Complete frustraition

[Randy]

[Begin Rant]

I am very tempted...no, pretty much have decided, to just go back to the darkroom for print making.

For my large format, I shoot 5X7 and 8X10. I have an Epson 4990 and V750 (the V750 was given to me and I haven't hooked up yet). Because of the scanners and ink-jet printers, it has been years since I have done any darkroom printing.

My Canon i9900 printer has been nothing but trouble for a couple years. Very difficult to get a decent B&W image from my scanned negs. Even more difficult to get a good color image from SLR digital files. Frustration.

A friend gave me his Epson 2100 a while back, but it had apparently sat to long unused...never could get the print heads to clear up. My friend passed away a while back, and his widow gave me his HP B9180, but it had also sat to long. I have fought with it for weeks now, and it is now telling me to replace every one of the damn printer heads.

My girlfriends HP B8500 has been nothing but trouble since the day we opened the box.

This is not the way print making should be. I can not afford to spend $500, $600, $700 and up every few years on a new printer (for 13"X19" prints).

So...I believe it is time to just say %&#@ it and start contact printing my large format (I recently turned down the opportunity to purchase an 8X10 enlarger with lenses and a cold-light head for $400 - begin kicking self now).

From my perspective, our ink-jet printers just know way to much. And because they know to much (when the ink level is "low" or "out of date" - $38 each, or the printer heads need replaced - $70 each) they shut down until we spend money, rather than just printing and let us decide (by looking at the print quality) what needs to be replaced.

So, unless anyone can recommend a good, simple, reliable ink-jet printer...I am done. I have wasted way to much time and money on hardware, paper, and ink.

[End Rant]

[Jim Jones]

I've made over 3000 prints, large and small, in one Epson 3800 in almost 5 years with no problems except one cartridge that needed removing and shaking a few times, and a front door that I broke off.

[vinny]

Listen to Jim, there's nothing wrong with your equipment. You'll be able to hand it down for generations:)

[Lenny Eiger]

[Begin Rant]So, unless anyone can recommend a good, simple, reliable ink-jet printer...I am done. I have wasted way to much time and money on hardware, paper, and ink.

[End Rant]

I hear you. I've had plenty of the same. I've been lucky for a few years, I've been working with Roland's. They are big, however, and expensive. And they don't make them like they used to. I can't recommend them anymore. It's Epson's fault, but I won't go into it any more than that...

I would get a nice 3800. Or you can go one step up where the printers have more metal in them. They aren't cheap, but they are more repairable. I would also talk to inkjetmall and get some refillable cartridges and only buy ink in bulk. There are also chip resetters for those that need to do that.

There's a way to do this so you don't go crazy... but you haver to start out with the good stuff and you have to remember that Epson (and every other manufacturer in the sport) is against you. They want the printers to break. When I took apart the 9600 I had, I found parts in there that were deliberately designed to break. I think you have to figure that its a machine that has a 1-3 year life cycle. If you get more, great, many have. It's like an iPhone or Android. They want you to buy the next version. It isn't a refrigerator.

Enlargers, especially the ones that are good for 4x5, are beasts. They can take a beating. It's just not the same... this is very different.

My opinion...

Lenny

[Darin Boville]

Another vote for 3800. I've never had a problem with mine.

--Darin

[Steve Smith]

My vote is for the darkroom. No need to over-complicate things with technology.


Steve.

[Peter De Smidt]

I do sympathize. I've had a couple of "printer from hell" experiences. The loss of time and money can be staggering, and I lost a job once because my printer went from printing fine to being incredibly clogged just a minute later, and I hadn't done anything to it.

Pigment inks settle. It's a fact of life. There are things that can be done to minimize this, mainly regular printing and agitation of the printer, but it's not completely avoidable. Humidity can also play a part.

Darkroom work, though, is not without it's own potential frustrations. I had a staining problem that I ultimately tracked down to my water being very hard. I had low contrast which I tracked down to a less effective dichroic filter....

Basically, you should decide which way you'd like to work. They are quite different.

[Mark Barendt]

I had similar problems with inkjets. Finally threw in the towel too.

For digital prints I use a lab, sweet, sweet, sweet compared to printing at home.

Most of my prints are done in an enlarger though now.



For the rest I enlarge.

[Curt]

I bought an Epson printer and it came defective. The head dropped according to Epson service. After trying to get a good print and a pack of paper later they said send it back.

I did and that was the end of my digital print making. With the spotty product life and high ink prices I think they have a great racket going.

