Epson 4800 - using QTR for diginegs?

seans · Jul 26, 2007

Hi all,
I have a chance to buy a brand new 4800 in the box for $1000. It's not "hot" just an erroneous purchase by a business friend.

I was wondering if...

Is the quality of digi neg from a 3800 that much better than a 4800 to justify spending the $200 more for a 3800?

Has anyone done a QTR profile on a 4800 they would mind sharing to get me started for calibration?

I would appreciate any thoughts on this - thank you!
Sean

donbga · Jul 26, 2007

seans said:
Hi all,
I have a chance to buy a brand new 4800 in the box for $1000. It's not "hot" just an erroneous purchase by a business friend.

I was wondering if...

Is the quality of digi neg from a 3800 that much better than a 4800 to justify spending the $200 more for a 3800?

Has anyone done a QTR profile on a 4800 they would mind sharing to get me started for calibration?

I would appreciate any thoughts on this - thank you!
Sean

IMO, yes the 3800 is a better purchase. It doesn't support roll media though. However, the inkjet technolgy is more advanced than the 4800 and the inkset is capable of producing high quality negatives for most alt processes, probably all depending on how the negatives are made. The results that I've seen first hand are quite impressive.

I think some folks are even using the Advanced BW mode to produce digital negatives which is something I don't think has been widely discussed if at all here or on other sites.

Don

seans · Jul 27, 2007

Don Bryant said:
IMO, yes the 3800 is a better purchase.

I think some folks are even using the Advanced BW mode to produce digital negatives which is something I don't think has been widely discussed if at all here or on other sites.

Don

Don
Thanks for your thoughts. Interesting point about the ABW - I will have to give it a try.
Since it has no roller - I assume folks purchase the 17" wide roll and cut what they need - as there are no 17" sheets of OHP?

Thanks again - appreciate the insights
Sean

donbga · Jul 27, 2007

seans said:
Don
Thanks for your thoughts. Interesting point about the ABW - I will have to give it a try.
Since it has no roller - I assume folks purchase the 17" wide roll and cut what they need - as there are no 17" sheets of OHP?

Thanks again - appreciate the insights
Sean

Yes, folks are cutting sheets from rolls or purchasing this product.

http://www.digitalartsupplies.com/newtranfilm.html

Don

seans · Jul 27, 2007

Don Bryant said:
Yes, folks are cutting sheets from rolls or purchasing this product.

http://www.digitalartsupplies.com/newtranfilm.html

Don

Don - thank you!!
Sean

rogein · Jul 28, 2007

Don Bryant said:
Yes, folks are cutting sheets from rolls or purchasing this product.

http://www.digitalartsupplies.com/newtranfilm.html

Don

Don,

Would you know how this compares to Pictorico's OHP?

Roger...

donbga · Jul 28, 2007

rogein said:
Don,

Would you know how this compares to Pictorico's OHP?

Roger...

Roger,

I've not used the product, but I have a friend in NC that uses it with her Epson 3800. According to her it is comporable to the Pictorico.

Don

donbga · Jul 29, 2007

seans said:
Hi all,
I have a chance to buy a brand new 4800 in the box for $1000. It's not "hot" just an erroneous purchase by a business friend.

I was wondering if...

Is the quality of digi neg from a 3800 that much better than a 4800 to justify spending the $200 more for a 3800?

Has anyone done a QTR profile on a 4800 they would mind sharing to get me started for calibration?

I would appreciate any thoughts on this - thank you!
Sean

I just noticed the announce ment of the new Epson 4880 which uses the same head technology found in the 3800. See the comparison of the 7800 vs the 7880 below. Could be that the 4880 might be as good for digital negatives as the 3800 has been shown to be.

seans · Jul 29, 2007

Don Bryant said:
I just noticed the announce ment of the new Epson 4880 which uses the same head technology found in the 3800. See the comparison of the 7800 vs the 7880 below. Could be that the 4880 might be as good for digital negatives as the 3800 has been shown to be.

Don - thanks for the update. I have ordered a 3800 based on the advice of folks in the forum - but great to see there is a path to the next size up!

Anyone have a 3800 QTR profile for digneg they would mind sharing to get me started?

thanks!

Sean

donbga · Jul 29, 2007

seans said:
Don - thanks for the update. I have ordered a 3800 based on the advice of folks in the forum - but great to see there is a path to the next size up!

Anyone have a 3800 QTR profile for digneg they would mind sharing to get me started?

thanks!

Sean

Sean,

You might try this one Clay gave up for the 2200:

http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=411

Of course you will have to do a little editing to get it to be recognized by QTR as a profile/curve for the 3800.

Don

donbga · Jul 29, 2007

Don Bryant said:
Sean,

You might try this one Clay gave up for the 2200:

http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=411

Of course you will have to do a little editing to get it to be recognized by QTR as a profile/curve for the 3800.

Don

I will also add that the ink limits used in the 2200 profile may not be appropriate for use with the 3800. For that mater the whole file maybe off!

But starting with an established QTR profile/curve is usually better than starting from scratch. Try it and see.

Don

wiz · Aug 4, 2007

I saw that Epson example, and was truly amazed at how bad the old printers become, as soon as a new one is launched.

It reminds me of the way Cyclomate was found to be dangerous about the time its patent expired and Sacharin was ready to launch, then when Sacharin's patent neared end of life, it became cancerous and Aspertame (Nutrisweet) was launched, then Aspertame neared the end of its patent life and it became evil, needing to be replaced by Splenda.

I bet if an actual user makes prints from both machines, the results won't echo the Epson demonstration.

donbga · Aug 4, 2007

wiz said:
I saw that Epson example, and was truly amazed at how bad the old printers become, as soon as a new one is launched.

It reminds me of the way Cyclomate was found to be dangerous about the time its patent expired and Sacharin was ready to launch, then when Sacharin's patent neared end of life, it became cancerous and Aspertame (Nutrisweet) was launched, then Aspertame neared the end of its patent life and it became evil, needing to be replaced by Splenda.

I bet if an actual user makes prints from both machines, the results won't echo the Epson demonstration.

The difference in the printed output with the new prints heads is very noticible without a side by side comparison. But that's just not my opinion, others have noticed it also.

Don Bryant

Epson 4800 - using QTR for diginegs?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency