Printer recommendations for enlarged negatives

[cyrus]

I don't have a printer or a scanner or even a computer in my darkroom (deliberately trying to stick to all traditional "wet" work) but I am considering experimenting with printers to make enlarged negatives for alt process work. There is no way I'm spening more than $800 on a printer, and I don't want to use a second-hand one since I'm not sure what I'd be buying. I don't shoot color and don't print color either, so there would be no color printing. I don't want a printer that will require a lot of baby-ing -- if the nozzle clogs up regularly, I'm quite likley to kick it to a corner. I can make 11x14 enlarged negs the traditional way but was considering even larger digitally-created enlarged negs. Suggestions and recommendations for printers would be welcomed. Canon Pixma?



Edit: I got a v700 scanner so that's why I'm even considering this.

There are other threads on this but the technology changes so fast...

[Gem Singer]

Check out the Epson Stylus Pro R3000.

[John MacManus]

I have been using the Epson Stylus Photo R2880 for several alt processes e.g. Cyanotype, Kallitype, and recently Carbon Transfer. If I were buying now I'd get the new model already recommended to you. Fits nicely on a desk unlike the widely used Epson 3800 series.

[Professional]

I have Epson 3800, it is a great printer and i still didn't use it for its limits yet, still i have inks there of the first use, few inks are closely to run out.

[Carterofmars]

I don't have a printer or a scanner or even a computer in my darkroom (deliberately trying to stick to all traditional "wet" work) but I am considering experimenting with printers to make enlarged negatives for alt process work. There is no way I'm spening more than $800 on a printer, and I don't want to use a second-hand one since I'm not sure what I'd be buying. I don't shoot color and don't print color either, so there would be no color printing. I don't want a printer that will require a lot of baby-ing -- if the nozzle clogs up regularly, I'm quite likley to kick it to a corner. I can make 11x14 enlarged negs the traditional way but was considering even larger digitally-created enlarged negs. Suggestions and recommendations for printers would be welcomed. Canon Pixma?



Edit: I got a v700 scanner so that's why I'm even considering this.

There are other threads on this but the technology changes so fast...

I also have the V700 and love it. I'm sure I'm not getting the most out of it, but I love it. Are you using the original holders?

btw the 3800 looks really nice especially for domestic use: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...son-3800.shtml

[mrladewig]

I have been using the Epson Stylus Photo R2880 for several alt processes e.g. Cyanotype, Kallitype, and recently Carbon Transfer. If I were buying now I'd get the new model already recommended to you. Fits nicely on a desk unlike the widely used Epson 3800 series.

I had an Epson R1800 (very similar size to the 2880 and 3000) for years and replaced it with an R3800. The 3800 was only 2-3 inches wider despite have a 4in wider paper path. it is a little deeper, but more than anything, its taller because the 80mL cartridges sit above the paper path.

In 3 years I've had one clog in arid Colorado, probably due to the fact I hadn't used the thing in 4-6 months.

Granted, its probably above your price range, but it is good for the task you have in mind.

[D. Bryant]

I don't have a printer or a scanner or even a computer in my darkroom (deliberately trying to stick to all traditional "wet" work) but I am considering experimenting with printers to make enlarged negatives for alt process work.

Since you have stated the criteria of wanting a printer for creating digital inkjet negatives for alternative process printing for less than $800 that isn't fussy then your choices are limited.

As others have mentioned the Epson 3800 is a very good choice, however it is no longer manufactured. It's replacement is the 3880 which sells just north of $800 when on sale. Refurbished units are available now at the Epson.com clearance store for $999 which includes about $600 worth of ink. This is really your best option, IMO considering your budget. And that includes free ground shipping.

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/c...s&oid=63089025

Usually their refurb'ed units work just as good as new and are fully warranted for 90 days.

But, the printer alone is not the only issue you will need to consider. Software comes into play.

Clay Harmon has worked with the Epson 1400 which plays nice with Quad Tone RIP.
Clay has managed to develop a printer "profile" that works well for palladium printing.
Unfortunately the 1400 is also out of production, though refurbed units come available occasionally through different sources for about $200-$300. It's a 13 inch wide desktop printer that utilizes dye based inks which tend to clog less easily.

QTR also works with the 3880.

FWIW, forget about using Dan Burkholder's system. Dan's a great guy but his methodology is very long in the tooth and has been surpassed by other modern solutions.

You will also need image editing software.

BTW, almost all inkjet printers experience nozzle clogs sooner or later.

Your question isn't a simple one to answer in just a few sentences or paragraphs. Be prepared to spend money, there is no free ride to alt print nirvana using film or digital negatives.

FWIW, your computer, printer and scanner probably should not be stored in your darkroom.

Don Bryant

[cyrus]

Yeah, thanks all - I decided (reluctantly) to shellout for the 3880 at some point when I can get to B&H.
As for the software, I have an old version of PS and PSP and am not planning on an update. QTR and all that jazz will have to wait as I will first try eyeballing things to see if I can get good enough results. I am not going to fall into the noodling with computers trap. Hell, I don't even calibrate my monitor aside from checking by eyeball to see if all the tones of a test strip look about the same on the screen as they do on a print.
The ONLY ONLY positive thing I can see coming from this is that I can print some negatives that have "issues" like a pin hole smack-dab in the center of an otherwise clear sky etc.

[D. Bryant]

QTR and all that jazz will have to wait as I will first try eyeballing things to see if I can get good enough results. I am not going to fall into the noodling with computers trap. .

Then don't bother doing it all. That's a faulty way of making a decision about building digital negatives and you will end up wasting consumables and materials and arriving at wrong conclusions. It's already been established good results can be achieved with digital negatives. What you are hoping for is anecdotal results and that is not likely to happen.

Check out the archives at DPUG.ORG (God I hate that stupid name) and get some input for using the 3880 and QTR. You never mentioned which alt. process you are interested in but starter curves for palladium for the 3880 can be downloaded.

QTR can be test driven for free. Plan on spending some time to understand how to make digital negatives work. It's not like cracking an egg and making a Betty Crocker cake.

[cyrus]

Then don't bother doing it all. That's a faulty way of making a decision about building digital negatives and you will end up wasting consumables and materials and arriving at wrong conclusions. It's already been established good results can be achieved with digital negatives. What you are hoping for is anecdotal results and that is not likely to happen.

Check out the archives at DPUG.ORG (God I hate that stupid name) and get some input for using the 3880 and QTR. You never mentioned which alt. process you are interested in but starter curves for palladium for the 3880 can be downloaded.

QTR can be test driven for free. Plan on spending some time to understand how to make digital negatives work. It's not like cracking an egg and making a Betty Crocker cake.

OK but first I have to seethe and rage at the idea of having to use computers and printers in my darkroom work at all. Like I said, I'm not relishing this one bit. I don't even have a website because I absolute detest the idea of having to electronically scan any of my photos.