Epson print or 8x10 camera

Donald Qualls · Apr 29, 2025

koraks said:
I don't see how adding more channels to the mix would help any. That's just not the limiting factor.

From my limited reading, the major limiting factor is the opacity of the ink at normal application levels, as well as its UV absorption profile (the dyes in regular ink may not look the same in UV as in visible light). Ink with opaque nanoparticles at high density per droplet would be the densest -- but of course one is limited to what's compatible with the printer in use.

koraks · Apr 29, 2025

Donald Qualls said:
From my limited reading, the major limiting factor is the opacity of the ink at normal application levels

That's really not the problem for most processes if you're using Epson Matte black ink or something similar, with which you can easily hit logD 2.5 and higher. There are also very, very effective UV blocking dye-based inks (>3.0 logD) that can be 'plugged into' any printer that uses refillable cartridges.

The problem is not so much that the blocking ability is too limited (which it can be on some dye-based printer systems, but that's a different matter). The challenge is getting good tonality without posterization, coarse grain-like patterns and an overall 'rough' look to the image.

In online writings the issue is often smashed flat into one of covering power. There are still many dye-based printing systems around that indeed offer very limited UV covering power, or transmission density in general. However, pigment-based printing systems have been used for digital negative creation for well over 15 years now, so the covering power problem was basically overcome long ago - provided you have the willingness and budget to buy into the technology. This leaves the real challenges, which are not about raw covering power at all, but 'simply' about getting good prints. If you compare prints made from in-camera silver gel negatives to prints made with digital inkjet negatives, it's really quite challenging to get the same impression of smooth tonality on the latter. The same fine detail rendering is out of the question to begin with since inkjet just doesn't come close to the resolving power of silver gel film, but you have to look pretty up close & personal at a print to be able to see that. The tonality problem is much more profound, especially on processes that are inherently capable of very smooth gradations like most of the metal-based processes on fine-textured or smooth surfaces and processes like carbon transfer.

Donald Qualls · Apr 29, 2025

Makes sense -- the subtle change across a sky can turn into 3-4 bands even on a screen, never mind after printing to an inkjet negative and then to an alt-process print.

Another point for enlarged negatives if the budget won't carry an 8x10 camera and ancillary equipment (lenses, tripod, film holders, film, developing equipment, etc.).

koraks · Apr 29, 2025

Donald Qualls said:
Makes sense -- the subtle change across a sky can turn into 3-4 bands even on a screen, never mind after printing to an inkjet negative and then to an alt-process print.

Exactly, and it's even worse if you try to create those subtle gradations from small dots of ink with very high opacity. It's a bit like creating a smoothly polished marble statue using a jackhammer.

Donald Qualls · Apr 29, 2025

koraks said:
create those subtle gradations from small dots of ink with very high opacity.

Well, that's related to why inkjet prints in B&W are usually done with at least four different inks, from full black to pretty light gray (and, like silver gelatin prints bigger than 8x10, not really intended to be viewed at nose print distance). But it's still an issue.

jeffreyg · Apr 29, 2025

I’ve been making pt/pd prints for some time now getting quite nice results from 4x5HP5 especially developed in pmk pyro, enlarged negatives from Delta 400 120 on to dental X-ray duplicating film as well as Pictorico (with my 3880) with the Pictorico I make a tritone that mimics the pyro. Just happen to like the look of the pt/pd prints from that.
The convenient thing about the digital negatives is that if you see something to change after a test print it’s easy to go back to the computer and make a new negative during the same session. While there may be subtle differences between prints from film and digital they don’t detract from a well made interesting print.
It all works well and boils down to personal preferences.

koraks · Apr 29, 2025

Donald Qualls said:
Well, that's related to why inkjet prints in B&W are usually done with at least four different inks, from full black to pretty light gray (and, like silver gelatin prints bigger than 8x10, not really intended to be viewed at nose print distance). But it's still an issue.

This puts us back at we're back at where I started off in #25! I considered giving the background that we just now explored right away, but decided against it because it would get kind of long.

MTGseattle · Apr 29, 2025

I'm still slightly shocked that Epson ships the p700 and p900 with an "initial set" of inks that don't appear to contain the same amount of ink as the next set one has to purchase. I didn't do a ton of comparison shopping, but a P700 and full 10 color suite of inks looks to be $1k.

bdial · Apr 30, 2025

FWIW, I bought a P700 last year, and while I don’t do a ton of printing, I have a pretty big stack of prints, along with some negatives, and I’ve only needed to change 1 cartridge so far. I expected it to need a lot more.

Robert Poole · Apr 30, 2025

jeffreyg said:
I’ve been making pt/pd prints for some time now getting quite nice results from 4x5HP5 especially developed in pmk pyro, enlarged negatives from Delta 400 120 on to dental X-ray duplicating film as well as Pictorico (with my 3880) with the Pictorico I make a tritone that mimics the pyro. Just happen to like the look of the pt/pd prints from that.
The convenient thing about the digital negatives is that if you see something to change after a test print it’s easy to go back to the computer and make a new negative during the same session. While there may be subtle differences between prints from film and digital they don’t detract from a well made interesting print.
It all works well and boils down to personal preferences.

Robert Poole · Apr 30, 2025

Like you, I make enlarged negatives for Pt-Pd and Chrysotypes (gold prints) via analogue routes, including the use of X-ray film. Colour transparencies can be projected directly on to the final film but for B/W negs, I use Ilford Ortho for the interpositive. Final prints are pin-sharp. I just prefer this to any digital intervention.

Donald Qualls · Apr 30, 2025

MTGseattle said:
Epson ships the p700 and p900 with an "initial set" of inks that don't appear to contain the same amount of ink as the next set one has to purchase.

This is the standard in the inkjet world. Your "cheap" new printer contains just enough ink to verify it works as it should, and then you'll pay more for ink cartridges than you did for the printer. Like buying a non-disposable razor for $8 and the (minimum quantity) 8-pack of blade cartridges costs $35. It's all about the consumables. Kodak ran this way for more than a century, but even they didn't start it. Ever heard of a couple guys named Gillette and Schick?

MTGseattle · May 8, 2025

I guess my print needs were so infrequent with my last 2 home inkjets, that I didn't notice the short initial ink life.

bdial said:
FWIW, I bought a P700 last year, and while I don’t do a ton of printing, I have a pretty big stack of prints, along with some negatives, and I’ve only needed to change 1 cartridge so far. I expected it to need a lot more.

That's a promising report.

MTGseattle · May 8, 2025

Donald Qualls said:
This is the standard in the inkjet world. Your "cheap" new printer contains just enough ink to verify it works as it should, and then you'll pay more for ink cartridges than you did for the printer. Like buying a non-disposable razor for $8 and the (minimum quantity) 8-pack of blade cartridges costs $35. It's all about the consumables. Kodak ran this way for more than a century, but even they didn't start it. Ever heard of a couple guys named Gillette and Schick?

I guess my print needs with my first 2 home office style inkjets were so infrequent I didn't really notice. The HP all-in-one we had for a bit didn't make it into a second set of inks. A clean cycle and the required test print after a cleaning cycle depleted the inks, and there was some type of bug that killed the document setting for "use black ink only." HP was no help. This was back in 2012-ish.
For black and white office type needs, we have an older 2nd hand Canon laser unit that is happily chugging along.

Donald Qualls · May 8, 2025

For common office printing, a laser is many times cheaper to feed and not much if any more expensive to buy these days.

qqphot · May 8, 2025

I will say that the P900 has happily surprised me with its tolerance of long periods of disuse. I tend to spend a few days making prints and then not printing for a month or more, and I've seen essentially no clogs, which is astonishing compared to how things were with its predecessor. It does not, however, come with a full set of inks - it includes enough to prime the quite substantial feed lines and head and do a decent sized stack of prints, though.

cirwin2010 · May 8, 2025

I think I've settled on going the printer route over a large format camera. Tried buying an Epson 3880 on FB marketplace, but none of the sellers have replied back to me

DREW WILEY · May 8, 2025

There are hybrid methods too, involving digitally enlarging your film shots onto larger digitally generated negatives for sake of UV contact prints. There's lots of information out there on that.

But I personally think there is something special about a direct optical contact print that inkjet printing can't even begin to compete with. Plus you can enlarge it optically too onto conventional silver gelatin paper.

8x10 film is getting expensive; but the bigger size in itself makes one most thoughtful about each exposure. I just unloaded all my 4x5 gear from the pack I wore yesterday, and put in the 8x10 kit for the next outing. Strange how that pack has gotten a lot heavier now that I'm over 75 than while I was still a 60 year old teenager carrying even more sheet film holders. Gravity is a function of time. But toting around 8x10 gear will keep you in shape. Make sure you have a serious tripod (= even more wt).

Looking into that bigger ground glass is quite a different experience than even 4x5 photography.
It's really a joy to have that big opalescent image right in front of you, even if you never take the shot itself.

I enlarge 8x10 film far more often than contact printing; but I can do either with my own negatives.
UV printing generally does better with "thicker" more exposed negatives; and not every film passes UV wavelengths well (TMax 100 doesn't). I contact onto regular silver papers like MGWT, which tones wonderfully (another reason inkjet is so disappointing by comparison).

Just follow your heart, and hope your wallet doesn't run empty. 8x10 isn't for machine-gunners.

Andrew O'Neill · May 8, 2025

I do whatever it takes to make an Alt print, be it 8x10 film contact, digital negative (which you can build in your dodge/burns). If you go they route, look for a refurbished P400. I've had mine for almost a decade, with refillable inks, with no issues... Keeping it analogue, you could enlarge your smaller negatives onto x-ray film and do the reversal thing, or just contact print the resulting positive into another sheet to get a negative. I've done the latter, and it works great. X-ray film is CHEAP!

Epson print or 8x10 camera

Donald Qualls

koraks

Moderator

Donald Qualls

koraks

Moderator

Donald Qualls

jeffreyg

koraks

Moderator

MTGseattle

bdial

Robert Poole

Robert Poole

Donald Qualls

MTGseattle

MTGseattle

Donald Qualls

qqphot

cirwin2010

DREW WILEY

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Epson print or 8x10 camera

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency