Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 2400 or 4800?  (Read 10350 times)
markhout
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176



WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2006, 11:32:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Thx Mark, will get to do that.
Logged

KeithR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 616


« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2006, 08:05:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"As soon as Epson annouces that next iteration of the 4800 (hopefully with no black ink switching required), I'll ante up for one."

Could be a while.  Except for the ink swap, which can be bypassed using ImagePrint, there's little to improve on.  Another solution to bypass the ink swap are the new papers such as Crane Museo Silver Rag which are fixing to be all one may ever want from a paper.  I am printing on this paper as I type, and the prints are nothing short of stunning.

Alain
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62525\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Alain,
Are you printing Silver Rag from rolls or cut sheets? I stopped into the only place in town that is going to stock it, and was told that they are still waiting for their order of rolls to come in. When asked about cut sheet sizes, he just sighed and said he hopes to see some by fall. He did mention that the president of Moab, was in the store recently, and mentioned that Moab will also have an answer to Silver Rag, hopefully later this year.
On another note, I visited your website, and took a look at your images. All I can say is "WOW" !! Do those images look that great printed? You mentioned using ImagePrint. Do you use their profiles, or did you generate your own?
Logged

The destination is our goal but its the journey that educates us.
pobrien3
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 320


« Reply #22 on: April 14, 2006, 09:01:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... I would wait for the test reports on these new CANONs before buying anything...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62552\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Doing exactly that, my friend! I've been waiting for more than a year to find a printer that can do all I want of it (and I don't believe my needs are unique or demanding), and it doesn't exist yet.  Is it too much to ask that a printer should be able to do matt and gloss, decent B&W and produce prints that don't smudge in the hand?  Apparently it IS at the moment...
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 14, 2006, 09:48:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, one would hope nothing reasonable is too much to ask. But remember - a scant 7 years ago there was no such thing as an archival inkjet printer that most of us could afford until the Epson 2000-P hit the market. And for that revolutionary printer, remember the gamut and the metamerism? Longevity wasn't in HP's lexicon in those days - they were concentrating on business printers for the corporate market and mass-market inkjets for email and Microsoft Office. Canon was there with nothing unique except their neat little portables. So far largely thanks to Seiko-Epson, when you look at the quality of the fine art photographic prints we can produce today with relatively modest effort, this is a fabulous technology which is maturing quickly, and will mature some more. Now that Canon has gotten serious about it, and HP is turning out to be no slouch either, the pace will even quicken. I think it won't be long before all or darn close to all that what we think a printer should be will be. It is going to be a good time for consumers in the fine-art printer market.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
pobrien3
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 320


« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2006, 10:09:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm hoping for great things from the new Canon printers, time will tell.  After waiting eagerly for the release of the x800 Epson printers I was deeply disappointed with them.  I even thought of buying a 7800 and an HP DJ130 at one stage, but decided to give it a year or so until HP responded to the new Epsons. If I was just doing matt then I'd have no reservations, but many people still demand glossy and semi-gloss and I'm frankly not sold on the fine art=matt arguement - I think that's been a position that has arisen due to the limitations of the technology.

The point printers are at right now compared with just a few years ago is truly amazing, no arguements there! However, we're so close to seeing a device that can produce excellent B&W, glossies with no gloss differential, and robust, lasting prints (I'd settle for far less than 200 years), that I'm prepared to wait a little longer, and my big prints are being done on friends' printers.  Devotees of the HP DJ130 have tried to persude me that this printer is already there, but I have consistently failed to get well-balanced colour and neutral B&W out of one.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 14, 2006, 10:23:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Fine art matte isn't just an argument - on this side of the World it is a commercial success - because it makes for stunning prints that discriminating buyers of fine art photographs (including private individuals, museums and various other collections) appreciate. That's a matter of taste and custom. But true, technically it doesn't suffer from gloss differential!

As things stand I'll take an Epson 4800 over a DJ130 any day - until that something else comes along which beats them both!
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
pobrien3
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 320


« Reply #26 on: April 15, 2006, 01:38:13 PM »
ReplyReply

We could do the matt vs gloss arguement all day, I'm sure!  I know you're right about matt sales, and I also know that a number of well-respected and renowned fine art photographers have embraced the DJ130 because they like the greater dmax of the gloss.  For myself, I have prints (mostly B&W) that I prefer on matt, and those I prefer  on gloss - there is no hard and fast rule as far as I'm concerned.

A colleague did a 16x24" corporate portrait last year and delivered it on Hahnemuehle Rag from his 4800.  The client had seen the proofs on the website, and were disappointed with the print - said it seemed too flat compared with the on-screen proofs.  He reprinted it on the DJ190 on HP satin paper, and the client preferred it.  Seeing the prints side by side, the Epson was far better colour matched to the original (the HP was too yellow), but the satin finish had more contrast and was more 3-D.

I can't bring myself to buy the HP because I can't get a decent colour match from it, and next to the Epson it seems like a fragile toy.  However, anything other than matt from the Epsons is frankly unacceptable due to the truly awful gloss differential issue, and (admittedly now improved) metamerism.

So I'm hoping for great things from this Canon. Hopefully they've weighed up the pros and cons of the HP / Epson competition and are about to deliver something to finally cause me to fill that LF printer-shaped gap in my workroom!  DSLR domination today, printers tomorrow?!  
Logged
Brian Gilkes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 15, 2006, 04:58:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I would not agree that gloss differential on the Epson x800 series prints is "truly awful". It is completely absent on lustre type papers and the Crane Silver Rag. I presume the same will be the case for the Silver Rag similars from Hahnemuhle, Innova, BreathingColor , Moab and the rest that are sure to follow. As far as high gloss is concerned , there is minimal differential on Pictorico High Film and Moab Kokapelli. You have to angle the papers to see it in the dark areas. All prints are subject to damage and protected by glass or an applied surface coating , any slight gloss differential will completely disappear. Appropriate coatings can add a very high gloss indeed. For happy snap glossies , light jet prints are still the best economic proposition. For the quick sale stuff at social events , lustre is usually fine. For corporate or domestic portraits  I usually find the Hanemuhle Photo Rag or similar is highly appreciated. High gloss on skin tones does little for bloodshot eyes and blotchy faces. Sure you can desaturate red, but it is a lot of work with little economic advantage.
Further the painterly look for these papers  seems to be a big advantage.With landscape, I note that luminaries such as Alain Briot and Joseph Holmes are going along the Silver Rag path. Canvasses can give a very high gloss , if required, with appropriate coating, and these should always be coated anyway if they are to be stretched.
Sure , I am looking forward to what Canon comes out with, but mainly to solve the gloss/ matte black ink changeover problem, and to increase gamut and hopefully DMax. I'm sure Epson has something up their sleeves to, which will be revealed when Canon undercuts them or/and when x800 sales start to flag. Gloss differential is, in my mind , not really a problem.
Cheers,
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 15, 2006, 05:06:35 PM »
ReplyReply

From the little I've heard the new Canons will overcome the matte/glossy ink change issue and they will have wider gamut because of the inclusion of R, G, B inks along with all the CMYK inks. Once the initial test reports come out I'll wait some months to see what people report about clogging and also very important: adaptability to different papers, before buying.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
pobrien3
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 320


« Reply #29 on: April 15, 2006, 11:28:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Brian; sorry sir, I have to beg disagreement on the acceptability of the gloss differential. I do agree that it's less pronounced in the current range of printers, but not enough for me.  Prints are never viewed always from the perpendicular - light and viewing angle changes all the time, and I can see the differences on the semi-gloss as well as PPG.

Here in HK and other parts of Asia, there is a decided need for non-matt finishes (high gloss isn't really required except outside the 4x6 happy snaps market), and I for one am useless at applying sprays evenly and without capturing a load of dust.

We aren't well served in Asia with a wide supply of alternative papers, but after reading Alain's posting I am importing some of the Crane paper (I already import Hahnemuehle - from Melbourne, in fact) and will test it out. If the gloss differential disappears and I like the paper, then I'll write a cheque for a 7800.  Changing that black though is a real issue, unless I splash out further for ImagePrint, or unless Crane would be the only paper I'd use...

Clients here love the look and feel of the HP Satin paper - shame the print smudges when they handle it!

There is scant information about the Canon printer at this point - no dealer in HK has one yet or even knows much about it, but if the initial press releases are anything to go by they've solved the black change issue, and there is an alledged wider gamut.  Time though will tell - they make a number of worrying references to cheesy software options which make me wonder if they've got their market properly identified.
Peter
« Last Edit: April 15, 2006, 11:55:55 PM by pobrien3 » Logged
Stephen Best
Guest
« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2006, 02:19:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Brian; sorry sir, I have to beg disagreement on the acceptability of the gloss differential. I do agree that it's less pronounced in the current range of printers, but not enough for me.  Prints are never viewed always from the perpendicular - light and viewing angle changes all the time, and I can see the differences on the semi-gloss as well as PPG.

