Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Epson 3800 prints mounted under glass  (Read 4627 times)
GregW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


WWW
« on: January 08, 2007, 10:58:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Background

I have decided that I would like to take control over the printing process.  To that end I have ordered an Epson 3800.  I'm solidly in the advanced amateur low/moderate volume segment so it seemed like a reasonable choice.

I have followed many of the discussions regarding this particular printer: Comparisons with other models; even though there is no direct competitor, Gamut, Clogging. Maximum paper size, RIP options and some fine art paper discussion.  To date there hasn't been a lot of discussion about dedicated Epson papers and how they perform for the 3800.  

This is going to be a learning process for me.  Initially I'd like to explore what paper Epson has to offer in combination with the canned profiles.  In time, I'm sure I'll become more adventurous.  That said it's not going to make a lot of sense to make my mistakes on slightly more exotic fine art paper, Epson or Otherwise!

Questions

1.  Will I see any appreciable benefit by choosing Premium Luster Matte over Enhanced Matte when the print is under glass.  What are the benefits liekly to be?  I understand that the heavier Premium would offer a better in the hand experience but I'd be more likely to use the UltraSmooth Fine Art Paper if I want a quality archival print in the future.  I'm really focused on the print under glass.

2.  What would be an example a comprable option in a semi gloss or gloss paper from Epson?
Logged
Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2007, 11:18:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I just replaced my Epson 2200 with a 3800, but haven't had time to do more than one test print so far, but I have some comments based on my 2200 experience that might be useful to you...

I found that glossy and semi-gloss papers produce noticeably deeper blacks, and generally better-looking colors, than matte papers.  However, some glossy and semi-gloss papers (included the several Epson papers I've tried, one of which was the Luster paper) have outgassing problems (evaporating solvents fogging the glass); matte papers don't have that problem.  (Epson claims to have a procedure for "curing" the prints to prevent outgassing, but, in my experience, it doesn't sufficiently work.)  Some non-Epson papers outgas much less; I use Ilford Gallerie Smooth Gloss, which is much better.  If you prefer a Luster sort of finish, the Ilford Gallerie Smooth Pearl would be pretty similar.

Keep in mind that these comments apply to the 2200's ink set, so the 3800 *might* be different, though I doubt it.

Lisa
Logged

jjlphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2007, 11:33:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Keep in mind that these comments apply to the 2200's ink set, so the 3800 *might* be different, though I doubt it.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 3800 uses Epson's latest K3 inkset, totally different than the inkset the 2200 uses. K3 is what the 4800, 7800, and 9800 use.
Logged

Thanks, John Luke

Member-ASMP
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2007, 11:41:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Greg,

You did not say whether you were most interested in B&W or color (or both). Allot of the richness of B&W is found in the Dmax. UltraSmooth Fine Art paper has a beautiful surface and feel but a relatively low Dmax. For a high Dmax the best papers are Velvet Fine Art and Crane Museo Max. Drawbacks are VFA is highly textured and CMM is warmer toned (no optical brighteners=less color shift), neither of which is a problem for me compared to the richness issue.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2007, 11:41:56 AM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2007, 12:04:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Greg,

You did not say whether you were most interested in B&W or color (or both). Allot of the richness of B&W is found in the Dmax. UltraSmooth Fine Art paper has a beautiful surface and feel but a relatively low Dmax. For a high Dmax the best papers are Velvet Fine Art and Crane Museo Max. Drawbacks are VFA is highly textured and CMM is warmer toned (no optical brighteners=less color shift), neither of which is a problem for me compared to the richness issue.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94562\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Kirk, since you mentioned VFA, I wonder if you know which paper (any mfg.) that would be most like it in larger than 13 x 19.  I have that size and have used it for a good while with the 2200, but am looking for something for larger prints.  I have sampled HPR (used it also prior) but wonder if there's anything else you'd recommend.  Ah---perhaps I should check on sizes for the Crane Museo you mentioned.  Warmer is fine with me for my toned monos.

Diane
« Last Edit: January 08, 2007, 12:06:18 PM by picnic » Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2007, 12:21:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Diane, That has been an issue for me as well. I don't print larger than 16x20, but 13x19 is limiting sometimes. I have not done any paper testing in about ten months so there may be more out there than what I have looked closely at. I don't like the glossy, silver gelatin imitating papers.

I have settled for now on Crane Museo Max for larger prints. It is warm true, but not that bad about like Enhanced mat, but this is a good thing because there are no optical brighteners to go yellow down the road. What you see in CMM is the whitest you can get a 100% cotton paper without optical brigteners. Anything whiter, regardless of what the manufacturer says, has optical brighteners. CMM has a very good dmax of  1.68-1.70 with Epson K3 pigments and comes in rolls and sheets at a fair price. My experience with it is that it is very consistent from batch to batch. It is the choice of many great printers that I know.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2007, 12:25:49 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
dmccombs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2007, 02:41:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I just recieved my 3800 on Friday along with a few sampler packs.  Obviously, I have many of the same questions you all do.

I got to print ~3 images on 20 different types of papers.  It was informative, but I still have many questions.

The test prints I did included several Epson, Red River, Pictoric, Hahnemuhle, Inkjetrt Ceramic, and Crane papers.  I tried a few of each of the major paper types.

It may be that my brain is stuck on this, but even under glass, I am very aware of any texture on the paper.  This may be because I am used to seeing High Gloss prints so seeing any texture is distracting for me.

Also in comparasion all the papers I tried with the 3800 had less Dmax.  The Gamut was good on the 3800, but the DMAx was lower, even with Pictorico High Gloss Film.

I have basically broken things down into 3 categories (Darrell's World).  they are Glossy, Luster/Fine Art, and Matte.  Here are my favorites so far.

Glossy:  By far and away, send it out to WHCC or MPix.  The Lightjet prints crush any glossy work coming off the 3800.  If you can prove me wrong on this, please, please, please let me know.  I would love to find a good Glossy solution ont he 3800.  Compared to Lightjet type prints all the 3800 glossy looked like Semigloss.

Luster/Fine Art:  I prefer as littel texture ont he paper as possible, so my favorite so far was the Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl.  It had a subtle texture, a pretty high DMAX, accurate colors.  BW prints look nice on this as well.

Epson Luster had too much texture for me.  The Ceramic Luster was a little better as it looke the same as the Epson, but the texture was the slighest bit smoother.

I tried the Crane Museo too, but that had a strong texture that reflected light from every angle.  I could see people liking this for BW work, but it borders on gimicky/fadish.  Its ok as long as you are the only one in your area using it.  ;-)

Matte:  Epson Matte is good for proofing, but the Hahnemuhle is my favorite matte paper so far (albiet I haven't tried many papers).  The Hahnenule Rag Mat is smooth and has a high Dmax for a matte paper.  

Well, there are the highlights of my weekend of paper testing.  I obviously have a strong bias for the smoother textured papers and thos with high DMAX.  

I am curious to hear more comments about the best papers for "under glass" viewing.

Regards,
Darrell
« Last Edit: January 08, 2007, 11:54:51 PM by dmccombs » Logged
Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2007, 03:05:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 3800 uses Epson's latest K3 inkset, totally different than the inkset the 2200 uses. K3 is what the 4800, 7800, and 9800 use.

It's not "totally" different.  As far as I understand it, it's an earlier generation of the K3 inkset; so, while there are improvements in K3, it wasn't created completely independently, and I'd be very surprised if its behavior was substantially different regarding issues like outgassing.

Lisa
Logged

jjlphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2007, 03:59:35 PM »
ReplyReply

From http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/Editori...es&oid=61412340

"Eight completely new higher density pigments, new higher gloss resin encapsulation technology, and three levels of black. The only ink that is the same as the previous Epson UltraChrome Ink set is the Matte Black"

but...

"The new Epson UltraChrome K3 inks have about the same outgassing as the previous ink set. "
Logged

Thanks, John Luke

Member-ASMP
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2007, 04:07:46 PM »
ReplyReply

In the real world, I would call the K3 inks a moderate advance over the previous incarnation with slight, but worthwhile, improvements in Dmax, gamut, longevity, bronzing etc., a worthwhile upgrade but not a revolution.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2007, 04:19:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Diane, That has been an issue for me as well. I don't print larger than 16x20, but 13x19 is limiting sometimes. I have not done any paper testing in about ten months so there may be more out there than what I have looked closely at. I don't like the glossy, silver gelatin imitating papers.

I have settled for now on Crane Museo Max for larger prints. It is warm true, but not that bad about like Enhanced mat, but this is a good thing because there are no optical brighteners to go yellow down the road. What you see in CMM is the whitest you can get a 100% cotton paper without optical brigteners. Anything whiter, regardless of what the manufacturer says, has optical brighteners. CMM has a very good dmax of  1.68-1.70 with Epson K3 pigments and comes in rolls and sheets at a fair price. My experience with it is that it is very consistent from batch to batch. It is the choice of many great printers that I know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
 

Thank you.  I"ll order some samples and try it.  

Diane
Logged
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2007, 04:31:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just recieved my 3800 on Friday along with a few sampler packs.  Obviously, I have many of the same questions you all do.

I got to print ~3 images on 20 different types of papers.  It was informative, but I still have many questions.

The test prints I did included several Epson, Red River, Pictoric, Hahnemuhle, Inkjetrt Ceramic, and Crane papers.  I tried a few of each of the major paper types.

It may be that my brain is stuck on this, but even under glass, I am very aware of any texture on the paper.  This may be because I am used to seeing High Gloss prints so seeing any texture is distracting for me.

snip

Regards,
Darrell
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94596\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Darrell, did you try the Innova semimatte?  You might like that---it has the least texture (and gloss--its more a 'glow') of any of the F type papers.  I don't print gloss, don't care for it much, so I haven't even sampled any and never used it except with my old dye ink printer (1280) for one offs occasionally.  

I'm  sampling primarily because I can't get the fineart paper I liked the most in larger than 13 x 19 and I'd like to be consistent in all sizes (and I had never tried the F type papers before) plus I was anxious to see the difference with K3 inks and profiles for monos in particular (as opposed to the Ultrachrome--and usually the QTR RIP).   I do have a stack of them LOL--but have come back to HPR I suppose---and I rather liked the one print with Wm Turner (need a bit more sampling) and I"m going to try Kirk's recommendation of Crane Museo Max.

Diane
Logged
GregW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2007, 05:18:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks every one.  The discussion is very interesting and helpful.

I neglected to explain that I will print on matte papers about about 85% of the time.  The remining images are real high color and will need a gloss paper to do them justice imo.
Logged
dmccombs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2007, 05:31:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Diane,

  I didn't try the Innova Semi-matte, but I did try the Epson semi-matte and Red River Satin.  They are nice papers but Semi-gloss doesn't do it for me.

Regards,
Darrell


Quote
Darrell, did you try the Innova semimatte?  You might like that---it has the least texture (and gloss--its more a 'glow') of any of the F type papers. 

Diane
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94627\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
dmccombs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2007, 05:38:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Greg,

   The Hahnemuhle Rag Matte is very nice, but a bit pricey.  I will offset the costs a bit by using the Epson Enhanced matte for proofing and just use the HRM paper for final prints.  That way I end up with nice prints for the Gallery, and do it affordably.

   For Glossy, I suggest you send anything that is not time critical out to WHCC or MPIX unless others have a good glossy solution.  The 3800 glossy wasn't even close.

Regards,
Darrell

Quote
Thanks every one.  The discussion is very interesting and helpful.

I neglected to explain that I will print on matte papers about about 85% of the time.  The remining images are real high color and will need a gloss paper to do them justice imo.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94643\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2007, 07:54:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Diane,

  I didn't try the Innova Semi-matte, but I did try the Epson semi-matte and Red River Satin.  They are nice papers but Semi-gloss doesn't do it for me.

Regards,
Darrell
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Darrell, fust for general infomation, those are not F types--and the Innova is, at least to my eyes, a fair amount different from the other Fs--which I didn't care for that much.

Diane
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad