Are there Epson 9600/7600 users in the group?

[Leonard Metcalf]

I have been using a 7600 for six months now... and am finally printing prints that I am proud of... I am printing onto Innova Museum Quality 100% Cotton Rag Paper which is just a stunning mat paper... doesn't have the problems that the photorag has (specs of loose paper that peal off after the print is made to leave white dots on the print) Yes they are very different to the Ilfochromes (Cibas) or C Type prints I used to make myself, or the ones that come from a lightjet... they have their own quality... I often find myself saying to celibrate the difference between digital output and analogue output... With this heavy paper I can hinge mount very large prints and they still look stunning framed as they hang flat, and without a gloss or semi gloss surface there are no reflections to see the variations in the paper..

I use the printer for black and whites as well as for colour...

These printers are definately industrial machines, and don't have the problems of the smaller desktop varieties..

It has been a steep and often frustrating learning curve, but I must admit that I haven't been back in my darkroom since I bought it... and the customers just love the prints... and so do other photographers...

Coming from an art background... I paint with watercolours and love to draw, I find the mat papers very suited to the styles I am already familiar with...

Am happy to answer questions about how I have it set up and the work flow that I am using...

[Jim Becia]

Just a quick word about out gassing. Out gassing can come from other sources also, like mattes. As a framer, I have found outgassing from framed prints where the print is an offset print so the mattes can give off gas also. Now that being said, yes, UC prints will out gas, however, if allowed to dry for a few days with interleaving between them, it seems to solve the problem, at least in my case. Are UC prints the perfect solution for everyone, obviously not. But for me, there is no better solution for my work. The color gamut it good and ease and convenience of printing is there also. I will agree that on certain images with lots of blacks or whites, one can see some of the bronzing effect. I can live with it at this time. Maybe the the new technology of the R800 will eventually make its way to the large format printers.

Paul, as to the PMA, according to 3M it is acid free. And seeing that I print on the RC type papers, I feel comfortable in my decsion. On top of that, I don't charge hundreds of dollars for a photo. I feel my customers are getting a very fair deal for their money. I don't kid myself so I don't pretend to be "collectable." Like I mentioned in my earlier post, I have only met one person who can tell the two different prints apart. Ultimately, it comes down to the image. If it's good, it's good whether it's a UC print or a Lightjet print. Paul, I'm happy I made the move to the Epson 9600, and have several friends with them (either the 7600 or 9600) and they are happy also. Is it perfect? No, but then neither is the Lightjet, Ilfochrome, etc. Good luck in your decision making. Jim

[Bruce Watson]

Are there any photographers out there who have made the switch from Lightjet or Lambda to Ultrachrome inks and who would share their impressions? (excuse the pun!). And also their techniques for mounting and framing the prints? Thanks!

Second question first. This is how the US Library of Congress recommends framing prints for conservation:

http://www.loc.gov/preserv/care/mat.html

This is how I do it, more or less, and it works beautifully.

First question now. Lightjet prints and UltraChrome prints are not very comparable. They are different animals, trying to do different things. What they have in common is good sharpness, good tonality and smoothness.

They differ on pretty much everything else. The Ultrachromes are pigment inks. They sit on top of the paper. They therefore give best performance on matte papers, because the matte pigments on matte paper doesn't cause a bronzing problem like it does on luster and glossy surfaces. On matte papers, their Dmax suffers though. Since the pigments are sitting on top of the papers, the surface is fragile and can be scratched and scuffed by stacking prints and careless handling. RA-4 process prints don't have these problems, but they do have problems. They exhibit toe and shoulder compression where inkjets have linear response, for example.

That said, inkjet can make some really beautiful prints. What you have to do is learn the material and learn what images take advantage of what the material is good for. Just like you would for, say, dye transfer, or carbon film.

If you want the best from inkjet printing though, IMHO, you have to go to a dye ink. The pigment inks like the Ultrachromes have too many problems, from clogging to low Dmax to lower gamut to surface problems to dry down problems. An archival dye inkset such as Lyson's Fotonics dyes (or the upcoming Futures Inks to be released at Photokina) solve most of these problems. If you are going to use dyes, the differences between RA-4 prints and inkjet prints close considerably, especially if you use Lyson's Darkroom Range fiber papers.

Me? After using the Ultrachromes for a few months to prove my 7600 out and to complete a backlog of color work, I switched over to selenium Piezotones (B&W pigment inks) and have been happily printing B&W. I hope to switch over to a B&W dye inkset soon though ;-)

The Ultrachromes from a x6xx printer are really nice. So is an RA-4 print from a lightjet. Both have their place.

[Ken Lee]

As has been noted many times, many images are destined to be displayed behind glass. All things being equal (as they rarely are) when a Matte image is displayed behind glass, it looks pretty much like a glossy print under glass.

Additionaly, I find that it's already annoying enough to contend with one set of reflections (from the glass). To add another set from a glossy print surface, only compounds the problem. So I do everything matte.

