Choosing the printer for digital negatives: Epson or Canon?

[MarcoA]

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.

 

[MarcoA]

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!

 

[MarcoA]

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.

 

[gbroadbridge]

I use a Canon Pro10s to print Alt process Negatives, That printer uses Pigment Inks.

I had no luck with the Canon driver (insufficient density), but with a 3rd party printer driver I have more density than I could ever need.

If I were to be buying a new printer for the role, I'd probably go with Epson as so many folks use them successfully.
I already used the Pro10s for all my printing and didn't want another printer, however it was quite a frustrating experience getting acceptable results.

 

[koraks]

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.

Maybe. I think a lot has to do, though, with the fact that QTR relies on Epson printers, and QTR is used widely throughout the digital negative domain.
There's of course network externalities playing a role; the more people use the same brand and product types, the more supplies, accessories & knowledge will be available for these products, the higher the value that's experience, resulting in further growth of the ecosystem. I think this is the main explanation of the prevalence of Epson printers in this domain - they had a head start (because Epson inkjet tech was a front-runner some 20 years ago) and that resulted in further acceleration.

There's no reason why any other pigment printer wouldn't work just as well, provided the inks used have sufficient blocking power for the target process. Most contemporary pigment inkjet printers will qualify. The question is if you want/need QTR to print negatives (or regular prints). I think there are several good arguments to use QTR, but it's of course not the only way to get usable output and/or to apply correction curves (which doesn't need to be done in QTR even if QTR is used for the output step).

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

There's the QTR question above that you need to think about; if you need QTR, you need a (supported) Epson printer.
If you don't need QTR per se, then the question becomes one of format (you answered; needs to be A2) and I'd argue it will also be about what you expect in terms of color rendering in your 30% color prints. Do you need/want a printer with the extended gamut, that e.g. the ProGRAPH offers (with its blue & red additional color channels)? Does the chroma optimizer channel represent meaningful value to you?

Similar questions if you're looking at Epson's present range of printers, which rely on a different ink set to expand the standard CMYK gamut (Epson seems to rely mostly on CMYK-OGV).

Ultimately, you'd be comparing prints, and if you've ticked the boxes for your alt process negatives, it's a matter of choosing IMO based on the color print performance of the printers you've selected. In that area, I see (semi-)pro photographers/printers move away from Epson and towards Canon in general. Epson is losing terrain very rapidly, which can be explained by the brute force R&D approach Canon has put into its inkjet endeavors.

One option that hasn't been mentioned, is to split the tasks. If you can find an old Epson 3880 for instance, you could dedicate it to alt. process negative tasks. Especially if you can find a set of refillable cartridges to go with it (which is generally not possible for newer models!), you can also enjoy relatively low consumables costs and happily print away. Augment that with a separate printer for color work, in which you'll have the freedom to select whichever printer works best for that purpose. If space & budget allow for it, I'd very seriously consider this option.

Personally, I have an Epson 3880, and if I would be in the market for a new printer, I would lean towards the two-printer solution, keeping the Epson for 'experimental' work (refillable carts, a good market for spare parts and QTR are bonuses here) and putting a (most likely) Canon printer next to it for color work.

 

[MarcoA]

After using the 7600 I decided to make my life miserable and converted a dye-based Epson 1500W to pigments, using the CarbonPrint Graphite by Farbenwerk B&W inks produced for the 1500W. The quality of these inks is really excellent. I started playing with QTR, my densitomer Heiland, Stouffer step-wedges, bought a few books, etc. After much pain I was able to produce good digital negatives. Then the 1500W got clogged for good, I had some family issues, blah blah, and I stopped. When I stopped I made a "lessons learnt" session of self-help and I decided that - if I ever started doing digital negatives again - I would use an off-the-shelf solution. B&W inks can deliver gorgeous prints but are too much trouble for me, and managing a used printer that can die on me next month ... no more. (Please take all this as *my* decision, not the *right* decision, of course. I am not in the business of lecturing people.)

Sidebar question: I went back to the QTR site after many years and it says (Mac) "Mavericks 10.9 through Ventura 13.0", i.e., two generations behind. Is it still supported/updated?

Cheers!

 

[koraks]

if I ever started doing digital negatives again - I would use an off-the-shelf solution.

I understand and appreciate that argument. Now, if only if there was an off-the-shelf solution that explicitly supported this workflow, but there isn't. Which means that we'll always be working somewhere in the margins of what the manufacturer intended.

Is it still supported/updated?

IDK, sorry, I'm on Windows and behind the times with my Win10...

 

[fgorga]

Maybe. I think a lot has to do, though, with the fact that QTR relies on Epson printers, and QTR is used widely throughout the digital negative domain.
There's of course network externalities playing a role; the more people use the same brand and product types, the more supplies, accessories & knowledge will be available for these products, the higher the value that's experience, resulting in further growth of the ecosystem. I think this is the main explanation of the prevalence of Epson printers in this domain - they had a head start (because Epson inkjet tech was a front-runner some 20 years ago) and that resulted in further acceleration.

One does not need to use QTR to make perfectly fine digital negatives with Epson printers.

I have been doing so for more than 20 years starting with a borrowed 3800, then a 3880 and now with a P800, even though I also run a 3880 with Pizeography Pro inks using QTR.

There's no reason why any other pigment printer wouldn't work just as well, provided the inks used have sufficient blocking power for the target process.

Agreed! However the word 'provided' is key to this statement.

Most contemporary pigment inkjet printers will qualify.

I am not at all sure that this assumption is true. There is nothing inherent in 'pigments' that make them opaque in the UV. Thus, as I wrote earlier, in my view testing is needed when considering a new printer or ink set.

The question is if you want/need QTR to print negatives (or regular prints). I think there are several good arguments to use QTR, but it's of course not the only way to get usable output and/or to apply correction curves (which doesn't need to be done in QTR even if QTR is used for the output step).

Agreed.

 

[koraks]

One does not need to use QTR to make perfectly fine digital negatives with Epson printers.

This is indeed correct, however, as I outlined, QTR has specific advantages that offer control that's often not available through other means. Very specifically the ability to control which channel(s) is/are used for which parts of the tonal curve. In general, this degree of control is reserved for the printer driver and not user-configurable, which is where QTR has the edge over most other approaches. The relevance of this is in the tonality of the negatives and ultimately the prints, which is the Achilles' heel of inkjet negatives.

I have been doing so for more than 20 years starting with a borrowed 3800, then a 3880 and now with a P800, even though I also run a 3880 with Pizeography Pro inks using QTR.

The Epson stock drivers already have inherently reasonable ink channel control through the ink load parameter that's user-configurable as well as the advanced B&W toning wheel that offers at least some form of multi-channel ability. The former is not necessarily present in all printer drivers, although I excpect the more pro-oriented printers to have a setting that allows for ink density control. The latter could be accomplished indirectly by applying color toning in a photo editing tool (Photoshop, GIMP etc.), although this still does not warrant the same kind of mixing control that QTR offers. Especially for demanding processes where you start to run into the ink-load limits of the substrate, you ideally prevent ink being jetted that doesn't contribute meaningfully to the required UV density and tonality. It's those considerations that constitute the value of QTR.

There is nothing inherent in 'pigments' that make them opaque in the UV.

Pigment printers use carbon black for the black channel. Carbon black has good UV opacity in principle (and in practice). As a result, any printer that uses carbon black is a pretty good guess to start out with; and yes, testing will help establish the exact ink loads and channel combinations for good blocking power for the target process resp. smooth tonality. If you are aware of any pigment inkjet printers that depart from this rule of thumb, it would be useful to share this insight for all involves.

I do know that the opposite occurs, i.e. that there are dye-based inkjet printers that still use carbon black for the black channel(s) because this is virtually the only feasible way to get a reasonably neutral black with good density and without the dispersion stability issues of alternatives such as iron oxide-based pigments. Hence, there is some mention in online reports of dye-based pigment printers working OK for alt. process digi-negs where the fortunate presence of a pigment-based black channel was leveraged for this purpose. This can still be a compromised solution with an eye to tonality as I indicated above.

Of course, it's possible that certain pigment inkjet printers with no advanced driver control offer insufficient flexibility in controlling ink load, resulting in insufficient covering power for the more density-demanding applications like salted paper, some flavors of carbon etc. This is one of the reasons why QTR-compatible printers are so popular; you just know that you'll get something you can control, instead of having to take a stab at it or rely on a sales channel that's capable and willing to provide tests on media that may not even be officially supported by the printer in the first place (i.e. Pictorico-like materials).

Finally, note that pigments per se are not the only way to get good UV blocking power as signified by the existence of extremely high-(UV-)density inkjet dyes offering 3.0+logD blocking power. Again, the question surrounding these is more one of tonality than of sheer blocking power, which brings the consideration of channel control back into view.

So QTR really isn't the only way to get there, but the question was raised why Epson printers are so popular in this niche application, and QTR IMO plays a crucial role in this, even though there are additional considerations.

 

[aconbere]

This is a bit of a side note as I’ve been doing my own hunt for a printer. But how are folks feeling about the pizza wheel issues with the epson p900. I’ve found enough horror stories that it biases me to the much larger P5370 just to eliminate that source of concern. But I can’t tell how real it is!

Otherwise I find myself in a similar boat to others here. Waffling between what appears to be a superior range of prosumer printers from canon (but no QTR), used epsons (but a fear of reliability issues), and being forced upmarket in new epsons by concerns about print quality.

 

[koraks]

I can only comment on the pizza wheel issues of the 3880 and they're a very real issue if you print on Pictorico etc., but virtually a non-issue if the printer is used for its intended purpose.

 

[aconbere]

I can only comment on the pizza wheel issues of the 3880 and they're a very real issue if you print on Pictorico etc., but virtually a non-issue if the printer is used for its intended purpose.

Yeah my main intent is printing transparencies

 

[gbroadbridge]

So QTR really isn't the only way to get there, but the question was raised why Epson printers are so popular in this niche application, and QTR IMO plays a crucial role in this, even though there are additional considerations.

In my search for acceptable ink loading onto transparencies using a Canon printer I found a driver called PrintFab which I think provides similar functionality.(I've never directly compared functionality with QTR as I do not have an Epson printer).

It certainly allows direct Ink channel control with very fine granularity, as well as the ability to create specific print profiles for different media. It works with many printer brands/models including Epson and Canon.

 

[koraks]

In my search for acceptable ink loading onto transparencies using a Canon printer I found a driver called PrintFab which I think provides similar functionality.(I've never directly compared functionality with QTR as I do not have an Epson printer).

PrintFab is not so much a driver, but a RIP (raster image processor) suite aimed at small- and home office users. It can indeed manipulate channels to an extent, but lacks the flexibility QTR offers in this regard. However, PrintFab (at least the Pro version) has other interesting possibilities, esp. w.r.t. halftone screens. In this sense it's a bit similar to e.g. AccuRIP Emerald.

So there's some overlap in functionality and PrintFab is definitely useful if QTR is not available, but I'd not call PrintFab a substitute for QTR as such.

 

[MarcoA]

I said at the beginning that I was tempted by the Canon imagePROGRAF 1100 but after some internet search and going through the 600+ (!) pages of the printer manual *nowhere* did I find that transparency film is supported. Canon has a comprehensive list of supported paper types but ... no transparencies are mentioned. Without any Canon document that explicitly says that transparency film is supported and/or someone using the printer that vouches for it I cannot make such an expensive bet.

I contacted Canon. Tough time to explain them what a transparency film is, but I did it ... after that I got the list of paper types supported (the one in the manual, a very extensive as I said) and that "Canon has tested only those papers".

Back to square ... -1