Fine Art Printers?
![Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]'s profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]
The more I look, the more confused I get.
I hear Grahm Nash is now using an Epson 9000 -- are ink-jets finding
acceptance in this marketplace?
Epson does not officially support pigmented inks -- what are people using
for archival prints?
Any comments on the Roland Hi-Fi Jets? They are claiming >150 year
longevity and a wider color gamut. Seen any Roland prints hanging on art
gallery walls? (Neither have I... :-)
--
: Jan Steinman -- Jan AT Bytesmiths DOT com
: Bytesmiths -- digital artistry <http://www.bytesmiths.com/Art_Gallery>
: +1 503 635 3229
Dan Smith, Photographer
silver gelatin print and the carbon print. Others are using
platinum/palladium, gum bichromate, tintype, etc.
Even though I also print with an epson photo using MIS inks & watercolor
papers, it is only another option. Only time will tell if the accelerated
aging tests are accurate & the prints will last. With the tried & true
techniques in use for over 100 years, we KNOW they will last.
Dan Smith
Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]
<J...@Bytesmiths.com.gov> wrote in message
news:Jan-200100...@c248527-c.potlnd1.or.home.com...
Keith Clark
"Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]" wrote:
>
> Short of $90,000 Iris printers, what are people using for fine art prints?
> The more I look, the more confused I get.
>
> I hear Grahm Nash is now using an Epson 9000 -- are ink-jets finding
> acceptance in this marketplace?
>
> Epson does not officially support pigmented inks -- what are people using
> for archival prints?
>
> Any comments on the Roland Hi-Fi Jets? They are claiming >150 year
> longevity and a wider color gamut. Seen any Roland prints hanging on art
> gallery walls? (Neither have I... :-)
>
> --
> : Jan Steinman -- Jan AT Bytesmiths DOT com
> : Bytesmiths -- digital artistry <http://www.bytesmiths.com/Art_Gallery>
> : +1 503 635 3229
Go to http://www.digitalfineart.com
The industry standard Giclee printer is still the Iris as far as I know.
With the right inks and papers, Iris prints are more archival than
silver halide prints on photo paper.
Iris prints are very well received by the fine art community. Almost
every frame shop (even "Beard's" ;>) knows how to properly handle them.
Epson prints are gaining more respectability, but not if you use Epson
inks. The light magenta that Epson uses tends to fade faster than more
stable inks. Epson papers are too acidic (5.8 pH) for archival purposes.
I haven't seen Roland prints on gallery walls, but let's face it, Eugene
isn't exactly a big art town, now is it? Portland is better, but we're
still quite a few years behind the times here.
The Roland Hexachrome inks get around the problems that the Epson inks
have - and use the same print head. Have you ever seen an image printed
on an offset press using Hexachrome inks? In a graphics design class I
took a few years ago I did. We compared a standard CMYK print, a
Hexachrome print and the original glossy photo. The difference was just
night and day, and in fact the Hexachrome print appeared very similar to
the original.
I would buy a Roland in a heartbeat if I was in the market for large
format Giclee printers and didn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars
for an Iris.
Are you starting a service bureau? That's the only reason I can see to
actually buy one. Or did you win the lottery? Can I come over & print
sometime? ;>
There are lots of service bureaus with Roland's. And even more with
Iris'. Wy'East has an Iris.
But you can use pigmented inks in Epson printers. Roland does it.
There is a whole industry been built up around using pigmented inks in
epson printers. There are finally inexpensive products to recalibrate
your printer to give good results with these inks.
http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/
Hope it helps...
Keith
Peter Mikalajunas
First, follow some of the links Keith gives. They will help a great
deal.
As for the Epson 9000, do you really need prints that large? You can
pick up an Epson 3000 refurbed for about $500-$600. It will print
17x44 if you need it.
The fine art Epson output I have seen is almost always on watercolor
paper using non-epson inks. The trick is calibrating the inks with
your printer, but as already stated, that is not a real problem any
longer.
There is an epson mailing list, but the noise level is very high.
Approximately 100-150+ emails a day. The archive for the list is on
www.egroups.com the list name there is epson-inkjet.
Some links that may be interesting...
http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/
http://www.crane.com/
http://www.iafadp.org/
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/
>On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:31:16 -0800, Keith Clark <ClarkPho...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>"Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]" wrote:
>>
>> Short of $90,000 Iris printers, what are people using for fine art prints?
>> The more I look, the more confused I get.
>>
>> I hear Grahm Nash is now using an Epson 9000 -- are ink-jets finding
>> acceptance in this marketplace?
>>
>> Epson does not officially support pigmented inks -- what are people using
>> for archival prints?
>>
>> Any comments on the Roland Hi-Fi Jets? They are claiming >150 year
>> longevity and a wider color gamut. Seen any Roland prints hanging on art
>> gallery walls? (Neither have I... :-)
>
Peter Mikalajunas
Photo links
http://www.megsinet.com/tintype
---
Remove _NO_ _SPAM_ to reply via email
Roger N Clark
> Short of $90,000 Iris printers, what are people using for fine art prints?
Kodak lightjet 5000
John H. E. Fiskio-Lasseter
Is this the same thing as a Kodak "LED" printer?
-- John
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wit, an' it be thy will, put me into good fooling. Those wits
who think they have thee do very oft prove fools, while I, who
am sure I lack thee, may yet pass for a wise man. For what
says Quinapalus -- "Better a witty fool than a foolish wit".
_Twelfth Night_
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roger N Clark
>
> Is this the same thing as a Kodak "LED" printer?
No. The lightjet 5000 is about the size of a king
size bed only taller (4-5feet). Writes to photographic
paper with lasers direct from a digital file.
300 pixels/inch.
Awesome--sharpest prints I've ever seen, including
analog.
(Anyone know the price--I'll guess more than $500,000)
Roger Clark
Keith Clark
Received a sample pack of "Somerset Photo Enhanced" watercolor paper in the
mail the other day.
The stuff is fantastic. You have to see an image printed on it to believe how
good this stuff is. No special printer settings required either. I print to it
just as I would to "photo paper". It held every bit as much detail as the same
file (an 85 mb drum scan from medium format Velvia) printed on Epson glossy
photo paper, using the same printer settings. In fact, the subtle shades of
green in grass and leaves looked better to me than the Epson version (there
are about 68 thousand shades of green in pictures I take (just kidding ;>). I
think it may have a wider gamut than the Epson media.
It's a brilliant white, and doesn't appear to change the color balance of the
image, in my (very unscientific) tests. ;>
It's a given that the Epson inks aren't as light fast as pigmented inks, but
given that the Somerset Photo Enhanced is acid free and wood free, I would
expect prints to last longer than on the very acidic Epson media.
It also appears to be "waterproof"!
I have a couple of B&W images that printed too dark, so I held them under the
faucet expecting about 70% of the ink to wash down the drain, as it would if I
had used D'Arches paper. The only thing that happened after a few minutes was
the image got slightly softer. The ink did not run at all, and in fact, I'm
going to keep them after they finish drying. The paper didn't wrinkle at all,
and the slight softness gives them almost an antique look.
This isn't a "commercial" for Somerset Photo Enhanced paper. Nobody paid me to
say this. I don't sell the stuff, or ANY paper - at least not without photos
on them. ;> I'm just a very enthusiastic new fan of the stuff. I was
wondering why every place that sells it seems to have a hard time of keeping
it in stock, well, now I know why. It's truly amazing.
The company that makes Somerset Photo Enhanced was making paper before the
colonists sailed to the "new world", so I guess they know what they're
doing... If you're a history freak, you may find this page interesting, since
it has pictures of one of their facilities that dates back to the 1700's. I
found it because I was hoping to buy wholesale from them. No such luck
though... ;>
http://www.inveresk.co.uk/abtmills.htm
Cheers,
Keith
Keith Clark
Um...on holding prints under the faucet.
While the ink didn't run, per-se, there was a color shift compared to a reference
print. The water soaked prints while otherwise fine looking (and maybe slightly
soft), took on a slight brownish, almost slight sepia look. This could have
potential. ;>
Keith Clark
"Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]" wrote:
>
>
> <snip>are ink-jets finding
> acceptance in this marketplace?
>
> --
> : Jan Steinman -- Jan AT Bytesmiths DOT com
> : Bytesmiths -- digital artistry <http://www.bytesmiths.com/Art_Gallery>
> : +1 503 635 3229
Check http://www.art.com
I went looking there today just to get some ideas on framing and saw that they
have a large number if inkjet prints for sale at what I thought was very high
prices.
Someone must be accepting them... ;>
I only looked at a few pages, but they appear to be mostly fine-art
reproductions (i.e. paintings rather than photographs).
Click on the "Giclees" link on their front page. One thing interesting, is
they appear to be printed on demand, as all the ones I clicked on said "ships
in 1-2 weeks".
I would love to be a fly on their wall, so to speak, and see just how
successful they are. The images they're selling in inkjet format seem to be
traditional art, so I imagine it's doing quite well for them. It's a hell of a
profit margin to sell a 15"x20" inkjet, even an Iris, print for $750, but
they're doing it, apparently.
Oh, check out the Javascript they use to preview how a print will look framed.
Maybe it's just me, but personally, I think it's an example of using
Javascript to actually enhance sales. I clicked through quite a few frames to
see what worked and didn't. If "little" people like us were to do that on our
sites, I'll bet sales would go up. I may experiment with doing something like
that in Flash, since I'm no good with Javascript. ;>
Cheers,
Keith
mber...@popd.ix.netcom.com
http://www.cymbolic.com/products/lightjet5000.html
Marc
Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]
and those guys argue and argue over which combination of paper and ink
lasts the longest and looks the best and is the easiest to calibrate, and,
and, and...
With the Roland, you buy their media and their ink and tell your customers
with confidence, "Your great-great-grandchildren will be enjoying this
print."
I'm sure the Epson 9000 is capable of some great, archival prints, but it
seems kinda like Wintel as opposed to Roland being more like Mac. I want
something that works, NOT something to play with and tweak.
Keith Clark
"Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]" wrote:
Jan,
Those are valid points, but bear in mind that your customers may want a
certain media to achieve a certain effect.
If I buy an Iris print, I can make the same claim, on my choice of media.
What media does the Roland support?
I'm assuming the popular archival media such as D'Arches cold pressed,
Somerset Photo Enhanced (brilliant white / smudge proof), Concorde Rag
(antique white, ideal for B&W images that look like platinum prints when
printed with quadtone inks), and Ultra Stable brand archival canvas are
supported?
Of course there is still tweaking involved, as you'll want to be able to
generate ICC profiles to calibrate the system for different media and inks,
right?
Good luck and congrats,
Keith
Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]
clarkpho...@spiritone.com wrote:
> What media does the Roland support?
20 and counting, including one rated by Wilhelm at >120 years (ongoing,
expected to surpass the 150 year limit of testing certainty). They support
two different cotton rags, clear PET film, two different backlit media,
six different glossy photo papers, a canvas, and even a polyester fabric,
as well as the typical assortment of banner and sign material.
> Of course there is still tweaking involved, as you'll want to be able to
> generate ICC profiles to calibrate the system for different media and inks,
> right?
Wrong. When you wrote "support," I thought you meant "support!"
ICC profiles are supplied for all 20 media Roland sells, for each of 3
inks they sell. (Yes, that's 60 profiles.)
Of course, you can stick in and profile anything you can put in any other
printer, but I don't call that "support!" The acceptable media specs are
the same as the Epson 9000, and the RIP allows you to make your own
profiles.
That's another point for Roland, in my books. Sure, the Epson 9000 is
cheaper, but it's a stripped-down machine, suitable only for photographic
images. Add a RIP, and you're up to the cost of the smaller Roland. Now
you can make nice 3-year prints.
Add archival inks and papres, and you've got to buy a pro-level profiler,
or spend days and reams "tweaking" things to look what you think is
"right" under the particular lighting conditions you have at the moment.
And a pro-profiler and RIP makes the 40" Epson cost as much as the 50"
Roland. Sheesh -- I to print, NOT build an Erector Set! :-)
I don't REALLY want to get into a platform war, but this seems to me a lot
like the Wintel/MacOS debate. I did some internal tech support once in a
mixed Wintel/MacOS shop. The Wintel people would call up and ask for help
keeping their machine running, or help installing Photoshop upgrades, or
help with color matching. The MacOS people would call up to find out the
subtlety of some arcane Photoshop command.
When you spend a lot of time futzing with how your computer is getting
along with your printer is getting along with your ink is getting along
with your paper is getting along with your CMS, you spend less time on
Art.
BTW2: you still haven't told me what you think of the last personal email,
Keith!