Recommendations for 8.5" x 11" printers for B+W digital negatives

[Ulf Axmacher]

Hi,

I am currently using a cheap-o Epson ET-2720 inkjet printer to make digital negatives. With constant coaxing, tweaking, print head cleaning and alignment, I can get fairly decent digital negatives for printing cyanotypes. However, it is a very hit and miss process, and I'm tired of wasting expensive transparency film. In particular, my printer sometimes adds a horizontal striped artifact, as seen in this detail:

Before I buy a new printer, I would appreciate your recommendations. I only need to print 8 1/2" x 11" negatives. I would like the printer to be fairly low cost, but artifact-free with a reasonably linear tonal range. Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance,
Ulf

 

[TruNeg]

Hi
I use a Canon Pixma iP8760 A3+ which has two black and one grey ink (+YMC) which has performed perfectly for making negatives with my TruNeg digital negative program. See post October 1.

My only issue is that the ink cartridges are a bit small but overall I find very good value.

 

[koraks]

See post October 1.

And here's the one: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-scanning-or-special-printer-profiles.202084/
Thanks so much for the clear writeup!

 

[Ulf Axmacher]

Hi
I use a Canon Pixma iP8760 A3+ which has two black and one grey ink (+YMC) which has performed perfectly for making negatives with my TruNeg digital negative program. See post October 1.

My only issue is that the ink cartridges are a bit small but overall I find very good value.

Thank you, TruNeg. I found the US equivalent is the Canon iP8720. It gets good reviews, and is reasonably priced.

Question: Have you used your iP8760 for making regular B+W prints on paper? If so, I'd be interested in the quality of the prints, particularly how neutral the blacks and grays are. Do they have the usual purple/green cast?

Many thanks!
Ulf

 

[TruNeg]

I purchased the ip8760 to make digital negatives for carbon printing and have only looked at paper prints briefly. The Canon iP8700 series GL3 profile is very warm and consistent across the tones. There are several other profiles that come with the printer which may be more neutral.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

You might consider the Epson P700. The printer is a big step up from what you are using now. Most important for your application, the Epson inks are great at blocking UV light, and are easily controlled for printing digital negatives using QuadToneRIP. And there is a large community of people making digital negatives with Epson printers and QTR, so you benefit from the support that being a part of that ecosystem provides.

If you are feeding it 16-bit files, you should not see banding with the P700. In my experience (I have its larger clone, the P900) the P700 has not had the kinds of clogged printhead issues of earlier Epson printers. Their paper path, I have found, is a weak point but Epson is responsive and will replace affected machines.

For B+W prints, the P700 has an “advanced black & white” mode. I have used it a few times and have found it to make B+W prints free of color shifts. But I have not used it extensively for this purpose and others might have different experiences.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

and I'm tired of wasting expensive transparency film.

Off topic, but have you looked into Fixxons films? Their “Waterproof Positive Film for Silk Screen” performs near-identically to Pictorico, at a fraction of the cost.

https://www.fixxons.com/waterproof-film

Fixxons also sells a “negative film” for a lot more money. I have used both and I cannot tell a difference so I have stuck with the cheaper version.

 

[koraks]

Off topic, but have you looked into Fixxons films? Their “Waterproof Positive Film for Silk Screen” performs near-identically to Pictorico, at a fraction of the cost.

And then there is generic screen printing film which performs similarly to Fixxons for most purposes, at a fraction of the cost of Fixxons. It'll hold more than enough ink for cyanotype negatives. Only with processes that require huge density (salted paper, carbon under certain printing conditions), Fixxons or Pictorico have a major advantage in how they handle very high ink loads. For processes like cyano, Van Dyke etc. the screen printing stuff is plenty good enough.

 

[fgorga]

Another "vote" for generic screen printing film. This is all I use these days; even for salted paper.

Specifically, I have been using stuff from Amazon. Apparently I can't link directly to a product on Amazon. Therefore, search for "Waterproof Inkjet Transparency Film for Silk Screen Printing". The brand is "GoldUpUSAInc".

I print with an Epson P800 using MK ink.

 

[TruNeg]

Getting back to the printer question, in defence of the (much) cheaper Canon iP8760, the inks have perfectly adequate opacity for my carbon prints and the Gold Street Cyanotype kit on Pictorico film. Absolutely no banding or any sign of nozzle clogging even if unused for days and the 1 picolitre droplet size is hard to beat. Film feed has been without any problems.

 

[revdoc]

Getting back to the printer question, in defence of the (much) cheaper Canon iP8760, the inks have perfectly adequate opacity for my carbon prints and the Gold Street Cyanotype kit on Pictorico film. Absolutely no banding or any sign of nozzle clogging even if unused for days and the 1 picolitre droplet size is hard to beat. Film feed has been without any problems.

