PDA

View Full Version : Lightjet or Inkjet



Mike A
16-Jul-2006, 08:30
I'm considering having some large sample prints (up to 24x30) made from B&W 11x14 negatives and was curious which printing method people prefer?

What kind of image quality can I expect as compared to the contact prints I produce in my darkroom, will either of these two process come close to the optical contacts prints?

I'm leaning more towards the lightjet for quality reasons but the achivability issue (60 yrs) concerns me.

Mike

Jack Flesher
16-Jul-2006, 08:45
My .02...

As a disclaimer I am a digital and film shooter and print using wide-format Epson inkjets.

First, (and IMO only) there is no digital process that will match the look of the contact prints you produce in your darkroom, period.

As for quality, you need to pick your issues. Generally speaking, the inkjet will have a broader tonal scale and probably be technically sharper, but the Lightjet having a bit more native contrast may actually look sharper in the final print.

Subjectively and to my eyes -- and especially with B&W -- a well-printed Epson inkjet looks more natural and less digital than a lightjet, though I'm sure others opinions will vary.

Again, my .02 only,

Bruce Watson
16-Jul-2006, 09:52
What kind of image quality can I expect as compared to the contact prints I produce in my darkroom, will either of these two process come close to the optical contacts prints?
None of us can possibly read your mind. None of us make the exact same value judgements that you do. In this situation, the only opinion that matters is yours. The only way to find out is to make some prints and see what you think.

IMHO, neither is going to look like an 11x14 contact print. The lightjet print will be on RC paper, probably a full gloss surface. The image will be dye based and subject to the normal longevity of lightjet prints.

The inkjet print will look like a different media, which it is. The inkjet print will likely be on a full cotton rag fine art paper with a matte finish. The image will be pigment based and have huge (estimated) longevity. For best results, have B&W images printed using inks intended for B&W prints - not full color inks. Cone PiezoTone and MIS inks come to mind. Inkjet prints can be amazingly sharp, but will likely have lower Dmax and more fragile surfaces than either your contact print or your lightjet print.

Neither method is going to show you ever more detail under a loupe like a silver gelatin contact print does. But if you are interested in the image (as opposed to being interested in the technology) you aren't going to be looking at the print with a loupe anyway.

So... you pays your money and takes your choice.

roteague
16-Jul-2006, 10:15
I did a test and printed one of my images on both a Chromira (LED printer), using Fuji Crystal Archive and an Epson (10000 ?) on Epson paper. I hated the Epson prints, they looked horrible and flat. The Chromira just sang.... See what works for you.

Brian Ellis
16-Jul-2006, 11:43
"For best results, have B&W images printed using inks intended for B&W prints - not full color inks. Cone PiezoTone and MIS inks come to mind."

I have to disagree with this at least with respect to Epson UC color inks for the 2200 and up/later photo printers. If you have a good RIP (such as Roy Harrinton's QTR for $50) IMHO you'll get just as good results using Epson color inks for black and white as you will with MIS inks plus you'll avoid the aggravation of MIS' horrendous quality control.

I'd estimate that in the five or so years I used MIS inks in an 1160 and 1280 printer I probably returned about 20% because of problems with the cartridges not being recognized by the printer, ink leaking from the cartridges, or the ink being improperly mixed and so giving an unwanted magenta tint to the prints. Then when I bought my 2200 and added QTR I continued using MIS Eboni in the black position and just a couple weeks ago had to return a shipment of five cartridges because the cartridges didn't fit properly in the printer. I've now abandoned Eboni and just use the Epson MK, the slight increase in dMax with Eboni isn't worth the aggravation IMHO. There just recently was another thread in the Yahoo digital black and white printing group involving people currently having problems with an unwanted tint in their MIS inks. I don't know about Jon Cone's Piezo system, I never used it.

Bruce Watson
16-Jul-2006, 12:29
I have to disagree with this at least with respect to Epson UC color inks for the 2200 and up/later photo printers. If you have a good RIP (such as Roy Harrinton's QTR for $50) IMHO you'll get just as good results using Epson color inks for black and white as you will with MIS inks plus you'll avoid the aggravation of MIS' horrendous quality control.

We disagree on this point. And that's OK. It just shows Mike that he needs to get some prints made and judge them for himself.

For my part, when I've tried printing B&W with UC inks, I can't escape some color in the print. Unfortunately, it tends to change a bit from dark to light - that is, it's not an over-all tint, but a shifting of color which I find pretty irritating. I suspect this is due to not being able to nail down a completely accurate linearization and not getting a dead neutral gray from the combination of the various ink colors.

But what I find irritating other people either don't mind, or don't see. Using QTR and the UC inks seems to be rather popular.

I haven't had your problems with the MIS inks. Then again, I switched to the Cone inks long ago. I had similar problems with the MIS inks - I would see some color shifting from dark to light. So I switched from the variable tone MIS inks to the fixed tone Cone Piezotones. And the Piezotones are outstanding inks.

