QTR-Quadtone RIP

Greetings:

I am new to this group and am just getting started with QTR. My question is whether or not it is worth it to begin working with my present R2400 printer or should I bite the bullet and buy a 3880 as a superior machine. I am afraid I might struggle solving issues with a 2400, perhaps solve them but not get as good a results as if I had a 3880 and then have to redo most of my work at a later point when I want to eventually upgrade. 

Does anyone have experience they would be willing to share noting whether or not the same quality of a digital negative can be produced with a 2400 as with a 3880?

In advance, many thanks,
James

I moved from a 2400 to a 3800 (the model prior to the 3880) and I have never been sorry.  Perhaps the major thing is the cost of ink with the 3800's 80ml cartridges vs. the 2400's 8ml cartridges.

Harvey

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 4, 2012, at 10:38, "jameshajicek" <hajicek@...> wrote:

> Greetings:
> 
> I am new to this group and am just getting started with QTR. My question is whether or not it is worth it to begin working with my present R2400 printer or should I bite the bullet and buy a 3880 as a superior machine. I am afraid I might struggle solving issues with a 2400, perhaps solve them but not get as good a results as if I had a 3880 and then have to redo most of my work at a later point when I want to eventually upgrade. 
> 
> Does anyone have experience they would be willing to share noting whether or not the same quality of a digital negative can be produced with a 2400 as with a 3880?
> 
> In advance, many thanks,
> James 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>

Thanks Harvey. I take your answer to mean you saw no quality difference in
terms of what the two different printers were capable of doing when making
digital negatives. Again many thanks.
Best,
James


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am not really sure what you mean by a _digital negative_.  I print images from pictures taken with my Nikon D300 camera.  They are printed as positives in color and are at least as good as similar prints made with the 2400.  I never really made an extensive critical comparison as I had no reason to expect the 3800 to be at all inferior.  Among the reasons for my switching was the cheaper ink, the 17 x 22 image size vs. the 13 x 19, and especially the fact that the 3800 has a built in NIC.

Harvey

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 4, 2012, at 13:29, James Hajicek <jameshajicek@...> wrote:

> Thanks Harvey. I take your answer to mean you saw no quality difference in
> terms of what the two different printers were capable of doing when making
> digital negatives. Again many thanks.
> Best,
> James
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>

Ooops!!  I just looked at which group this is in and my posts are probably
not appropriate.  When I made them, I just assumed that it was the Epson
Printers group that I am also joined to.  I am really sorry if I confused
anyone or led them astray.  ;-(

Harvey

Sent from my iPad

On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Harvey Fishman wrote:

> I am not really sure what you mean by a _digital negative_.  I print images from pictures taken with my Nikon D300 camera.  They are printed as positives in color and are at least as good as similar prints made with the 2400.  I never really made an extensive critical comparison as I had no reason to expect the 3800 to be at all inferior.  Among the reasons for my switching was the cheaper ink, the 17 x 22 image size vs. the 13 x 19, and especially the fact that the 3800 has a built in NIC.
>
> Harvey
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 4, 2012, at 13:29, James Hajicek <jameshajicek@...> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Harvey. I take your answer to mean you saw no quality difference in
>> terms of what the two different printers were capable of doing when making
>> digital negatives. Again many thanks.
>> Best,
>> James
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Harvey Fishman   |
fishman@... |           A little heresy is good for the soul.
   718-258-7276    |

there are a few people on this list using QTR for digital negatives, so 
not entirely off-topic ;) though I'm not one of them. The change in the 
magenta inks might possibly be significant.

On 04/04/2012 21:39, Harvey Fishman wrote:
>
> Ooops!! I just looked at which group this is in and my posts are probably
> not appropriate. When I made them, I just assumed that it was the Epson
> Printers group that I am also joined to. I am really sorry if I confused
> anyone or led them astray. ;-(
>
> Harvey
>
>
>
> 

-- 
mike finley photography
http://www.mikefinley.co.uk
http://words.mikefinley.co.uk



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

oops - sorry - misread where your post was in the thread - not a answer 
to you, Harvey, but to the original question

On 04/04/2012 21:52, Mike Finley wrote:
> there are a few people on this list using QTR for digital negatives, so
> not entirely off-topic ;) though I'm not one of them. The change in the
> magenta inks might possibly be significant.
>
> On 04/04/2012 21:39, Harvey Fishman wrote:
>  >
>  > Ooops!! I just looked at which group this is in and my posts are probably
>  > not appropriate. When I made them, I just assumed that it was the Epson
>  > Printers group that I am also joined to. I am really sorry if I confused
>  > anyone or led them astray. ;-(
>  >
>  > Harvey
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
> --
>
> 

-- 
mike finley photography

Sorry - I probably wasn't clear that I intend to use QTR to make digital
negatives to be used for printing with 19th century processes rather than
for making positive digital prints.
James


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I use printers that came before these.  My 2100 made decent digital negatives (adequate for platinum), but not good enough for silver.  The 3800 solved all my problems---it provided settings to microadjust the paper advance.  The 2100 was just fine for regular printing, but exhibited subtle banding in silver digital negatives.  This can be eliminated in the 3800 and 3880, but I don't think the 2400 has this adjustment.  The 3800 makes a visibly better negative even for pt/pd.

Digital negatives push the printer in unexpected ways, and IMHO, you should get a printer that provides maximum adjustability.  If I were in your shoes, no question at all, I'd go for the 3880.

Until later,

Clyde

For producing digital negatives or prints the 3800/3880 will certainly out perform the 2400.

No question about it.

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, James Hajicek <jameshajicek@...> wrote:

>
> Sorry - I probably wasn't clear that I intend to use QTR to make digital
> negatives to be used for printing with 19th century processes rather than
> for making positive digital prints.
> James
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Thanks to all who helped me decide to go ahead with buying a 3880 for
making digital negatives. Epson has a $250 rebate on that printer until the
end of April, so now is the time.
Best,
James


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]