PDA

View Full Version : Where is Archival Ink Going?



Kirk Gittings
26-Apr-2006, 21:38
I am going to throw some money at a new and larger printer this year and turn my 4000 into a Piezography 7 inker. I am inclined to go with a new 7800 and K3 inks with ImagePrint Phatte Black (which is already paid for as I have the maintenance agreement for this year, but I really like IP anyway). This will enable a few different black and white choices and decent color and enable me to print a 16x20 with plenty of room around it.

From the experienced digital printers out there.....If you were going to reinvest this year what would you do? Wait to see how the new Canons shape up or stick with the Epsons?

George Stewart
26-Apr-2006, 21:53
As a 4000 owner using IP, I concur with your choice to turn the smaller one into the best possible dedicated B&W printer. However, I think your choice of the 7800 is too close to the 4000 in output size to justify the additional cost. Why not go directly for the 9800, which can still use 24" wide paper, but will allow the printing of mural-sized prints if needed?

Kirk Gittings
26-Apr-2006, 23:26
George,

Because I have absolutely zero interests in printing mural prints and somewhat limited space. In twenty eight years in this business, I have made two 20x24 prints and nothing ever larger.

Gary Nylander
27-Apr-2006, 00:00
Hi Kirk,

I'm sticking with my Epson 4800 and the K3 inks, which I just love, I don't plan on buying Image Print, I mostly print on fine art matt papers.

Gary

andreas_6335
27-Apr-2006, 04:25
Is there a chance that Epson might surprise all of us (out of sudden!) with a line of new printers and new inks? Will Epson react on Canon and HP? Or have they all soon reached a level where it can be said more improvement is just for a very few ones - not paying anymore R&D?

Andreas

Henry Ambrose
27-Apr-2006, 06:59
Kirk,

I've been thinking that I might turn my 7600 into a Piezo printer when and if I get extra money to buy a 7800 or whatever is the current champ at the time. The new Canons look promising and from the results I get from my little Canon 5200 I bet they will be good.

Maybe for right now the question about the 7800 is - will it make wonderful, totally satisfying prints for you? If not, then I'd wait until the next model and maybe it will knock your socks off.

Ted Harris
27-Apr-2006, 07:06
I agree that the Canons holdpromise but I am concerned in terms of what sort of support they will have from third parties such as Colorbyte and Color Burst. Time will tell. One small caveat on the Canons that will not impact most of us. I did some very early testing on them and thought the results looked wonderful with the exceptionof some work that had text printed along with the images. The text looked ok until I compared it side-by-side with text from two different Epson printers (4800 and R800) and then it looked a bit fuzzy on the edges compared to the Epson output.

John Brownlow
27-Apr-2006, 07:23
Kirk -- I bought a 7800 and it replaces everything. Sensational printer. BW is better than piezo on Silver Rag at least.

Dan Jolicoeur
27-Apr-2006, 07:38
As far as R&D being outsourced I can tell you this. Without mentioning any companies names; the amount of research we have been doing in the last 5 years was at a steady level supporting around 4-5 graduate students. I would dare to say, with out asking some specific details, that in the last year that number has dropped to Zero. There appears to be no new or continuing research in the area of paper surface science with ink pigments for printers that I know about. That is in my department at a state university. We are rated fairly high in this area and other paper technologies.

That being said; the work that has been done may not have effected the actual products being manufactured yet? My best guess is that it has. We where doing very specific research with "many" pigments, as well as many papers. These companies gave use printers that we modified to test these pigments with as well as some very specific equipment that was made to test the rheology of these pigments.

From my perspective there is no new work being done at the university level. I am assuming that this market is starting to flatten out if not heading on a downward level as far as new products and sales?

Frank Petronio
27-Apr-2006, 07:43
I haven't played around with as many different printers, inks, or papers as you guys BUT if I had the cash I would just get the 7800 and a RIP knowing it is mature technology and not likely to be obsolete for several years. Plus it seems that its operating costs are the best bang for the buck, at least for a proven, supported mainstream printer.

Just like silver, I am sure people will spend a lot of time comparing different combos but for my time/money I like the Epson prints and would rather be making images than experimenting with printers.

Ed Richards
27-Apr-2006, 08:07
If money matters, the HP 130 is much cheaper, uses less ink, and a 3 year maintence agreement is only $300. HP Satin is the best B&W media I have seen, which was a major factor why I went with the 130. Down side is that the archival times go down a lot when you move away from microencapsulation paper.

Steven Barall
27-Apr-2006, 09:07
As far as your original question goes, archival ink is going in the right direction. Epson's K3 inks have more pigment in them than the previous products and K4 inks will have even more. This is good for the entire field of photography because in the not too distant future prints that people are buying now will start to fade so having a new improved ink product in the future will be important to assure buyers that inkjet prints are worth investing in.

It seems that the difference between Epson, Canon and HP is the ink products they each make. The K3 ink seems to be the best OEM ink so why bother with the others and also if you want to switch to an all pigment ink product in the future, there will be more available for Epson printers than the other company's printers.

My sentiments lie with Mr. Petronio on this one.

Eric Biggerstaff
27-Apr-2006, 09:33
Just curious, why doesn't HP factor more into the discussion? Photographers such as Joel Meyerowitz and Charles Cramer like the HP Designjet 130 and inks ( Vivera ), but we really don't hear much about them.

Not being a digital photographer, I am just asking out of curiosity ( I know the discussion was around the inks so please forgive me).

Thanks,

Bruce Watson
27-Apr-2006, 09:37
What I would do, what I am doing myself, is waiting for the new 12 channel Canons. People I know and trust who have seen the machines tell me that print quality is better than the Epsons, and that print speed is 3x.

For context, I'm currently using a 7600 loaded with selenium Piezotone inks. I was going to upgrade to a 9800, but now I'm going to wait and see. There is much potential in Canon. Just look at how their cameras are dominating the market. Good engineers, these Canon guys. Might apply to printers too. Time will tell.

Frank Petronio
27-Apr-2006, 09:52
Yeah, like their cameras they may end up having the best technology and potential. But the user interface will be lousy and it will take 13 mouse clicks through sub menus to load the paper...

(former Canon DSLR user)

Michael Gordon
27-Apr-2006, 09:57
Eric: the Designjet 130 is a 'best kept secret'. Shhhhhh....

In terms of b/w prints, the metamerism from 130/Photo Satin prints is uncontrollable unless one buys the IP rip (which costs almost as much as the printer). Color prints with Photo Satin are incredible. I suspect many people are not keen on the fact that you can't spit or sneeze on a 130 print without incident.

Ed Richards
27-Apr-2006, 12:03
> In terms of b/w prints, the metamerism from 130/Photo Satin prints is uncontrollable unless one buys the IP rip (which costs almost as much as the printer).

Just moving to a good custom profile makes a huge difference. Sure, it is there, but it is there for every media, including paper with no image on it. Sneezing and spitting does not do much good on any fine art print. I do not think that is a big issue. If you really care about it, HP makes media for outdoor signs which you can hose down.:-)

Kirk Gittings
27-Apr-2006, 12:44
Unfortunately the HP's suffer from a degree of aftermarket neglect so that the number of profiles available if you use IP for instance is very limited compared to the Epson's.

Ted, IP says they will be covering the new Canons.

Michael Gordon
27-Apr-2006, 13:01
Ed: even with a custom profile and a battery of tests with the HP rip, I still cannot get a b/w print that doesn't have unobjectionable green metamerism. YMMV.

The water solubility of an HP130/Photo Satin print is not an issue for me (the print quality is worth it), but I know that it is for many. I doubt that HP's outdoor media has near the beauty of their Photo Satin.

tom north
27-Apr-2006, 13:27
Unfortunately I have no answers on archival inks, just questions. Does anyone know what the life of "Archival" or normal inks and print papers are?

Thanks

Paul Coppin
29-Apr-2006, 10:47
I think this is a tough question. I've printed recently on a Canon IP5000, which is not a particularly special "photo" printer, but was cheap at a time when I needed something quick to replace an aging Epson stylus printer. It uses the E series Canon dye inks, and for the money, does an excellent job. The Canon printer is more robustly built that the Epson too. My take on image life with these inks on high retention papers like Kodak Ultima leads me to believe image life will be about the same as (or maybe slightly better than) the equivalent photographic image (I'm talking colour here). So far, the Canon prints on Ultima seem quite durable.

Enter the Epson R2400. I watched Canon closely on their new pigment printer, as it came up in direct competition to my planned purchase of the R2400 (I believe the R2400 uses the same head engine as the larger commercials ???). Thus far, I have been unable to find out squat about the new Canon pigment printer, although I believe there's a local dealer show coming up where the hardware will be evident. So far my dealer can't even give me a price. Now, my dealer put the R2400 on a bit of a sale this past week, and the fumbling of Canon was enough to cause me to spring for it. Besides the minor sale, I rationalized that even if the Canon printer turned up next week, it'll likley be 2 years before it settles down - this is their first consumer pigment printer. Took Epson 3 tries to stabilize pigment printing, although Canon has the advantage now of Epson's learning curve. My take is that the new Canon will take a while to "be all it can be" and with any significant aftermarket support, something that's already there with the Epson.

BUT. The R2400 is now home, and my initial observation is I'm paying a premium for pigment inks. It suffers from the same structurally flimsy construction that seems to be typical of their consumer lines ( I can only guess the commercial machines are more sturdily built.). The drivers wouldn't install (I have to run 98SE to support a firewire film scanner that I have that XP was supposed to, but didn't work properly with.), and Epson US/CAN doesn't support 98 (presumably because Bill stopped supporting it). I had to rummage around the Epson EU site to get drivers to install in 98. Print capability *just* equals the cheap Canon as far as resolution is concerned. I'm attributing this to the difference between pigment and dyes; the Canon does produce a slightly sharper image although there is no discernible difference in "information" printed if you look at it closely. The Canon does have a smaller drop size.

All of which is a long way around about saying that the new Canon *might* have significant promise, but maybe not in a reasonably short time frame. If you can expense out your printer needs now, it may make sense to go with the Epson and IF the Canons meet the need, roll out the Epson in a year or two. The aftermarket should remain strong for the Epson if its kept in good condition. If you can cruise comfortably on what you have for the next 6 months you might be best to wait. That all said, I would guess Canon's versions of commercial pigment printers could be further off as a stable platform - they have more to lose if commercial machines are troublesome, assuming they have any interest in that market at all.

Personally, I think the newer Canon machines are physically better boxes, and I believe their drivers are superior tho not as versatile. But they ignored the B/W pigment market and now they have to catch up. If they're serious though I think they'll eventually run away from Epson, at least in colour, but I'm not getting any younger and didn't want to wait another couple of years for things to settle down! Sorry for the long ramble...

Bob McCarthy
19-Jul-2006, 13:49
Ed: even with a custom profile and a battery of tests with the HP rip, I still cannot get a b/w print that doesn't have unobjectionable green metamerism. YMMV.

The water solubility of an HP130/Photo Satin print is not an issue for me (the print quality is worth it), but I know that it is for many. I doubt that HP's outdoor media has near the beauty of their Photo Satin.

I settled on the HP90 for glossy color output though I'm now using their satin as my primary paper with this machine. And I went through the green phase with B&W at first. A second calibration along with the B&W modifying profiles HP now has on their website has eliminated the problem. Neutral 0 is giving me tasty cold tones. I might add that there is a bit of drydown that shifts from a little greenish (just a hint) to cold (hint of bluish) black. I found modest heat moves this along briskly. A print transported in a hot car showed me the way (Texas of course).

The Hp is growing on me for B&W. I think for glossy/satin papers, its better than my Epsons. I have the 7600, not the newer 7800 though.

Bob

Gordon Moat
19-Jul-2006, 14:44
Hello Bob McCarthy,

Which HP90 did you get, the network connected, or roll feed version? Also, you don't mention whether you are running a RIP currently, or only relying on profiles. Any comments appreaciated. I am mostly interested in one as a proofing printer, or for printing portfolios; more commercial imaging than fine art prints.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

steve_782
19-Jul-2006, 16:37
I'd wait. You already know what the Epson K3 will do. But, from what I've seen from the Canon output, their native dithering routines suck bigtime. My problem with the Canon is the large format printer is about $2500 more than a 9800, and the native output doesn't compare to the Epson. If a RIP is available for the Canon, it would make a big difference.

All of the previous dreck in this thread whining about build quality of the 2400, ink usage, etc. is meaningless in the context of a large format printer - but, you already know that.

I find it interesting that a lot of people are ready and willing to give Canon a pass on proving ink longevity just because they'd like to see someone make a print system that works as well as the Epson. They'll take Canon's claims for longevity as fact while readily vilifying Epson for making any claims.

As I'm sure you know, longevity is a multi-part problem far beyond ink choice. It involves paper and after printing treatment (sprays or lamination) in order to get the best performance out of the ink/paper combination.

I'd get some test prints made on a Canon and evaluate the prints - then make up your mind.

Peter Langham
19-Jul-2006, 17:38
One more thing to throw in the mix. I was talking to a salesman at a reputable dealer on Saturday. He is convinced Epson will be adding an ink slot for both K inks in the near future. His prediction is an introduction at Photokina this year. He claims no inside knowledge, just a guess. I know even less (much less).

chris jordan
19-Jul-2006, 17:43
Kirk, I've seen prints from all the printers and there is nothing that stands up to the Epsons. Their super microweave technology (whatever it is) produces finer dot patterns and smoother tonal transitions, especially when the 2880 setting is used. And the K3 inks have a wide enough gamut to print all of my photos, so Canon's new 12-color system doesn't get me too excited. The way I look at it, the prints I'm making on my Epson 9800 and the new Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl paper are extremely close to what I would consider the best possible prints that could be made, at any cost. It's hard to imagine any printer doing something better; I'm guessing that Epson's next generation of printers will just be faster and have more automated features (such as nozzle checking & head cleaning), but as far as print quality goes, there's nothing else even in the same ballpark.

Helen Bach
19-Jul-2006, 18:45
I decided against the Cone K7 inks as replacements for the Septones in my B&W 2200 because of their poor performance on glossy media. I tried a mixture of K3 inks instead, along with IJC/OPM which I was already using with the Septones. After doing a lot of trials with different toners I settled on K3 light cyan and R800 blue. The blue proved to be too dense so I switched to a dilute blue (20% ink, 80% MIS base). I left one slot spare for Krystal Topkote so I have MK, PK, LK, LLK, LC, LB and Krystal Topkote. The KT eliminates gloss differential, increases the D-max and provides some degree of physical protection that allows otherwise fragile surfaces (like Innova F-type) to be used for postcards.

This allows me to print on glossy and matte surfaces without switching inks, and to get a D-max of over 2.6 on the new papers like Innova F-type. It took quite a lot of experimentation to get to this system, but it gives me exactly what I want.

Best,
Helen

Kirk Gittings
19-Jul-2006, 19:30
I actually prefer mat papers. The examples that Cone showed at the VC Conference were impressive. The only way to really see is to bite the bullet and test them on my 4000. I will also buy a 7800 and run Imageprint Phat Black for comparison. It will be awhile before i get around to this. I have a big show in Hollywood in Sept. and don't want to rinvent the wheel when I am under the gun.

Bob McCarthy
20-Jul-2006, 04:30
Hello Bob McCarthy,

Which HP90 did you get, the network connected, or roll feed version? Also, you don't mention whether you are running a RIP currently, or only relying on profiles. Any comments appreaciated. I am mostly interested in one as a proofing printer, or for printing portfolios; more commercial imaging than fine art prints.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

I went with the base unit. And no rip. It was originally done as an inexpensive experiment. Epsons on "matte" wasn't working for a couple of our projects. For less than a thou, it was a lark. A real pleasant surprise.

I think HP is getting it's act together.

The only downside is durability (Ink can't get wet) and paper choice is limited. But for glossy/satin the dye inks can sure pop.

Bob

Gordon Moat
20-Jul-2006, 11:52
Thanks Bob! A few years ago, I would have stated that anything with the HP logo on it was crap, but like you I do think they are getting their act together. I currently have an aging and somewhat costly dye sub printer, and I am looking to replace it; seems an HP90 or HP130 might be a good choice.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

Bob McCarthy
20-Jul-2006, 12:34
Feel free to mail me on any setup issue or whatever?

One thing the HP is not, is costly. Absolutely sip's ink compared to the Epson. My ink costs are tiny in comparison. A Hp "30 something" ml cart, outlasts the 220ml carts on the epson.

bob