What I've seen and heard of Cone's new K7 inkset is that the K7s are a step up from the Piezotones in terms of tonality and smoothness. I'm waiting for Cone to finish his selenium tone K7s before I give them a try. And of course, the K7s also work well with QTR.

chris jordan
16-Jul-2006, 12:37
Mike, if you get Epson prints made, make sure they're made using the newest non-RC paper (I thiink Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl is best), and that the print is made at 2880 dpi using the "finest detail" setting, with Photo Black ink. My testing lately suggests you'll get are significantly better results this way (sharper, better DMAX and wider tonal scale) than anything the Lightjet or Chromira can produce. I haven't done a side-by-side with any of the Cone inks-- that might be better still for B&W. But the Epson inks are amazing too-- perfectly neutral and amazingly vivid.

Ron Marshall
16-Jul-2006, 12:57
I use Cone's NK7 inkset and Harrinton's QTR with my 2200 and have never had a clog or a bad cartridge. I am completely satisfied with the tonality of my prints.

Six months ago I was very sceptical about inkjet prints. But, as I had no room for a darkroom that was my only option. I am so happy I tried.

But my experience is with seven tones of grey ink and a good quality RIP. I can't speak for any other combinations.

Ted Harris
16-Jul-2006, 13:42
Mike, I'll chime long enough to agree with the others posters that you need to try it on yoru own. My own experiences are that with today's K3 inksets and a RIP I get superb results from an Epson 4800 and a variety of papers.

One more critically important point .... how arae you going to get yoru negative scanned? You should be sure you use a lab that is capable of doing the scan on a high end scanner and not many of them can handle an 11x14. The Screen Cezanne and Cezanne Elite can handle 11x14 as can the various Creos, some drums can go that big but I don't know which ones). My poin tis that if yoru supplier does the scan on one of the large format scanners from Microtek or Epson (e.g. the Microtek 1000 XL) while you should get an acceptable scan from an 11x14 original you wills till have no idea of the real possibilities available to you in terms of ultimate digital print quality v. a contact. Still not suggesting that the 24x30 will equal the original contact in detail but if you watart with a high end scanner you will be getting a fairer comparison of the world of the possible.

roteague
16-Jul-2006, 14:53
My testing lately suggests you'll get are significantly better results this way (sharper, better DMAX and wider tonal scale) than anything the Lightjet or Chromira can produce.

My testing has come to just the opposite conclusion. In other words, opinons are like a*******. Try for yourself and see which you like better.

Jack Flesher
16-Jul-2006, 15:09
I should add that I agree with the comments regarding B&W tonality with the new Epson K3 inks. IMO the K3 inks on coated papers are so good that the need for third-party dedicated B&W inks has been eliminated. However John Cone's inks are a great option for breathing new life into an older printer for dedicated B&W use.

The original poster will still to have some made and see what works for them -- just make sure the inkjet is done on a K3 Epson by somebody who knows how to run it.

Brian Ellis
16-Jul-2006, 15:21
Hi Bruce - Were you using a RIP when you printed B&W with UC inks? The problems you describe sound like B&W prints from color inks without a RIP. I'd agree, that's not a good idea and either MIS or Cone would be better. That's why I used MIS for about five years when I first got into digital B&W printing, because back then RIPs started at $500 and went up from there. So I was willing to put up with the MIS aggravation. But then about two or three years ago Roy Harrington's QTR came along for $50 and it's worked great for me and quite a few others.

Ed K.
16-Jul-2006, 15:53
No judgement, but another couple of cents -

No better, no worse perhaps - but definitely different. No true matte on Lightjet, no super-duper gloss quite like Lightjet. No art paper on Lightjet, no paper character to speak of ( okay, emulsion texture offered ). Different representations of color, especially in the darkest areas of the print. Which is better, an oil painting or a watercolor? A lithograph or a silver gelatin print? To have the option of either one is great.

Cost-wise, at the moment it may be much less expensive to have a large Lightjet made than a large inkjet of any kind. For me, this is certainly so. I have no very large format inkjet. To get a 30x40 inkjet printed - $150 a print, or more like $300-450 to get it just right when the service shop doesn't cooperate. A Lightjet comes in more like 50 bucks, and it is spot on the first time out of the gate. Without special care, inkjets tend to produce "blackish" dark colors instead of true dark color, whereas Lightjets seem to reach right down into the very low values of colors. Inkjets have a bit of "dot gain" in them, which varies on paper and humidity, Lightjets do not have this. Under a 10x loupe, any inkjet shows tiny pixels unless printed on soft matte paper, whereas the Lightjet does not show mechanical looking pixels. Most Lightjets sharpen a tad during the process, inkjets do not ( thus, don't sharpen a Lightjet quite as much as an inkjet ).

Typical service lab for Lightjet turnaround is 2-3 days from FTP upload. Typical Inkjet turnaround is 5-10 days in actual practice for a single print unless you're a big time customer. Been there, done that. If you send the print out, some boob may operate the machine today...the Lightjet is more technical, usually has better trained operators, and has built-in calibration that refuses to print if it's way out - consisitency can be superb on Lightjet. Lightjet also interpolates VERY well, arguably better than photoshop type methods, but who knows? inkjets themselves do not.

Lightjets IMHO still scream "photograph" to me, and well, inkjets say "nerd with computer, cheap imitation of something they wish they were" more often than not, and neither one comes close to a nice contact print for B&W. When I can get beyond the "how" of its production, some images on inkjet really do sing though, therefore some images will get printed on inkjet around here too, particularily the ones where a "silkscreen, ink on top" look do them justice.

If you do it yourself, think of how many Lightjets you can have for the cost of a new printer every year or two, all the ink, profiles, paper experiments and goofing around, not to mention your time. Where once the inkjet was thought of as cheap and quick, doing it to the ultimate quality level takes time, money and solid workhabits - of course, you get to see the result immediately.

Kodak Endura papers for Lightjet make similar endurance claims to Epson's for inkjets. Can we believe any of them, really?

I believe that the image will speak out as to which process it works best with, and failing that, certainly the buyer of the print will voice their preference. I've had people go both ways - looking at a lightjet, but then asking for an inkjet on art paper, or looking at an inkjet and wishing for that deep rich gloss that inkjets still don't get just right.

And, until enough years go by to evaluate the interaction of pollutants, storage methods, humidity and light as a whole with prints, plus actually witness the exact type of deterioration we get, who can truly say what lasts?

The latest inkjet stuff is sounding like it might be the winner, but time will tell!

Instead of which is better, why not which one you prefer for a particular purpose or job according to your tastes or client's tastes?

Bruce Watson
16-Jul-2006, 16:44
Were you using a RIP when you printed B&W with UC inks?
Early ImagePrint. I've seen later versions of ImagePrint do the same thing, but less so, with Epson 2200 and 7600 using UC.

I'd hope that as printers get better, inks get better, and software gets better that this will become less of a problem. But I won't be surprised if it won't go away completely because it's still making a gray by mixing colors.

And like I said, it seems that most people either don't see it or aren't bothered by it, so it may not be an issue that's going to be very high up on anyone else's list.

New Hassel Man
25-Aug-2009, 11:56
I'm considering having some large sample prints (up to 24x30) made from B&W 11x14 negatives and was curious which printing method people prefer?

What kind of image quality can I expect as compared to the contact prints I produce in my darkroom, will either of these two process come close to the optical contacts prints?

I'm leaning more towards the lightjet for quality reasons but the achivability issue (60 yrs) concerns me.

Mike

Oh man, I operate the Chromira right now at a pro lab and high res. scans from an 11x14 negative are just begging to be printed on "Matte" finish Fuji Crystal Archive using the Chromira. No Inkjet, not for that, stick with silver, why not.

Tyler Boley
25-Aug-2009, 14:09
I should add that I agree with the comments regarding B&W tonality with the new Epson K3 inks. IMO the K3 inks on coated papers are so good that the need for third-party dedicated B&W inks has been eliminated...

Jack, with respect, I think it's important for people to qualify these kinds of statements. The need has been eliminated- for you.
For some of us, the difference is striking. I do both kinds of prints here. While Epson, HP, and Canon have improved B&W output substantially, and it's great people have this available to them, it's equally important that these finessed dedicated B&W systems are available to those who require them as well.
In fact, my friend John Dean-
http://deanimaging.com/index.php
has a great HP, which arguably does better B&W, both matte and gloss, better and more attractive the UCK3 ABW, he still has 2 (at least) Epsons there loaded with Cone ink sets for the most demanding B&W work.

Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/

Bruce Watson
25-Aug-2009, 14:52
Oh man, I operate the Chromira right now at a pro lab and high res. scans from an 11x14 negative are just begging to be printed on "Matte" finish Fuji Crystal Archive using the Chromira. No Inkjet, not for that, stick with silver, why not.

Not that anyone will care about a three year old thread, but I should point out that RA-4 process prints aren't silver. They are dyes. Even the B&W prints are dyes. No silver in the final image.

The reason to go with inkjet is because the person paying for the work likes it better. If it's your money, you get to choose.

so_wack
6-Sep-2009, 18:07
Bruce,
I work with a LightJet 430, and I have to disagree with you. RA-4 prints are silver gelatin prints. We have a extraction system that removes the silver from the chemistry. It is a photographic process; it uses 3 lasers (RGB) to expose the paper as opposed to a halogen bulb in an enlarger.

Inkjet is nice for some things, like fine art repro on canvas or watercolor paper. But our lightjet is more reliable for color accuracy and production workflow. Especially now since the lasers are solid state transistors.

percepts
6-Sep-2009, 18:23
if its black and white then send it to a lab using a durst lambda and printing onto Ilford Galerie digital which is real silver gelatin B+W FB paper created especially for use in laser printers such as the lambda and probably lightjet too.

Bruce Watson
7-Sep-2009, 04:49
Bruce,
I work with a LightJet 430, and I have to disagree with you. RA-4 prints are silver gelatin prints.

Disagree all you want. But the end product of an RA-4 process is a dye print that contains zero metallic silver and therefore can not legitimately be called a silver-gelatin print. Because it's not. Don't believe me -- ask Kodak: 800.242.2424 x19.