As pointed out elsewhere, gloss differential isn't a problem with the printer per se, but a mismatch between the gloss of the ink and the paper itself. Different papers will exhibit different amounts of gloss differential. Resin-coated isn't my thing but I was quite surprised with the results on Ilford Smooth Pearl Paper. It still exhibits the same overall "sheen" as all lustre papers when viewed from the side, but gloss differential on the paper was very hard to spot ... and a lot less than other lustre/satin/semi-matte papers I've tried. I used Bill Atkinson's profiles for the 7800/9800, though on my 4800. Worth a try.
Logged
pobrien3
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 320


« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2006, 04:32:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Stephen,  an attempt Epson made (in their printer driver) at reducing the gloss differential involved them putting some ink even in the brightest highlights, where normally there would be little or none laid down.  The differential is caused by the varying amount and reflectivity of ink 'droplets' sitting on the surface of the paper compared with the paper itself, as it isn't absorbed like the dye-based inks. So where this is the applied technology then it is a fuction of the printer / ink and paper combined.  Papers with a textured surface should show this to a lesser effect.  But I know you know all this!

For my testing I too used the Bill Atkinson as well as the standard profiles, and I see Crane have offered profiles for the new silver rag on their site.  I shall use them in my testing once I get some paper.

BTW, had a peek at your site - you do beautiful work.
Logged
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #32 on: April 18, 2006, 08:27:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I guess I want my options open, and if the 2400 handles full bleed 4 x 6 well, and the occasional larger print than it's probably the way to go. I'm not looking to throw money away, but I'm currently spending $0.25 per 4 x 6 and would be willing to spend a bit more if the result was good.

Are the 4 x 6 epson paper choices limited, or does the whole line run in that size?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61146\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't have the 2400, but still the 2200.  It handles full bleed on 8.5 x 11  terrifically (so I assume 4 x 6).  I just did some oneoffs for a client (in truth, I will have hundreds done of many shots by a graphics lab, but I wanted to check my cropping from my shots, so did them on my 2200---I normally prefer a white border around all my prints--personal preference for most).  I don't print on glossy--and that is handled better by the 2400 I'm sure, but on matte (I have my preferences) or semigloss, it does wonderfully.  I would not turn over my printing to anyone else.  

If I were going to print 4 x 6's, I would just print them on a page and cut them myself--I think that would be more economical and pretty easy.  

I think, for your purposes, that the Epson paper profiles would probably suit without purchasing specific profiles, but that's a decision you can make later.  I would not let te printer do the color management in any case.

I'm one of those that will probably go to an even larger format printer when the 2200 gives up the ghost, but it just keeps going--and going---as the Energizer bunny does LOL.

Diane
« Last Edit: April 18, 2006, 08:29:09 AM by picnic » Logged
bruce fraser
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #33 on: April 25, 2006, 08:05:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Coming from the 1280, I'm still very unhappy with the R2400's color management routine in the driver, or the lack thereof. I get best results with the Photoshop driver on "Printer color management" and the printer's driver on "Colorsync", without involving any icc files.

Can't be right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62558\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The icc files are buried in the driver. If you use the context menu to show package contents on the SPro4800.plugin (in main Library/Printers) you'll see a folder called Contents. Inside that are a bunch of folders, one of which is named Resources. Inside that folder you'll find a folder called ICC Profiles. When you select ColorSync in the driver, it looks at the media settings to determine which profile to use. You can copy them out of the buried folder for use inside Photoshop.

However, that doesn't explain why you aren't getting good results letting Photoshop handle the conversion, which is usually the more reliable route.
Logged
Tonsil
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #34 on: April 28, 2006, 01:03:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quick question. What are the best prices you guys and gals are finding for 4800 inks?

Also, What are the various sizes available? are there two diff sizes in these carts?

Also again, Does anyone know how much ink the 2400 carts hold?

Thanks.

P.S. (edit) Anyone finding any particularily good deals on the 4800 itself...the printer. Been seeing media bundles, etc...like from Lexjet. Buy some paper, get the printer for 1595.00, Sounds good but im wondering if there are others out there.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2006, 01:06:12 PM by Tonsil » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad