Got my Epson 9800!!!

[chris jordan]

Hello all, wanted to check in with a report on my newly-received Epson 9800. Initial test results are really exciting. The new blacks are amazingly rich, which extends the whole tonal scale in that direction, making for richer-looking prints overall. (I've heard that on glossy paper the K3 blacks are the darkest ever produced in any photographic printing process, but don't know if this is actually true). The dot pattern seems to be slightly finer than previously, especially in light areas such as skies, and because of the new grey ink and the reconfigured drivers, metamerism is totally gone, and there is no more bronzing. I've made a couple of B&W prints that just knock my socks off, and I'm already up and printing my big color images with great results. The profiles that come with the printer are excellent, though Bill Atkinson tells me he is making better profiles for several papers and will be releasing those on his website soon. The 9800 is also faster than the 9600 by quite a bit. Pretty cool stuff so far!!!

I did a side-by-side test of some targets with very fine details at several different resolutions and found absolutely no difference between any of the following settings: 1440 (high speed); 1440 (one-pass); 1440 (fine detail checked); 2880 (high speed); 2880 (one pass); 2880 (fine detail checked). I don't know what is going on with that, but it is consistent with the 9600-- there was no difference between 1440 and 2880, even viewed with a loupe. The 9800 print driver has this new "finest detail" setting that supposedly prints at 5760 dpi or something, but there is NO visible difference between it and regular old 1440, do don't bother with it because the prints take way longer at the supposedly higher resolutions. If anyone has different results with that stuff I'd be interested to hear.

Cheers and have a great day,

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

[Bruce Watson]

Ah, the joys of a new toy. Good on ya Chris. I'm jealous.

[Eric Leppanen]

Chris,

A couple questions, if you don't mind:

1) I assume you are currently using Photo Black and not Matte Black, correct? If so, do you plan on trying Matte Black in the near future?

2) How would you compare the color output you are getting versus a Lightjet or Chromira using Fuji Crystal Archive Supergloss?

Thanks!

[bob woitaszewski]

Better yet,
So can I ask what percentage (%) of prints that you exhibit or sell are larger than 24" to justify the added expense?
Was BIG print size the primary justification for than 44" beast?

[chris jordan]

Hi guys. I don't use any matte black (I print exclusively on the Epson RC papers); I think Epson 9600 prints are superior to Lightjet/Chromira prints: they are noticably sharper, and the 9800 prints are better still-- now with deeper blacks and longer archival life. So I only use Lightjet when I'm making prints larger than my Epson can make (one of my images is 5x10 feet, for example, which can only be printed on the Lightjet at Laumont). And to answer Bob's question, all of my prints are larger than 24"; they are all 44" tall and they average about 72" wide, so the big printer is a necessity.

~cj

[QT Luong]

Bob, the added expense is only $2000. Not much if you are able to sell any print larger than 24". The price of paper for the 9600 is lower than for the 7600 too, and I assume this would be the same for the K3 printers. By a curious coincidence, I stopped at Keeble & Shuchat in Palo Alto to place an order for the 9800 this afternoon, and they said that they were not taking orders, since prices and delivery dates were still unknown, so I am curious how Chris, you were able to get one.

[chris jordan]

I've been on the waiting list for the 9800 ever since the 9600 came out! Far as I know, I got the first production model that came into the US. I got mine through JVH Technical here in Seattle I don't have any kind of freebie relationship with Epson-- paid full price, just got on the list early.

~cj

[Doug Meek]

I can't speak as to the 9800, but I've done a lot of testing on the 9600, lightjet and chromira printers. For matte prints, I like the 960o, especially with the premium lustre paper. It does a beautiful job. When it comes to glossy prints, however, I respectfully have to disagree with Chris . The chromira and lightjet are in a virtual dead heat, with the 9600 lagging far behind. Real far. The problem isn't resolution - all 3 printers deliver outstanding resolution (glossy or matte). Unfortunately, the 9600 glossies don't come anywhere near the lightjet or chromira in terms of luminescence. The glossy prints on the chromira and lightjet have a "glow" to them, almost as though you are viewing a transparency on a light table. The 9600 just doesn't have it. I don't know how else to describe it. Tried countless papers, using Atkinson's profiles. Just don't like the glossies on the 9600. Perhaps the 9800 will be better. I also hate the speed of the 9600 - it is slow! I'm glad to hear that Chris has found the 9800 to be faster. When I want a matte print done, I use the 9600. For glossies, the lightjet or chromira get the nod.

[QT Luong]

Doug, I think many would agree with you that the glossy prints on the 9600 are less than satisfying, and I certainly share your assesment, but I don't think Chris has said otherwise, did he ? By the way, did you try the superglossy Fuji material for really impressive "glow" ?

[Ralph]

Q.T.L., Chris wrote:

"I think Epson 9600 prints are superior to Lightjet/Chromira prints: they are noticably sharper, and the 9800 prints are better still-- now with deeper blacks and longer archival life. So I only use Lightjet when I'm making prints larger than my Epson can make."

This is all very interesting to me even though I don't make prints this big!

[Doug Dolde]

I have a lowly R2400. To me prints made with it on Premium Luster have a very similar look to Lightjet/Chromira prints on Fuji Crystal Archive matte paper.

But what really blows my cork is matte prints from the R2400 on Epson's Ultrasmooth Fine Art paper. They have a very rich feeling...and B/W prints on that paper appear to have a "glow" or radiance that I've never seen in a print before.

[Doug Meek]

QT -

I haven't tried the Fuji supergloss yet. I've been tempted for some time now. I've never offered anything for sale other than glossy (lightjet or chromira) or premium lustre (9600) prints. I'm kind of afraid of upsetting the apple cart. Perhaps if I saw a supergloss in person I would change my mind. My assumption (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the supergloss prints would be more susceptible to fingerprints and glare. On the other hand, the "glow" for lack of a better term would probably impress me to no end. I'm definitely going to have to give it a try. You've really got me curious now.

[Eric Leppanen]

Right now on my living room wall, I have one 20x24" Chromira color print on Fuji Supergloss paper, and four 16x20" 9600 color prints on Hahnemühle Photo Rag matte paper. Everyone who sees these prefers the Chromira print by a wide margin; it is far more brilliant and looks more "photographic" (the matte prints look more like a hybrid between a photograph and a watercolor painting). The Supergloss is highly reflective and elevates highlights beyond anything I have seen with inkjet papers, resulting in a brilliant three-dimensional look. This is why I am curious about the new K3 inks; will they provide a viable alternative for glossy media?

All of my prints are mounted behind glass, so I am less sensitive to handling durability than others might be.

[QT Luong]

Ralph, I'd be surprised if Chris printed glossy, so I assumed that the comment you cited refered to Epson premium lustre v. Lightjet Semi-Gloss. Doug, the Fuji supergloss, like the Ilfochromes are indeed extremely sensitive to fingerprints and extremely reflective. In fact, they have an appearance quite reminiscent of those Ilfochromes. I also saw in the lobby of Calypso, a "metallic" paper from Kodak that shares some of this look, and which is supposedly less fragile. I am not starting offering those neither, since I plan to move my production to the 9800 when I can get my hands on one.

[neil poulsen]

"For matte prints, I like the 960o, especially with the premium lustre paper. "

Is preimiur lustre considered a matt paper? Does matt black work better on premium lustre than photo black?

[chris jordan]

Neil, you are right-- Epson's Premium Luster is not a matte paper; it is part of the line of three RC papers for which the photo black ink is made. The matte black ink does not dry properly on Luster.

