>Anyway, I wanted a printer to proof files going to the imagesetter and
>bought the Epson 800. Like a lot of people, I was impressed by the prints
>on Epson's inkjet paper (about $15 for 100 sheets). I even printed a few
>negatives on the Epson, using transparency film at 1,440 dpi, that produced
>some good-looking pt/pd prints.
Too bad you didn't investigate the ALPS "Micro-Dry" printers. Results are
much better than the Epsons (except for the Epson Photo, which I haven't
yet evaluated). Negatives made with the ALPS printer were used by Dick
Sullivan to make Ziatype prints which I showed at APIS. Terrific! The ALPS
MD series printers use pigment inks which they say are archival; I tested
one for only two weeks in the Florida sun, and there was no fading
whatsoever. (There is also a "photographic" mode which uses a type of
dye-sub printing, and that is like all other dye-sub images: great, no
screen effect, but not permanent.)
>I wound up using the same papers used for pt/pd prints, Crane's
>8111 and Arches hotpress watercolor paper, 140#.
The way I handle these papers is to make the computerized print on transfer
film, and then use a drymounting press to transfer the image. (A hand iron
can also be used.) By heating another piece of the art paper on top, the
final photograph has the proper paper texture. In my experiments, I found
direct printing on art paper at high screen rates was unsatisfactory. The
transfer method works very well.
Sil Horwitz, FPSA
Technical Editor, PSA Journal
silh@iag.net