What kind of UV dmax are you getting?

 

[TruNeg]

I am getting a Dmax of 1.31 on the cyanotype measured with a Datacolor Spectro

 

[koraks]

I am getting a Dmax of 1.31 on the cyanotype measured with a Datacolor Spectro

I think @revdoc means what kind of UV transmission density you get on your inkjet negatives. I'm also curious.

 

[TruNeg]

I think @revdoc means what kind of UV transmission density you get on your inkjet negatives. I'm also curious.

I do not have a transmission densitometer so I cannot say, however a negative RGB value of 8, and probably up to 11 or 12, holds a clean white with an exposure time that gives a Dmax through Pictorico clear film of 1.31.

 

[koraks]

Okay, thanks. Sadly, this doesn't say much because classic cyanotype is a very short-scaled process and virtually any printer will easily yield more than enough density for this purpose. Things get a little more tricky when longer-scaled processes are targeted like salted paper, new cyanotype and carbon transfer (but the latter under certain conditions will also work with short-scaled negatives). While classic cyanotype will work fine with negatives with a density range of something like 1.20 logD, processes like new cyanotype and salted paper work best with negatives north of 2.10 logD or so. That's a lot more density, and a taller order for a printer. I think this is also why @revdoc inquired.

 

[revdoc]

Yes, really all that matters is how much UV the printer inks can block. 2.1 is the minimum I need for VDB.

@TrueNeg, I use a Stouffer step wedge to estimate this. If you don't have one, they're quite cheap to buy and easy to use.

 

[TruNeg]

Thanks revdoc and koraks. I suppose its about horses for courses. My interest in all this started with carbon printing for which the iP8760 has performed admirably with my TruNeg negatives and have never had the need to examine the UV opacity of the negative other than its adequacy to achieve a black and a white. It would be interesting to know, I have looked up the Stouffer step wedge but am unsure whether the one on the Agave web site is actually a density step wedge. Do you have a spec for one.

 

[revdoc]

I use the T2115 wedge, which is probably the most widely used. It's 5"x0.5" and has 21 steps in increments of 0.15.

I just print it with whichever process I'm working with. The test print below shows that this digital test grid maxes out at about step 10, which corresponds to a log density of 1.5. (In fact, the white on the test grid is a little fogged, so not even 1.5.)

 

[TruNeg]

Thanks, I will be interested to see how the Canon printer handles it. I have also just ordered a salt print kit to see if my printer can handle it.

 

[Derek Lofgreen]

@TruNeg Did you ever get to test your printer for salt prints? I have been eyeing the same printer you have for doing some negs for salt printing but wondered about the ink density also.

Thanks,
D.

 

[TruNeg]

The ink density is fairly low and not good enough for salt or Van Dyke Brown. But I have tested a run around solution on a Van Dyke Brown of using an old photographic technique of a contrast control mask. I simply printed two negatives with registration marks, aligned and sandwiched them together. A quick check with my home made light meter densitometer indicated a 2/3 of a stop increase of exposure on Pictorico for a good Dmax.
I have attached the result which suggests that this is now too contrasty but I believe the idea shows lots of promise. Adds to cost of film and ink but saves capitol outlay if only doing a few prints.
No sign of double image though a little bleed around the black type was evident before I sharpened the scan. Another thing I have just picked up is if the negative is at 450 pixels/inch the speckling is significantly reduced.

 

[revdoc]

Which inks are you using for your negs? Black, CMY, or a combination?

I ask because some printers work better with some combinations of these, but not others. Paper settings also make a difference.

 

[TruNeg]

The iP8760 has very limited ink settings however I have never found the need to explore the colour ink options. When Photoshop Manages the color with the printer profile Cannon iP8700 series GL3 I get a very warm toned print/neg with the Grayscale option ticked in the print settings.

These settings give me the contrast I need for my TruNeg negs to make carbon and cyanotype prints but would suggest without using the contrast control mask mentioned above Van Dyke brown or salt prints are out of the question.

 

[nmp]

The iP8760 has very limited ink settings however I have never found the need to explore the colour ink options. When Photoshop Manages the color with the printer profile Cannon iP8700 series GL3 I get a very warm toned print/neg with the Grayscale option ticked in the print settings.

These settings give me the contrast I need for my TruNeg negs to make carbon and cyanotype prints but would suggest without using the contrast control mask mentioned above Van Dyke brown or salt prints are out of the question.

How do you layer the 2 negatives - emulsion to emulsion facing each other but having a gap to the paper or emulsions facing same way with one in direct contact with paper?

 

[TruNeg]

They were printed the same and laid one on top of the other. This puts the thickness of one film between each image which was the practice when using contrast control masks on transparencies when printing Cibachromes.