Re: Best Large Format Printer?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Savidge4, Sep 8, 2003.

  1. Savidge4

    Savidge4 Guest

    >Easy. Epson 7600 with Ultrachromes.

    may i ask why?
    Savidge4, Sep 8, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Savidge4

    Tom Monego Guest

    Hey you've got a good printer, Rafe has got a good printer, any printlife over
    50 years doesn't make a difference, if the print is good enough some one will
    take care of it, if it is like the vast majority of images it may stay one
    someone's wall fading or it may be in a dumpster. If you want to warranty your
    print for someone's lifetime that's fine, but if they put it in a sunny window
    with way over the Wihelm standard what are you going to do?
    Whilhelm has give legitimacy to inkjet printing, but if you are only going to
    use his data, you are missing a lot of interesting stuff.


    Tom


    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    >>Easy. Epson 7600 with Ultrachromes.

    >
    >may i ask why?
    Tom Monego, Sep 8, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Savidge4

    Guest

    Rafe B. <> wrote:
    > On 08 Sep 2003 15:20:46 GMT, (Savidge4) wrote:


    >>>Easy. Epson 7600 with Ultrachromes.

    >>
    >>may i ask why?


    > The user base, mainly. Lots of folks I know using
    > them, many of them on the internet.


    > Several alternative ink sources. Dual blacks.


    That reminds me. I've been meaning to ask this question for a while.

    What difference does Matte Black make over Photo Black? Is it denser
    on matt materials, perhaps? Some other advantage?

    Thanks,
    Andrew.
    , Sep 9, 2003
    #3
  4. Savidge4

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 09:23:44 -0000, lid
    wrote:

    >Rafe B. <> wrote:
    >> On 08 Sep 2003 15:20:46 GMT, (Savidge4) wrote:

    >
    >>>>Easy. Epson 7600 with Ultrachromes.
    >>>
    >>>may i ask why?

    >
    >> The user base, mainly. Lots of folks I know using
    >> them, many of them on the internet.

    >
    >> Several alternative ink sources. Dual blacks.

    >
    >That reminds me. I've been meaning to ask this question for a while.
    >
    >What difference does Matte Black make over Photo Black? Is it denser
    >on matt materials, perhaps? Some other advantage?



    There's a brochure I've got from Epson that attempts
    to explain this. Most likely there's an equivalent on
    Epson's web site. In a nutshell, the dual blacks were
    an attempt by Epson to improve the dMAX of black
    pigment inks while at the same time reducing some
    of the metamerism and "bronzing" effects from their
    earlier pigment inksets.



    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Sep 9, 2003
    #4
  5. Savidge4

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: lid

    >What difference does Matte Black make over Photo Black? Is it denser
    >on matt materials, perhaps?


    Yes, better blacks with the three art and matte papers. See the link below for
    more details ... it's simple to change out the blacks on the 2200, blowing a
    buck or two of ink, but it's almost prohibitively expensive to do it on the
    7600/9600 because you flush between $80 - 115 worth of ink each time you change
    over (estimates vary). So in practice people don't do it often with the large
    format Epsons.

    http://www.inkjetart.com/pro/7600_9600/black_mode.html

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Sep 9, 2003
    #5
  6. Savidge4

    Guest

    Bill Hilton <> wrote:
    >>From: lid


    >>What difference does Matte Black make over Photo Black? Is it denser
    >>on matt materials, perhaps?


    > Yes, better blacks with the three art and matte papers. See the link below for
    > more details ...


    Now I see.

    Thank you both.

    Andrew.
    , Sep 9, 2003
    #6
  7. Would I be right in thinking that this better black is relevant mostly
    to black and white prints, but has little or no relevance to colour
    prints?

    In article <>, Bill Hilton
    <> writes
    >>From: lid

    >
    >>What difference does Matte Black make over Photo Black? Is it denser
    >>on matt materials, perhaps?

