Re: printer recommendations? also "printer" thread, Vivera inks,agfa CopyJet
no, i received the mail on the 29.08.2009.. i have the mail in my inbox
(and not from the web archives), so i can't be older than appr. one and
a half years, because this was when i first subscribed to the list.
if the mail is indeed much older, then there is some strange error
i copied the mail from dan burkholder below
Jeremy Moore schrieb:
phritz, make sure you check the dates on posts relating to digital
technology as that thread is from 2005/2006 and may not apply to
current tech and available printers.
Dan Burkholder schrieb:
Funny you should ask. For a decade, other than a brief flirtation with
HP printers, I've limited the testing to Epson printers, mainly because
they are good printers and they have dominated in the fine art world.
About a month ago Canon gave me a 6100 to test for inkjet negative
output and the news is very good. The setup is a bit different because
of Canon's "export" way of printing (instead of File>Print) but once
you get the hang of it, the negatives are very good. Soon I'll get
around to building a pdf with screen shots of all the dialog box
settings and such. Oh, I believe the 6100 is just a larger version of
And for actual "prints" on matte paper, the Canon blacks are
Hope this helps!
On Aug 29, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Tom Kershaw wrote:
Have you had any experience using HP or Canon inkjet printers for
digital negatives, or are the Epson machines still the major option?
Dan Burkholder wrote:
Funny how little has changed in the laser
world since I wrote about their ability to make digital negatives back
ten years ago.
Laser printers are by and large used in the business world because
of their speed and lower per-print costs when compared to inkjet
printers. But the business world rarely has need for the quality that
photographers demand. We use an Okidata laser with 1200x600 resolution
and it does a great job of printing double-sided handouts. The color
illustrations and photos look "good." Some photographer friends even
use this type of printer to produce limited edition calenders they send
out at Xmas. But these same photographers would never consider using
the laser for final fine print output.
Now if you're making negs for one of the "forgiving" processes
(I've been scolded in the past for suggesting that gum doesn't have as
faithful reproduction characteristics as some other processes), then
you may be perfectly happy with laser negs. But, and this is my
opinion, if you are contact printing on something like silver gelatin
or a fine-grain pt/pd paper, you're not going to like the results
unless a certain gritty stylization is part of the plot.
Mark Nelson and I are both fond of the Epson 3800 for making inkjet
negs. As a matter of fact, my 3800 printer is waiting for me at
Photographers' Formulary for next week's class. I ship it ahead because
it's good when students can use a current printer that makes great
negs. Having said that, my 3800 has a seriously f***ed print head. The
magenta nozzle pattern has as many gaps as it does pattern. But I use
Epson's Advanced Black and White mode to make negs and the magenta and
cyan inks aren't even used in that mode so this printer, though it
stinks for "normal" inkjet printing, still makes a perfect negative.
And yes, I tried all the Windex-on-foam-pad-let-sit-overnight and
rub-printhead-back-and-forth-on-Windex-soaked-paper-towel tricks to no
The 3800 is long in the tooth (over 2.5 years since it's
introduction) but is a real workhorse. Anyway, inkjets are way better
Hope this helps,