Choosing the printer for digital negatives: Epson or Canon?

Hi all,

after a few years I am starting anew to produce digital negatives for contact printing (silver-based paper only, no alternative processes). When I was printing digital negatives I was using an Epson 7600 with the usual Pictorico. Using an Epson printer made sense back then (ca. 2015) because the books / profiles on / for digital negatives pretty much all assumed an Epson printer.

I am on the market now for a new printer and I would be tempted to buy a Canon imagePROGRAF 1100 (I need A2, no roll is fine) but ... should I still stick to an Epson printer? I have a densitometer and I have no problem going deep into profile generation, yet ...

... any suggestion?

My use will be 70% digital negatives, 30% color prints.

Thanks a million!

Cheers

FWIW I print digital negs all the time on Epson, I am going to upgrade the size of machine shortly and will stick with Epson, I am use to it and like its operation .

Another FWIW comment... as far as I can tell (seeing what is published on the web, talking with people in person and long personal experience, your comment about the prevalence of Epson printers for making digital negatives still holds.

I am unsure why this is. However, I suspect that this is because the Epson K3 ink set is known to have adequate density in the UV which is, of course important for alt process printing. This, is probably less of an issue for silver gelatin printing.

If I was going to buy a non-Epson printer for digital negatives, I would ask a dealer to print out a simple step table using the printer I was considering (or at the very least a printer using the same ink set) on transparency material. I would then print that step table using my process of choice. You are not looking for linearity at this point... just that the ink(s) can make a negative that is dense enough.

More likely, I would just buy another Epson printer!

(Note: I am mainly an alt process printer.)

One additional thought... will the printer you are considering print on transparent medium without resorting to a work around (e.g. tape on the leading edge or the need for a carrier sheet)? Having to use a work around could get pretty tiresome if you make a lot of digital negatives.

Back when you were using the Epson printer to produce digital negatives, were you making silver gelatin prints? If so, were you happy with the results? I ask because I've been crafting digital negatives on Epson printers for a long time using various software-based tools and I was never able to get a silver gelatin print (contact or otherwise) that satisfied me; I could see the dots.

Good luck.

fgorga said:

I am unsure why this is. However, I suspect that this is because the Epson K3 ink set is known to have adequate density in the UV which is, of course important for alt process printing. This, is probably less of an issue for silver gelatin printing.

Click to expand...

Not sure it's the K3 inkset, specifically, rather it's general accepted knowledge that pigment inks block more UV light vs dye inks. I imagine that any Canon pigment printer would work as well, too. But, I'm talking alt processes printing here.

Alan9940 said:

Back when you were using the Epson printer to produce digital negatives, were you making silver gelatin prints? If so, were you happy with the results? I ask because I've been crafting digital negatives on Epson printers for a long time using various software-based tools and I was never able to get a silver gelatin print (contact or otherwise) that satisfied me; I could see the dots.

Good luck.

Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean ...

... yes, I always saw the dots. That is, using a 6x lupe I could see the dots on the print. From a normal viewing distance (and also an abnormal viewing distance, i.e., reeeeeeealy close) the dots were not visible. And I never met a prospective buyer who cared that the dots were visible with a lupe on the print, but hey, maybe this is just my customer base

I did care a lot about the dots at the beginning. Now, not anymore.

Cheers!

Lots of very useful info, thank you all. It seems that Epson is still the way to go, but it may be indeed worthwhile to ask a Canon rep to print a transparency with the 1100 before going Epson.

Alan9940 said:

Not sure it's the K3 inkset, specifically, rather it's general accepted knowledge that pigment inks block more UV light vs dye inks. I imagine that any Canon pigment printer would work as well, too. But, I'm talking alt processes printing here.

Click to expand...

I agree with your first statement about 'generally accepted knowledge".

However, I don't think that your second statement follows logically.

Just because one set of pigment inks work well in this application there is no reason to think that a completely different pigment ink set from a different manufacturer will act the same as the known good Epson K3 ink set.

Said another way... there are many different pigments and the devil is in the details.

Thus, testing (or a first-hand report of success with Canon pigment inks) is, in my view, warranted.