B/W Inkjet image quality?

[Ron Marshall]

I have been printing on an Epson 2200 for two years using Cone septone B/W inks, and am very satisfied with the image quality.

I have not tried printing B/W images using Epson inks on either matt or glossy papers.

How good is the B/W output from Epson K3 printers, and is image quality better with matt or glossy papers.

This is obviously a subjective and somewhat ambiguous question, but I think many people here know how a good print should look, and so hopefully can give me their impressions.

I will take a B/W file into Calumet to have them print it for me. That, and the other demo images they probably will have on hand will help, but I would appreciate the opinion of others here that have seen many images.

[jetcode]

I have 2 2200's, one with Septone inks; there is a difference. The B/W inks are better in my opinion because they can be viewed at any angle without artifacts like metamerism.

[Ed Richards]

I use an Epson 3800 in the advanced black and white mode (AWB) or with Imageprint, depending on the paper. Using good mat papers like PhotoRag, or the new fiber gloss papers - Harman Glossy FB or Innova Glossy - the prints are neutral and there are virtually no artifacts. It is not just the inks, the 3800 has an improved dither pattern and I think the AWB does some additional tricks. What I really like is that it is very linear so I do not need to soft-proof as much. I can no longer see any need for 3rd party inks. The only thing that could improve a very few prints would be the HP Z series printer's automatic clear coat for unprinted areas.

[Ted Harris]

Ron,

Ed mentioned the HP Z3100 and I will expand. It sounds like you are considering a new printer and, if so, why just the Epson printers? I am currently testing the Harman FB and the new Ilford Fibre Silk on both the Z3100 ps and the new Canon iPF 6100. Both produce rich, satisfying prints that are full of detail and neutral (when you want neutral). The Canon x000 series did have some bronzing, gloss differential and metamerism issues but the 6100 seems to have largely eliminated them with the new Canon black inset. I just setup the 6100 and have only done one black and white print so no firm conclusions yet. I have also run the Harman FB Gloss on the HP B6180, which is their equivalent machine to the Epson 2400. There was some bronzing clearly evident when the print came out of the printer; however, after drying overnight it disappeared almost totally.

[Ed Richards]

Ted,

For me, the Epson 3800 was the best balance of cost and size. It is hard to beat if you do not need wider prints than 17" and prefer to print on cut sheets.

If want to do rolls and have the room and money, the Z3100 is really exciting - no more profile worries and the gloss coat is very interesting.

[Brian Ellis]

I used several different types of MIS inks for about 5 years, tolerating the hassles resulting from their quality control problems because I didn't want to pay $500+ for a RIP that would have allowed me to use Epson color inks for b&w. Then QTR became available at a $50 cost so I started using it with Epson UC inks in my 2200 and now in my 3800 for b&w printing. That's an excellent combination IMHO and you might want to give it a try with your 2200. You can download QTR for free from www.harrington.com, if you don't like it pay nothing, if you do pay $50 on the honor system.

I don't know whether it and Epson UC inks are the equal of Cone septone inks because I've never used Cone inks. However, MIS inks have an excellent reputation (once you get past the QC issues) and the combination of QTR and Epson UC inks is IMHO at least as good as the MIS inks I used. I print b&w only on matte paper just because I prefer it to glossy so if there are problems with b&w on glossy paper with this combination I wouldn't know about them but there aren't with matte paper (Moab Entrada Natural and Moab Entrada Fine Art in my case).

[Chris Strobel]

I use a 4800 with stock ink and MK, and an old 1160 with MIS Eboni.Paper is Photorag 308 and Epson VFA.The dmax is definately better on the 1160 prints.As far as improved dither algorithm of the 3800, last year when trying to decide between the Epson 4800, 3800, and Canon IPF5000, we ran some b&w 8x10's using abw drivers through the 4800 and 3800 at my local Calumet, and neither I nor the employees could tell any difference with our naked eyes.I didn't take a lupe to them because I never look at my finished prints with one :)

[Jack Flesher]

Re the dither pattern on the 3800 versus earlier version Epson printers. It is definitely better, but I agree you won't see that difference with your naked eye. However, if you do loupe the print, it is a more notable difference, and in most cases you find even more detail in the 3800 print. Clearly not very relevant to everyday print viewing, but it is pretty cool ;)

[jetcode]

I'm interested in the HPZ3100 as a long term solution to replace the 2200's. One day at a time.

[Ron Marshall]

Ron,

Ed mentioned the HP Z3100 and I will expand. It sounds like you are considering a new printer and, if so, why just the Epson printers? I am currently testing the Harman FB and the new Ilford Fibre Silk on both the Z3100 ps and the new Canon iPF 6100. Both produce rich, satisfying prints that are full of detail and neutral (when you want neutral). The Canon x000 series did have some bronzing, gloss differential and metamerism issues but the 6100 seems to have largely eliminated them with the new Canon black inset. I just setup the 6100 and have only done one black and white print so no firm conclusions yet. I have also run the Harman FB Gloss on the HP B6180, which is their equivalent machine to the Epson 2400. There was some bronzing clearly evident when the print came out of the printer; however, after drying overnight it disappeared almost totally.

Ted, I will be buying a printer soon, probably a 17", but possibly a 24". My understanding is that Canon ink has not passed fade tests, except on Canon media, so if that is the case then my only option in 17" is Epson. In 24" I will only go for Epson if I decide to commit it exclusively to either matt or glossy; I don't want to blow circa $80 for each round trip black swap.

The Z3100 sounds like a good option. I just want to be sure that most of the teething problems have been solved: ie. pizza wheel, red gamut. I know you have not had any problems with your machine. What I really have to do is take a file to Calumet and have it printed on the 3100 to see for myself.

[Ron Marshall]

I used several different types of MIS inks for about 5 years, tolerating the hassles resulting from their quality control problems because I didn't want to pay $500+ for a RIP that would have allowed me to use Epson color inks for b&w. Then QTR became available at a $50 cost so I started using it with Epson UC inks in my 2200 and now in my 3800 for b&w printing. That's an excellent combination IMHO and you might want to give it a try with your 2200. You can download QTR for free from www.harrington.com, if you don't like it pay nothing, if you do pay $50 on the honor system.

I don't know whether it and Epson UC inks are the equal of Cone septone inks because I've never used Cone inks. However, MIS inks have an excellent reputation (once you get past the QC issues) and the combination of QTR and Epson UC inks is IMHO at least as good as the MIS inks I used. I print b&w only on matte paper just because I prefer it to glossy so if there are problems with b&w on glossy paper with this combination I wouldn't know about them but there aren't with matte paper (Moab Entrada Natural and Moab Entrada Fine Art in my case).

Brian, I use the QTR for the Cone inks, and I agree that it does a wonderful job. I have never tried it with the ultrachromes though. But I also want to get a printer with larger carts.

[Kirk Gittings]

My understanding is that Canon ink has not passed fade tests, except on Canon media,

Wilhelm has never published any of the long term fade tests on those Canon inks, only the preliminary results even on Canon media. The final tests are like a year overdue, a delay that never happened with Epson or HP tests. It is suspicious enough that I couldn't invest in a Canon printer. The Wilhelm accelerated fade tests are the only cross industry standards that we have to go on. They have redesigned the grey and black inks and we will see.

[tim atherton]

Presumably much of the Cone and MIS ink setups will no longer be available?

[Ted Harris]

Ron, see Kirk's post. While I don't feel as strongly about the issue as he does his point has a lot of merit. I will ask the folks that know at Canon and see what they say. Regarding the Z3100, as I said in another thread, remember that the red issue was addressed almost immediately after it was discovered ... over a year ago. The pizza wheel issue is something that some folks have had issues with on the B9180 with heavier papers, NOT AFAIK on the Z3100. I did have some roller marks for example on the first sheet of Harman FB Gloss (a very heavy paper) I ran through the machine and I realized it was my fault. When I had calibrated the printer for that paper and profiled the paper I forgot to change the setting to heavyweight paper. I recalibrated to change the roller tension and no more roller marks My guess is that people that have seen roller marks on prints from the Z3100 haven't taken the time to properly calibrate the printer/profile the paper. BTW I've now printed a couple of black and white prints and one large color print on the Canon 6100 and the output is impressive. Need to print some more and then lay them out side-by-side with the same prints from the Z3100 and the 4800.


Tim and others, I will drive over to see Jon sometime next week and see what he has to say.

[Ron Marshall]

[QUOTE=Ted Harris;288575]Regarding the Z3100, as I said in another thread, remember that the red issue was addressed almost immediately after it was discovered ... over a year ago. The pizza wheel issue is something that some folks have had issues with on the B9180 with heavier papers, NOT AFAIK on the Z3100.

QUOTE]

I'm glad to hear that both of those issues have been resolved. There is so much hearsay on the forums that it is difficult to judge.

In the original post about the ink cartridge ruling Jon Cone was quoted as saying that the rulign would not effect "large format printers". So, if correct, then presumably Cone inks will still be available in carts for Epson 4800, 7800 and 9800.

[Bruce Watson]

I have been printing on an Epson 2200 for two years using Cone septone B/W inks and am very satisfied with the image quality.

I have not tried printing B/W images using Epson inks on either matte or glossy papers.

How good is the B/W output from Epson K3 printers, and is image quality better with matte or glossy papers?

It depends on what you want of course. The main advantages of the Cone inks is smoothness, tonal transitions, and excellent shadow and highlight detail. All limited to matte papers.

The main advantages of the K3 inks is performance on glossy papers, where you get considerably greater Dmax. This can translate into excellent shadow detail as well. With the black and two gray inks you get good smoothness, but not as good as with the Cone inks IMHO. Very close though. Highlight detail to my eye isn't as good with the K3 inks either, with a little more graininess and less smoothness. Again, very close though. And of course, using the K3 inks you can vary your color while the Cone inks are fixed color inks.

So it probably depends on what you value most. If you value smoothness over Dmax then you might not be satisfied with the K3s. OTOH if you value Dmax and a glossy surface of some kind, then the K3s may well win. Etc.

The answer of course is try them both and see. Sorry, but you know it's true.

[Ron Marshall]

It depends on what you want of course. The main advantages of the Cone inks is smoothness, tonal transitions, and excellent shadow and highlight detail. All limited to matte papers.

The main advantages of the K3 inks is performance on glossy papers, where you get considerably greater Dmax. This can translate into excellent shadow detail as well. With the black and two gray inks you get good smoothness, but not as good as with the Cone inks IMHO. Very close though. Highlight detail to my eye isn't as good with the K3 inks either, with a little more graininess and less smoothness. Again, very close though. And of course, using the K3 inks you can vary your color while the Cone inks are fixed color inks.

So it probably depends on what you value most. If you value smoothness over Dmax then you might not be satisfied with the K3s. OTOH if you value Dmax and a glossy surface of some kind, then the K3s may well win. Etc.

The answer of course is try them both and see. Sorry, but you know it's true.

Thanks Bruce, your second to last paragraph sums it up very nicely.

I'll ask Calumet to print one of the images I have already printed using Cone inks.

[Jack Flesher]

If you want to see smooth tonal gradation and awesome D-Max, you need to see a well printed B&W done with Epson K3 on the new Harman FB Gloss... If you read the last few pages of the "Digital Silver Gelatin Has Arrived" thread, you'll see where Don Hutton showed identical wet and K3/Harman prints to a group of traditional printers -- and a few of them replied here --- in my opinion, it is THEIR few words that sum it up :)

Cheers,

[Ron Marshall]

Thanks Jack, that is the paper I was planning to use when I ask Calumet to do my comparison prints.

I check out the thread.

[Kirk Gittings]

Tim and others, I will drive over to see Jon sometime next week and see what he has to say.

Ask him about the new glossy b&w inks too. When might they be available.

[bob carnie]

We just purchased the Cannon 60inch wide and are getting Harmons paper in 54inch roll . I am excited about comparing the large format inkjet prints on Harmon Paper *Cannon and Epson* inkjet directly to prints on the Harmon digital fibre off the Lambda.
Talk about exciting times .. We are getting a wassage rip unit to control multiple printers, does anyone have experience with this unit?????
I think my brain is going to fry with all this new information and methods of making images.

[tim atherton]

In the original post about the ink cartridge ruling Jon Cone was quoted as saying that the rulign would not effect "large format printers". So, if correct, then presumably Cone inks will still be available in carts for Epson 4800, 7800 and 9800.

yes - it's the 13" and smaller printers it applies to - and it basically takes effect almost immediately as far as I could tell.

But Epson are apparently planning on going after the third part systems for the larger printers as well now.

[Ron Marshall]

yes - it's the 13" and smaller printers it applies to - and it basically takes effect almost immediately as far as I could tell.

But Epson are apparently planning on going after the third part systems for the larger printers as well now.

Very unfortunate. I was looking forward to the glossy version of Cone inks.

[Chris Strobel]

Very unfortunate. I was looking forward to the glossy version of Cone inks.

Just get yourself a set of refillable carts from Cone or MIS and you'll be set.

[tim atherton]

Just get yourself a set of refillable carts from Cone or MIS and you'll be set.


but hurry, as I imagine everyone is stocking up - and once they are gone...

[Chris Strobel]

but hurry, as I imagine everyone is stocking up - and once they are gone...

Well according to Jon Cone, no need to panick on the 17" and wider carts.Best to hang out at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/ for the latest on the subject.

[tim atherton]

Well according to Jon Cone, no need to panick on the 17" and wider carts.Best to hang out at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/ for the latest on the subject.


see http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=288763&postcount=22


(http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint - yep, been there since it started)

[Ed Richards]

I would assume that they are already working on an injunction for the larger printers.

[Ron Marshall]

I would assume that they are already working on an injunction for the larger printers.

According to Jon Cone, the ruling only applies to printers that have the cart installed on the printhead, ie. 13" and smaller.

[tim atherton]

According to Jon Cone, the ruling only applies to printers that have the cart installed on the printhead, ie. 13" and smaller.

However, there have been several mentions that Epson has a similar legal process in the works for wider format printers