[Tyler Boley]

Randy, aside from the reliability issues, and you are getting feedback on that, none of the printers you tried can do B&W at all, really. Of course the problem is.. no one will tell you that, because they don't know. Only now are there some printers that will do B&W out of the box, and they are still compromises...
But, given a good working printer, the right one, in this day and age it's very possible to get good ink prints. Just ask here about what to buy, not the manufacturers, or anyone in a store.

[Mark Barendt]

But, given a good working printer, the right one, in this day and age it's very possible to get good ink prints. Just ask here about what to buy, not the manufacturers, or anyone in a store.

The question for me became not "can it work?" but "why bother?"

In a color managed digital workflow printing is a commodity not an artistic endeavor.

My real costs after shipping and everything is considerably less when using a lab and it's right every time. I have used 3 different pro labs over the years and have yet to have a failure at their end.

That was true when I had a small studio and it's true now for my personal work. It's true for my buddies that have portrait studios too.

Enlarging is a different story because it's part of the creative process for me.

[Lenny Eiger]

The question for me became not "can it work?" but "why bother?"

In a color managed digital workflow printing is a commodity not an artistic endeavor.

My real costs after shipping and everything is considerably less when using a lab and it's right every time. I have used 3 different pro labs over the years and have yet to have a failure at their end.

As much as this post might seem to be in my interest - to have more people to print with me, I can't really agree. I am as color managed as anyone and it doesn't match reality.

To put it bluntly, there is no such thing as a color-managed workflow that can produce anything but a base level print on the first shot. Its analogous to a color analyzer in the darkroom - it gets you to the first print. If it takes two prints to get to an ok print with such a workflow, it will take another 5-10 prints to get to a"great print" let alone a "master print" result. It also may take a lot of time just looking at the image to understand what it needs, and a lot of experience.

If the labs are right every time, the level of printing one is looking for is very low. In the best case, you have someone at the alb who has taken the time and knows just what you want. If you like the results, great! Enjoy.

However, you can not say printing is not an artistic endeavor. It just isn't true. If all I ever did was to press the print button I would agree. However, I am constantly making choices, doing a print over with a change or two, and that is the same thing I did in the darkroom.

There are many great printmakers working in the inkjet medium who produce exquisite results. You can't trivialize their work... If you suggest that Costco can do as good a job as someone who has spent their life perfecting their skills - well, lets just say there's something missing in that argument.

Lenny

[Mark Barendt]

Lenny,

I'm not trying to trivialize anything or say that inkjet work sucks or say that CostCo can do the job, I specifically said pro lab. People like White House Custom Color and Richard Photo lab and Millers. I used these labs absolutely interchangeably, the results from all three are exceptional and virtually indistinguishable.

Nothing artistic happens between the command to print and the paper coming out of the printer, or if sent something to a pro lab, out of whatever machine the lab uses.

Follow the rules for color management at one of these labs and you get exactly what you sent. Today next week or next year, a given file will get a given result.

Our artistic decisions in the digital world are made before each print command. Sure once we see the print we might make changes to the file before we hit print again but, in the digital world we aren't sticking dodging tools between the print head and the paper. ;)

[Lenny Eiger]

Nothing artistic happens between the command to print and the paper coming out of the printer, or if sent something to a pro lab, out of whatever machine the lab uses.

Follow the rules for color management at one of these labs and you get exactly what you sent. Today next week or next year, a given file will get a given result.

Our artistic decisions in the digital world are made before each print command. Sure once we see the print we might make changes to the file before we hit print again but, in the digital world we aren't sticking dodging tools between the print head and the paper. ;)

OK, I'm glad you aren't suggesting what I thought you were. However, I have followed the rules of color management, I have terrific equipment, RIP's and a lot of experience. I've made at least 100 profiles, they take half a day or so, each. You can make a perfect profile and it will print like crap. (I've had this happen). There is a lot of leeway in profile making. It is not as accurate as you imagine. If you are getting great results, its fabulous, but it isn't that "plug and play".

Further, 3 months from now the paper will be warmer. It might be humid, or not. The paper will absorb ink differently and this will shift the colors, and certainly b&w tonalities. Everyone wants to say its all automatic, from digital works this way or that to computers can print exactly what's on the monitor, etc. I've been on the front lines for a lot of years and it just isn't that tight.

Finally, I just printed a bunch of work in color for a client and and I hadn't for a little while. I'd been doing mostly b&w. I got it looking great on the monitor and then made the most awful print I've seen in a while. I laughed at myself, went back and corrected it on the monitor, made another and got very close. Looking back at the monitor I said, "oh yeah, that's what it should look like". I re-tuned my eye - or my brain - to see the way the printer was seeing. The human factor is huge in this equation.

Lenny

[Peter De Smidt]

I gotta agree with Lenny here. Good profiles get you into the ballpark, but you need good judgement to find your seat.

[Mark Barendt]

Lenny and Peter, you guys are actually making my basic point which is that digital printing at home is real work, it's not easy, automatic, plug-n-play stuff and it costs real money and time to make it work well.

[Peter De Smidt]

Yes, and the same thing is true when printing through a lab. Screens and prints are not the same. They do not match even when the whole system is color managed.

[Mark Barendt]

No, using a good pro lab does not pose the same problems.

I used the three labs I spoke of above absolutely interchangeably.

My buddies in the portrait/wedding business today use them interchangeably all the time.

I have ordered reprints for clients months after the originals and they are truly indistinguishable from each other.

There are incredibly few failures, when they screw up they replace it free, when I screw up they normally catch it before it ships still costs me nothing extra, many times they catch it before it even prints.

A good lab is a true joy to work with.

[wclark5179]

I use White house (WHCC) for printing and since they have a facility about 15 miles from my studio, I can transmit an order at 10:00 AM even 11 AM and it's at my door the next day. There are only 24 hrs. to each day and I do what is most productive with my abilities for my business. For printing, I have a lab do the work as it allows me to do things that are more productive.

The thing I hear about D.I.Y. printing as, for some folks, it takes multiple prints to achieve the desired results. This takes time and costs a fair amount just in supplies.

When I used my darkroom for business, my best friend was a garbage can!

[Lenny Eiger]

It takes multiple prints for the labs, too.

Every commercial photographer has to decide where to draw the line. Film developing and printing are time consuming and take away from shooting and from getting new clients. If I was doing commercial work I wouldn't consider doing my own printing.

Unless, of course, it was part of my passion for photography. I have met a number of commercial guys who were into platinum and everything else. Yet, for many commercial guys it is the shooting that turns them on. And making a living.

For wedding guys, the print quality is usually not that critical. Its not heading for the museum... There are exceptions, of course. There are the really exquisite photographers who work in that area. However, I would generalize to say that exquisite printing is not usually their main focus.

Lenny

[Mark Barendt]

Morning Lenny,

The only time I found multiple prints needed was when I was learning the system and getting my tools setup. Once the relationship between the paper and monitor was understood and good calibrated tools were in place it became a first time every time process.

The generalization you are making about wedding guys is simply a price point thing, it is just as true in fine art, portraiture, commercial, and landscape....... The differences in quality are not generated at good pro labs, they are almost always from problems that come before these labs gets the file. Garbage in, garbage out.

I also don't want to leave the impression that every lab works at this level of quality. your generalization can be applied to labs too.

[Brian K]

As much as this post might seem to be in my interest - to have more people to print with me, I can't really agree. I am as color managed as anyone and it doesn't match reality.

To put it bluntly, there is no such thing as a color-managed workflow that can produce anything but a base level print on the first shot. Its analogous to a color analyzer in the darkroom - it gets you to the first print. If it takes two prints to get to an ok print with such a workflow, it will take another 5-10 prints to get to a"great print" let alone a "master print" result. It also may take a lot of time just looking at the image to understand what it needs, and a lot of experience.

If the labs are right every time, the level of printing one is looking for is very low. In the best case, you have someone at the alb who has taken the time and knows just what you want. If you like the results, great! Enjoy.

However, you can not say printing is not an artistic endeavor. It just isn't true. If all I ever did was to press the print button I would agree. However, I am constantly making choices, doing a print over with a change or two, and that is the same thing I did in the darkroom.

There are many great printmakers working in the inkjet medium who produce exquisite results. You can't trivialize their work... If you suggest that Costco can do as good a job as someone who has spent their life perfecting their skills - well, lets just say there's something missing in that argument.

Lenny

Lenny, I have to say that I have been amazed by the B&W prints that I'm producing digitally. I'm using an Epson 9900 with StudioPrint 14 Rip and the prints are quite impressive. In fact I'm even using them as the match print for my silver printing. The only need I have to make multiple prints before I settle on a final is related to subtleties like burns and dodges which require adjusting as the print size increases.

I'm wondering if some of the issues you've had have been monitor related, maybe now that you have an Eizo you'll find it a better soft proofer than your previous monitor.

[Lenny Eiger]

The only need I have to make multiple prints before I settle on a final is related to subtleties like burns and dodges which require adjusting as the print size increases.

I'm wondering if some of the issues you've had have been monitor related, maybe now that you have an Eizo you'll find it a better soft proofer than your previous monitor.

Brian, I really don't want to insult anyone. Every once in a while I'll hit something on the first print. But its just a beginning for me. I have to assume that we area talking about a different kind of print.

I do have a beautiful new monitor. I like toys, like many photographers. The little spectro that comes out of the monitor channel and calibrates itself is cool. The gray is nice and clean and I like being able to change the 'target' on the fly so I can work on normal daily activities on a brighter monitor and then go back to 'photographic' when I am printing. The software on a mac is buggy (they should get their act together, most of this type of work is done on macs) and frankly, its just a monitor. A very expensive one - $3000. I can now tell my clients that everyone's work is being done on an Eizo, but if I have to buy another, it will probably be the NEC for less than a third of the price...

It isn't that much better than my Apple monitor as far as rendering color... not thousands of dollars worth. They are both next to each other and they don't look that far apart in quality.

Maybe I'll tune it a bit and I'll prove myself wrong over the next couple of months... these are just first impressions. I'm feeling a little stupid for spending this much money. Probably just need to print an exhibition for someone and I won't worry about it...

Cheers,

Lenny

[false_Aesthetic]

Lenny and Peter, you guys are actually making my basic point which is that digital printing at home is real work, it's not easy, automatic, plug-n-play stuff and it costs real money and time to make it work well.

I might have missed something but why would you expect digital printing home or at a print house to be easy, automatic and/or plug-n-play?

[Mark Barendt]

I might have missed something but why would you expect digital printing home or at a print house to be easy, automatic and/or plug-n-play?

Because that's the way it was sold, "do A-B-C and you'll be doing 17" wide prints perfect every time" that is what the hawkers and magazines spouted. I doubt the hawkers have changed their tune any.

Obviously I don't believe that now.

It was a very expensive lesson learniing the ins and outs of inkjet printing, and a very happy day when I sold my fancy Epson.

[false_Aesthetic]

Because that's the way it was sold, "do A-B-C and you'll be doing 17" wide prints perfect every time" that is what the hawkers and magazines spouted. I doubt the hawkers have changed their tune any.

Obviously I don't believe that now.

It was a very expensive lesson learniing the ins and outs of inkjet printing, and a very happy day when I sold my fancy Epson.


Point taken.

[sanking]

Because that's the way it was sold, "do A-B-C and you'll be doing 17" wide prints perfect every time" that is what the hawkers and magazines spouted. I doubt the hawkers have changed their tune any.



Anyone who believes the hawkers is bound to wound up without his shirt.

In the 1930s and 40s supplies for tri-color carbon were sold to the amateur market. Later dye-transfer materials were marketed for amateurs as well as professionals. Making good color or monochrome prints with a pigment inkjet printer, by contrast in terms of level of difficulty, is like a walk in the park.

BTW, I have owned several Epson pigment inkjet printers, including 2000P, 2220, 3800 and 7600. I used them primarily for making digital negatives for carbon transfer printing, but also for making pigment inkjet prints. Yes, there is something of a learning curve, but if you do your homework it is possible to make great prints with pigment inkjet printers. Learn to use your image manipulation software, calibrate your monitor, and use the printer on a regular basis to avoid nozzle clogs.


Sandy King

[Brian Ellis]

[Begin Rant]

I am very tempted...no, pretty much have decided, to just go back to the darkroom for print making.

For my large format, I shoot 5X7 and 8X10. I have an Epson 4990 and V750 (the V750 was given to me and I haven't hooked up yet). Because of the scanners and ink-jet printers, it has been years since I have done any darkroom printing.

My Canon i9900 printer has been nothing but trouble for a couple years. Very difficult to get a decent B&W image from my scanned negs. Even more difficult to get a good color image from SLR digital files. Frustration.

A friend gave me his Epson 2100 a while back, but it had apparently sat to long unused...never could get the print heads to clear up. My friend passed away a while back, and his widow gave me his HP B9180, but it had also sat to long. I have fought with it for weeks now, and it is now telling me to replace every one of the damn printer heads.

My girlfriends HP B8500 has been nothing but trouble since the day we opened the box.

This is not the way print making should be. I can not afford to spend $500, $600, $700 and up every few years on a new printer (for 13"X19" prints).

So...I believe it is time to just say %&#@ it and start contact printing my large format (I recently turned down the opportunity to purchase an 8X10 enlarger with lenses and a cold-light head for $400 - begin kicking self now).

From my perspective, our ink-jet printers just know way to much. And because they know to much (when the ink level is "low" or "out of date" - $38 each, or the printer heads need replaced - $70 each) they shut down until we spend money, rather than just printing and let us decide (by looking at the print quality) what needs to be replaced.

So, unless anyone can recommend a good, simple, reliable ink-jet printer...I am done. I have wasted way to much time and money on hardware, paper, and ink.

[End Rant]

I can't speak for Canon and HP printers, I've never owned those brands. But I've owned Epson 1160, 1280, 2200, and 3800 printers over a period of about 10 years. The 1160 went bad after about 3 years and was junked. I bought the 1280 about 8 years ago for about $700 and it's still in daily use by my wife. The 2200 worked flawlessly for about three years and was sold when I bought the 3800 about five years ago for about $1,000 and is in almost daily use by me. I've never had a problem with it. For a good, simple, reliable ink-jet printer I'd suggest the Epson 3880.

Learning to make excellent prints digitally is far more difficult than learning to print in the fume room. But like anything that takes work, there's also more rewards from a creative standpoint once you start to know what you're doing.

[Mark Barendt]

Anyone who believes the hawkers is bound to wound up without his shirt.



Yep, that happened Sandy, I lost my shirt and you, like Lenny and Peter, make my point. ;)

Please know that I'm not suggesting that good work can't be done on ink jet printers or that there's no good reason to use them.

All that I am suggesting is that people who choose to do ink jet at home should have a darn good reason for doing so given the effort it requires and costs involved and given the other digital printing options available.

[Lenny Eiger]

All that I am suggesting is that people who choose to do ink jet at home should have a darn good reason for doing so given the effort it requires and costs involved and given the other digital printing options available.

I guess one good reason might be because they enjoy it. I also think that it offers a road to experimentation, especially for folks who want an expressive print, so they can try one approach or another and see which direction they like, etc.

I certainly would agree that it isn't always the right way to go...

Lenny

[Mark Barendt]

I guess one good reason might be because they enjoy it. I also think that it offers a road to experimentation, especially for folks who want an expressive print, so they can try one approach or another and see which direction they like, etc.

I certainly would agree that it isn't always the right way to go...

Lenny

And fun is a truly fine reason.

Heck I waste lots of time, film, paper, and chemicals in the interest of fun.

Experimentation. If you want funky or odd ball papers, sure.

As a real time learning tool, I'm less convinced. What is being learned is simply the relationship between paper and screen. Once that relationship is understood the need for instant printing (proofing on paper) pretty much goes away.

[Lenny Eiger]

As a real time learning tool, I'm less convinced. What is being learned is simply the relationship between paper and screen. Once that relationship is understood the need for instant printing (proofing on paper) pretty much goes away.

I learned:

How exactly to tune film for this process, the strength of mid tone separation, etc., identify the line between sharpness and diffraction
How to scan with a drum scanner
How to really scan
Color management
Profiling, how the profiles work, how to tune a profile perfectly using the spectrophotometer
What the difference is between perceptual and relative colorimetric
The responses of different papers, from canvas to paper to Kozo
How to tune a machine, adjust the heads for perfection in printing
How to mix my own inks, using a drawdown bar to sample them, reading the LAB values
How to master photoshop's masking features to control exactly what needs to happen, how to add and subtract masks from each other
How to use a RIP, how to set the percentages inside the RIP so one could get a perfectly smooth gray ramp
How to split tone with multiple sets of ink
How to blow away the set of colors on an Epson by getting 200K more on my dVinci system

and that's just off the top of my head.... there is so much more.

Now I'm not suggesting for a minute that anyone has to learn the stuff they aren't interested in. One can download a profile for their paper and printer combo, or have one made for a reasonable fee by Cone or Chromix, whomever. However, printing has been my passion, as it is for a number of others here. I've followed my curiosity to get to the place where I am in control of my processes.

However, the only thing I think is out of whack with what you are saying.... is that you are talking about a print you get from a lab, albeit a good lab, and I am not particularly interested in that level of quality. I am interested in far more. I want to create lasting prints that are the best they can be, for that photographer, and for that image, their aesthetic, etc. Quantity, getting it out the door, etc., the things a lab depends on to stay financially afloat, are not of interest to me. You aren't going to match up the lab's work against Frederick Evans, Sutcliffe, Steichen, Paul Caponigro, or any of the other great printers. Every time I go to print, that's the standard I want to go after. History will judge whether I made it. It's a tall order, but in my mind, why would you do anything else?

Of course there are lots of reasons why - but that's how I'm wired.

Lenny

[Mark Barendt]

However, the only thing I think is out of whack with what you are saying.... is that you are talking about a print you get from a lab, albeit a good lab, and I am not particularly interested in that level of quality. I am interested in far more. I want to create lasting prints that are the best they can be, for that photographer, and for that image, their aesthetic, etc. Quantity, getting it out the door, etc., the things a lab depends on to stay financially afloat, are not of interest to me. You aren't going to match up the lab's work against Frederick Evans, Sutcliffe, Steichen, Paul Caponigro, or any of the other great printers. Every time I go to print, that's the standard I want to go after. History will judge whether I made it. It's a tall order, but in my mind, why would you do anything else?

Of course there are lots of reasons why - but that's how I'm wired.

Lenny

So is it the Endura paper that sucks at these labs or what?

[sanking]

So is it the Endura paper that sucks at these labs or what?

I would not say that Endura sucks, but it is a plastic paper that I don't like as a final support. I have bought some of it on ebay and use it for making proofs in carbon transfer. It works well in that application, but I am not fond of the final carbon transfer image on Endura.

Sandy

[Mark Barendt]

I would not say that Endura sucks, but it is a plastic paper that I don't like as a final support. I have bought some of it on ebay and use it for making proofs in carbon transfer. It works well in that application, but I am not fond of the final carbon transfer image on Endura.

Sandy

So for you its an artistic choice, not a product quality choice, that a fair assessment?

I'm totally cool with people making different artistic choices.

[Mark Barendt]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?83656-How-to-unclog-Epson-3800

[Lenny Eiger]

So is it the Endura paper that sucks at these labs or what?

I don't say anything sucks. I've never used Endura, the last silver paper I loved was Portriga Rapid. I have rarely liked Kodak's offerings, as they have a different idea about what Photography is than I do, its much more commercial.

What I know is that there is another level. There is a difference between a good print and a great print. Good labs can put out good prints all day. I know, I used to print in a b&w lab. But if you want a great print you have to work at it a little more. That's all I'm saying.

Lenny

[jeffstev1]

[Begin Rant]

I have an Epson 4990

[End Rant]

This is a superb printer and can most definitely make great prints, including black and white. First, bear in mind that these printers need to be used regularly to avoid clogging. Second, you need to pick the right papers. Third, you need really good profiles for your papers. And last but most definitely not least you need a color-managed work flow: a properly profiled monitor of good quality, with all your software system defaults set up correctly. Color managed inkjet is not trivial, it has a learning curve, but it's not beyond the capacity of anyone who has managed the discipline of large format. For the non-technical and as an introduction to only some issues, not a comprehensive tutorial,my blog has posts here: http://jsphotographs.com/sightlines/category/tech-talk

For papers, you can make superb prints on: Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta and Photo Rag Baryta; Canson Infinity Baryta Photographique and Platine Fiber Rag; Innova Fiba-print White Gloss (f-type); Ilford Gold Fiber Silk; and numerous luster surface papers that have a more RC look. All the manufacturers provide free profiles that range from Ok to excellent. With pigment printers, try this heresy: use a profile for one manufacturer with another's paper. I do this all the time, because I've found that the way pigment inks sit on the micro-coatings keeps them from interacting chemically with the paper the way dye inks do. Yes, it may not be orthodox ICC and technically the white scaling is the issue, but in practice it works. You can find tutorials on color-managed printing from Photoshop and Lightroom on the net. One comprehensive book is here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1592004318/inkjetartcom-20

[sully75]

for the record, the HPs are total crap. Just absolute disasters. I had 5 of them. 3 arrived DOA. So...don't count that into your experience. Epsons are good and bad, it seems, but nothing like the junk that HP was selling.

[Mark Barendt]

Lenny,

IMO the difference between a good print and a great print is you, me, Peter, Sandy, or anyone that's willing to put in the extra work needed to learn and manage their process really well.

[Curt]

Lenny,

IMO the difference between a good print and a great print is you, me, Peter, Sandy, or anyone that's willing to put in the extra work needed to learn and manage their process really well.

Mark, you're right, it's hard work and an understanding of the process. This bears repeating.

[Mark Barendt]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?87634-Old-Pigment-Epsons-Fading-to-Green