gsm cotton paper either). > > Hope this helps. > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com
2005-10-01 by John Moody
Joel, In addition to cost effectiveness, you need to know if you _like_ printing. If you enjoyed the technical aspects of the darkroom then you may do well setting up, running and maintaining a printer and software collection. If you dont enjoy it, the cost savings will not matter in the long run. BTW, I dont print for others, that price is what I pay for prints larger than my printer allows. Best regards, John Moody
-----Original Message----- From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Joel Belmont Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 2:07 AM To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Digital BW] Re: highest quality/permanence What I need to do is determine the cost effectiveness of printing myself, or having someone else do it. If I had someone else do it, I would be an ongoing thing with a considerable amount of prints. I have no way yet to determine a basis to guage your quote of 20/sq. ft., but off the top of my head it sound a little high, though I am sure your services are worth what you charge. Regards, ~Joel Belmont [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2005-10-01 by Joel Belmont
I don't mind spending long hours in the darkroom; I am perhaps more interested in printing digitally for repeatability (so I don't have to retouch the same 20x24 print every time I print it) and theoretically to cut down my amount of time spent printing, so I can focus more on exposing images. Regards, ~Joel --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody" <moodymz3@y...> wrote:
> Joel, > In addition to cost effectiveness, you need to know if you _like_ printing. > If you enjoyed the technical aspects of the darkroom then you may do well > setting up, running and maintaining a printer and software collection. If > you don't enjoy it, the cost savings will not matter in the long run. BTW, > I don't print for others, that price is what I pay for prints larger than my > printer allows. > > Best regards, > John Moody > > -----Original Message----- > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Joel > Belmont > Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 2:07 AM > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: highest quality/permanence > > What I need to do is determine the cost effectiveness of printing myself, or > having > someone else do it. > > If I had someone else do it, I would be an ongoing thing with a considerable > amount of > prints. I have no way yet to determine a basis to guage your quote of > 20/sq. ft., but off > the top of my head it sound a little high, though I am sure your services > are worth what > you charge. > > Regards, > ~Joel Belmont > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2005-10-01 by Paul Roark
Joel, > > ... I generally would not print color, however, some of the B&W > work I do has an intense sepia look to it (which would require some > color). You can find > some examples here: http://www.joelbelmont.com/pregnant.html I'll send you a file off list that has a scan of the UT2 inkset, that includes the carbon and sepia tones. The sepia spot -- one cart, the yellow position -- is easy to modify. I've published the formula, and the ability for users to mix to taste was what I intended. On the other hand, not many appear to want to mess with it. The alternative is to have the printing done with the 7600 or 7800. The 7600 with a rip can do it utilizing very little color ink, but there are barely visible dots in the highlights that purists might find objectionable. The 7800 could do it with no dots. The 7600 could also do it with no dots, but it'd be primarily a color image with all the baggage that goes with that -- relatively weak fade resistance and metamerism. Sepia uses lots of yellow and magenta -- the two weakest parts of these inksets. A pure carbon print is about half way to sepia, but it is the toughest of the pigments. So, you have a trade-off here to consider. I have tended to avoid sepia for prints that I want to last, but it does look great for some images. You may want to see a sample of a pure carbon print. > Would using a cheaper/older printer (such as the 7500) be able to handle > this need well, or would I be better off considering investing in >something newer? My trusty old 7500 can do neutral to carbon. The carbon is not quite the best, but it could be made better if that were one of the things I did with it. (I'd just replace the FSN-Y with FS-Y in the Y position.) I was thinking about what I'd do if I had someone else do the printing. I think I'd have a printer for proofing. Even the cheap C86 would do with respect to density, but for the sepia and a service bureau running a 7600 or 7800, you'd want a 2400. I'd have the service bureau make 21-step test strips that showed what I want, and the proofing and service bureau printers would be calibrated to match each other with an allowable tolerance that would be negotiated with the service bureau. I'd have a spectrophotometer to measure and quality control the service bureau, and each file I sent would have, outside the main image, a 21-step test strip that I'd be able to read. In short, I think an objective quality control methodology is all I could live with. To get started and learn the technology, you might want to purchase a smaller printer. Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2005-10-02 by Scott Graham
you are right on retouching, but digital printing is not quick---to do file prep right takes a lot of work. Then of course you "just push the button", a long time later. Not sure that I save time with digital printing, except of course for later reprints. Still do test prints, etc. Quality is much better than what I got after years of expertise developed in the darkroom though. Scott --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joel Belmont" <joelbelmont@y...> wrote:
> I don't mind spending long hours in the darkroom; I am perhaps more interested in > printing digitally for repeatability (so I don't have to retouch the same 20x24 print every > time I print it) and theoretically to cut down my amount of time spent printing, so I can > focus more on exposing images. > > Regards,