Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Getting a Epson 3800, need paper recommendations  (Read 17980 times)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 29, 2007, 10:59:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I hope the solution is not discontinuing the Mate Paper in the 3800.

Regards

Manuel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Manuel, I hope not either. But based on my test of MOAB Kayenta last night on the 4800 reported above, if you or Eric can reproduce a similar result on the 3800 (i.e. virtually no patchiness), and if there is no repair to the EEM problem, then switching to Kayenta for Matte work would be the obvious solution. Kayenta is a bit more expensive than EEM, but it is printable on both sides of the paper if that is something you would do; very nice paper (actually brighter than EEM, and can be used with EEM profile, though as mentioned above I would try custom-profiling it. The added brightness may be a concern in terms of what happens when the brightener fades. I don't know what is underneath because both sides are coated, and brighteners do fade, eventually giving you a print that has the whites of the paper base.

I would still be concerned by the wetness of prints coming from the 3800, as well as reports of head-strike/platen gap issues reported in a parallel thread. These are matters I hope to be able to learn more about next week at PSWorld.
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: 2108


« Reply #41 on: March 29, 2007, 01:50:35 PM »
ReplyReply

There is a definitely a slight physical waviness to matte prints that come out of the 3800. This is true not just of EEM, but also of thicker papers which go through the Rear Feed, such as Velvet Fine Art (260 gsm, 19 mil, compared to EEM's 192 gsm, 10.3 mil).

That is to say, if you hold the print at an angle to the light, you can see places where the paper rises up and where the paper sinks down. If you let it lie on a flat surface (e.g., a flat table), then initially the paper doesn't come in full contact with the underlying surface because of ripples in the paper (some parts in contact, others are not).

However, there is zero splotchiness/mottling with the Velvet Fine Art paper (on all 20+ test prints I've done so far from a single batch of VFA 13" x 19" paper). I have also seen zero splotchiness on Moab Entrada Fine Art Natural 300 (printed using the UltraSmooth Fine Art Media Type).

The ripples suggest a heavy ink load, but as noted earlier, they do go away. My EEM and VFA prints lie perfectly flat now. And the VFA prints are really gorgeous. I would say the same of the EEM except for the mottling.

Another consideration for a matte paper similar to EEM besides Kayenta (which I believe has been discontinued by Moab) is Red River Paper's Aurora.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #42 on: March 29, 2007, 02:42:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Eric, fortunately, Kayenta is not discontinued Moab Kayenta; also sells on B&H for a couple of bucks less.

About the wetness of the prints, regardless of its final impact on print quality, it raises questions about how much ink the 3800 consumes. My accumulated track on the 4800 is now running at 1.79 ml/sq.ft. EXCLUDING ink used for routine cleanings and clogs; this over an accumulated total of about 1270 sq.ft.
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: 2108


« Reply #43 on: March 29, 2007, 06:42:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Mark,

I only have limited data since my 3800 is relatively new, but I have accumulated some data from the prints I've made (by exporting the job history logs reported by the driver). If I divide the total ink consumed (added over all print jobs) by the total square footage, I'm seeing 2 mL / sq ft when printing at 1440 dpi, and about 5% to 10% more when printing at 2880 dpi.  Again, this is early data, but I'm just offering it here FWIW. (This is mostly on Velvet Fine Art and Moab Kokopelli Studio Semi-Gloss.)

Regarding the status of Kayenta, etc. Moab Paper was acquired by Legion Paper and their papers are undergoing a restructuring/rebranding/renaming process. Andy Biggs, who helps out Moab (I think with making profiles) and who also posts here sometimes, posted a message on another forum which I quote here:

Quote
There is a new line of papers that will be replacing the Kokopelli and Kayenta papers, and it will be called Lasal. There will be a glossy, luster and matte. Only the matte paper will be double sided.

Perhaps I should say that Kayenta isn't necessarily being discontinued, but appears to be undergoing at least a renaming process (though at this point I'm not sure if the actual paper/coating itself will change).

In the meantime, as you noted Mark, Kayenta is still widely available from many places, including Moab's own online store.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #44 on: March 29, 2007, 07:23:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Eric,

Your ink consumption data seems to be in the right ball-park. Do you know if that ink is only for prints, or does it also include routine cleanings?

Thanks for the up-date on the Moab Paper story. Kayenta is good stuff - let us hope they don't wreck it.

Re the reported issue of the head mechanism banging at the ends of transport, I can confirm that I've not had that issue on any of the three wide-format Epsons I've owned (2000P/4000/4800). Really does sound as if something is wrong.
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: 2108


« Reply #45 on: March 29, 2007, 07:53:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Your ink consumption data seems to be in the right ball-park. Do you know if that ink is only for prints, or does it also include routine cleanings?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109504\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe it is only for the prints. To my knowledge, the job histories reported by the printer are for ink consumed during the print itself, no more, no less. If I do maintenance work before a print (e.g., a head alignment, which uses some ink, or an automatic nozzle check/clean), the job history ink numbers don't appear to be any higher than usual (thereby suggesting the job history reports ink consumption for the print alone).
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #46 on: March 29, 2007, 08:20:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Eric,

If the data is job history reports, what you are saying sounds right. Let me ask you this: when you do a nozzle check and print it, do you get a print out that shows ml  "Pre.InkCount" and "Cur.InkCount" ? If you do, those numbers mean accumulated ink usage ALL TOLD from the last nozzle check to the current one. Once you know your start points and end points for both ink usage and printing activity, you can get both the with and without cleaning analysis - as done in my model. But a reliable accumulation of data requires several months of activity, so its too soon to be conclusive.

However, if your job reports are so far indicating 2 ml per sq. ft., and mine 1.78, (both without cleaning cycles), it would seem to suggest that your 3800 is laying down about 12% more ink than my 4800. It's the same ink, but the dithering is different, and you've also been using a range of different papers whereas I've been on a fairly steady diet of EEM, so it is hard to tell whether your 3800 is bleeding more ink than my 4800, paper-for-paper. Even if the comparable difference were 12% one wonders whether this would be enough to produce big differences in apparent dampness of the paper emerging from the printer.
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: 6945


WWW
« Reply #47 on: March 30, 2007, 11:15:54 PM »
ReplyReply

In my quest for greater clarity about the apparent prevalence of mottly ink effects in very dark tones of prints from the 3800 (ref. Eric's image file links above) I decided to go straight to the source and discuss this issue with Epson America. They were very helpful and forthcoming, and even offered to perform a comparison test for me between the 3800 and 4800 and send me the results. I took them up on that offer and asked them to use the Atkinson printer target test image, EEM paper, their own profile and Driver, and Photoshop Determining Colors with RelCol Rendering Intent (to be comparable with stuff of my own and what Eric has been testing with). They obliged and the results appeared at my door this morning. I looked at these results under two kinds of lighting - close-up under a Solux D-50 lamp in my office, as well as in a professional light booth at a studio. Before writing this post, I called Epson and notified them of my intention to report my results here, and they had no objection.

Seen under the comparatively diffuse lighting of a professional light booth, tilting the prints in various ways, the mottling effect we have been discussing is virtually absent in both of the test prints (4800 and 3800) from Epson.
 
But, examined close-up under intense Solux D-50 at particular angles, the "mottling" effect appears on three prints in the blacks and very deep green in the background of the image of the rose - the 3800, 4800 and one done on an HP Z3100 (discussed below) . The z3100 print was done on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag matte, which is a relatively textured paper without brightener. Interestingly however, even under my Solux lamp I did NOT see this effect on Kayenta paper.  Kayenta is not much heavier than EEM (205 vs. 192 g/m2), but it has a smoother finish than either EEM or the Hahnemuhle.  Hence, I am increasingly led to hypothesize that what we are seeing is an interplay of dark ink on the uneven surfaces of both EEM and Hahnemuhle Photo-rag matte against intense light at certain angles, rather than a problem with the ink lay-down per se, otherwise one would expect the same issue on Kayenta paper, considering that I printed the Kayenta with the same K3 inks, Epson EEM profile and Epson 4800 I used to make the EMM print in my 4800 that does show the effect, which Eric also sees from his 3800 using EEM and the same inkset etc..

It has been a working hypothesis in this discussion that the apparent "mottling" is related to an excessive laydown of ink on EEM paper in the 3800 printer. Eric and I have compared notes on ink usage. This ink usage comparison is imperfect, but fwiwi, his 3800 seems to be laying down about 12% more ink per sq. ft. than does my 4800; noting however that his machine is new with much smaller sample size; as well he has used a greater variety of papers than I have. Nonetheless, one wonders even if there were as much as a 12% difference of ink laydown, whether this could cause a major difference of wetness between 3800 prints and 4800 prints. I should also mention that for the part of the Epson 3800 test in which I collaborated with Michael Reichmann back in December (as reported in his review) I do not recall the prints coming out of the machine he borrowed as being particularly wet. That is something I would have remembered, as I am accustomed to the slight dampness and curvature of prints emerging from my 4800, as well as the fact that they flatten within ten to fifteen minutes (letter size).

All this would seem to suggest several things: (1) There may be no relationship between "wet" prints and the "mottly effect" so well demonstrated in Eric's file links above. (2) This effect may be how dark ink reflects under particularly intense light at certain angles of viewing and illumination on relatively textured matte papers, due to the paper texture. (3) People getting worse results than what I am describing here (i.e. alot of wetness, apparent uneveness of ink where there should not be) may have maladjusted printers and should seek technical support.

As an aside, I was able to get printed (NOT by Epson, but elsewhere here in Toronto), the same Atkinson printer test target on an HP z3100 equipped with the latest firmware. Readers will recall there have been complaints that the Z3100 did not perform very well on matte paper and had problems reproducing reds - they were said to be orange. Well, with the latest firmware up-date in that machine, I find neither is the case, and when I compare the 3800, 4800 and z3100 target test prints, the print quality is hard to tell apart save for two things - the Epson 3800 has slightly more saturated red than either the 4800 or the z3100 (but the paper used for the Z3100 print is not brightened like EEM). The difference is mainly visible in the strawberries image, but I emphasize - the difference is slight and may be due to the paper difference. As well, the z3100 shows a more yellow yellow in the squares and stripes than observed in either of the Epsons, but in the images of the yellow flowers and foliage, all three results are fine - hard to tell one from the other. Readers unfamiliar with the Atkinson printer target test image may find this discussion more useful by downloading it here (http://homepage.mac.com/billatkinson/FileSharing2.html) - it is third from the bottom on the right side of his downloads page.
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: 6945


WWW
« Reply #48 on: March 31, 2007, 09:36:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Further to my latest post (#48 above) I have just performed a "most recent" data pull for ink usage and paper coverage on my Epson 4800. Between December 24th 2006 and March 30th 2007, I have chaulked-up 160 sq.ft. of paper coverage on EEM and consumed 309.8 ml of K3 ink (excluding ink used in cleanings), amounting to 1.93 ml per sq.ft. This is really very close to what Eric is reporting for his experience with the 3800.
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: 2108


« Reply #49 on: March 31, 2007, 01:16:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the info, Mark. My (early) data so far has been printing on Epson Velvet Fine Art (a MK paper) and Moab Kokopelli Studio Semi-Gloss (a PK paper) using the Premium Luster Media Type in the Epson driver.

This is a bit apples/oranges because for VFA I was doing 1440 dpi and for MKSSG I was doing 2880 dpi. I did run some tests on 2880 dpi vs 1440 dpi on MKSSG and found that 2880 uses about 5% to 10% more ink than 1440 dpi -- early tests again, since I only printed a few images and checked the job history.
Logged

abiggs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 555



WWW
« Reply #50 on: March 31, 2007, 02:21:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Just chiming in here. Yes, Moab by Legion Paper has discontinued Kayenta, and will be replacing Kayenta with Lasal Photo Matte, a more updated dual-sided paper with a newer coating. Profiles should be available by the time the new papers ship in late April.
Logged

Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris | Workshops | Fine Art Prints
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad