U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: printer recommendations? also "printer" thread, Vivera inks,agfa C

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 happening.
i copied the mail from dan burkholder below


Jeremy Moore schrieb:
66575de70910311510na57e98ft3f6b890a18191eb7@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
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.

original mail:

Dan Burkholder schrieb:
Hi Tom,

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 the 5100.

And for actual "prints" on matte paper, the Canon blacks are incredible.

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 avail.

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 than lasers.

Hope this helps,


info@DanBurkholder.com <mailto:info@DanBurkholder.com>
www.DanBurkholder.com <http://www.DanBurkholder.com>