Dedicated digital negative printer?

[Nathan Appel]

I am looking for recommendations for a printer that I will be using solely for digital negatives. Used is totally fine, I want something to print large 17" negatives for gum and van dyke printing. I'm not planning on using it for prints, as all my color work is still analog outsourced on ilfochrome or super gloss lambda prints. Also, is a continuos ink system the way to go for something like this? I'm pretty green. Thanks

[Zaitz]

I think most people are going to recommend the Epson series printers. The 2200 is the cheap option for up to 13" wide. From my countless hours searching the web that is the most popular. I bought mine locally for $100. You'd probably want to look at the 7600 and 9600. The 7600 prints up to 24" wide and 9600 44".

Also, for what it's worth, my Canon Pixma mg5220 actually does print on Pictorico OHP quite fine. It doesn't smear or come off. I had read several reviews that stated it could not print on transparencies. My Epson 2200, with old ink, is printing some very fine completely straight faint lines on the print. I've done the maintenance cleaning a bunch and those come out good. Maybe just needs new ink.

[sanking]

I am looking for recommendations for a printer that I will be using solely for digital negatives. Used is totally fine, I want something to print large 17" negatives for gum and van dyke printing. I'm not planning on using it for prints, as all my color work is still analog outsourced on ilfochrome or super gloss lambda prints. Also, is a continuos ink system the way to go for something like this? I'm pretty green. Thanks

A large number of alternative printers use the Epson 3800 or the newer 3880. It takes OHP up to 17" wide and works well with most methods of making digital negatives, including PDN and QTR.

I would not bother with a continuous ink system if the printer is to be dedicated to digital negatives. With the small number of negatives you are likely to make any savings in ink cost would be minimal and the Epson inks work fine for digital negatives.

Sandy King

[Jim Michael]

Which is the better approach, using color inks selected for their UV transmission characteristics, or monochrome carbon inks? Is droplet size a criterion?

Zaitz, there is a head alignment procedure for the 2200 that might help, we had something similar a few months ago and doing the alignment a number of times cleared it up, although we might also have replaced one or more ink cartridges as well. I find the 2200 pretty frustrating.

[D. Bryant]

Which is the better approach, using color inks selected for their UV transmission characteristics, or monochrome carbon inks? Is droplet size a criterion?

Zaitz, there is a head alignment procedure for the 2200 that might help, we had something similar a few months ago and doing the alignment a number of times cleared it up, although we might also have replaced one or more ink cartridges as well. I find the 2200 pretty frustrating.

The 2200 is an excellent printer choice for generating digital negatives IF the printer is operating correctly.

You may wish to visit Ardito's Business Machines web site for information regarding refurbished printers or having your 2200 refurbed if it isn't operating properly. They have an excellent reputation for Epson printer rebuilds.

http://www.arditos.com/

They also have other refurbs available to purchase at reasonable prices.

[D. Bryant]

Which is the better approach, using color inks selected for their UV transmission characteristics, or monochrome carbon inks? Is droplet size a criterion?

The very short answer: for digital negatives, IMO color inks provide the greatest flexibility.

I've never used the monochrome carbon inks for digital negs. (only inkjet prints) but those can be used as well, though the learning curve is usually much steeper.

[john biskupski]

There is a 3800 up for sale currently under the classifieds.