For my own work, what I am doing currently is face-mounting my prints to 1/8" non-glare UV-filtered plexiglass, which produces a beautiful and archivally-protected print. The surface of the plexi is lightly sanded to remove the surface reflection, making the plexi become almost invisible on the surface of the print. Because the prints are face-mounted with a clear liquid adhesive, it doesn't matter how much gloss the original print had because the print surface is covered up in a vaccuum seal by the plexi. So for best color and darkest blacks, I am using Epson Premium Glossy (250) paper for all of my prints that will be face-mounted. The glossy prints standing alone look too shiny for my taste (I like the look of Premium Semimatte), but once the glossy prints are face-mounted, the gloss becomes invisible and the surface has a nice semimatte look, with all the rich color and deep blacks that the glossy prints possess.

The main drawback with face-mounting is that it is expensive, and the mounted prints are heavy and expensive to ship (especially when they are as big as mine are). But for special events such as gallery or institutional shows, I highly recommend this process. There are a couple of places in the country that are doing face-mounting; let me know if you are interested and I'll pass along the info.

~cj (Seattle)

[Bernard Languillier]

Chris,

This sounds interesting. Would you mind explaining a bit more what face mounting is?

Thank you in advance,

Regards,
Bernard

[Ralph]

Bernard,

The plexiglass (a) protects the print from fingerprints and dust (b) keeps the corners of the print from bending and creasing, and (c) protects the print from fading (as you may know, prints are more archival when behind UV filtering, and as Chris explains he uses "UV-filtered plexiglass").

In other words, rather than mounting the back of the print to foamcore or such, a clear adhesive is used on the *front* of the print to attach it to the plexiglass. The trick obviously is in evenly applying the adhesive and then evenly attaching the print to the plexiglass--especially with 4'x6' prints like Chris makes! Maybe I'll practice on 4"x6" prints. . . .

[chris jordan]

The cool thing about face-mounting is that it eliminates all of the reflections that usually happen when a print is put behind glass. When a print is behind glass the traditional way, there are three reflective surfaces: the print itself; the back surface of the glass, and the front surface of the glass. Face mounting creates a vaccuum-adhesive seal between the print and the back surface of the glass, so both of those reflective surfaces disappear. The front surface of the plexi is treated to be non-glare, so it doesn't reflect either. The final appearance is as if there is nothing on the surface of the print, and yet the print is protected as if it is behind glass. And the print is also held perfectly flat against the inner surface of the plexi (which is usually not the case when prints are matted behind glass) giving it an extra-snappy appearance.

~cj

[Jon Shiu]

What happens when the plexi gets scratched? Can the print be remounted?

[tim atherton]

Nope - just don't scratch it... you wouldn't scratch an expensive oil painting - don't do it to your photographs either :-)

[chris jordan]

The new plexi is much more scratch-resistant than the old stuff, which was so soft you could almost scratch it with your fingernail. And, in case a face-mounted print does get scratched, the scratch can be buffed out by someone who is trained in such things.

~cj

[Angela_5993]

Hi,

I'm wondering if anybody knows if Bill Atkinson has put out 9800 profiles yet, specifically for premier imaging ultrasmooth paper and epson smooth fine art using Photo Black, not matte black. If not, does anybody know of any lists/links that will inform me when they are available?

Thanks,
a.

[Jeff Liao]

Dear Chris,

How you doing?

any chance to update your later experience of 9800.......

Any RIPs do you use with 9800?

hope you well

Jeff

[Dimitri Modderman]

Hi Chris,

I am thinking of buying this printer, but i have a very hard question, one could only know from actual owning a printer like this.
How much ink, on average is used per square meter ?
I know this is dependent of resolution, colors used etc.
But when i bought my solvent printer some manufacturers were able to give me a ballpark figure.

I know the Ultrachrome inks are more expensive (almost twice) then my Ecosol inks (60 dollars per 220ml as to Ultrachrome for around 55-60 per 110ml).

Hope you can give me a direction, ball park figure or guesstimate.

Kind regards,
Dimitri Modderman

[lesleywells]

I would like to what type of glue you are using to face mount.

Thanks

Lesley