I need a small, quality printer for household and archival prints up to 11x14 inches at the largest, plus negative scaning.
Any suggestions, please.
Any suggestions, please.
You want a small printer and scanner with good quality?
There ain't no such thing.
At the least you are looking for a separate printer and scanner, and if you want decent quality you are just not going to get it from a printer with anything less than 6 inks
And archival means pigment inks.
I need a small, quality printer for household and archival prints up to 11x14 inches at the largest, plus negative scaning.
Any suggestions, please.
Any thoughts on using pigment ink on an affordable Ecotank printer? InkOwl has a pigment ink conversion kit for Epson Ecotank six ink printers. Has anyone here done such a conversion and have some experiences to share?
I'm not aware of any multi-function printer that will also scan negatives. Popular Epsons like the ET8550 do have a scanner, but only for reflective media.plus negative scaning.
Look e.g. here: https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/light-fade-test-results/I doubt whether the difference between pigment and dyes is so clear-cut. Maybe it's more marketing than based on hard facts.
Generally...What is a dye-based ink ?
You want a small printer and scanner with good quality?
There ain't no such thing.
At the least you are looking for a separate printer and scanner, and if you want decent quality you are just not going to get it from a printer with anything less than 6 inks
And archival means pigment inks.
To the best of my knowledge, the distinction between pigments and dyes in a (inkjet) printing context ultimately consists of the difference in water solubility. The distinction between mineral and organic molecules AFAIK applies to other domains than printing inks; e.g. artist's paints etc.Pigments - inorganic compounds (minerals, finely ground), insoluble
Certainly, although we need to realize that the statement is not reversible: archival inkjet requires pigments, but the use of a pigment ink set doesn't automatically mean the print will be archival. Indeed, the use of any old pigment ink set does not automatically mean the prints will be more stable than some dye-based inkjet prints. As indicated in my earlier post and as you can see in e.g. the Aardenburg tests, this is especially true for low-end pigment inks. I also use the InkOwl pigments, but I have doubts about how they compare to the real Epson Ultrachrome K3 inks that my printer was made for, in particular in terms of light-fastness. The fact that the inks are marketed as "compatible" doesn't say much about the stability of the colorants in the final print.And archival means pigment inks.
For decent B&W you need 3 channels at least, preferably with one or two additional channels for toning. It's in principle possible to take a 4-channel inkjet printer and hack it into a monochrome-only printer by dedicating all channels to monochrome and building profiles for it. It's certainly possible and not too difficult with e.g. QTR, but it requires some effort in selecting a suitable printer and ink set. The good news is that archival monochrome is a little easier than archival color due to the nature of the pigments used and especially the stability of carbon black, which is the backbone (but not necessarily sole colorant) of all black and grey inkjet ink.He said B&W. Do you need 6 inks for B&W?
You might try and write some angry letters to Epson, HP and Canon and perhaps your congressman, but I doubt it'll make much difference in how the manufacturers manage their product roadmaps or business models.Quality prints should be affordable and not so expensive that their very existence is the end all, be all, main monetary or technology value.
Quality prints should be affordable and not so expensive that their very existence is the end all, be all, main monetary or technology value.
I can't comment on a conversion, but the InkOwl inks are extremely good replacements for OEM inks.
I've been using them for 6 years.
I think there's plenty of room for skepticism. But there's also a need for nuance.My pigment printer has red and yellow ink. So far so good. But almost everyone knows that cars in the colors red and yellow do not exactly stay in color due to UV. Would those printer manufacturers have colorfast red and yellow pigments? And multi-million industry like the automotive industry not? I really don't believe what is promised about color fastness.
Pigmented inks to be sure, dyes are for temporary prints and as a painter, working in oils, wc, acrylic, etc, i am very aware of their limitations.
As to all in ones, there are commercial level and practical level for folks in most all makers and imm looking for something in the less than $500 price level.
I'm sure im not alone in demanding a manufacturing giant like Epson meet my needs without raiding my wallet of a month's salary, and I can come down from 11x14 digital inches to standard printer paper size of about 8x10, not for a museum wall or collection but a family or art league wall, where $1500 prints aren't called for.
Quality prints should be affordable and not so expensive that their very existence is the end all, be all, main monetary or technology value.
I think there's plenty of room for skepticism. But there's also a need for nuance.
Firstly, cars often spend their entire service life outside, depending on climate this can involve a considerable part of the time in full sunlight. Photos virtually never witness such conditions.
Secondly, pigment research isn't static; it's in full motion. I think we're all familiar with the red Mazda's etc. from the 1980s-1990s that we occasionally (rarely) on the roads today and that have faded to a gentle shade of pink that's inconsistent with the temperament of their youthful drivers. There may be better hope for the 2020s production red Teslas that are painted with other pigments, with different dispersion technology in a different paint vehicle.
Finally, there's the matter of how archival is archival. How fast is light? Well, at least 'c' is an absolute. But the question of what constitutes lightfast has a much more flexible answer.
I've been pondering questions like this myself of late.
1. Do I really need a printer when I have a functioning darkroom? The darkroom effectively shuts me off from my house, cats and wife while a printer and sitting at the computer has me "included" in the household. The darkroom requires about 30 min of setup, and 30min to 1 hour of cleanup (depending upon the resulting prints being keepers or not)
I have hundreds of sheets of photographic paper on hand. I have maybe 50 sheets of quality inkjet paper on hand.
2. Do I fuss about a warranty? If buying used, this is certainly a moot point.
3. There have been a number of 1 and 2 generation old Epson and Canon "pro" printers for sale lately, but I have balked at ink costs each and every time. If I am getting a formerly $800 dollar printer for $200 it would seem like the ink costs are a wash, but psychologically they are not.
4. The only favorable thing in this consideration process is that there have never been to my knowledge any HP printers worth considering in the photography space. I've had such bad HP luck, if they were the only option, I would pretend they didn't exist and go on about my life.
Would a budget minded, non-archival model (one of the eco tank or reservoir models) at least produce good enough quality and color fidelity to help decide if a given image was worth a bigger/better professional print? This applies more to color prints which is outside of what the OP had asked.
I'm sure that the inkjet prints that hang in my living room for more than a year have faded in color. Compared to a new print from the same printer of the same file. I don't mind.
They used to have/still have a foothold in the wide format printing game.4. The only favorable thing in this consideration process is that there have never been to my knowledge any HP printers worth considering in the photography space.
I think the x-ray film does quite poorly when you hold it against a computer monitor to try and make a negative from a digital file.with the cost of a quality printer and inks at about $50 per cartridge and Pictorico you might consider x-ray duplicating film.
I just think it's a strange concept that you can print the same photo a year later. And sometimes someone asks if they can have a copy of a print that hangs on my wall. After that, there may still be time for sudokusYeah, I can relate - and I wouldn't even know unless I'd print the same thing and put it side by side to systematically compare both. I'd sooner spend my days making sudokus, however.
I need a small, quality printer for household and archival prints up to 11x14 inches at the largest, plus negative scaning.
Any suggestions, please.
After that, there may still be time for sudokus
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?