RE: Epson 3800 vs 4800 - any advice?

[Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>]

Title: RE: Epson 3800 vs 4800 - any advice?

I believe it is about log 2.3. That is, if you print an RGB negative using all of the inks, that is what you get, or close to it.

If you want to add some black to one of th PDN colors, just make another 360 ppi layer of the step tablet, fill it with black, and then blend with the colored layer to give you however much density you need. With the Epson 2200 virtually any maximum density is possible, from the 2.00 or so with Green by itself, to around 3.8 or so with black.

You won't have as much range with the 3800, however.

Sandy

At 11:54 AM -0700 2/28/07, Camden Hardy wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>  
> So you (or anyone else) happen to know
> the density of all inks on the 4800?
>  
>  
> Camden Hardy
>  
> camden[at]hardyphotography[dot]net
> http://www.hardyphotography.net
>  
>  
>  
> From: Ender100@aol.com
> [mailto:Ender100@aol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:40 AM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Subject: Re: Epson 3800 vs 4800 - any advice?
>  
> Camden,
>
> The 2200 and the X600 series large format printers used the inital
> Ultrachrome inkset-the black ink is indeed very dense to UV....
> slightly over Log 4.0..... just about like Kodalith!
>
> Best Wishes,
> Mark Nelson
>
> Precision Digital
> Negatives - The System
> PDNPrint Forum at
> Yahoo Groups
> www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
>
>
>
> In a message dated 2/28/07 10:54:20 AM, camden@hardyphotography.net
> writes:
> In terms of black ink only, the 2200 is
> the best I've seen, and you may
> not find a printer that can stand up to the 2200 (can anyone
> confirm/deny
> this?).  Based on what I've seen and heard, the 2200 is one of
> the best
> out there for black ink.
>
> **************************************
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
> from AOL at http://www.aol.com.