Choosing the printer for digital negatives: Epson or Canon?

[mammolo]

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

 

[Carnie Bob]

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 .

 

[fgorga]

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.

 

[Alan9940]

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.

 

[Alan9940]

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.

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.

 

[mammolo]

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.

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!

 

[mammolo]

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.

 

[fgorga]

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.

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.

 

[djdister]

Also, the Epson P900 has higher maximum print resolution than the Canon Pro-1100, which may be important for making internegatives..

 

[Alan9940]

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!

That's great, since you plan to make silver gelatin prints. I could see the dots at normal viewing distance with my naked eyes. That said, I haven't tried making digital negatives for sliver printing in many years. I'm sure printer technology is significantly better nowadays vs the Epson printer I was using at the time (IIRC, it was an Epson 2200).

 

[Alan9940]

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.

Very true! I've only used Epson printers for digital negatives, though I do run a Canon PRO-200S when I want that "look" on glossy or metallic papers.

 

[jeffreyg]

While I haven’t made any silver prints from enlarged digital negatives I have made platinum/palladium from negatives made with three different Epson printers with the current one being the P900. All have worked fine with no noticeable dots. I have also made many pt/pd prints from enlarged negatives made with dental xray duplicating film which is really perfect although expensive and requires regular darkroom procedures.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I make alt process prints with a Canon Pro 10 pigment printer. It works fine. I have never tried making silver prints with it though so I can't advise you on that. I probably wouldn't buy an Epson myself unless I was going to convert it to only black and white, but you probably are better off with an Epson because of all the people who use Epsons. Not many people are using Canons. If you have a densitometer and the knowledge to use it, you can probably use any pigment printer.

If you live someplace that has a dry environment you should probably stick with Canons or at least expect to have lots of problems.