how do I get "natural" looking prints?

[robsteve]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In regards to inkjet printing, does the relative humidy affect the results? I would assume it would.

 

In other words, are the profiles only accurate at the temperature and relative humidity in which they were created. I don't know about the rest here, but I tend to come back to printing in the winter and here the relative humidity can be below 20% in the winter.

[Jamie Roberts]

In regards to inkjet printing, does the relative humidy affect the results? I would assume it would.

 

In other words, are the profiles only accurate at the temperature and relative humidity in which they were created. I don't know about the rest here, but I tend to come back to printing in the winter and here the relative humidity can be below 20% in the winter.

 

Rob--I have similar problems in Ontario. Summertime humidity is often unbearable; winter time when it's -20 C and despite the humidifier it's dry here.

 

I haven't noticed any colour shift whatsoever due to humidity differences. However, my 4000 needs to be turned off in summer (capped) and left on in winter not to clog. The printer is terribly sensitive to humidity, evidently!

[xrogers]

The print workflows described above look excellent.

By the way, my b&w prints do liek quit neutral. Its my color prints which have "no life" sometimes

In one message, you stated that you were running matte black ink. If you're using photo black ink at the right times, you can just ignore most of what I've written...

 

You said that you were happy with matte paper results, but didn't like the color prints on semigloss. Unless I missed something, that's the heart of the problem. Semigloss and gloss papers all (at least all I've used) require photo black ink, and look exactly how you describe when printed with matte black (dull, lifeless, gray, pasty, etc.).

 

I peeked online, and the paper you reference does require photo black, so the manufacturer's profile will be for photo black. You're not likely to be happy with this paper (or any glossier paper, like that beautiful fine art pearl) until you're running photo black ink.

 

It is awfully expensive to switch ink on the 7600, and although with photo black the 7600 will look far better, it will still show a fair bit of bronzing. Your idea to get a 2400 for glossy surfaces is excellent.

 

I am evaluating now if I should get a rip.

Don't bother with a RIP until you're running the right ink, it won't make nearly the difference the ink will.

 

Also, those of you who went from k2 to k3 inks - how much of a change did this make ?

Like Jamie, I see no appreciable difference between K2 and K3 on matte paper with matte black ink (keep using the 7600 for that, it is a fantastic printer). For semigloss and gloss papers, however, the K3 is markedly better. K2 bronzes like mad, and K3 hardly at all. Also, if you're happy with black and white now, you'll likely be thrilled with it using the K3 inks.

 

I hope you get your problem sorted.

 

Clyde Rogers

[tom0511]

Clyde,

I apolegize, I just went back to my printer and checked and found out that I do use Photo black. I had not switched for long time and thought that I would still use matte black.

I will experiment with adobe vs srgb, I want so see if I can check a rip and how it works and I might get this R2400 soon if I can not improve the quality of my semigloss prints on the 7600.

Regards, Tom

[Jamie Roberts]

Tom--the biggest change you can make is using a better paper (I assume you're using Epson Premium Lustre or something similar, which is a good paper but bronzes quite a bit).

 

Again, I'd check out the H. fine art pearl. It will cost a bit, but it's less than replacing your printer. On the other hand, 2400s are getting cheaper

 

I'd also wait till after PMA in the states to buy anything from Epson; who knows what they've got coming?

[tom0511]

Tom--the biggest change you can make is using a better paper (I assume you're using Epson Premium Lustre or something similar, which is a good paper but bronzes quite a bit).

 

Again, I'd check out the H. fine art pearl. It will cost a bit, but it's less than replacing your printer. On the other hand, 2400s are getting cheaper

 

I'd also wait till after PMA in the states to buy anything from Epson; who knows what they've got coming?

 

Jamie,

yes , I should try the H. fina art pearl.

[xrogers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Okay, if you're running the right ink and getting lifeless results (but are happy with your photo rag results), the most likely culprits are a workflow problem, a bad profile, or a paper that doesn't satisfy you. I'm with Jamie, you need to try a different paper with a known good generic profile. The fine art pearl would be excellent, as would most any high quality semigloss paper.

 

The Imageprint RIP is fantastic for the 7600, but if you're already happy with your matte results, I'd be hesitant. Matte is where the 7600 shines, and getting a RIP to improve gloss results doesn't make sense to me---you'll spend a lot, and improve color and depth, but you'll be stuck with bronzing. Compare K2 and K3 gloss prints straight out of the printer, and I think you'll be surprised at how much better the K3 prints look. Even with the color nailed, you won't be happy with K2 gloss anymore. A 2400 costs less than the RIP, and a full inkset costs less than switching blacks in a 7600.

 

The only way I got happy with K2 gloss was to spray the prints---this defeats the bronzing, and also eliminates any gloss differential. Sprayed gloss prints done with the Imageprint RIP are pretty much indistinguishable from K3 prints. But if you don't want to spray (I don't), I doubt you'll be really happy with gloss papers until you're using a newer inkset.

 

Good luck,

 

Clyde Rogers

[gogopix]

if you really want a 'photo' only a dye sub will get it

inkjets produces fantasitic images on paper, but they are NOT like photos.

 

the only difference between dye sub and chemical photos is that the dye is chemically transferred in 'wet process' and thermally transferred in the dye sublimation process.

 

the Kodak 1500 1nd 1400 or the discontinued 8660,I use the latter. It produces up to 8x12 on kodak photo paper.

 

There are fuji machines ($4-6,000) that I believe will go up to 18"" and of course some labs can get up to 30x40 inch

 

Otherwise, an inkjet is just that; an inkjet, not a photo (which is continuous tone)

 

I am sure many will jump on me, but please undrstand, the inkjets are great, they just look like inkjets

 

:-)

[Jamie Roberts]

@ Clyde--I do spray any prints I'm selling or providing to customers.

 

And you're absolutely right on all the other points.

 

I like Premiere Art PrintShield, because it's water based and less horribly toxic than the rest But any lightfast colour-safe varnish will do, actually. I see you've been down this path...

 

@ Viktor--I've used dye subs, and they're very good. The newer inkjets from Epson (K3) and the very latest Canon and HPs, though, on the right paper, look to my eyes much more like photos printed on real fibre-based papers than any dye-sub I've ever seen, including the Kodaks (which are nice printers). The problem is that 'typical RC paper photos' was never a look I particularly liked anyway.

 

For truly "photographic" looking results, the wet processed silver-based Durst digital stuff (like a Lambda) is far and away the very best I've ever seen in terms of dynamic range, colour gamut and tonality.

[woodyspedden]

Tom:

 

This may not be the answer you want, but I have found I get much better looking prints by editing in Photoshop with a clibrated monitor, saving my images to a memory card and taking them to a minilab that prints on photographic paper. It is also a lot cheaper in the end than using my Epson. I only use the Epson for the larger scenic type prints, but still I am not completely happy with them. The inkjets still don't have the Gamut of a photographic print.

 

It may also be that we are lucky here with three or four good spots to get prints done. I go to a mini lab at a drug store, but the lab manager has a degree in fine art and colour theory. Prior to her, the manager came from a regional professional Kodak lab that closed in town a few years ago. The quality is out there in mini-labs, you just have to find it.

 

The prints are also cheap, with an 8x12 on Fuji Chrstal Archive costing $1.99. The smaller 4x6 are 15 cents. I can't do a head cleaning on my Epson that cheap. Plus, if I don't like the prints they make, they do them again. The redo's with inkjets can bring your cost up a lot.

 

Robert

 

Rob

 

As always you have a perspective that is a little off the norm that we conventionally see. I don't know if you are correct but I sure want to find out. If you are correct, then we now have a process for getting low cost/high quality prints that doesn't depend on each and every one of us buying the latest and greatest Epson printer released in the past month.

 

I will post what I discover as I try to replicate what you have found

 

In advance I thank you

 

Woody Spedden