In Photoshop, it is important to use the View> Proof Setup>Custom feature, when making final corrections to an image. It allows you to previsualize the image according to the color space of your printer profile. Since Monitors have a wide color space (wider than most printing setups) there will be a tendancy for the print to look softer when printed, than when viewed on the monitor. However, if you use this feature, you can make the appropriate corrections, getting the most of the dynamic range of the final output device.

[Paul Schilliger]

Thanks to all for the additional informations! What I get from the different posts is that there is not one perfect solution, but many options to suit different sorts of work and to please different tastes. At least the same printer does it, with different sets of inks and different sorts of papers. Is there really a gain once the print is framed and behind glass in using a cotton rag paper? This paper is certainly more expensive, and I can understand the benefit to simulate water color and other art works that are displayed unframed, or for a long archival life. My intention is for 99% in printing standard landscape images displayed behind glass. D-Max, saturate colors and continuous tones, with also the most scratch resistant surface are my requisites. I do not pretend to be collectable either, so permanence is not the point, but if they could keep for at least 20 years from now, this would put me well off retirement and save me troubles in the future. What is in your opinion the "best" standard paper that is commonly used for this use, for example in the Ilford choice? Any other make that could be better and still competitive for this specific use?

I was interested by Hogarth's mentioning of new archival dye inks. Would they last long enough to be suitable for frames? Can they be used on a UC Epson printer simply by switching cartridges and running a cleaning cycle or is it another printing technology?

Thanks! Paul

[chris jordan]

Hi Paul, Chris Jordan checking in with some thoughts. First, the outgassing and bronzing problems with Ultrachromes are not real dealbreakers because both can be solved. Outgassing is solved by a simple process specified on Epson's website, which involves drawing the gas out of the print with a layer of paper. I have extensively tested this process (which takes 72 hours because I do it three times for extra security), and it does in fact totally solve the outgassing problem.

Bronzing also can be solved by coating the print. A simple application of three coats of Lyson printguard (which goes on easily, smoothly, and flawlessly about 98% of the time) totally eliminates bronzing on all of the RC papers, and also protects the print from UV light and atmospheric pollution while also deepening the blacks slightly and making the whole print look a bit richer.

So, with those two items out of the way, Lightjet and Ultrachrome are pretty close in terms of sharpness, longevity, color and overall look. The Epson is sharper, but only marginally, and that only matters for small details on very sharp prints.

For me the kicker is being able to make my own proofs and prints. If someone else is making all of your proofs and prints, the proofing process can take months of back and forth, and be super expensive, especially for problematic images that require lots of proofs. If you make your own, on the other hand, you get instant results for pennies.

There is also something satisfying about doing one's own digital work. The power of Photoshop is incredible-- it provides far more control of many more parameters than darkroom printing ever could provide, and if you do it yourself, you can learn the craft of digital imaging and achieve the kind of quality that can only be acheived if one prints one's own work. The difference in quality between a digital print made by a lab, and one made by one's self (assuming you know what you are doing) is just as big as the difference in quality between a lab-made darkroom print and a print made with tender loving care in one's own darkroom.

So, having experimented extensively with both the Lightjet and the 9600, I have gone with the 9600 with wonderful results, and recommend the same for almost anyone interested in making digital prints. At this point, I think the only reason to stay with the Lightjet is if you intend to make prints larger than can be made with the 9600 (the Lightjet goes up to 72" wide I believe), or if you intend to face-mount your prints on Plexi (which cannot be done with inkjet prints).

regards,

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

[Michael Chmilar]

Chris:

I just looked at the Lyson website. Are you using the spray, or one of the four lacquers?

Mike

[Paul Schilliger]

Hi Chris, well thanks for the good report! If a sharpness freak like you is happy with the 9600, why shouldn't I? ;-) Your explanation of the drying process makes it clear that there is a way to deal with the out gassing. The second part of your thread is clearly what I am looking for too in having my own printing facility. There is seldom a first shot print that I am satisfied with, and having to resort to test prints with a lab is a pain in the a..

I have gathered that some rips deal with the bronzing issue much better than the Epson drivers, along with other conveniences. Rips for extra wide printers are unfortunately very expensive! Do you or anyone use such software or are you all happy with the Epson package? Does someone use the Atkinson's profiles?

[Leigh Perry]

> Does someone use the Atkinson's profiles?

Paul, I use the Atkinson profile for Epson premium semimatte paper, and couldn't be happier with the output quality. I use the standard Epson drivers but drive the printing from QImage, a cheap program that manages the PC / printer driver memory much better than Photoshop, which causes some prints to fail after about 80cm into the print

[Paul Butzi]

> I have gathered that some rips deal with the bronzing issue much better > than the Epson drivers, along with other conveniences. Rips for extra > wide printers are unfortunately very expensive! Do you or anyone use > such software or are you all happy with the Epson package? > Does someone use the Atkinson's profiles?

Yes, RIPs like the Colorbyte rip are expensive for wide printers. I don't use a RIP, I just use the Epson driver and Bill Atkinson's profiles on my 9600. I'm very pleased.