Where is Archival Ink Going?

[Paul Coppin]

I think this is a tough question. I've printed recently on a Canon IP5000, which is not a particularly special "photo" printer, but was cheap at a time when I needed something quick to replace an aging Epson stylus printer. It uses the E series Canon dye inks, and for the money, does an excellent job. The Canon printer is more robustly built that the Epson too. My take on image life with these inks on high retention papers like Kodak Ultima leads me to believe image life will be about the same as (or maybe slightly better than) the equivalent photographic image (I'm talking colour here). So far, the Canon prints on Ultima seem quite durable.

Enter the Epson R2400. I watched Canon closely on their new pigment printer, as it came up in direct competition to my planned purchase of the R2400 (I believe the R2400 uses the same head engine as the larger commercials ???). Thus far, I have been unable to find out squat about the new Canon pigment printer, although I believe there's a local dealer show coming up where the hardware will be evident. So far my dealer can't even give me a price. Now, my dealer put the R2400 on a bit of a sale this past week, and the fumbling of Canon was enough to cause me to spring for it. Besides the minor sale, I rationalized that even if the Canon printer turned up next week, it'll likley be 2 years before it settles down - this is their first consumer pigment printer. Took Epson 3 tries to stabilize pigment printing, although Canon has the advantage now of Epson's learning curve. My take is that the new Canon will take a while to "be all it can be" and with any significant aftermarket support, something that's already there with the Epson.

BUT. The R2400 is now home, and my initial observation is I'm paying a premium for pigment inks. It suffers from the same structurally flimsy construction that seems to be typical of their consumer lines ( I can only guess the commercial machines are more sturdily built.). The drivers wouldn't install (I have to run 98SE to support a firewire film scanner that I have that XP was supposed to, but didn't work properly with.), and Epson US/CAN doesn't support 98 (presumably because Bill stopped supporting it). I had to rummage around the Epson EU site to get drivers to install in 98. Print capability *just* equals the cheap Canon as far as resolution is concerned. I'm attributing this to the difference between pigment and dyes; the Canon does produce a slightly sharper image although there is no discernible difference in "information" printed if you look at it closely. The Canon does have a smaller drop size.

All of which is a long way around about saying that the new Canon *might* have significant promise, but maybe not in a reasonably short time frame. If you can expense out your printer needs now, it may make sense to go with the Epson and IF the Canons meet the need, roll out the Epson in a year or two. The aftermarket should remain strong for the Epson if its kept in good condition. If you can cruise comfortably on what you have for the next 6 months you might be best to wait. That all said, I would guess Canon's versions of commercial pigment printers could be further off as a stable platform - they have more to lose if commercial machines are troublesome, assuming they have any interest in that market at all.

Personally, I think the newer Canon machines are physically better boxes, and I believe their drivers are superior tho not as versatile. But they ignored the B/W pigment market and now they have to catch up. If they're serious though I think they'll eventually run away from Epson, at least in colour, but I'm not getting any younger and didn't want to wait another couple of years for things to settle down! Sorry for the long ramble...

[Bob McCarthy]

Ed: even with a custom profile and a battery of tests with the HP rip, I still cannot get a b/w print that doesn't have unobjectionable green metamerism. YMMV.

The water solubility of an HP130/Photo Satin print is not an issue for me (the print quality is worth it), but I know that it is for many. I doubt that HP's outdoor media has near the beauty of their Photo Satin.

I settled on the HP90 for glossy color output though I'm now using their satin as my primary paper with this machine. And I went through the green phase with B&W at first. A second calibration along with the B&W modifying profiles HP now has on their website has eliminated the problem. Neutral 0 is giving me tasty cold tones. I might add that there is a bit of drydown that shifts from a little greenish (just a hint) to cold (hint of bluish) black. I found modest heat moves this along briskly. A print transported in a hot car showed me the way (Texas of course).

The Hp is growing on me for B&W. I think for glossy/satin papers, its better than my Epsons. I have the 7600, not the newer 7800 though.

