Quality-question: Photoprint vs ink-jet
montespluga
As a pro, I had to buy a good scanner, a few weeks ago. It's part of
the pro-live, that the costumer is the "king"
Therefore it's not my intention to start a digi vs analog-thread. My
question is simple:
How big is the difference in quality between photo-prints and good
inkjet-prints ?
(I'm asking this in the idea of buying a canon S-900, p.e.)
Will there be moirées, when these ink-jet-prints will be scanned,
screened and printed ?
The advantage of a ink-jet looks in my eyes to be the time factor.
Color photoprints take 2 -3 days in a photolab.
The inkjet in my studio could be faster, and time does matter, for my
clients.
cheers, montespluga
Gene A. Townsend
>hallo everbody
>
>As a pro, I had to buy a good scanner, a few weeks ago. It's part of
>the pro-live, that the costumer is the "king"
>Therefore it's not my intention to start a digi vs analog-thread. My
>question is simple:
Oh boy, another digital troll. :-)
>
>How big is the difference in quality between photo-prints and good
>inkjet-prints ?
This question can't be answered truthfully. It depends on the quality
of the ink jet print and the quality of the photo print in question.
Generalities are not very useful in this field.
So the answer can be either that the photo print is much better, or
the inkjet print is much better, take your pick, make your point.
>(I'm asking this in the idea of buying a canon S-900, p.e.)
>
>Will there be moirées, when these ink-jet-prints will be scanned,
>screened and printed ?
Why on earth would you scan and then screen an ink jet print?
Photosetters work directly from digital these days. The answer to
this question is, however, yes or no, depending on the ink jet prints
and depending on the scanner. A nearly photo quality inkjet print
with a low resolution scanner will give little moire. A 360 dpi
inkjet print scanned 1200 dpi then screened will give plenty of moire.
>
>The advantage of a ink-jet looks in my eyes to be the time factor.
>Color photoprints take 2 -3 days in a photolab.
>The inkjet in my studio could be faster, and time does matter, for my
>clients.
So go digital like everybody else.
>
>cheers, montespluga
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Leonard Evens
"montespluga" <monte...@mac.com> wrote:
> hallo everbody
>
> As a pro, I had to buy a good scanner, a few weeks ago. It's part of the
> pro-live, that the costumer is the "king" Therefore it's not my
> intention to start a digi vs analog-thread. My question is simple:
>
> How big is the difference in quality between photo-prints and good
> inkjet-prints ?
My experience with Epson inkjet printers is that I can't really tell the
difference between color prints I made in my darkroom and inkjet prints.
Because digital manipulation gives me so much more control, in some ways
the digital prints are superior.
Black and white prints made on the Epson, on the other hand, don't look
the same as conventional b/w prints. The blacks don't seem to be as
deep., and the prints have a very slight brownish tint. But there are
alternate inks and papers available for b/w which I understand produce
very fine inkjet prints, albeit expensively.
For both black and white and color, I've notice on occasion a slight
"blocking" in the deepest blacks. I think that is due to improper
photoediting with too many areas at the absolutely lowest level.
The most signficant issue about both kinds of prints is how long
they are likely to last. Of course color prints of any kind will fade
over time, but inkjet prints fade for different reasons.
> (I'm asking this in the idea of buying a canon S-900, p.e.)
>
> Will there be moirées, when these ink-jet-prints will be scanned,
> screened and printed ?
>
> The advantage of a ink-jet looks in my eyes to be the time factor. Color
> photoprints take 2 -3 days in a photolab. The inkjet in my studio could
> be faster, and time does matter, for my clients.
>
> cheers, montespluga
--
Leonard Evens l...@math.northwestern.edu 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
Edward Clayton
I have seen many good inkjet prints, and I have done a side by side
comparrison on black and white prints of the same photo. To the
untrained/uncarring eye both are just pictures of the same thing, but
the conventional maintains a vibrance lost in the digital
reproduction. While the digital inkjet print is good, my eye likes
the conventional print better.
Ed
monte...@mac.com (montespluga) wrote in message news:<dbbbffdf.02040...@posting.google.com>...
John
Townsend) wrote:
>On 8 Apr 2002 06:42:45 -0700, monte...@mac.com (montespluga) wrote:
>
>>hallo everbody
>>
>>As a pro, I had to buy a good scanner, a few weeks ago. It's part of
>>the pro-live, that the costumer is the "king"
>>Therefore it's not my intention to start a digi vs analog-thread. My
>>question is simple:
>
>Oh boy, another digital troll. :-)
Yes and it belongs in rec.photo.digital.
Regards
John S. Douglas, Photographer
http://www.darkroompro.net
montespluga
John: The reason I did post this here is, that I want to have
critical reports as well as positives. I don't mind listening booth
sides before taking a decision.
>Oh boy, another digital troll. :-)< would you say digital troll
to someone who works 90 % on 4 different types of sinar ?? :-)
Gene,
photo print in question.
Generalities are not very useful in this field.<
4/5' slides for 70 - 80 % and 20 - 30 % on 6/9 cm. With a good scanner
(Hires Heidelberg) The inkjet in mind would be the canon s 900 /s
9000, (A-4/A-3) with 6 colors and 1200 x 2400 dpi. I'm not beliving
every test, but in the last tests of 3 different magazines, it turned
out well.
>Why on earth would you scan and then screen an ink jet print?<
The screening question points to the fact, that when I give them a
print, I loose control what they are doing with it, p.e. they might
use it for printing it in magazines or books.
Leonard
> Because digital manipulation gives me so much more control< this is obviuosly a good point you made.
But to me, the ways to the photolab - as I'min the past only
developing b&w myself - are becoming an issue to:
Bringin the trannies, 2 -3 days later, i get them, and queit often,
I've to tell them to make some corrections, even in a pro lab (!!)
then 2 -3 days later, going back again....
>For both black and white and color, I've notice on occasion a
slight"blocking" in the deepest blacks.<
old problem of any reproduction photography process. I assume, this
can be corrected when scanning or edidting the picture. Is that
correct ??
Ed,
therefore you would suggest b&w in the darkroom (already existing) and
for colour the ink ??
It's clear to me too, that their is a difference between b&w, and
color.
cheers montespluga
hogarth
Like everything, it depends. Really fine inkjet prints are, to my eye,
better than the best chemical prints. B&W and color both. This is
because I like a large range of tones, and inkjet can have a greater
dynamic range than chemical prints. This is especially true of color.
If you want to do it right, consider working with the people who are
pushing the technology. One such group is Cone:
http://www.piezography.com/products.html
Their PiezographyBW technology (drivers and inks) is really quite good.
I haven't seen their Piezography2 (color, pigment inks) yet, but it is
reported to work quite well also. There are other groups pushing the
edge of the technology as well; I'm most familiar with Cone.
Other people who make their living via photography seem to be embracing
the technology for the same reasons you are interested - turnaround
time, control of the final image, and in the case of color, color
stability (anyone who has ever had to quit printing in the middle of a
job only to spend four hours the next day [chemistry aged another 12
hours, ambient conditions changed, phase of the moon changed, etc.]
trying to match colors again knows that feeling).
As to printers, Epson seems to be leading the pack with their variable
dot size technology.
You pays your money and takes your chances. My advice is to not go into
this blind. Do your research. Know that this can be a steep learning
curve; expect to be frustrated in the beginning. That said, the rewards
are worth it, IMHO. This from a guy who believes in film negatives and
inkjet printers.
Stephen Best
> inkjet-prints ?
I bought an Epson Photo 890 a while ago to play with (my third Epson
printer) and frankly couldn't be happier with the results for colour (for
B&W stick to traditional or hybrid methods). I also have an Epson 3000 with
which I've tried different inks, papers and canvas and was never completely
satisfied.
I start with a hi-rez scan from 4x5 (1600-2000 dpi on a Imacon FlexTight
Precision, soon 848) and print at the finest setting (2880x720). Even with a
loupe you can't really see the dots. The output is smooth and detailed,
saturated with dense blacks and subtle gradations in hue. I like the results
a lot more than fuzzy over-saturated conventional prints on Ilfochrome. The
only downside with inkjet prints is the paper itself ... I'd prefer
something less white and heavier than the Premium Glossy I'm using. I've
tried a number of watercolour/matte papers but never liked the results. You
could make some nice prints to stick on your wall with the A3 model
(1280/1290). The new Canon I gather has finally caught up with Epson. I'll
probably go with the next A3 Epson.
I wouldn't however sell prints based on the dyes used in the Epson
890/1280/1290. There's also pigment printers like the 2000P and 5500 (I
don't think the latter is available here) but I wasn't impressed with the
2000P sample I saw. If however you keep the original scan in the scanner
colour space (preferably 48bit or a large reference colour space like Adobe
RGB) you can subsequently produce big LightJet 5000 prints on FujiColor
Crystal Archive (or similar) from the same file.
Monitor calibration and output profiling (if required) is absolutely
essential for predictable results.
Stephen Best
Canberra, Australia
montespluga
as I'm a newbee on ink-jet, your and the others reports give me an
idea, what I might expect.
Hogart,
of inside architecture-prints (white walls) have been better than
the analog paper prints. I think this effect is due to the fact, that
scans and digiprints avoid the diffusion of the enlager.
For the thermal vs piezo issue:
Can you confirm: ....." that piezo technology has one serious flaw:
By relying on mechanical pressure from the piezo element to push ink
from the nozzle, piezo prinheads fail if the density of the ink
changes in any way, for instance by the introduction of an air
bubble.......... "
seen at: http://www.photo-forums.com/WebX?5...@255.sChlaXzTz6L^1@.ee8b420
>You pays your money and takes your chances. My advice is to not go
into
this blind. Do your research. Know that this can be a steep learning
curve; expect to be frustrated in the beginning. <
is then the RIP-software ?
Some other links might be helpfull.
Stephen,
thanks for your practical tipps and the colormanegment one; your
posting states, that the last is really working . I read a lot about,
that the colormanagement, unless you are hiring a specialist, would
not work.
Off course, I made my colormanegement lessons. I think, with the own
jet, this could be easier than with the exterior-printing, as the
problem of cm is, that nearly everbody has its own profiles. Is that
right ??
>I wouldn't however sell prints based on the dyes used in the Epson
UV of the sunlight ??
Are you using RIP as well ??
regards, montespluga
Stephen Best
> jet, this could be easier than with the exterior-printing, as the
> problem of cm is, that nearly everbody has its own profiles. Is that
> right ??
If you're using a Mac you'll get very good results with the Epson driver and
canned ColorSync profiles. I dunno for Canon or Windows. If you want to
print on non-standard papers (like rag) you'll need to get a profile from
somewhere, get someone to make one for you or create your own. To create
your own can be expensive ... to do it properly you need a spectrophotometer
and good profiling software.
The monitor side is relatively cheap by comparison. To date I've been using
an Apple internally calibrated monitor but should have a Spyder/OptiCal soon
to try on my Sony CRT.
>> I wouldn't however sell prints based on the dyes used in the Epson
> 890/1280/1290. < Why ? It's about the color resistance against the
> UV of the sunlight ??
Epson Premium Glossy is rated at 10 years but there was an issue with ozone
that I'm not sure has been fully addressed. The matte paper is rated longer
but I didn't like it. You might find this useful:
http://www.epson.com.au/whats_new/story_143.html
It's also a matter of policy. If you give the customer a CD-R with the print
and offer to reprint for free for say 5 years it may work out. Or you could
just print on conventional media. Quite a few labs offer this service
nowadays.
> Are you using RIP as well ??
I don't use a RIP. Why do you want to screen it anyway?
You may want to do what I did and get yourself a cheap 6 colour A4 Epson and
try a few papers so you can judge the output quality for yourself, how you
feel about working in Photoshop and whether you can get the colours right.
The computing side can be as cheap as you want it, just add lots of memory.
You might find this site useful (and probably less hostile!):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/discus/index.html
Stephen Best
Canberra, Australia
Edward Clayton
prints. Much depends on application. For short term display purposes
such as an ad campaign that will last a month or two, I think inkjet
is the way to go. I have never seen how inkjet prints react to direct
sunlight in a store window, so I can't comment on that one. For much
longer term such as family portraits or anything that you may want to
keep for a long time I still suggest conventional prints.
FYI. I had many inkjet prints ruined this past summer when high
humidity and high heat caused them to fade and change colors. The
ones that were dry mounted matted and framed behind glass did not have
the problems, but the prints that were exposed to the air (approx 50
8x10's) were ruined.
Ed
hogarth
> > Off course, I made my colormanegement lessons. I think, with the own
> > jet, this could be easier than with the exterior-printing, as the
> > problem of cm is, that nearly everbody has its own profiles. Is that
> > right ??
>
> If you're using a Mac you'll get very good results with the Epson driver and
> canned ColorSync profiles. I dunno for Canon or Windows. If you want to
> print on non-standard papers (like rag) you'll need to get a profile from
> somewhere, get someone to make one for you or create your own. To create
> your own can be expensive ... to do it properly you need a spectrophotometer
> and good profiling software.
>
This is why I suggest going with a group that is working on pushing the state
of the art. Groups like Cone have dozens of profiles (sometimes called
"Photoshop curves") for use with their software, inks, and papers their
customers are demanding profiles for. The point of the profile is to match ink
to paper so that you get smooth, linear graduations from dark to light in all
colors.
To present a professional look, you most likely are not going to use consumer
supplies. A nice middle of the road paper for photographs is Hahnemuhle Photo
Rag, for example. MIS sells inks for most inkjet printers to replace the
printer manufacture inks. The MIS' archival inks are much more archival than
most OEM inks, even the Epson OEM pigment color inks it sells for the 2000
series printers.
>
> The monitor side is relatively cheap by comparison. To date I've been using
> an Apple internally calibrated monitor but should have a Spyder/OptiCal soon
> to try on my Sony CRT.
>
> >> I wouldn't however sell prints based on the dyes used in the Epson
> > 890/1280/1290. < Why ? It's about the color resistance against the
> > UV of the sunlight ??
>
> Epson Premium Glossy is rated at 10 years but there was an issue with ozone
> that I'm not sure has been fully addressed. The matte paper is rated longer
> but I didn't like it. You might find this useful:
>
> http://www.epson.com.au/whats_new/story_143.html
>
> It's also a matter of policy. If you give the customer a CD-R with the print
> and offer to reprint for free for say 5 years it may work out. Or you could
> just print on conventional media. Quite a few labs offer this service
> nowadays.
>
No, don't do that. Use good supplies and this won't be a problem. Good papers
last longer than chemical photographs (no matter how you wash, you can't get
every molecule of every process chemical out of a chemical print). Good inks
will last a good long time also. Will they outlast a dye transfer print? Only
time will tell. They will certainly last as long as Ilfochrome. The OEM dyes
may only last for a few weeks, however, so don't use them, not even for trials.
Just toss them out and don't contaminate your printer's nozzles with them.
>
> > Are you using RIP as well ??
>
> I don't use a RIP. Why do you want to screen it anyway?
>
RIP => raster image processor. In order for an inkjet printer to print, you
have to provide it with "dots" which is what a raster image processor does. You
do use a RIP, its probably just incorporated in your driver for your printer.
Real RIPs, software or hardware, are used to increase speed, some interesting
things like create dither patterns, and to access all of the features of the
printer (most drivers just do the minimum to get the thing to print stuff).
And, in real multitasking operating systems (that leaves Win95/98 out), a
software RIP can usually also act as a queue, so that after you tell it to
print, you can continue to use the computer for other things, like
Photoshopping that next image. All hardware RIPs that I know of act as
standalone printer servers and provide the requisite print queuing.
>
> You may want to do what I did and get yourself a cheap 6 colour A4 Epson and
> try a few papers so you can judge the output quality for yourself, how you
> feel about working in Photoshop and whether you can get the colours right.
> The computing side can be as cheap as you want it, just add lots of memory.
>
> You might find this site useful (and probably less hostile!):
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/discus/index.html
>
> Stephen Best
> Canberra, Australia
I like what Stephen is saying here - try it out and see if you like it. What my
advice really boils down to is to not be overly cheap. Save money on the
computer/printer, yes. Save money on materials, no.
Stephen Best
> of the art. Groups like Cone have dozens of profiles (sometimes called
> "Photoshop curves") for use with their software, inks, and papers their
> customers are demanding profiles for. The point of the profile is to match ink
> to paper so that you get smooth, linear graduations from dark to light in all
> colors.
>
> To present a professional look, you most likely are not going to use consumer
> supplies. A nice middle of the road paper for photographs is Hahnemuhle Photo
> Rag, for example. MIS sells inks for most inkjet printers to replace the
> printer manufacture inks. The MIS' archival inks are much more archival than
> most OEM inks, even the Epson OEM pigment color inks it sells for the 2000
> series printers.
I got Cone to send me a sample pack of their top selling ones and found they
were all pretty ugly. I also tried any number of artist papers (like Arches)
but couldn't reproduce the quality of an Iris with my Epson 3000 (using
Equipoise inks). I do my own profiling. I have however kept my 3000 in the
off chance that it may be called into service in the future. There's
probably an application of coated rag papers for portraiture/wedding photos
however. This is all just my personal bias though.
After many years of trying nearly everything I've come to the conclusion
that there's only a few kinds of digital prints *I* really like: Epson
890/1280/1290 prints with stock glossy paper/inks (limited life) and
LightJet 5000 prints on Crystal Archive (75 years). I also spent nearly two
years trying to master UltraStable (500 years). I haven't however seen what
an Epson 5500 can do.
If however I was more interested in turnaround I'd softproof only and get my
local lab to produce digital RA4 prints on their Kodak Pegasus (Durst
Lambda). But I wouldn't let the customer compare these with Epson stock
prints coz I just know they'd prefer the latter!
I'm amazed how far digital output has come and would never have predicted
the quality possible on the desktop today.
Stephen Best
Canberra, Australia
hogarth
> > This is why I suggest going with a group that is working on pushing the state
> > of the art. Groups like Cone have dozens of profiles (sometimes called
> > "Photoshop curves") for use with their software, inks, and papers their
> > customers are demanding profiles for. The point of the profile is to match ink
> > to paper so that you get smooth, linear graduations from dark to light in all
> > colors.
> >
> > To present a professional look, you most likely are not going to use consumer
> > supplies. A nice middle of the road paper for photographs is Hahnemuhle Photo
> > Rag, for example. MIS sells inks for most inkjet printers to replace the
> > printer manufacture inks. The MIS' archival inks are much more archival than
> > most OEM inks, even the Epson OEM pigment color inks it sells for the 2000
> > series printers.
>
> I got Cone to send me a sample pack of their top selling ones and found they
> were all pretty ugly. I also tried any number of artist papers (like Arches)
> but couldn't reproduce the quality of an Iris with my Epson 3000 (using
> Equipoise inks). I do my own profiling. I have however kept my 3000 in the
> off chance that it may be called into service in the future. There's
> probably an application of coated rag papers for portraiture/wedding photos
> however. This is all just my personal bias though.
>
I feel your pain. I thought the same thing, and called them up and complained about
it. That's when they sent me a sample print on the Hannemule Photo Rag, which
I find much more acceptable for what I do. They just started supporting it a few
months ago, so they say.
I'm not familiar with the Equipoise inks. I have heard (hearsay is wonderfully
inconclusive) people say the using non-Cone inks with Piezography is problematic.
For that reason, they have gone to the MIS archival inks using standard drivers.
The MIS carbon inks in particular are said to be ground finer and thus cause fewer
clogging problems than the Cone inks.
>
> After many years of trying nearly everything I've come to the conclusion
> that there's only a few kinds of digital prints *I* really like: Epson
> 890/1280/1290 prints with stock glossy paper/inks (limited life) and
> LightJet 5000 prints on Crystal Archive (75 years). I also spent nearly two
> years trying to master UltraStable (500 years). I haven't however seen what
> an Epson 5500 can do.
>
You are not alone. Many people feel this way. If you get a chance to play with an
Epson 7000...
>
> If however I was more interested in turnaround I'd softproof only and get my
> local lab to produce digital RA4 prints on their Kodak Pegasus (Durst
> Lambda). But I wouldn't let the customer compare these with Epson stock
> prints coz I just know they'd prefer the latter!
>
> I'm amazed how far digital output has come and would never have predicted
> the quality possible on the desktop today.
>
> Stephen Best
> Canberra, Australia
Watch the next few years. It is going to be amazing. Good or bad I'm not sure, but
amazing either way.
Sherman
news:B8D8BBD4.85CF%ste...@bitwareoz.com...
I use Epsons for my output. I have two, one for b&w and one for color. I
don't worry too much about the color, for personal use I often print on
Photo Paper rather than one of the Premium or archival papers. I am much
more demanding of b&w and want those prints to last.
I just switched (yesterday as a matter of fact) from Lyson inks to MIS inks
for black and white. I purchased the MIS Variable Mix Quadtone set for my
Epson 1270. I liked the range of the Lyson inks but wasn't happy with the
deepest blacks. Also the prints were too warm for my liking on most papers.
With the MIS Variable Mix inks I can control the tone of a print from warm
to cool and adjust it for different papers and my own personal preferences.
I believe that the b&w prints I've made with the MIS inks are as good as any
I've seen. I'm talking about tonality and range here, not artistic merit.
The only problem I see at this point is that the MIS inks which are
pigmented and based on carbon black, do not match well with any of the
glossy papers I've tried. However on Epson Matte Heavyweight, Epson
Archival Matte and Crane Museo the prints are stunning. Oddly the best
results on a glossy paper came with Epson Photo Paper. Probably because the
surface isn't as glossy as Premium Glossy, Lyson Premium Photo Gloss or
Pictorico paper.
Keep in mind that this is based on one full day of printing with MIS inks
and a few dozen prints. I am sure I will learn much more as time goes on
but I think I've found my b&w inkset.
MIS makes a set of archival color inks that supposedly match the Epson gamut
and will last longer than a wet-darkroom color print. I have yet to try
them so I can't comment but things are looking very good for digital output.
Bruce MacNeil
comments or experiences with this product?
Sherman
news:N%1t8.7575$rp4.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Hi - I just bought some Lyson smal gamut stuff for my Epson 1270 ... Any
> comments or experiences with this product?
>
>
Bruce,
Unfortunately no. I used their "neutral" ink set. I would be interested in
your results with the small gamut set. It seems each ink manufacturer has
peculiarities just as in photo papers and film developers. Within
manufacturers lines different sets can produce very different results.
If after I've been through a couple of set of carts of the MIS stuff I find
that it still works well I will probably purchase one of their Continuous
Flow Systems. They say they will have a CFS available for the quadtones in
a month or so. Buying ink in large bottles would save a huge amount in ink
costs.
Sherman
hogarth
> <snip>
> I believe that the b&w prints I've made with the MIS inks are as good as any
> I've seen. I'm talking about tonality and range here, not artistic merit.
> The only problem I see at this point is that the MIS inks which are
> pigmented and based on carbon black, do not match well with any of the
> glossy papers I've tried. However on Epson Matte Heavyweight, Epson
> Archival Matte and Crane Museo the prints are stunning. Oddly the best
> results on a glossy paper came with Epson Photo Paper. Probably because the
> surface isn't as glossy as Premium Glossy, Lyson Premium Photo Gloss or
> Pictorico paper.
>
When you find one that works for you, please post to this group and let us
know. I too would like a good glossy paper. So far almost everything I've done
has been to Photo Rag; it is time to broaden out.
>
> Keep in mind that this is based on one full day of printing with MIS inks
> and a few dozen prints. I am sure I will learn much more as time goes on
> but I think I've found my b&w inkset.
>
I keep hearing good things about the MIS inksets.