Budget Digital Negative Printer

[Sylvester Graham]

Hey there-

Was wondering if anyone has experience or speculation with/on the cheapest hassle-free printer for digital negatives for use with kallitype and cyanotype. Used or new, but hopefully not obsolete.

-Alex

[D. Bryant]

Hey there-

Was wondering if anyone has experience or speculation with/on the cheapest hassle-free printer for digital negatives for use with kallitype and cyanotype. Used or new, but hopefully not obsolete.

-Alex

How much can you spend is the first thing we need to know. I've seen some special pricing on the Epson 1400 (about $199) which will produce acceptable digi-negs according to some who are using it with Quad Tone RIP.

I maybe stating the obvious but be prepared to spend time and money on consumables learning how to produce good digi-negs regardless of the printer. There is not push button solutions like making an acceptable inkjet print.

Good luck,

Don

[dfoo]

I don't really think there are push buttons for making an acceptable digital inkjet print either :)

[Sylvester Graham]

I didn't say push button, I said cheap. But you're right, the two usually go together.

I tried DN way back when with some ancient epson and external ink, can't remember which one but it was a letter size photo printer, and things were very troublesome in terms of banding and streaks from the printer rollers (or whatever they're called). Don't know how far lower priced printers have come in terms of digital negatives but thought I'd find out. In an ideal world all I need is an 8x10 or letter size printer capable of producing density and few mechanical problems, unlike that old wreck of a printer I used to use. I'm much more concerned about lack of banding and ink dribbles and globs than I am about resolution. 1400 sounds good, looks like they've got a good deal at the epson clearance center.

Thanks--

[sanking]

I'm much more concerned about lack of banding and ink dribbles and globs than I am about resolution. 1400 sounds good, looks like they've got a good deal at the epson clearance center.

Thanks--

I would recommend the Epson R1800 over the 1400. Or the R800 if all you want is letter size digital negatives. The R800/1800 was replaced by the R1900 but you might be able to find one used for a good price.

The R800/1800 is capable of excellent digital negatives, with no banding. I know someone who owns the R1800 and the 3800 and actually prefer the R1800 for making digital negatives.

Sandy King

[Marko]

Sandy,

Would you mind sharing why do you prefer the 1800 over the 1400?

The main reason 1400 appears attractive to many amateurs these days is the price - it can be had for less than $200, with a complete set of inks, shipped to your door. It also has smaller (i.e. more precise) nozzles than 1800.

I bought one a few months ago for even less with the aim of converting it to Cone B&W system once my inks are out. But I have to say I really like the output even as is. Feels like a great and affordable entry-level 13" printer for those who are just starting and want to learn.

Is there some particular problem for creating digital negatives or is it something else?

Thanks,

Marko

[sanking]

Marko,

The problem with the 1400 is that the maximum UV blocking you get with the dye set is quite low for most forms of alternative printing. I actually purchased a 1400 when they were first introduced but returned it after testing revealed that I could not get sufficient UV blocking for my needs, though I think it might work very well for silver gelatin printing, if you think of that as an alternative process.

I also tested the R1800 about the same time and found it also to be a bit low in UV blocking, but much better than the 1400.

If you replaced the Epson ink set of the 1400 with Cone inks and ran the printer with QTR it is possible that it would work fine for making digital negatives, but I don't know anyone who is doing that. The first issue would be to make sure that the Cone inks dry on the OHP surfaces used for making digital negatives. I tried a K7 Piezography set with the Epson 2200 a few years ago and while it printed fine on paper the inks did not dry well on my OHP.

Sandy King






Sandy,

Would you mind sharing why do you prefer the 1800 over the 1400?

The main reason 1400 appears attractive to many amateurs these days is the price - it can be had for less than $200, with a complete set of inks, shipped to your door. It also has smaller (i.e. more precise) nozzles than 1800.

I bought one a few months ago for even less with the aim of converting it to Cone B&W system once my inks are out. But I have to say I really like the output even as is. Feels like a great and affordable entry-level 13" printer for those who are just starting and want to learn.

Is there some particular problem for creating digital negatives or is it something else?

Thanks,

Marko

[Robert Fisher]

Sandy, is the 3880 the best bang for the buck in the current market for max print size of 16x20 (primarily for B&W output)?

Thanks!

[clay harmon]

I have been using a cheap 1400 and QTR profiles for making digital negatives when I do workshops away from home. It is not as good as my 7800 in terms of density, but it is capable of making digital negatives that will print pure palladium negatives with no restrainers needed in the sensitizer in order to increase the print contrast. It is not a bad printer in any way, and if you find one cheap and don't intend to use it heavily, I would consider it a realistic option. I'll post my QTR profiles for this printer on the hybridphoto site this week sometime so people can use them if they need a quick and easy starting point with this printer. We used them at a palladium printing workshop this last weekend, and the students made about 45-50 negatives and had no problems.

FWIW, what Sandy says is true about the 1400 not being able to lay down large ink loads on pictorico film. I was able to get an ink combination that worked without dripping ink everywhere that gave me a negative density range of 2.6. This is adequate for pure palladium printing with no restrainer. I doubt if it would be suitable for longer exposure scale processes like Van Dyke.

[Marko]

Thanks Sandy, that was the answer I was looking for. I do not intend to try digital negatives (yet) at this time, but I am keeping an eye on the process and like to read about it.

Clay, would it be possible to cross-post those profiles here as well? If not, which section on the hybrid photo should I look at?

Thanks,

Marko

[sanking]

Thanks Sandy, that was the answer I was looking for. I do not intend to try digital negatives (yet) at this time, but I am keeping an eye on the process and like to read about it.

Clay, would it be possible to cross-post those profiles here as well? If not, which section on the hybrid photo should I look at?

Thanks,

Marko


I should add that when I tested the 1400 QTR was not yet available for the printer so my comments about low UV blocking are based on use of the Epson driver. For making digital negatives QTR adds a lot of versatility to all of the Epson printers.

Sandy

[Professional]

I have Epson 3800 which is really amazing printer, and if i can have a heavy budget in the future then i will add a 44" Epson printer as well, but should i look for something else like Epson 1400 or 1900?

[sanking]

Sandy, is the 3880 the best bang for the buck in the current market for max print size of 16x20 (primarily for B&W output)?

Thanks!

Not sure if the 3800/3880 is the best bang for the buck, but it is a nice printer. Makes great digital negatives.

Sandy King

[clay harmon]

Here are the QTR profiles for the 1400. One is for palladium, the other for polymer photogravure positives. Probably not perfect, but they seem to work very well for me.

[Marko]

Clay, thank you!

[Sylvester Graham]

Epson R280 or its replacement for $99 and under. 8x10 negs and smaller or 8x20 and smaller. Got a nice R280 for $90 and two months got the money back in rebates. Prints nicer than the 2400 or 3800 as long as you don't need negs wider than 8 1/2 inches on the short dimension.

Wow this is the answer I was looking for. Then again I shouldn't be jumping to take just the answer I want. What process were you printing these negatives for? I was hoping to do kallitypes. I would say "why not" since it's only $99, yikes, but it seems to have been discontinued and unavailable anywhere I'd want to get it.

The r800 (discontinued?) seems to be about $400 new, though it looks like at one time it was $139 refurbished, sigh, and the r1800 near $400 also. Looks like the 1400 for kallitypes with QTR is the best bet, lest someone might persuade me otherwise. I suppose I could also take a stab in the dark and go down to staples and pick up a $35 printer and see what happens.

Do you think there will ever again be a good quality 8X10 or letter size inkjet? I never print over 8X10 so that would be great for me, Dig neg or not.

-Alex

[bc_the_path]

I thought it would be fair to revive this thread in 2020 rather than starting a new one exactly on the same subject.

---

I had been using an Epson 2880 photo-printer some years ago for printing transparencies as digital negatives. Unfortunately, I ruined it by a long neglect, which killed the head. Its inks were rather expensive but I could afford them, then.

Now, I am a retiree.

Recently, I purchased a simpler Epson photo-printer (L805) which satisfies all my photo printing needs at home. To my surprise, it simply can not print transparencies (due to its printing technology&inks, I guess). I had no doubts, while buying it, that it could print digital negatives like my earlier printer without problem. I did not check. A costly mistake.

Now, I do need to print digital negatives for cyanotype and perhaps for van Dykes (and, perhaps kallitypes). My budget is very low and I will be using the printer "only" for this particular purpose. The printer has to live happily with Linux, by the way.

Locally, I can get a printer like HP Smart Tank 515 (or, 530) or Epson Ecotank L3160 for example.

Unfortunately, and to my surprise again, none of the current inkjet printers I can afford list "transparency" as a media they can print on (including the ones above). I have boxes full of inkjet transparencies waiting to be printed.

I guess that "some" inexpensive inkjet printers "can" print nicely on transparencies even when their specs fail to list it. But, I am not in a position to handle that risk.

I should be most happy to hear some advice from people with more experience on printing digital negatives with current inkjets.
It must be evident that I am NOT looking for best quality.
I have the chemicals, I have the papers and transparencies and, most importantly, I have time.
I only need an affordable printer for home use that can print acceptable digital negatives.

Any suggestions?