Bob

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Bob McCarthy,

Which HP90 did you get, the network connected, or roll feed version? Also, you don't mention whether you are running a RIP currently, or only relying on profiles. Any comments appreaciated. I am mostly interested in one as a proofing printer, or for printing portfolios; more commercial imaging than fine art prints.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

[steve_782]

I'd wait. You already know what the Epson K3 will do. But, from what I've seen from the Canon output, their native dithering routines suck bigtime. My problem with the Canon is the large format printer is about $2500 more than a 9800, and the native output doesn't compare to the Epson. If a RIP is available for the Canon, it would make a big difference.

All of the previous dreck in this thread whining about build quality of the 2400, ink usage, etc. is meaningless in the context of a large format printer - but, you already know that.

I find it interesting that a lot of people are ready and willing to give Canon a pass on proving ink longevity just because they'd like to see someone make a print system that works as well as the Epson. They'll take Canon's claims for longevity as fact while readily vilifying Epson for making any claims.

As I'm sure you know, longevity is a multi-part problem far beyond ink choice. It involves paper and after printing treatment (sprays or lamination) in order to get the best performance out of the ink/paper combination.

I'd get some test prints made on a Canon and evaluate the prints - then make up your mind.

[Peter Langham]

One more thing to throw in the mix. I was talking to a salesman at a reputable dealer on Saturday. He is convinced Epson will be adding an ink slot for both K inks in the near future. His prediction is an introduction at Photokina this year. He claims no inside knowledge, just a guess. I know even less (much less).

[chris jordan]

Kirk, I've seen prints from all the printers and there is nothing that stands up to the Epsons. Their super microweave technology (whatever it is) produces finer dot patterns and smoother tonal transitions, especially when the 2880 setting is used. And the K3 inks have a wide enough gamut to print all of my photos, so Canon's new 12-color system doesn't get me too excited. The way I look at it, the prints I'm making on my Epson 9800 and the new Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl paper are extremely close to what I would consider the best possible prints that could be made, at any cost. It's hard to imagine any printer doing something better; I'm guessing that Epson's next generation of printers will just be faster and have more automated features (such as nozzle checking & head cleaning), but as far as print quality goes, there's nothing else even in the same ballpark.

[Helen Bach]

I decided against the Cone K7 inks as replacements for the Septones in my B&W 2200 because of their poor performance on glossy media. I tried a mixture of K3 inks instead, along with IJC/OPM which I was already using with the Septones. After doing a lot of trials with different toners I settled on K3 light cyan and R800 blue. The blue proved to be too dense so I switched to a dilute blue (20% ink, 80% MIS base). I left one slot spare for Krystal Topkote so I have MK, PK, LK, LLK, LC, LB and Krystal Topkote. The KT eliminates gloss differential, increases the D-max and provides some degree of physical protection that allows otherwise fragile surfaces (like Innova F-type) to be used for postcards.

This allows me to print on glossy and matte surfaces without switching inks, and to get a D-max of over 2.6 on the new papers like Innova F-type. It took quite a lot of experimentation to get to this system, but it gives me exactly what I want.

Best,
Helen

[Kirk Gittings]

I actually prefer mat papers. The examples that Cone showed at the VC Conference were impressive. The only way to really see is to bite the bullet and test them on my 4000. I will also buy a 7800 and run Imageprint Phat Black for comparison. It will be awhile before i get around to this. I have a big show in Hollywood in Sept. and don't want to rinvent the wheel when I am under the gun.

[Bob McCarthy]

Hello Bob McCarthy,

Which HP90 did you get, the network connected, or roll feed version? Also, you don't mention whether you are running a RIP currently, or only relying on profiles. Any comments appreaciated. I am mostly interested in one as a proofing printer, or for printing portfolios; more commercial imaging than fine art prints.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

I went with the base unit. And no rip. It was originally done as an inexpensive experiment. Epsons on "matte" wasn't working for a couple of our projects. For less than a thou, it was a lark. A real pleasant surprise.

I think HP is getting it's act together.

The only downside is durability (Ink can't get wet) and paper choice is limited. But for glossy/satin the dye inks can sure pop.

Bob

[Gordon Moat]

Thanks Bob! A few years ago, I would have stated that anything with the HP logo on it was crap, but like you I do think they are getting their act together. I currently have an aging and somewhat costly dye sub printer, and I am looking to replace it; seems an HP90 or HP130 might be a good choice.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat