Hi,
Just got started with the book.....already learning alot of new stuff.
I purchased a Canon iPF5000 recently and retired my Epson 4000.
The reason for the retirement was the ink usage of the 4000 and the color quality of
the iPF5000.
Now I am contemplating just using the 4000 for B&W.......it is in good condition.
Trying to weigh out the cost/quality conundrum. Would the gain in quality of setting up
the 4000 for B&W be worth it......or should I just use the iPF and invest in a good RIP?
I really want to be able to get the best print that I am capable of making.
I would greatly appreciate any advice.
Greg......
Full Version: One for color, one for B&W
If longevity and fade resistance are important factors in your work, the LUCIA inks have tested by Wilhelm to rank behind Epson and certainly HP. If you dedicate the 4000 to BW you can use monochrome inks like the Cone K7 and have perhaps the most lightfast inkset out there (that I'm aware of). You lose, however, the ability to print on glossy media with the K7 inks. They are working on a gloss-compatible K7 set, but it's not available today.
To me, the Canon b/w output was OK, compared with the other options. Not great, but not horrible by any stretch. The Canon driver does allow you to print grayscale images with no color inks in the mix, but the native color of the Canon grays was a bit cool for my taste. If you do want to print on glossy, there is very noticeable bronzing with the LUCIA inks on many third party papers. The best result in this regard was on the Canon papers.
Having said that, it can be a challenge to keep and maintain two printers and there's definitely a benefit to keeping things simple. Since you're asking for "the best print you are capable of making", keep in mind that with practice, your imaging and printing skills will be more refined 6 months or a year from now. So you may want to play with the Canon for awhile and wait until you start to feel the need to change, ie you're not as satisfied with the b/w output as you used to be. Then try an alternate setup. It's easy to throw money at the problem (that keeps the industry afloat) but waiting until you "need" to change has advantages. Too rarely do I follow this advice myself
To me, the Canon b/w output was OK, compared with the other options. Not great, but not horrible by any stretch. The Canon driver does allow you to print grayscale images with no color inks in the mix, but the native color of the Canon grays was a bit cool for my taste. If you do want to print on glossy, there is very noticeable bronzing with the LUCIA inks on many third party papers. The best result in this regard was on the Canon papers.
Having said that, it can be a challenge to keep and maintain two printers and there's definitely a benefit to keeping things simple. Since you're asking for "the best print you are capable of making", keep in mind that with practice, your imaging and printing skills will be more refined 6 months or a year from now. So you may want to play with the Canon for awhile and wait until you start to feel the need to change, ie you're not as satisfied with the b/w output as you used to be. Then try an alternate setup. It's easy to throw money at the problem (that keeps the industry afloat) but waiting until you "need" to change has advantages. Too rarely do I follow this advice myself
QUOTE (adiallo @ Jul 27 2007, 07:51 PM) 
If longevity and fade resistance are important factors in your work, the LUCIA inks have tested by Wilhelm to rank behind Epson and certainly HP. If you dedicate the 4000 to BW you can use monochrome inks like the Cone K7 and have perhaps the most lightfast inkset out there (that I'm aware of). You lose, however, the ability to print on glossy media with the K7 inks. They are working on a gloss-compatible K7 set, but it's not available today.
To me, the Canon b/w output was OK, compared with the other options. Not great, but not horrible by any stretch. The Canon driver does allow you to print grayscale images with no color inks in the mix, but the native color of the Canon grays was a bit cool for my taste. If you do want to print on glossy, there is very noticeable bronzing with the LUCIA inks on many third party papers. The best result in this regard was on the Canon papers.
Having said that, it can be a challenge to keep and maintain two printers and there's definitely a benefit to keeping things simple. Since you're asking for "the best print you are capable of making", keep in mind that with practice, your imaging and printing skills will be more refined 6 months or a year from now. So you may want to play with the Canon for awhile and wait until you start to feel the need to change, ie you're not as satisfied with the b/w output as you used to be. Then try an alternate setup. It's easy to throw money at the problem (that keeps the industry afloat) but waiting until you "need" to change has advantages. Too rarely do I follow this advice myself
To me, the Canon b/w output was OK, compared with the other options. Not great, but not horrible by any stretch. The Canon driver does allow you to print grayscale images with no color inks in the mix, but the native color of the Canon grays was a bit cool for my taste. If you do want to print on glossy, there is very noticeable bronzing with the LUCIA inks on many third party papers. The best result in this regard was on the Canon papers.
Having said that, it can be a challenge to keep and maintain two printers and there's definitely a benefit to keeping things simple. Since you're asking for "the best print you are capable of making", keep in mind that with practice, your imaging and printing skills will be more refined 6 months or a year from now. So you may want to play with the Canon for awhile and wait until you start to feel the need to change, ie you're not as satisfied with the b/w output as you used to be. Then try an alternate setup. It's easy to throw money at the problem (that keeps the industry afloat) but waiting until you "need" to change has advantages. Too rarely do I follow this advice myself
First, thank you for the prompt response. When I was researching the iPF5000 prior to purchase,
I thought somewhere, someplace I saw a reference to "over 100 years" for longevity. It was quite shocking
to see the Wilhelm report. For that and some of the warranty issues I will not be going much further with the
Canon line of printers. I just can't deal with a company that I can't trust.
All of my printing so far has been on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag and William Turner as I am not a real fan of glossy
papers.
Aside from the longevity issues, would the 4000 with a good set of inks be better than either an HP or newer Epson
with their proprietary inks?
Read some more of your book today. Thank you for filling a huge gap in the info available for printing.
Greg....
when it comes to bw printing ill always put my money on piezography k7 inks which implies, of course, epson printer
QUOTE (GregBoyer @ Jul 28 2007, 12:01 AM)
Aside from the longevity issues, would the 4000 with a good set of inks be better than either an HP or newer Epson
with their proprietary inks?
with their proprietary inks?
Of course, "better" means different things to different people. The K7 inks would give you 7 shades of black vs 3 for the Epson and 4 (depending on paper type) for the HP. The extra shades can give you smoother transitions between tones, finer resolution, and more precise details in shadows and highlights. Some images will benefit from this, others may not show a difference. A lot depends on how the image was edited. Ham fisted editing where shadows are plugged and highlights are blown out obvioulsy won't reap the benefits of a 7-ink set.
THe best way to judge would be to have someone make you a small print of your own image on these different printer setups. Not a free solution, and you'll have to wait for the prints to be sent, but then you'd really have a clear idea of which is "better", particularly for your work.
Maybe a year ago, Tyler Boley, a fantastic printer in Seattle, did a side by side comparison with the Cone 4-ink setup and the Epson 4800. I was fortunate enough to get actual prints in hand and the Cone inks had a depth and fine detail that stood out against the Epson. You can reach Tyler's studio here.
Having given all those caveats, if I were in your situation I would use the Canon for color and convert the 4000 to a K7 set instead of laying out for a new printer. You'll need a copy of QTR (and there is a learning curve there, due to documentation that could be much better). In output I've seen, the canned "profiles" in QTR work very well with the K7 inks.
QUOTE (adiallo @ Jul 28 2007, 06:20 AM)
Of course, "better" means different things to different people. The K7 inks would give you 7 shades of black vs 3 for the Epson and 4 (depending on paper type) for the HP. The extra shades can give you smoother transitions between tones, finer resolution, and more precise details in shadows and highlights. Some images will benefit from this, others may not show a difference. A lot depends on how the image was edited. Ham fisted editing where shadows are plugged and highlights are blown out obvioulsy won't reap the benefits of a 7-ink set.
THe best way to judge would be to have someone make you a small print of your own image on these different printer setups. Not a free solution, and you'll have to wait for the prints to be sent, but then you'd really have a clear idea of which is "better", particularly for your work.
Maybe a year ago, Tyler Boley, a fantastic printer in Seattle, did a side by side comparison with the Cone 4-ink setup and the Epson 4800. I was fortunate enough to get actual prints in hand and the Cone inks had a depth and fine detail that stood out against the Epson. You can reach Tyler's studio here.
Having given all those caveats, if I were in your situation I would use the Canon for color and convert the 4000 to a K7 set instead of laying out for a new printer. You'll need a copy of QTR (and there is a learning curve there, due to documentation that could be much better). In output I've seen, the canned "profiles" in QTR work very well with the K7 inks.
THe best way to judge would be to have someone make you a small print of your own image on these different printer setups. Not a free solution, and you'll have to wait for the prints to be sent, but then you'd really have a clear idea of which is "better", particularly for your work.
Maybe a year ago, Tyler Boley, a fantastic printer in Seattle, did a side by side comparison with the Cone 4-ink setup and the Epson 4800. I was fortunate enough to get actual prints in hand and the Cone inks had a depth and fine detail that stood out against the Epson. You can reach Tyler's studio here.
Having given all those caveats, if I were in your situation I would use the Canon for color and convert the 4000 to a K7 set instead of laying out for a new printer. You'll need a copy of QTR (and there is a learning curve there, due to documentation that could be much better). In output I've seen, the canned "profiles" in QTR work very well with the K7 inks.
Thank for your input . I will be setting up the 4000 with the K7 inks. Checked out Tyler Boley's website. If the images on his site are any indication of
the prints he produces.......wow!
Greg....
QUOTE (GregBoyer @ Jul 28 2007, 02:19 PM)
Checked out Tyler Boley's website. If the images on his site are any indication of
the prints he produces.......wow!
the prints he produces.......wow!
The web images don't hold a candle to the actual prints. Stunning craftmanship.
Howdy Mr. Diallo:
I'm new to the forum and have not received your book yet, I can't waite for it to come. I have been following this thread and would like to ask a question: What I need to get beside the K-7 Piezzo inks and paper, a RIP? I have a Spyder 2 Pro for monitor calibration and I resently bought an Epson 7800 and I'm using their luster 24" paper and inks and the color prints are very good I also printed some B&W images using "Color" to print them for the results I got from the B&W set up was to doll for my taste. Any way as soon as the ink finish I'll be moving to full B&W Piezzo set up base on what you just said and the link to the Lab you gave. I notice the prints at the lab were warm I like my B&W slightly cooler. Can I get a cooler tone with piezzo inks?
Thanks for your reply and I look foward to learn a lot on this forum so far so good.
Don Diego
I'm new to the forum and have not received your book yet, I can't waite for it to come. I have been following this thread and would like to ask a question: What I need to get beside the K-7 Piezzo inks and paper, a RIP? I have a Spyder 2 Pro for monitor calibration and I resently bought an Epson 7800 and I'm using their luster 24" paper and inks and the color prints are very good I also printed some B&W images using "Color" to print them for the results I got from the B&W set up was to doll for my taste. Any way as soon as the ink finish I'll be moving to full B&W Piezzo set up base on what you just said and the link to the Lab you gave. I notice the prints at the lab were warm I like my B&W slightly cooler. Can I get a cooler tone with piezzo inks?
Thanks for your reply and I look foward to learn a lot on this forum so far so good.
Don Diego
Don,
With the K7 inks you will need to use QTR and, at least for now, you will only be able to use matte papers. The K7 inks come in Neutral and Sepia. THey will soon be releasing a Selenium set as well. Go to InkJet Mall and ask them for some samples so you can judge which tone you like best.
With the K7 inks you will need to use QTR and, at least for now, you will only be able to use matte papers. The K7 inks come in Neutral and Sepia. THey will soon be releasing a Selenium set as well. Go to InkJet Mall and ask them for some samples so you can judge which tone you like best.
QUOTE (adiallo @ Aug 10 2007, 09:10 AM)
Don,
With the K7 inks you will need to use QTR and, at least for now, you will only be able to use matte papers. The K7 inks come in Neutral and Sepia. THey will soon be releasing a Selenium set as well. Go to InkJet Mall and ask them for some samples so you can judge which tone you like best.
With the K7 inks you will need to use QTR and, at least for now, you will only be able to use matte papers. The K7 inks come in Neutral and Sepia. THey will soon be releasing a Selenium set as well. Go to InkJet Mall and ask them for some samples so you can judge which tone you like best.
Thank you Mr. Diallo, I'll follow your suggestions.
Question:
Would the Selenium inks bring more contrast to the image? If not, how much contrast can we get from the K-7?
Thank's for taking the time to light my path.
Don
To maximize contrast with the K7 inkset, make sure that the tonal values in your image file range from at least 2% to 98% (if the subject matter warrants it). With a properly configured quad or 7 dilution mono inkset, you're not going to get a blocking of shadows or blown highlights due to insufficient resolving power of the ink and driver setup. So the first step is to make sure your file has pleasing contrast since you won't get a contrast boost due to ink/driver limitations.
Having said that, you can try a brighter paper so that areas with little ink laid down are whiter. You will not get as dark a black from the Cone inks as you get from Epson, Canon, or HP inks. Longevity and stability took precedence over DMax with the Cone inks. And as always, a monitor (with a bright backlight shining throug the image) will always have brighter whites and darker blacks than you can print on paper. Softproofing in Photoshop can preview this effect, albeit imperfectly when the viewing setup of the average user is taken into account.
Having said that, you can try a brighter paper so that areas with little ink laid down are whiter. You will not get as dark a black from the Cone inks as you get from Epson, Canon, or HP inks. Longevity and stability took precedence over DMax with the Cone inks. And as always, a monitor (with a bright backlight shining throug the image) will always have brighter whites and darker blacks than you can print on paper. Softproofing in Photoshop can preview this effect, albeit imperfectly when the viewing setup of the average user is taken into account.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.