Getting back into it, looking for advice

[Doc W]

I am mainly a b&w wet darkroom kind of guy, but I did scan and print colour negative up to a few years ago. I could never get all the calibration right, but I am going to take another run at it. I have an Epson 4870 which is old, but still working. I will need a new printer, a calibration device, some software, and possibly a scanner (or at least scanner software). I use the original Epson software that came with the scanner and also PS Elements 2. I am assuming that there are much better options out there now.

I shoot colour negative in 6x7 and 4x5 (occasionally 8x10, but the Epson 4870 will not scan 8x10 negatives). My previous printer was an Epson R800 which I liked but it eventually got too gummed up, from infrequent use. I don't need to print any larger than about 8x10. If I need really large prints, I just get the lab to do it. I also don't shoot tons of colour and will be using the printer mainly for family and community photos but would still like really good quality prints since I will also be doing more serious artistic prints as well.

Any suggestions on printers, scanners, calibrators, or software?

 

[Alan Klein]

Epson 700

 

[jeffreyg]

I may be totally wrong but I am assuming that your 4870 won't scan an 8x10 negative because the top clear space (I don't know the correct term) that the film holders leave open is covered. Try making a mask from black mat board that duplicates the configuration of the other standard film holders. If that does the trick you save some $.

HOME

 

[Doc W]

Jeffrey, the problem is the scanning area is too narrow so it leaves off the sides, not the top. I am not that concerned about scanning 8x10 colour neg because I don't do a lot of that so spending the extra bucks on a scanner that will is probably not worth it for me.

Has anyone got into this recently? I did some net research and there is just so much out there, I don't know where to start.

 

[L Gebhardt]

The Epson V750 is slightly better than the 4870 and will scan 8x10. I have a drum scanner I use for final scans, but the 4870 that I have is adequate for negative film with small enlargements. My 4870 is about a 2000ppi scanner, so you can get about a 6X enlargement out of it with good quality. That should be enough for 8x10 use, and it's not too expensive.

I use an Epson 3880 and I'm very happy with the quality. I sometimes wish for a larger printer, but not enough to want to buy one. Even if you wish to stick with 8x10 prints I think the 3880 is a good choice for you. The ink is cheaper than on the smaller printers, the size isn't that much more, and with the current rebate and the volume of ink the cost of the actual printer can be very low. Atlex has it for $1129 with free shipping, and a $250 rebate. Factoring out the cost of the ink the printer in under $400. The Epson 3000 is another good choice, but factoring out the cost of it's ink the printer is the same price as the bigger 3380. And then the ink costs will be more per print.

The ColorMunki works well for both screen and print calibration.

I use Photoshop and Lightroom.

Those are my recommendations, at least for now.

 

[Pioneer]

I am very much an amateur and spend a lot of my time learning to do things.

Right now I am using Photoshop and Lightroom (to catalog), but I am far from an expert with either package. I scan with a Plustek 7600 and an Epson V500. I calibrate an Eizo monitor with a Datacolor Spyder. When I print color I use my old HP Deskjet most of the time because it is very inexpensive and puts out very good work prints. When I want to print something larger or in black and white I use a Canon Pixma Pro 100. The dye ink tends to put up with occasional use better than pigment ink.

That is the digital side. Good luck.

 

[Doc W]

Thanks for all of this, folks. Very helpful.

Larry, could you explain again your reasoning on the cost of the 3000 vs the 3880? The 3000 is a lot closer to my budget.

It looks like the old 4870 is still working fine and the original scanning software also seems to be ok. Will I have problems trying to get everything in synch (calibration)? I have a pretty generic Philips 222E monitor. Will that suffice? It also looks to me that Lightroom will do the job in terms of colour correction etc. I don't do a lot of fancy stuff. If it isn't in the negative in the first place, I hate wrestling with it (same with the wet darkroom).

 

[L Gebhardt]

Thanks for all of this, folks. Very helpful.

Larry, could you explain again your reasoning on the cost of the 3000 vs the 3880? The 3000 is a lot closer to my budget.

It looks like the old 4870 is still working fine and the original scanning software also seems to be ok. Will I have problems trying to get everything in synch (calibration)? I have a pretty generic Philips 222E monitor. Will that suffice? It also looks to me that Lightroom will do the job in terms of colour correction etc. I don't do a lot of fancy stuff. If it isn't in the negative in the first place, I hate wrestling with it (same with the wet darkroom).

Doc, my reasoning is based on the fact that each printer ships with full ink cartridges (but some of the ink is used to prime the lines so the first ones yield fewer prints than the subsequent ones). If you subtract the cost of those ink cartridges bought separately you get a price for the hardware alone. If you do that each printer comes out within a few dollars when bought at Atlex with the current rebates.

3880
[table="width: 500"]

Atlex Price
[td="align: right"]$1,129.00[/td]


Rebate
[td="align: right"]-$250.00[/td]


Ink (9 carts)
[td="align: right"]-$480.51[/td]


Cost of Printer Body
[td="align: right"]$397.49[/td]

[/table]

3000
[table="width: 500"]

Atlex Price
[td="align: right"]$749.00[/td]


Rebate
[td="align: right"]-$150.00[/td]


Ink (9 carts)
[td="align: right"]-$238.50[/td]


Cost of Printer Body
[td="align: right"]$360.50[/td]

[/table]

Then going forward the 3880 replacement ink cartridges cost less per ml of ink, so the 3880 will be cheaper in the long run. This is based on a print from each using the same amount of ink; that's a simplification, but it will be very close.

3880 ink is $53.39 for 80ml, or $0.67 per ml
3000 ink is $26.50 for 25.9ml, or $1.02 per ml

So each print from the 3000 will cost ~50% more in ink than the same print from the 3880.

I find an 8x10 print uses about .8ml, as a point of reference.

Also, with the smaller cartridges you need to change them more often. Each time you change them it takes a small bit of ink from all the remaining ones as it primes the lines. Epson certainly doesn't give any options to minimize ink usage.

 

[Doc W]

Larry, thanks so much for putting the effort into explaining this. Much appreciated. I think I am going to go for the 3880, mainly because of the cost of ink which, I recall, was always painful.

 

[pschwart]

I will be the voice of dissent. A 17" printer like the Epson 38xx may be overkill for 8x10. I have a 3800 but often use an Epson 2000, 1800, and 1400 for my smaller prints. Jon Cone has color pigment and dye ink sets that work well in these printers and can save you even more money. I also use Piezography inks in the 1400 and it makes excellent b&w prints. Reasons you might want to consider a 38xx: used by many for digital negatives so a lot of support available if you are considering this; supports Advanced Black & White (ABW) which makes nice b&w out-of-the-box (but also available in some 13" Epsons).
The 38xx looks like a small printer in the store, but wait til you get it home -- it consumes a lot of real estate. I had to put mine in the garage and submit print jobs over the network.
I think the cost of ink is important, but it's usually not the whole story when deciding on a printer.
Also consider: if you switch frequently between photo and matte black, a printer like the 38xx that does not have both channels active can cost time and $$$ -- the switch can consume from 1.5ml to 4ml and take 3+ minutes.