Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Getting a Epson 3800, need paper recommendations  (Read 17525 times)
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2007, 10:13:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't quite get what you're saying here. I'm not talking about the 3800 being surpassed, I'm talking about the 4800 being replaced. As I said, that's only rumours which might well prove wrong.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107004\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I actually missed the point about replacing the 4800 with the 3800 LOL. Have you considered just adding it as Jack Flesher did (I think) to maybe his 7800 to avoid an ink switch?  Using one for PK and one for MK??  That way the one you use most for roll paper can be the 4800.  Just a quick thought.

Diane
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 16, 2007, 10:17:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't quite get what you're saying here. I'm not talking about the 3800 being surpassed, I'm talking about the 4800 being replaced. As I said, that's only rumours which might well prove wrong.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107004\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh - let me clarify that - my interpretation of what I was told in the context of the discussion I was having, is that in the 17 inch size range, nothing new will appear for at least a year, whether you think of it as a better 3800 or a better 4800!
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
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 16, 2007, 10:18:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I actually missed the point about replacing the 4800 with the 3800 LOL. Have you considered just adding it as Jack Flesher did (I think) to maybe his 7800 to avoid an ink switch?  Using one for PK and one for MK??  That way the one you use most for roll paper can be the 4800.  Just a quick thought.

Diane
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'm not the one who is thinking about replacing the 4800 with the 3800. MarkDS said he was. I just commented that the 4800 might be up for replacement by Epson.

(This is confusing  )
Logged

Nikos
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2007, 10:31:20 AM »
ReplyReply

OK, I hope I've de-confused it to the extent I can. My source of information is not "the horse's mouth" but in my opinion more reliable than rumours with an unknown basis - I don't know if that should provide more comfort or less   . But I think the key point is what I've mentioned above - unless one has definitive information about a new model release within the time frame of interest, the most sensible strategy is to discount the future heavily and buy what one thinks better meets current needs at the time, Especially if the investment is not monumental. For example, if I were contemplating a Z3100 at 4000 USD, I'd be much more concerned about the product cycle and the depreciation rate than if I bought a 3800 for 1300 USD. I can still sell my 4800 on eBay for at least 1000, so the net re-cycling cost doesn't add-up to a high impact risk of regrets over timing.

I've thought of the two printer strategy - for a number of people this can make a lot of sense. It depends on how much space you have and how much printing you do. With limited space and a moderate throughput, a good all-round one printer solution is probably more practical, but in a higher-volume studio environment I can see the two or more than two printer solution as being ideal.
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
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


« Reply #24 on: March 16, 2007, 10:40:38 AM »
ReplyReply

One of the nice points about the 3800 is that it's relatively small for a 17" printer.

Here's a picture I snapped of my old 2200 sitting on top of the 3800 (let's hope Epson doesn't see this picture and void my warranty ...    ):

http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/tmp/e...0_on_ep3800.jpg

As you can see, it's not much wider than the 2200. It's definitely deeper from front to back (not shown in the image) but not much taller.
Logged

ecemfjm
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34



WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 28, 2007, 08:38:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What I am mentioning above are reports from other users from other forums who have made calls to Epson Support because of their dissatisfaction with the results they are getting with the default settings on EEM on their 3800 machines.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106986\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi, Eric

I replace a few days ago my Epson 2100/2200 by a 3800. I used the most the Epson Mate Paper, called here (spain) Archival Mate. The first think I realized was that the prints got out wet, soaky, i.e. too much ink as you said. No problem with Epson watercolor or Hahnemuehle photo rag 308, both perfect. But the Mate paper much better with the 2100.

Compared with the older 2100, blacks with the 2100 are blacker that in 3800, and contrast is higher, although detail in the shadows and overal color reproduction are better in the 3800. And with nothing changed, prints with the 2100 look sharper than the same print in 3800 (using always the epson profiles). Hahnemuehle photo rag 308 prints are definitively better in the 3800 (Hahnemuehle icc profile in photoshop and watercolor in the printer driver)

If I cannot solve the Mate Paper issue (reducig the ink amount?) I'll be forced to keep the 2100 for Archval Mate and use Epson Watercolor as normal paper for the 3800 (Hahnemuehle photo rag 308 is only for special ocassions...).

That's my experience so far with the 3800 out of the box.

Manuel
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


« Reply #26 on: March 28, 2007, 12:16:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark Segal and I have been discussing the issue with Enhanced Matte and the 3800 (we actually think it may be a more general issue with Ultrachrome K3 vs the original Ultrachrome). We hope to get some input from Epson soon about this.
Logged

ecemfjm
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34



WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 28, 2007, 12:31:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mark Segal and I have been discussing the issue with Enhanced Matte and the 3800 (we actually think it may be a more general issue with Ultrachrome K3 vs the original Ultrachrome). We hope to get some input from Epson soon about this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109157\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've upgraded to the latest firmware (o02269, which, eventually, is a lower number than the firmware the printer had previously --> check with the remote panel and do not trust on the firmware numbers) and things with Mate seem to improve, althought I've to perform some more tests. I'll keep you informed.

Manuel
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 28, 2007, 01:03:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've upgraded to the latest firmware (o02269, which, eventually, is a lower number than the firmware the printer had previously --> check with the remote panel and do not trust on the firmware numbers) and things with Mate seem to improve, althought I've to perform some more tests. I'll keep you informed.

Manuel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109160\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Manuel, please do keep us informed about your findings.

Whether the print comes out of the printer more or less damp is not really the determinative issue. The determinative issue is what you see on the paper the next morning after the print has been allowed to dry. By then, the paper should be flat and the print quality should look much crisper and cleaner.

Eric and I both tested the same printer target file on our respective machines (3800/4800). (We do not live in the same cities, so we are doing this by email.) When we examine the prints under bright light, we can see traces of a mottly, greyish uneven splotchiness in the deep tones. This is the problem. The status of this issue as it has evolved between Eric and me right now is that the kind of effect he is observing in the dark tones on EEM coming out of his 3800 are similar (but perhaps more intense) to what I see coming out of my 4800. On examination of older prints I did NOT find this effect on prints from my previous 4000 using original Ultrachrome. This is mainly why we think it may be more related to K3 ink than to the printer model.

Interestingly, at least for me with the 4800, the angle at which the light hits the paper and at which you view the print determines whether you see this effect or not. It is there, but not equally bothersome at all lighting and viewing angles.

The reference to Epson is that I shall bring these target test prints to PSWorld in Boston next week and show them to people in the Epson Booth, and see what they advise about it.  

Meanwhile I think it would be very helpful if 3800 and 4800 owners reading this thread could contribute their observations - not so much about the prints coming out of the printer damp, but whether or not the next morning you see what appear to be greyish or muddyish blotches in deep-tone areas of the prints.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2007, 01:05:39 PM by MarkDS » 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
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


« Reply #29 on: March 28, 2007, 01:51:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Examples of the splotchiness that Mark refers to:

http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink1.jpg
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink2.jpg
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink3.jpg
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink4.jpg
http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/photos/tmp/overink5.jpg

FYI, this is Atkinson's Lab Test Image printed on Enhanced Matte and photographed with the light arranged at an angle so as to maximize the splotchiness effect (i.e., this is a worst-case scenario). These are Epson 3800 prints (I have tried this on 2 different 3800 printers with the same results).
Logged

Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1662


« Reply #30 on: March 28, 2007, 02:10:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
NikosR,
Inkjetart Micro Ceramic Gloss is also inexpensive, and comes in 17x25 which is a size that I would like to print to, but there is little info about this paper on the forums, I would like to here from anyone that has used this paper and profiles on the 3800.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106799\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've use their matte papers for years, exclusively.  It's a good thing to standardize on paper at the beginning of your printing experience.  Later, once you have things dialled in, is a good time to experiment with different papers.  My pal, who also prints on a 4800, chose the Micro Ceramic Gloss and loves it.  The savings are significant in large paper sizes, especially with matte, since it's double-sided. His prints (and mine   ) look great.  We both use the Epson profiles for these inkjetart papers. I didn't like the InkJetArt profile as much as the Epson profile.   I set my printer driver to the watercolour paper setting.  Longevity does not seem to be a problem.  We both hang unframed prints in sunlight and see no fading after at least a year.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 28, 2007, 02:14:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Examples of the splotchiness that Mark refers to:

.............FYI, this is Atkinson's Lab Test Image printed on Enhanced Matte and photographed with the light arranged at an angle so as to maximize the splotchiness effect (i.e., this is a worst-case scenario). These are Epson 3800 prints (I have tried this on 2 different 3800 printers with the same results).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109182\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eric, good you posted these - this will help readers see what we are targeting.

Cheers,

Mark
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
Richowens
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 835



« Reply #32 on: March 28, 2007, 03:06:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I have experienced this same effect with A3 prints from a 2200, yet the same print cropped to letter size does not have the problem printed on letter size sheet.

I cut a sheet and ran it through my 875 dye printer with the same effect.

After looking at a blank sheet with strong sidelighting, I came to the conclusion that the blotchiness is in the coating itself. It appears to me that Epson got a bad batch of paper.

The letter size I bought about a year ago, the A3 size about three months ago.

Just some of my observations. As a result I have started using Moab Kayenta and Epson profile for my A3 prints with excellent results.

Rich
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 28, 2007, 03:36:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Rich,

That batch of paper would have to have been ultra-huge in light of the time span involved. Furthermore, the effect I've seen, corroborated in Eric's posted examples, I reproduced on letter-size EEM. You are correct that EEM seen under a strong sidelight has a sort-of "pock-marked" surface. Kayenta's surface however is smoother. I like your idea of trying a print on Kayenta -I happen to have a sheet handy so I'll try the test target with it, let it settle overnight and see if the effect is replicated there too.
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
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 28, 2007, 05:10:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Rich,

That batch of paper would have to have been ultra-huge in light of the time span involved. Furthermore, the effect I've seen, corroborated in Eric's posted examples, I reproduced on letter-size EEM. You are correct that EEM seen under a strong sidelight has a sort-of "pock-marked" surface. Kayenta's surface however is smoother. I like your idea of trying a print on Kayenta -I happen to have a sheet handy so I'll try the test target with it, let it settle overnight and see if the effect is replicated there too.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109202\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The time span: I forgot to mention: I was comparing test prints from June 2006 and March 2007.
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
Richowens
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 835



« Reply #35 on: March 28, 2007, 05:19:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Mark,

It is quite possible I'm sniffing up the wrong trail here. Wouldn't be the first time I got off on some tangent.  

I am very grateful to you and Eric for your detective work on this problem. Everone will benefit from your efforts.

Rich
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 28, 2007, 05:24:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Rich,

I ran a couple of Kayenta prints just now. I'll let them dry overnight and report back tomorrow morning.

As I've been sitting here printing, I'm thinking of Manuel's post, where he says the paper came out of his 3800 "soaking". "Soaking" means really wet. EEM just out of my 4800 is very slightly damp, nothing near soaking. That may be indeed cause for concern - counter-intuitive.
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
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


« Reply #37 on: March 29, 2007, 06:16:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I would say my EEM prints coming out of the 3800 are slightly damp, definitely wouldn't use the term 'soaking' here. The paper is wavy and wrinkly, but flattens out after about 10 minutes. Just FYI.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 29, 2007, 09:09:05 AM »
ReplyReply

My EEM coming out of the 4800 isn't even "wavy and wrinkly"; just slightly damp; if it is a very dark print overall, there may be an ever-so-slight cratering of part of the paper surface, but it flattens within ten minutes or so.

Now, turning to the Kayenta, Rich Owens has a point - not I think that EEM had a defective batch, but EEM in general has a unique behvioural property with 3K inks, because on the Kayenta result from my 4800 last night, I had to really look very, very hard under intense illumination to find even a trace of the effect you see in Eric's images. There is no problem seeing it on my EEM target test print from March 17th (12 days ago).

I agree with Rich that on the whole the EEM profile works very well with Kayenta; however a custom profile may still be worthwhile, because the tonal separation at the dark end of the gray scale is somewhat better on EEM with the EEM profile than it is on Kayenta with the EEM profile. Otherwise, you can't tell these prints apart.
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
ecemfjm
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34



WWW
« Reply #39 on: March 29, 2007, 10:45:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would say my EEM prints coming out of the 3800 are slightly damp, definitely wouldn't use the term 'soaking' here. The paper is wavy and wrinkly, but flattens out after about 10 minutes. Just FYI.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109334\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

"This paper is soaking" was my first impression wen I took into my hands the first print in Archival Mate I did with the 3800, after years printing with the P2100. The paper was wavy, smelled ink, looked wet and it took about one hour to flatten and dry (it was a A3+ print with lots of black). Perhaps soaking was a bit exagerated, but I was used to a perfet flat and dry paper comming out the P2100, and acted on the impression...

Being the print mostly blacks, the "traces of a mottly, greyish uneven splotchiness in the deep tones" described by Mark were visible, and they accentuated or completely vanished depending on the direction of the ligth. And I agree that this is the real problem.

As said before I upgraded the firmware but had no time (until this week-end) to re-print the picture to check for improvements. I hope the solution is not discontinuing the Mate Paper in the 3800.

Regards

Manuel
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad