More Epson printer Qs

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Big D, Nov 10, 2003.

  1. Big D

    Big D Guest

    The ongoing saga of my epson investigation continues! I had some prints
    made at a local photo lab on a 9600, and they did come out really well but
    I've been hearing things like "better than photo lab quality" associated
    with these printers, and about how I'd need a loupe to see the dots...

    I certainly don't need a loupe to see the dots on these prints. The shadow
    areas are (as usual) the worst, but overall the graininess gives the image
    a softer look than I'd like, not to mention that if people look at the
    images close up they'll say things like "HUH?! You just printed this on an
    inkjet and you're trying to sell them for HOW MUCH?!"

    So.. I think I may see what those folks at inkjetart.com can produce, but
    my question to you 7600/9600 owners is:

    Did the photo lab use lousy quality settings, or do your prints have
    speckles visible to the naked eye when viewed very close up? Can you make
    a print on these printers that you can hold side-by-side to one produced
    with a minilab and not be able to tell the difference between them?

    Thanks!
    Big D, Nov 10, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Big D

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: Big D

    >I had some prints made at a local photo lab on a 9600 ...
    >
    >I certainly don't need a loupe to see the dots on these prints.
    >
    >Did the photo lab use lousy quality settings, or do your prints have
    >speckles visible to the naked eye when viewed very close up?


    I don't have this model but saw a side-by-side comparison of seven prints made
    by a well-known printer where he printed the same image as dye transfer, Type
    C, Type R, Ilfochrome, masked Ilfochrome (to control the contrast), LightJet
    5000 and Epson 9600 prints. The 9600 print was pretty much as good as the
    masked Ilfo and the LJ (the best ones).

    This guy is a famous dye transfer printer but switched first to the LJ 5000 and
    now to the Epson 9600, so for sure he feels he can get very high quality from
    that model.

    I also have 9600 and LJ test prints of the same image courtesy of West Coast
    Imaging and to me the LJ looks very slightly better at very close range, but
    the difference is extremely small.

    My guess is the lab you used made the prints at 720x720 dpi instead of
    1440x1440 dpi (the min rez that will give excellent results) or even 2880 x
    1440 dpi (the max rez). They would do this to speed up the printing, since
    it's a relatively slow printer. Ask the lab if that's the case.

    On the Yahoo Epson9600 group a couple of users reported seeing the dot patterns
    at 720 dpi, which is why I'm bringing this up.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Nov 10, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Big D

    Pete Rissler Guest

    "Big D" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns942F4D17560B7supagoatatverizonDne@130.81.64.196...
    > The ongoing saga of my epson investigation continues! I had some prints
    > made at a local photo lab on a 9600, and they did come out really well but
    > I've been hearing things like "better than photo lab quality" associated
    > with these printers, and about how I'd need a loupe to see the dots...
    >
    > I certainly don't need a loupe to see the dots on these prints. The

    shadow
    > areas are (as usual) the worst, but overall the graininess gives the image
    > a softer look than I'd like, not to mention that if people look at the
    > images close up they'll say things like "HUH?! You just printed this on

    an
    > inkjet and you're trying to sell them for HOW MUCH?!"
    >
    > So.. I think I may see what those folks at inkjetart.com can produce, but
    > my question to you 7600/9600 owners is:
    >
    > Did the photo lab use lousy quality settings, or do your prints have
    > speckles visible to the naked eye when viewed very close up? Can you make
    > a print on these printers that you can hold side-by-side to one produced
    > with a minilab and not be able to tell the difference between them?
    >
    > Thanks!


    What size was the print? What was the source (digital camera file, scanned
    film or print)? Size of the input file? All these will effect the output
    print.

    --
    Pete Rissler
    http://web1.greatbasin.net/~rissler/
    Pete Rissler, Nov 10, 2003
    #3
  4. Big D

    Bob Hatch Guest

    "Pete Rissler" <> wrote in message
    news:boo9hd$1h8dga$-berlin.de...
    >
    > What size was the print? What was the source (digital camera file, scanned
    > film or print)? Size of the input file? All these will effect the output
    > print.
    >

    I'll wait until I see the answers to the above questions, both Bill Hilton's
    and Pete's.

    Additional question. Describe your post processing procedure.
    --
    "The Iraqi people are grateful to America and are
    optimistic about their future -- which means they have
    nothing in common with the Democratic party." --J.D. Hayworth
    http://www.bobhatch.com
    Bob Hatch, Nov 10, 2003
    #4
  5. Big D

    Big D Guest

    "Pete Rissler" <> wrote in
    news:boo9hd$1h8dga$-berlin.de:

    > "Big D" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns942F4D17560B7supagoatatverizonDne@130.81.64.196...
    > What size was the print? What was the source (digital camera file,
    > scanned film or print)? Size of the input file? All these will effect
    > the output print.
    >


    I did two test prints, both at 8"x12". Source was digital (Nikon D1X)
    resolution of images was 3008x1960.

    I suspect they used 720x720. I'm going to give them a call and find out
    for sure.
    Big D, Nov 10, 2003
    #5
  6. Big D

    Bob Hatch Guest

    "Big D" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns942F97EAAD804supagoatatverizonDne@130.81.64.196...
    > "Pete Rissler" <> wrote in
    > news:boo9hd$1h8dga$-berlin.de:
    >
    > > "Big D" <> wrote in message
    > > news:Xns942F4D17560B7supagoatatverizonDne@130.81.64.196...
    > > What size was the print? What was the source (digital camera file,
    > > scanned film or print)? Size of the input file? All these will effect
    > > the output print.
    > >

    >
    > I did two test prints, both at 8"x12". Source was digital (Nikon D1X)
    > resolution of images was 3008x1960.
    >
    > I suspect they used 720x720. I'm going to give them a call and find out
    > for sure.


    Next question. What was the resolution of the image when you sent it to the
    printer. 72ppi, 180ppi or ????? An image of that size should have produced a
    print with zero visible dot pattern. If the image were resized and resample
    to a 16x20 at 250 dpi there should be zero visible dot pattern, if the print
    is done at 1440 dpi.
    --
    "The Iraqi people are grateful to America and are
    optimistic about their future -- which means they have
    nothing in common with the Democratic party." --J.D. Hayworth
    http://www.bobhatch.com
    Bob Hatch, Nov 10, 2003
    #6
  7. Big D

    Big D Guest

    "Bob Hatch" <> wrote in
    news:boote6$1g7ud0$-berlin.de:

    > Next question. What was the resolution of the image when you sent it
    > to the printer. 72ppi, 180ppi or ????? An image of that size should
    > have produced a print with zero visible dot pattern. If the image were
    > resized and resample to a 16x20 at 250 dpi there should be zero
    > visible dot pattern, if the print is done at 1440 dpi.


    I gave the images to them in tiff format on a CD, saved at 300 ppi. The
    guy on the phone claimed they they did it at "1440 or whatever the highest
    resolution is" but frankly I don't believe him. I think they weren't happy
    to use the 9600 for such small prints, so they just did it as cheaply and
    quickly as they could...
    Big D, Nov 10, 2003
    #7
  8. Big D

    Bob Hatch Guest

    "Big D" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns942FA27858340supagoatatverizonDne@130.81.64.196...
    > "Bob Hatch" <> wrote in
    > news:boote6$1g7ud0$-berlin.de:
    >
    > > Next question. What was the resolution of the image when you sent it
    > > to the printer. 72ppi, 180ppi or ????? An image of that size should
    > > have produced a print with zero visible dot pattern. If the image were
    > > resized and resample to a 16x20 at 250 dpi there should be zero
    > > visible dot pattern, if the print is done at 1440 dpi.

    >
    > I gave the images to them in tiff format on a CD, saved at 300 ppi. The
    > guy on the phone claimed they they did it at "1440 or whatever the highest
    > resolution is" but frankly I don't believe him. I think they weren't

    happy
    > to use the 9600 for such small prints, so they just did it as cheaply and
    > quickly as they could...


    Where do you live?

    Is your respond to email address valid?


    --
    "The Iraqi people are grateful to America and are
    optimistic about their future -- which means they have
    nothing in common with the Democratic party." --J.D. Hayworth
    http://www.bobhatch.com
    Bob Hatch, Nov 10, 2003
    #8
  9. Big D

    Bob Hatch Guest

    "Bob Hatch" <> wrote in message
    news:boov16$1gio5j$-berlin.de...
    > "Big D" <> wrote in message
    >
    > Where do you live?
    >
    > Is your respond to email address valid?
    >

    I would guess that your email address is not valid.

    Could you send me a valid address to bobhatch@ *the domain listed
    below(bobhatch.com)*
    --
    "The Iraqi people are grateful to America and are
    optimistic about their future -- which means they have
    nothing in common with the Democratic party." --J.D. Hayworth
    http://www.bobhatch.com
    Bob Hatch, Nov 10, 2003
    #9
  10. Big D

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: Big D

    > The guy on the phone claimed they they did it at "1440
    > or whatever the highest resolution is" but frankly I don't believe him.


    It will do 2880 x 1440 dpi max with the glossier papers, 1440 x 1440 max with
    the matte type papers. But even at 1440 you shouldn't see visible dots since
    you sent him a 300 ppi file.

    Maybe Bob Hatch can run off a print for you on his 7600 and you can get a
    better idea ...

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Nov 10, 2003
    #10
  11. Big D

    Bob Hatch Guest

    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >From: Big D

    >
    > > The guy on the phone claimed they they did it at "1440
    > > or whatever the highest resolution is" but frankly I don't believe him.

    >
    > It will do 2880 x 1440 dpi max with the glossier papers, 1440 x 1440 max

    with
    > the matte type papers. But even at 1440 you shouldn't see visible dots

    since
    > you sent him a 300 ppi file.
    >
    > Maybe Bob Hatch can run off a print for you on his 7600 and you can get a
    > better idea ...
    >

    I've offered that Bill. IMO there's something wrong somewhere because like
    you say there should be no visible dots.
    --
    "The Iraqi people are grateful to America and are
    optimistic about their future -- which means they have
    nothing in common with the Democratic party." --J.D. Hayworth
    http://www.bobhatch.com
    Bob Hatch, Nov 10, 2003
    #11
  12. Big D

    JIM Guest

    "Big D" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns942F4D17560B7supagoatatverizonDne@130.81.64.196...
    .....<cut>....
    > I certainly don't need a loupe to see the dots on these prints.

    .....<cut>....

    Somethin was screwed up - input, output, generator of either the original or
    the result! Have seen at least one print from a 35mm scan that was huge and
    the thing was amazing - required a considerable amount of work in post
    processing the scan, but the results were well worth it. Now, getting some
    customer to pony up for the labor cost to produce this type of product could
    well be problematic and possibly is the primary contributing factor in the
    results you speak of?? Too many folk have become accustomed to $5 8x12"
    stuff and balk when they find out what it costs for something as "small" as
    a 16x20" - and that's standard stuff, not even digital! How much for just
    one sheet of 44" Epson paper? The 13x19" Velvet Fine Art paper, that I like
    a lot, will run the regular consumer $5 for just one of those with nothing
    on it;)

    Shoot'em up, print with anything, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the rest will
    love you for it!!

    Jim
    JIM, Nov 11, 2003
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. nobody nowhere

    Re: Epson printer 2200 - Epson semi-gloss paper

    nobody nowhere, Jul 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    775
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 13, 2003
  2. Maze

    Epson c62 and Epson Photo 900 chalk & cheese?

    Maze, Sep 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    436
  3. Paul Resch

    Need CD for Epson Stylus 1280 with Epson Apps.

    Paul Resch, Sep 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    710
  4. Grady R. Thompson

    Epson 2200 vs. Epson 4000

    Grady R. Thompson, Dec 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    828
    Rafe B.
    Dec 5, 2003
  5. SS
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,030
    Mr. Arnold
    Jan 3, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page