What printer gives the best B/W prints?

[paulr]

I have actually gotten to the point in the field where I can pretty much know whether it will work best one way or another.

I guess wrong often. It doesn't come up when photographing ... I never previsualize in the talked about sense ... but even when printing I'm sometimes surprised by what will work better in ink or in silver. It would seem easy: you want deep blacks? Silver. You want a long, delicate scale? Ink. But the results defy my expectations all the time.

My experience is still limited to older versions of piezography on matte papers.

[Brian K]

Probably a Roland Davinci.

I use an Epson 9900 with OEM inks and StudioPrint as my RIP. If I had space for a second 9900 I might consider the Cone inks, but StudioPrint allows me to produce very neutral B&W prints using color inks as well as the best color printing.

And regarding Paul's statement that if you want deep blacks silver being the rule. Well that's not true anymore. Inksets using photo black can meet or exceed the dmax of silver depending on the paper used.

[paulr]

And regarding Paul's statement that if you want deep blacks silver being the rule. Well that's not true anymore.

I assume this to be the case but haven't had a chance to print my own work in b/w on glossy stock. I look forward to trying. I've printed some client work on glossy baryta paper w/ OEM inks and quad tone rip. They look very good … just a bit shy of what I saw with older 4-ink Piezo inks.

One thing that helps ink is its lack of an innate shoulder. With silver you're always contending with the shoulder of the paper (which amplifies the toe of the film). My favorite papers had a very deep black, but if I printed for it, the lower midtones would be suppressed by the curve. Changes in development and toning couldn't compensate for this completely. So I usually printed shadows for the zone 2-3 values and let the darkest tones fall where they would … invariably at a lower density than the paper was capable of. In ink you can always print right to the dmax if you so choose.

Re Roland: Cone talks about using an older 12 ink printer of theirs loaded with two ink sets simultaneously, and creating custom blend curves on the fly with a rip. It sounds like an amazing system. Although he said that Epson updated Roland's license for the head technology to forbid making printers which allowed this.

This probably means Cone's working on a hack, but I haven't heard any details.

[Lenny Eiger]

Re Roland: Cone talks about using an older 12 ink printer of theirs loaded with two ink sets simultaneously, and creating custom blend curves on the fly with a rip. It sounds like an amazing system. Although he said that Epson updated Roland's license for the head technology to forbid making printers which allowed this.

This is the setup I use. I have 2 Roland Pro II's, which are 54 inches wide (one's for color). I have two sets of my own formulation of Cones ink in the b&w machine, one for Carbon Sepia and another for Selenium. I mix them for a nice neutral, and have all sorts of split tone possibilities. The StudioPrint RIP makes it all work. I like it for my own work and the clients love it.

Epson also forbid StudioPrint from addressing all 12 carts in a single print environment, which made the neutral and the dVinci color setup possible. Epson is not a nice company. Does not play nice with others.

The Roland's are built like tanks, they are easily maintained by the user. I expect to be using them for some time....


Lenny

[paulr]

Lenny, is there a way around Epson's control freakery, or does this setup require and older roland / older version of the rip?

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny, is there a way around Epson's control freakery, or does this setup require and older roland / older version of the rip?

The short answer is older versions of the Roland.

Apparently the new versions of the RIP do not disable existing features. However, each RIP has to have the codes to talk to each new machine. Epson won't let them address the 12 channels of Roland going forward (if they do, they won't give them the codes for the 9900, etc.). The last one was the Pro 2's (FJ540 and FJ600). The AJet, while having 12 cartridges as well, works in two sets of six, etc. They use the extra set to increase the speed vs increase the width of the color space.

Roland's had many advantages. They were built really well. While Epson wanted their techs to come out and service your machines at very high rates, Roland gave you a video explaining how to maintain the machine. Their is direct access to the heads. I can change a damper in one minute flat. If the heads get gummy I can spray them with distilled water and loosen things up. All the parts are metal. You can put multiple 20 foot prints a day thru this thing for months on end and it won't fail. Epson's are not built that way.

While they sell good printers (they don't actually make anything) Epson is in control of the consortium. They literally told Roland that they were not to invade the fine art market. Roland is therefore relegated to signs, banners, wraps, etc. Altho I think this machine can hold its own against anything on the market today, it won't be a serious machine going forward for fine art.

We wouldn't even have b&w inks (or alternate color choices, refillable cartridges, etc.) if we weren't protected by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Epson, which sold all their smaller models at a very low cost, depends on the ink & paper sales for their return on investment. They tried to tell everyone it would void their warranty if we used anything but Epson products, but thankfully this is illegal.

Epson printers are great, especially if you amortize your costs so that you can replace it every three years or so. Epson the company is evil.


Lenny

[Tyler Boley]

It turns out Canons have an internal "buffer" that hold residual ink, it's used for back flushing during cleanings or something. This makes it impossible to clean out for 3rd party ink installation, like a Cone system. He did get a brand new Canon that had not yet had ink installed to work with, but developing a system is expensive, and how many are willing to by a new printer, never install the OEM inks to try, just for a unique Cone setup. For a few, if it worked beautifully, it sounds intriguing, but enough people to warrant the R&D? No.
For Canon OEM ink B&W solutions, I doubt Roy is interested in supporting Canons with QTR, however "True Black and White" is a similar but more sophisticated system-
http://www.trueblackandwhite.com/
My friend John Dean uses it, as well as Cone K7s, and an HP, and likes it very much-
http://deanimaging.com/new.php
A 3rd party driver to optimize HP B&W output is probably unnecessary, and I know of none that exists, however driving it with StudioPrint, as Brian K drives his 9900, gives futher individual custom ink setup options that could be used to optimize B&W options.
For ink, the K7 systems remain the top performers in my opinion, in terms of photographic output performance, and simple beauty of print. Even so, I still use a dual quad setup, custom mixed, and tweaked and fine tuned to come as close to K7 quality as possible, yet give some hue options to clients and myself. I also have a K7 setup, but it's primarily for custom mixing and experiments, not set up for jobs. Eventually it will have a custom mix dedicated to my own work, and anyone desiring the same look. K7 at 2880 on a beautiful paper... nothing like it.. but if you don't respond to the "presence" of mid tones, like a good platinum print, and only love Silver... I think you are stuck with an overprint or spray system to really marry the ink to the paper. It's that last .1% that makes the difference. That said I do B&W photo surface work all the time for people with my 9900, OEM inks, and Studioprint, like Brian..
Tyler

[paulr]

Tyler, what differences do you see between Cone's 4, 6, and 7 ink systems?

[Tyler Boley]

Wel there are no longer any 4 ink systems... those were the PIezotones and they are discontinued. My dual quad setup is custom mixed from the K7 sets, and not something anyone is really going to get into any more. I think he is working on a dual quad variable hue setup, with GO soon.
I had a little 1400 I used briefly with the K6 special edition set, it looked excellent to me, the addition of another dilution, for the k7s, makes a technical difference, but how visible it is woulf vary for each viewer I think.
Basically, the more dilutions set up properly, the less visible dots, the higher the resolved image on paper, etc.. It's very very hard to see any mechanical image dot structure with K7s, even with a loup. I'm not sure K6 is really much of a compromise though, to the eye, I don't have old samples around to compare to k7.. how well his new dual quad setup performs in this regard will have to be seen... sorry I can't be more specific.
Tyler

[bob carnie]

I use a Epson 7800 and a Cannon 9400 and I feel you would be good to go with either system. I have never felt the need to go to the Cone piezo inks as I still print silver gelatin prints on enlargers and as well using a Durst Lambda.
The new Cannon we have is nothing short of remarkable with a proper calibration I am very confident the Black and Whites coming off it are excellent.

To the OP when purchasing an ink system one thing we found is keeping the printer in a humidity controlled condition is critical. Some months the air is super dry and if the machine does not get a lot of action there will be issues. We have had blue ink problems each January, which coincides with lack of exercise for the machine over the Holiday season. Once its a fluke two years in a row the exact same problem has made us rethink the humidity thing.

80% of my work is B/W with the occasional colour nude or landscape. I've been eyeballing some printers from Epson and Canon and can't really see the same print side by side to compare. For those of you who have either one or knows something more than I do, if you had to buy today which printer would you buy for B/W prints? Colour is equally important also. I need enough width to print 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20. My 3 most common print sizes, 90% glossy prints.

Thanks