Re: printer recommendations? also "printer" thread, Vivera inks,agfa CopyJet
hoppla, my bad
curses on the selective focus of my brain.
you mean of course the thread from alt-p-.com. you're right, i didn't
look at the date there.
but the burkholder statement weighs much more in my view, although i'm
not exactly sure which type and inkset he is talking about
phritz
phritz phantom schrieb:
jeremy,
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
phritz
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.
_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!
Dan
info@DanBurkholder.com
www.DanBurkholder.com
On Aug 29, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Tom Kershaw wrote:
Dan,
Have you had any experience using HP or Canon inkjet printers for
digital negatives, or are the Epson machines still the major option?
Tom
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,
Dan
info@DanBurkholder.com <mailto:info@DanBurkholder.com>
www.DanBurkholder.com <http://www.DanBurkholder.com>
=
|