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

[Dave Aharonian]

Hi Walter,

I agree completely with what Kerik has said. 3800 all the way. I have one of if you want to do any sort of a test before you take the plunge and buy one.

Dave

[Jay W]

I look at saving a $1 or $2 (or more) per sheet of paper, and it seems hard to turn down the savings of going with the 4880 and rolls of paper (compared to the 3800). Also, a 4x5 corresponds to a 17x21" and a 35mm cooresponds to a 17x25". Some papers are only available in 22" or 24" lengths. Then there's all those Hassy negatives which would work well with roll paper.

The problems are, I've only seen digitial neg workflows with 3800 (but I haven't researched it seriously). The 4880 printer is big and space is an issue. I've have to commit to matt black or photo black since the cost of switching is more than obnoxious.

Thanks,

Jay

[Jay W]

Maybe I should ask, if you buy roll paper, cut it, and flatten it (store in a box or something) for a number of weeks, will it be flat enough to run through a 3800 without any head strikes? Anyone done something similar?

Thanks,

Jay

[Don Hutton]

Maybe I should ask, if you buy roll paper, cut it, and flatten it (store in a box or something) for a number of weeks, will it be flat enough to run through a 3800 without any head strikes? Anyone done something similar?

Thanks,

Jay

I doubt it will help too much. Just about the only complaint I have with my 3800 is head strikes on certain papers - big sheets (17x25) of Harman FB Glossy almost always produce them - the paper curl moves dramatically as it absorbs ink and I think this is what causes some of it. I have a 7800 too, and the paper handling with the vacuum just works better. Also, there may be less of a cost saving than you think with rolls vs cut sheets (for example,a the price per square foot for Harman is very close in rolls or big sheets).

[Brian Ellis]

I'm not very familiar with the latest Epson models or Canadian exchange rates but a 3800, especially a refurbished one, should be within or very close to your budget. A 3800 would allow you to do the 11x14s you usually make and also to go up to the 16x20s you'd like to make. For me lack of a paper roll isn't a downside, I never used roll paper on other printers even when I've had the capability. Length limited to 37 inches is also not a downside for me, I never print even to 37 inches anyhow. Switching back and forth between photo black and matte black is easy with the 3800 and uses only a small amount of ink. I don't know about comparative inks costs between the 3800 and other current Epson printers but I've owned my 3800 for over two years and for the first time had to replace a couple of the cartridges that came with it a few weeks ago. I agree with Don about avoiding the 2400 (also the 2200 if you happened to be thinking of it) because of ink usage. I'm amazed at the difference in ink usage between my former 2200 and my 3800 even considering the larger cartridges in the 3800.

Apart from the particular model, I'd suggest sticking with Epson. I'm sure HP and Canon make fine printers but if you have a question or problem with any Epson printer used by serious photographers you can ask it here or on other forums and get tons of responses from photographers doing the same thing you're doing. Ask a question about other brands and you may find a few people who happen to own the same printer and are doing what you're doing but nothing like the responses you'll get from Epson users. Plus the four Epsons I've owned have been super-reliable and operated for years (8 years and still going in the case of the 1280 my wife now uses) without any significant problems. Not a universal experience of course but that's been my experience.

[Rider]

Be careful when assuming that all of the ink that comes with the printer is usable. Although the 3800 may come with "$400 dollars worth of ink", a large percentage of that will be used up when charging the printer.

I wonder whether refurbished printers also go through a recharging process. If not, that could make them an even better value if they come with a full set of inks.

My 2 cents (being an Epson 4000 owner) is that the 3800 is a great printer. But if at all possible I would spring for a 4880 for robustness and longevity.

Btw, a used Epson 4000 might be just the thing for digital negatives.

Also, Epson has a new generation of inks that they have only impelemented in the 24" and larger printers. They should be implementing it in the 17" printers in the near future. That's a win-win. Either you'll be wooed by the new printers, or you'll be able to pick up an old model for less.

[Jay W]

Also, there may be less of a cost saving than you think with rolls vs cut sheets (for example,a the price per square foot for Harman is very close in rolls or big sheets).

True, it's only about 9% cheaper. Interesting....

Thanks,

Jay

[D. Bryant]

True, it's only about 9% cheaper. Interesting....

Thanks,

Jay

My comment about the ability of the 4880 to use roll paper wasn't driver by cost considerations though some paper manufacturers will occasionally offer discounts on paper rolls. Rather my comment was made regarding the relative difficulty using the rear feed slot of the 3800 for certain media, most especially if you wish to print long pano prints with a RIP. The shew can kill you.

Some roll media can be cut into sheets and coaxed to lie flat. The gelatin coated baryta papers and RC based are probably less like to relax but if they are weighted and stored flat they do offer a potential savings benefit. As they say your millage may vary.

Don

[D. Bryant]

Btw, a used Epson 4000 might be just the thing for digital negatives.

The 4000 is notorious for banding when printing on transparency materials. Don't purchase one for digital negatives.

Don Bryant

[Rider]

The 4000 is notorious for banding when printing on transparency materials. Don't purchase one for digital negatives.

Don Bryant

Is transparency used for digital negatives? I thought regular paper is what's normally used.