Printer recommendation for nice colour, B&W, and alt-processes

[walter23]

Due to circumstances (I have to move into a small bachelor suite in Vancouver for work) I can't really use my darkroom as much as I'd like. I think the best thing for me to do at the moment is to get into digital printing. I would like something that will make nice prints, and also enable really good alt-process digital negatives (for cyanotype & van dyke, mainly, but possibly other experiments in the future).

11x14" is about my maximum size. I do love printing 16x20s in the darkroom, but I don't think I can afford such a printer at the moment!

I know about the Epsons with their nice mix of black and grey inks, etc, but I'm really not sure about the other brands.

So recommendations would be appreciated.

Budget is in the $1000 (Canadian) range, give or take a couple hundred. Probably translates to $700-$1000 in USA prices (I won't want to buy one shipped from B&H or something, so it'll be an overpriced local purchase).

Quality is a big consideration but of course consumable prices & availability are factors. I'll mostly be printing on mid-weight matte paper and transparency material for alt processes.

[Gem Singer]

Take a look at the HP Photosmart Pro B9180 printer.

Judging from your description, it will meet all of your needs.

I really like mine.

[Joanna Carter]

Due to circumstances (I have to move into a small bachelor suite in Vancouver for work) I can't really use my darkroom as much as I'd like. I think the best thing for me to do at the moment is to get into digital printing. I would like something that will enable really nice alt-process digital negatives for cyanotype & van dyke, mainly, but possibly other experiments in the future.

You mention the Epsons and I would second that opinion. I have an Epson R2400 which does up to A3+ (13" x 19") and the B&W results, when properly calibrated are so good that I have sold a print to a wet darkroom worker.

[Kerik Kouklis]

I would highly recommend the Epson 3800. Great for prints and maybe the best printer out there for making digital negatives. The 2400 give comparable results, but will cost you more in the not-so-long run because of the significantly higher ink costs. Also, the 3800 has both the matt and photo-black inks installed (you will want to use the photo black for negatives). With a 2400 you have to switch out the cartrigdes which eats up ink.

[Jeremy Moore]

Also, the 3800 has both the matt and photo-black inks installed (you will want to use the photo black for negatives).

I know Ron has matte black in his printer, but that's the joy of QTR, you can avoid the use of the black ink entirely

[Jay W]

I've been comtemplating an LF printer also. What about the 4880. B&H has that at $1788 with a $500 rebate (and $144 shipping ).Without shipping that about $450 more than the 3800. It includes 110 ml of ink (can use 220 ml, $0.51/ml), has the newer vivid magenta (if that matters) and can use roll paper. Min size is an 8x10 vs. a 4x6 for the 3800.

So does that have a nice dither pattern for digital negs? Are you out there on your own as for workflow? (I'd like the option of digital negatives down the road.) I'd like to print both color and B&W, and I can leave my current 1280 as B&W (MIS).

Thanks,

Jay

[Kerik Kouklis]

I know Ron has matte black in his printer, but that's the joy of QTR, you can avoid the use of the black ink entirely

In my experience, matte black will make your negatives print grainy in pt/pd. I've seen this both on the 3800 and 2400. And why would you want to avoid black altogether?? The beauty of QTR is that allows you to use all the inks to produce negatives that print baby's-butt smooth. IMO, this is a much better alternative to digi-neg processes that rely on a colorized negative (often GREEN) to create UV density.

[sanking]

In my experience, matte black will make your negatives print grainy in pt/pd. I've seen this both on the 3800 and 2400. And why would you want to avoid black altogether?? The beauty of QTR is that allows you to use all the inks to produce negatives that print baby's-butt smooth. IMO, this is a much better alternative to digi-neg processes that rely on a colorized negative (often GREEN) to create UV density.

I agree with Kerik about the PK on the 3800 gives negatives that print with much finer grain than the MK inks. Some of the colorized negatives, green in particular, print with a lot of grain on the 3800.

On the other hand, my understanding is that the new Epson 7880 has a true treen color, i.e. not mix of yellow and cyan) that prints incredibly smooth with UV processes. But of course printer is in another league than the ones being compared here.

Sandy King

[sanking]

On the other hand, my understanding is that the new Epson 7880 has a true treen color, i.e. not mix of yellow and cyan) that prints incredibly smooth with UV processes.

Sandy King

Folks, that was supposed to read, "my understanding is that the new Epson 7880 has a true green color, (i.e. not mix of yellow and cyan, but green in one cartridge) that prints incredibly smooth with UV processes."

Sandy King

[D. Bryant]

One more vote for the Epson 3800, though I suspect that it's coming to the end of it's life cycle based on the previous history of Epson marketing.

Even though I own a 3800 there are times when I wish I had purchased the 4880. It shares the same technology of the 3800, larger ink carts can be installed making it less expensive to operate and it has a roll holder. And it can print longer prints than the 3800 which is limited to 37.4 inches by the Epson driver.

If you have custom ICC profiles for the 3800, the soft proofing feature in Photoshop is invaluable once one understands how to use it properly. That definitely saves ink and paper.

The 2400 and the 2880 are total ink hogs and I would avoid those as they have a high level of ink waste making them very expensive to operate.


Don Bryant