Claria vs K3

[piticu]

Can someone back up David Chow's conclusions regarding uv blocking power of dye based inks vs pigment inks? The whole article can be found at:
http://altphotoprocess.blogspot.com/2007/10/dye-based-negative-vs-pigment-based.html

If it's true it will save me, and probably others, some big bucks. Thank you

 

[sanking]

Can someone back up David Chow's conclusions regarding uv blocking power of dye based inks vs pigment inks? The whole article can be found at:
http://altphotoprocess.blogspot.com/2007/10/dye-based-negative-vs-pigment-based.html

If it's true it will save me, and probably others, some big bucks. Thank you

David Chow's observations are correct as they pertain to a comparison of the Epson 1280/90 dye based printer and the Epson 3800 pigment based printed. The dye based ink system of the 1280/90 has a lot more UV blocking than the pigment based system of the 3800. Having tested several other dye based printers over the years I would not accept any conclusions about dye based versus ink based printers that might apply beyond these two printers. The only way to know for a sure about an unknown printer is to teste it.

Sandy King

 

[donbga]

David Chow's observations are correct as they pertain to a comparison of the Epson 1280/90 dye based printer and the Epson 3800 pigment based printed. The dye based ink system of the 1280/90 has a lot more UV blocking than the pigment based system of the 3800. Having tested several other dye based printers over the years I would not accept any conclusions about dye based versus ink based printers that might apply beyond these two printers. The only way to know for a sure about an unknown printer is to teste it.

Sandy King

I agree with Sandy and Dave regarding the 1280/1290 UV blocking of Epson inks. Don't know about other brands.

Don Bryant

 

[piticu]

Thank you both: then I'll switch to Claria inks.

 

[Loris Medici]

Piticu, 1280/90 inks weren't Claria inks, therefore beware! Have a firm confirmation for *both* the printer and inkset before committing.

Inkset alone doesn't mean all; I use an advanced consumer/desktop printer at home for my negatives: HP9180. The HP z3200 (at the photography institution where I teach) uses "exactly the same inks and printheads as my HP9180" but (for the moment) the UV blocking power (on same transparency media) of negatives made with by HP z3200 are way lower than my HP9180, due paper profile differences. The professional HP z3200 doesn't have a paper profile for HP Advanced Photo Paper (Glossy) whereas HP9180 has, and I use that paper profile for my negatives...

So, you have to confirm the usefulness of both the printer and the inkset.

Regards,
Loris.

 

[sanking]

As Loris says, beware before committing. The issue is more complicated than ink set versus pigment set. The lowly Epson 1400, which uses a dye ink set, gives poor UV blocking when used with the Epson printer driver, but according to Clay Harman gives adequate UV blocking when used with QTR. He posted a profile earlier in the section of the forum.

Bottom line is one should not assume anything about UV blocking of printers. You must either test the printer yourself, or trust your decision to someone with specific knowledge of it as it pertains to UV blocking.

Sandy King

 

[pschwart]

As Loris says, beware before committing. The issue is more complicated than ink set versus pigment set. The lowly Epson 1400, which uses a dye ink set, gives poor UV blocking when used with the Epson printer driver, but according to Clay Harman gives adequate UV blocking when used with QTR. He posted a profile earlier in the section of the forum.

Bottom line is one should not assume anything about UV blocking of printers. You must either test the printer yourself, or trust your decision to someone with specific knowledge of it as it pertains to UV blocking.

Sandy King

Sandy and Loris are on the mark. The 1280 predated Claria inks, but colorized negs printed using the Epson driver printed OK. The 1400 is an update of the 1280/90 (6-color w/ dye ink) and it does use Claria, but it sounds like 1280 workflow won't work. One has to test to determine the best strategy for achieving sufficient blocking with each printer and ink set.
The 1280 was a good printer in its day, but that is long past. I got rid of mine years ago, and I wouldn't consider going back to using one even if someone offered me one for free. Newer printers are faster, high resolution, clog less frequently, and have individual ink cartridges.

Some other considerations when choosing a printer for digital negatives:
pizza wheel marks
banding
paper handling in general
resolution
supported by QTR (Epson only) or other RIP

 

[clay]

I just saw this thread. I use the 1400 with Claria inks for workshops. It will work adequately for both palladium and polymer gravure using the QTR profiles I posted here. I had a 1280 a few years ago, and it was far more able to block UV with sane ink loads than is the 1400. The issue with the 1400 is that you get right up to the edge of the amount of ink that the pictorico is capable of holding without smearing when you do palladium profiles. The main thing it has going for it is cost. The downside is that it only has one black ink, and you will be forced to use some color inks to get adequate UV blocking with smooth results.

 

[piticu]

Thank you all for sharing. I will think carefully about this matter.

 

[Loris Medici]

Clay does 1400 give enough density with the OEM driver and *color* inks? I look for something close to log 3.0 UVA...

 

[clay]

I never did try it with the OEM driver. I am so sold on the QTR approach, that I just jumped right in and did the calibration process I normally run through with the QTR driver. I started having problems with the inks sliding off the pictorico when the load hit about 40-55% on all the colors, if that is any help. You might be able to get enough density by making a black using all colors, but that is just a guess.

 

[pschwart]

I never did try it with the OEM driver. I am so sold on the QTR approach, that I just jumped right in and did the calibration process I normally run through with the QTR driver. I started having problems with the inks sliding off the pictorico when the load hit about 40-55% on all the colors, if that is any help. You might be able to get enough density by making a black using all colors, but that is just a guess.

Using colorized negatives and the Epson driver is also worth testing. For the sake of simplicity I always test in the following order, and I use the first method that provides a negative with sufficient density for paper white with minimal graininess using the base exposure:

- composite b&w using all inks and native driver
- colorized negative using the native driver
- QTR

As far as I can see, the whole reason for using QTR is to provide sufficient
UV density. It's nice to have this as an option, but if one can achieve this by easier means then why struggle with profiles? I have not found QTR to provide any other benefits with the printers I have tested. I am not a QTR basher -- I think it is a superior tool for printing b&w with monochrome ink sets; it's just not the first tool I reach for when making negatives.

 

[clay]

You're right, there are some potentially easier paths to negative nirvana. In my experience, the ability to get on top of the graininess issue is one of the attributes of QTR that sets it apart from the first two options you mention.

But in my opinion, the main advantage of QTR is that you don't have to muck around with colorization of the image or curves or whatever. Once you get zeroed in, all you do is invert the image, flip it horizontally and print. It has an upfront cost to be sure, but the ease of use in practice is worth it for me. It is also much easier to use in a workshop setting because you don't have to teach anybody anything new in regard to photoshop.

 

[Loris Medici]

My students use the HSL method + curves (that's what I teach) and most aren't competent enough to deal with QTR. Therefore "whether 1400 + OEM driver works or not" is an important information to me; I have three students waiting for my relatively low cost printer recommendation for making negatives for Cyanotype, Gum and Vandyke processes. (First two are easy, it's the last one that poses problems in terms of max UVA blocking capacity...)

Regards,
Loris.

 

[sanking]

You're right, there are some potentially easier paths to negative nirvana. In my experience, the ability to get on top of the graininess issue is one of the attributes of QTR that sets it apart from the first two options you mention.

After working off and on for well over a year to find a QTR profile for the 3800 that would print with fine grain in carbon transfer I recently experimented again with PDN and on the second try found a color that prints with much less graininess than anything I had previously managed to get with QTR. Perhaps I was just unlucky with the QTR adventure but my suspicion is that the driver itself is much more prone to graininess than the Epson driver. I would add that my efforts with QTR used Photo Black installed and focused primarily on producing a mostly neutral tone negative.

Sandy King

 

[pschwart]

My students use the HSL method + curves (that's what I teach) and most aren't competent enough to deal with QTR. Therefore "whether 1400 + OEM driver works or not" is an important information to me; I have three students waiting for my relatively low cost printer recommendation for making negatives for Cyanotype, Gum and Vandyke processes. (First two are easy, it's the last one that poses problems in terms of max UVA blocking capacity...)

Regards,
Loris.

I ordered a 1400 for monochrome printing, so I should be able to tell you this in the next week or two.

 

[piticu]

I would add that my efforts with QTR used Photo Black installed and focused primarily on producing a mostly neutral tone negative.

Why is that? I mean coloroured/tinted/not-neutral negative isn't the same as neutral one when it comes to using it?

 

[sanking]

Why is that? I mean coloroured/tinted/not-neutral negative isn't the same as neutral one when it comes to using it?

Neutral tone negatives look more like regular in-camera negatives than spectral density negatives and I find them easier to evaluate visually.

Also, I work with a UV densitometer to evaluate UV blocking. Some of the colors do not block as would be predicted by the densitometer.

Sandy King

 

[piticu]

I understood. Thank you for explaining it to me

 

[Loris Medici]

That would be very nice Philip.

Thanks,
Loris.

I ordered a 1400 for monochrome printing, so I should be able to tell you this in the next week or two.

 

[nze]

I use Claria ink on a r285 epson and I dont get good result with it. It don't block enough u.V. for palladium printing. It is usable for traditional cyano , gum and other processes.
I should try the Clay method to see if I get good result.

 

[franco]

I never did try it with the OEM driver. I am so sold on the QTR approach, that I just jumped right in and did the calibration process I normally run through with the QTR driver. I started having problems with the inks sliding off the pictorico when the load hit about 40-55% on all the colors, if that is any help. You might be able to get enough density by making a black using all colors, but that is just a guess.

I have been using the R260 with Claria inkset and have used both curves and QTR and have had decent results both ways for cyanotypes and van dykes. However, a printout of the QTR calibration chart with your process will really help you see what's going on. Anything over 50% ink load puddles...about 30% seems max when using all inks. Also, you will see what colors are doing all the work. The black and yellow do all the blocking... the other 4 colors are practically useless... maybe for shadow details if making a QTR profile. I think that contributes to the graininess if using this inkset with QTR... the black blocks, the others just filter. I am looking to experiment with a K3 inkset next and would expect better UV blocking contributions from the other inks for a smoother print... but won't know 'til I do the tests.

 

[Curt]

After reading this for the third time and searching the web for answers; what is the recommended Epson printer and ink set for Carbon and Pt/Pd digital negatives, from entry level to intermediate? I was looking at the 1400 then the older models and then started to look at the r800 and r1800, it seems that new models are coming out so fast that the ones written about are already new old stock and shown as discontinued on the Epson site. Is there a basic printer that will lay down an adequate ink load on Pictorico without flaws?

I want to start making digital negatives from my collection of 2 1/4 negatives to print on Pt and Carbon.

Thanks,
Curt

 

[sanking]

After reading this for the third time and searching the web for answers; what is the recommended Epson printer and ink set for Carbon and Pt/Pd digital negatives, from entry level to intermediate? I was looking at the 1400 then the older models and then started to look at the r800 and r1800, it seems that new models are coming out so fast that the ones written about are already new old stock and shown as discontinued on the Epson site. Is there a basic printer that will lay down an adequate ink load on Pictorico without flaws?

I want to start making digital negatives from my collection of 2 1/4 negatives to print on Pt and Carbon.

Thanks,
Curt

The Epson 3800.3880 is considered by many the #1 printer for making digital negatives for printing with alternative processes. However, if you don't need the 17" carriage size of the 3800/3880 you might consider the R1900. I know several alternative printers whose word I trust who get very good results with the Epson R1900 in palladium and carbon. The R1900 has a small ink drop size, does not band, and is able to print with adequate UV blocking for both palladium and carbon. I tried it myself some time ago but was not satisfied with the UV blocking but I tend to print carbon with very high DR negatives, log 2.8 or so, and at the time I simply could not find a way to get that kind of blocking from the R1900. But today with QTR and/or +Ink setting with the Epson driver using PDN I am pretty sure I could get the DR I need.

Epson has the R1900 listed now on their website with a rebate that gets you the printer for $400. If I were just getting into printing carbon or pt. with digital negatives the R1900 might be a good low cost alternative. One could save even more by buying a used model on ebay for $300 or so.

Sandy King

 

[pschwart]

The Epson 3800.3880 is considered by many the #1 printer for making digital negatives for printing with alternative processes. However, if you don't need the 17" carriage size of the 3800/3880 you might consider the R1900. I know several alternative printers whose word I trust who get very good results with the Epson R1900 in palladium and carbon. The R1900 has a small ink drop size, does not band, and is able to print with adequate UV blocking for both palladium and carbon. I tried it myself a few years back and was not satisfied with the UV blocking but I tend to print carbon with very high DR negatives, log 2.8 or so, and at the time I simply could not find a way to get that kind of blocking from the R1900. But today with QTR and/or +Ink setting with the Epson driver using PDN I am pretty sure I could get the DR I need.

Epson has the R1900 listed now on their website with a rebate that gets you the printer for $400. If I were just getting into printing carbon or pt. with digital negatives the R1900 might be a good low cost alternative. One could save even more by buying a used model on ebay for $200 or less.

Sandy King

I'm a big fan of the R1800. Mine can achieve > log 3.0 printing composite b&w with the native inks and the Epson driver. No colorized negs, no +ink, no QTR. The R1900 has an updated ink set, but I'd be surprised if it couldn't do the same. Unfortunately I don't have one to test. I own a 3800, but I don't think the negs are better and build quality is on a par with the 1800.
The biggest benefits are larger cartridges and built-in Ethernet. If one needs the 17" carriage, it is a pretty good deal if purchased refurbished.