    >
    >Yes, better blacks with the three art and matte papers. See the link below for
    >more details ... it's simple to change out the blacks on the 2200, blowing a
    >buck or two of ink, but it's almost prohibitively expensive to do it on the
    >7600/9600 because you flush between $80 - 115 worth of ink each time you change
    >over (estimates vary). So in practice people don't do it often with the large
    >format Epsons.
    >
    >http://www.inkjetart.com/pro/7600_9600/black_mode.html
    >
    >Bill



    Nobody
    nobody nowhere, Sep 10, 2003
    #7
  8. Howdy Nobody

    > Would I be right in thinking that this better black is relevant mostly
    > to black and white prints, but has little or no relevance to colour
    > prints?


    Nope, you'd be wrong.

    Each of the two blacks is tuned to a different set of papers.

    Black is an important component in color images, just as the
    colors are used as important components of b/w images
    (on these printers).

    Stan
    Stanley Krute, Sep 10, 2003
    #8
  9. Savidge4

    Savidge4 Guest

    >Would I be right in thinking that this better black is relevant mostly
    >to black and white prints, but has little or no relevance to colour
    >prints?


    As Stan has already stated this thinking would be incorrect. I am going to
    make a huge assumption here and guess as to why you would think that so you can
    see the difference.

    I am presuming your thinking that black is only used for black printing is
    based on the RGB colorspace. the lack of Red Green and Blue is what create
    black electronically so of course you would need black ink to to print black.

    In truth when it comes to RGB and CMYK and the colors black and white they
    operate at exact opposites. Like I said in RGB black is the lack of color.
    However in CMYK black is the presents of ALL color.

    With that said, the need for different black inks is more about the paper than
    the ink itself. The ink is going to absorb into the matte and art papers, as
    apposed to the photo paper where it will set right on top. I am sure that the
    need for the 2 inks is more a longevity of print issue than anything else.
    Savidge4, Sep 10, 2003
    #9
  10. Savidge4

    Rafe B. Guest

    On 10 Sep 2003 09:39:23 GMT, (Savidge4) wrote:


    >With that said, the need for different black inks is more about the paper than
    >the ink itself. The ink is going to absorb into the matte and art papers, as
    >apposed to the photo paper where it will set right on top. I am sure that the
    >need for the 2 inks is more a longevity of print issue than anything else.



    Yes, I think that's the case.

    The original Epson pigments (for the 7500/9500 and the old 2100)
    had pigment inks with 200 year ratings (!!!).

    But they had nasty problems witth metamerism and with bronzing
    on almost any surface that wasn't completely matte.

    The two-black-inks were Epson's attempt to work around these
    problems -- and you'll notice that the Ultrachromes (Epson's
    current pigment inks) are only rated at 80 years.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Sep 10, 2003
    #10
  11. Yet, nobody (I don't mean me... :)) in this NG seems to be brave enough
    to say loud and clear that *for colour prints*, the 2100/2200 generally
    delivers a *better picture* than the 1280/90, never mind archival
    qualities (which may not be such a great deal for those who do not sell
    their prints, because in X years' time, one can print the same picture
    again (if the spider webs can be removed from the CD or DVD...)

    In article <>, Bill Hilton
    <> writes
    >>From: nobody nowhere

    >
    >>Would I be right in thinking that this better black is relevant mostly
    >>to black and white prints, but has little or no relevance to colour
    >>prints?

    >
    >No, getting whiter whites and blacker blacks with color prints helps them too
    >by giving the image more snap and contrast.



    Nobody
    nobody nowhere, Sep 10, 2003
    #11
    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. Best Large Format Printer?

    , Sep 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,012
    Rafe B.
    Sep 8, 2003
  2. Bob

    Can anyone suggest a large format printer?

    Bob, Aug 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    458
  3. Eric Peterson

    large format printer recommendations: epson vs hp

    Eric Peterson, Sep 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    294
  4. nobody

    Is Canon large format printer any good?

    nobody, Mar 22, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    294
    measekite
    Mar 24, 2005
  5. MoParMaN

    Anyone Using A Large Format Printer?

    MoParMaN, Aug 3, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    418
    Isaiah Beard
    Aug 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page