Do you use the same printer for BW as well as color?

[slackercruster]

From my tests with printers under $500. It seems some are better for BW and others for color. A $100 printer may do better at BW than a $500 printer. But it may not do as well with color as the $500 unit.

Are the higher end $1000 printers a 'do it all' printer and excell at both color and BW? Or does one need 2 printers for the different mediums?

Thanks

[Jim Jones]

I'm happy with my Epson 3800 for both B&W and color.

[Lenny Eiger]

Depends on how you print.

Lenny

[Tyler Boley]

Actually it takes a better printer to do good b&w. With off the shelf manufacturer ink sets the better photo printers have black and additional light black inks resulting in much better b&w, considering those are also the better color printers, one printer is all you need. However many including myself consider the finest b&w ink prints come from dedicated b&w ink sets, which are not manufacturer supplied and require the user to install. If you choose that route then you will need two printers.
Tyler

[Jim collum]

I use an HPz3100, and use it for color, b/w & digital negatives.. so far the best printer i've owned

jim

[Ken Lee]

I use an HPz3100, and use it for color, b/w & digital negatives.. so far the best printer i've owned

jim

Does your experience match that of this article (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/HP-Z3100-review.shtml) ?

I'm surprised that we don't hear more about it on this forum.

[slackercruster]

I use an HPz3100, and use it for color, b/w & digital negatives.. so far the best printer i've owned

jim

What are digital negatives?

Wow, that is a helluva printer. Too big for me though. Just need to 13 x 19.

[Brian Ellis]

I don't know anything about your printer but for me Epson inks, QTR software (www.harrington.com), and my Epson 3800 printer produce excellent b&w prints as well as color. Years ago, when digital printing was in its relative infancy, I used two printers, one loaded with 3rd party dedicated b&w inks for b&w, the other for color. But I haven't found that necessary since Epson started selling the 2400 printer, which was maybe 7-8 years ago.

I'll take Tyler's word that it's still better to use dedicated b&w inks from 3rd parties such as Jon Cone, he knows more about b&w printing than I do. But for my purposes, not being a pro and not making an effort to market my work, the Epson inks with QTR work fine for both color and b&w. Which isn't to say that my standards are low, just that I haven't found a need to coax that extra 1% or whatever out of my b&w prints by using 3rd party inks and a second printer.

Digital negatives are negatives that have been made by enlarging a smaller format negative (e.g. 35mm) in a computer using Photoshop or other software, then printing it digitally. The usual purpose is to be able to make a contact print of a size larger than would have been feasible from the smaller negative.

[Peter Mounier]

I too have the Z3100 and I'll attest to its performance and quality of prints. As the review states, it's a 12 ink printer, but one cart is for Gloss Enhancer, a top coat to minimize gloss differential. Also there are two blacks, which I think is the norm now; one for glossy paper and one for matte. But what makes it a good B&W printer I think are the two shades of gray. I also favored the HP because when I bought mine, Epson hadn't come out with their newest generation printers with a self contained spectrophotometer for creating custom profiles, whereas the z series printers had. I was further swayed by the sample prints I saw. One was made on the newest Epson, and the comparison print was made on the new z printer. The z printer was slightly sharper than the Epson, although it's only obvious when looking at the line pairs on the test image.

Peter

[Jim collum]

Does your experience match that of this article (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/HP-Z3100-review.shtml) ?

I'm surprised that we don't hear more about it on this forum.

Yes... in fact, that article led me in the direction of buying the printer. I only have the 24" version, but they're pretty much identical except for the size. Have never had a head clog in the 5 years i've had it.

[Lenny Eiger]

I too have the Z3100 and I'll attest to its performance and quality of prints. As the review states, it's a 12 ink printer, but one cart is for Gloss Enhancer, a top coat to minimize gloss differential. Also there are two blacks, which I think is the norm now; one for glossy paper and one for matte. But what makes it a good B&W printer I think are the two shades of gray. I also favored the HP because when I bought mine, Epson hadn't come out with their newest generation printers with a self contained spectrophotometer for creating custom profiles, whereas the z series printers had. I was further swayed by the sample prints I saw. One was made on the newest Epson, and the comparison print was made on the new z printer. The z printer was slightly sharper than the Epson, although it's only obvious when looking at the line pairs on the test image.

Peter

This is what I meant by "depends on how your print". Peter and I have a very different idea about printing. I am not saying his is invalid in any way, but its different. I don't mean to single him out, I haven't seen his work, he is just expressing an 'example' opinion. He is interested in gloss, a deep black, etc. I am not in the least bit interested in those issues. I don't print with that kind of printer because it looks to me like it was made with ink from melting crayons.

I am much more interested in a print that looks like an alternate process print, a platinum print, albumen or carbon. To me, these are exquisite. At best, these can look like darkroom prints. I won't even want to look at them anymore, after seeing what I like.

I don't like a lot of contrast, more like what the world looks like to me. I don't see heavy blacks all over the place.

If you want prints to have the delicacy of an alternate process print, you ought to use a printer set up for b&w. Cone inks, K7's in whatever tone you like. 2-3 blacks do not print like 7 does.

If you like a higher contrast, without the smoothness, or you want your prints to look like they came out of a darkroom, I think there are a lot of systems that would work... and work for color and b&w.

Lenny

[bob carnie]

A good carbon print looks nothing like a platinum palladium print.
If any thing quite the opposite.

This is what I meant by "depends on how your print". Peter and I have a very different idea about printing. I am not saying his is invalid in any way, but its different. I don't mean to single him out, I haven't seen his work, he is just expressing an 'example' opinion. He is interested in gloss, a deep black, etc. I am not in the least bit interested in those issues. I don't print with that kind of printer because it looks to me like it was made with ink from melting crayons.

I am much more interested in a print that looks like an alternate process print, a platinum print, albumen or carbon. To me, these are exquisite. At best, these can look like darkroom prints. I won't even want to look at them anymore, after seeing what I like.

I don't like a lot of contrast, more like what the world looks like to me. I don't see heavy blacks all over the place.

If you want prints to have the delicacy of an alternate process print, you ought to use a printer set up for b&w. Cone inks, K7's in whatever tone you like. 2-3 blacks do not print like 7 does.

If you like a higher contrast, without the smoothness, or you want your prints to look like they came out of a darkroom, I think there are a lot of systems that would work... and work for color and b&w.

Lenny

[slackercruster]

When you talking specialized inks Lenny, what is the price tag for inking up the big printers?

[sanking]

When you talking specialized inks Lenny, what is the price tag for inking up the big printers?

My name is not Lenny, but I do have some experience with installing all grey ink systems (Cone K7) on a couple of Epson printers, including the Epson 3800. Initial cost of buying the refillable cartridges and 125ml of ink for all eight positions is on the order of $600 for the 3800, minus a bit of change. Cost would be the same for the Epson 3800, other printers would vary according to size. After initial installation operating cost would depend to some extent on how you buy inks, but it would be somewhat less than continuing to use the K3 inks.

Many printers, including the 3800/3880, can be set up to print either matte or gloss.

People have different opinions about photographic syntax. Take all opinions with a large sack of salt.

Sandy

[Lenny Eiger]

A good carbon print looks nothing like a platinum palladium print.
If any thing quite the opposite.

I have seen a great many alternative process prints in my time. I even own a few albumen's, a Samuel Bourne and a William Henry Jackson, a couple of Camerawork gravures, and one carbon print. A long time ago, back in the '80's I even made a carbon print in an alt process workshop. I remember lifting the tissue out of the bath very carefully. I also enjoyed inking a gravure plate. Many of the alternate processes (not all) are capable of very smooth transitions from tone to tone. This is what I was speaking to.

I wouldn't say they are opposite, I have seen contrasty platinum prints and very subtle carbon prints. Both these mediums have a wide range they are capable of printing in, especially today, with updated chemistry. Different, tho'.

Lenny