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

Re: printer recommendations? also "printer" thread, Vivera inks,agfa CopyJet


  • To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  • Subject: Re: printer recommendations? also "printer" thread, Vivera inks,agfa CopyJet
  • From: davidhatton@totalise.co.uk
  • Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:32:03 +0000
  • Comments: alt-photo-process mailing list
  • Delivered-to: alt-photo-process-l-archive@www.usask.ca
  • In-reply-to: <1103E696-79B6-493B-ACE4-4165B1DC2846@wt.net>
  • List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
  • References: <4AE1CD70.8000407@web.de><1103E696-79B6-493B-ACE4-4165B1DC2846@wt.net>
  • Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca

Hi Clay,
What is your opinion of the r1400 with regard to tonal smoothness and negative printing generally?
Davidh

On Oct 31 2009, Clay wrote:

FWIW, I am in the middle of calibrating a 1400 with the Claria inks
right now. When I ran the QTR ink separation page, the inks all
blocked quite a bit of UV. The difficulty is that anything over about
60% ink on most of the colors will slide right off the Pictorico. But
60% black ink has a UV density of 3.55! I would say that blocks quite
a bit of UV.

>
>
> "Let it be said that Epson makes really good inks. For the most part
> they block ultra violet light (UV) much better than aftermarket inks
> but they are also four or five times the cost. At $80-$100 a fill it
> gets expensive quite quickly to anyone on a limited budget such as
> starving artist wannabe like myself. Apparently, some of the "newer"
> Epson inks (the R1400?) don't block ink like the old Epson inks,
> this could be a potentially big problem for some people who are
> trying to make digital negatives using their current methods.