Jump to content

Printer for Monochrom files


tedd

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi team,

This is a curiosity more than anything, though as someone who converts 90% of my files* to bnw I do pine for a Monochrom fairly regularly (likely a 246 to accompany my 240 and budget). I use a Canon PRO300 as my printer at home as I like to print my images for myself and for my family without having to go elsewhere for them. This printer does a pretty nice job. Considering it only has two blacks and one grey for mono "colours" would I actually see any advantage with a Monochrom over a regular old M converted files with this printer? I realise that I would with big professional prints, but that is a hugely rare occurrence for me. 

Keen for experiences here :) 

*not including family photos, which are more like 40% bnw

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tedd,

I have both the 240 and 246...  and shoot primarily B&W.  I can't articulate (explain why) but yes the 246 files are much easier to work with in post to do B&W prints on my Canon PRO 1000 than the 240.  I'm 95 percent using the 246 for that reason, instead of using the240 and converting to B&W.  That said, I think part of the reason is that I don't know/have a good understanding of the best way to convert color to B&W with the 240.  I think in doing so in LRC, I am throwing out important color information.  Maybe someone on the formum can give a good explanation... 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

The advantages of the monochrom are most visible in the higher resolution and better performance at high ISO. If you are using a small printer and cannot print larger than the native resolution of the files, you are unlikely to see any resolution differences (even then, I would imagine they don't really start to be that visible until about 60x90cm or larger). I would say that if you are shooting in higher ISOs, that is when you are most likely to see a difference in a small printer.

This is of course ignoring that having a different camera and different constraints on your workflow can make you a better or worse photographer. I happen to usually take better photos with my little Hexar AF 35mm camera than I do with my Leica rangefinders...I wish it were not the case, but it is. You may or may not be subject to this. From a technical side, however, I don't think you are likely to see huge differences at low ISOs with a small printer. Above 800 or 1600 it is another story. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to note here, to distinguish among printers, is to determine what type of ink they employ.

Many, likely most, of consumer-oriented photo printers are designed around dye-based ink sets. These produce vibrant color, but are known to be more prone to deterioration over time (such as color fading) than the alternative, which is a pigment-based ink system.

Pigment-based systems, on the plus side, are much less prone to fading and color shift over time, producing prints that can be considered archival in terms of longevity. The down side is that the printer mechanisms themselves, the tubing, the print heads, are much more prone to problems such as clogging, and require attention be paid to the manufacturer's recommendations regarding maintenance (tank agitation, head cleaning, etc). It's a bit of work, and expensive in terms of ink used in maintenance, but worth the effort. 

I run a pair of Canon printers at home, a 24 inch pigment-based system for keeper shots intended for mounting and long-term display, and a 17 inch dye-based printer for drafts and fast jobs where archival longevity is not an issue. 

I produce both color and black and white prints, born-digital and from scanned film. I use an Imacon scanner for negatives up to 5x7 inches. The sources for my born-digital images are the Leica M10 Monochrom, the M246, an SL2, a Fujifilm GFX100S, and a chilled ZWO camera dedicated to astrophotography.

The 24 inch Canon is a real beast; it took three guys to get it into the house after uncrating it in the driveway. The ink is stupidly expensive. On the other hand, I keep a pair of 100-foot rolls of paper loaded (Canon's Platinum Glossy and Fine Art Rag Matte) so at any time I can produce finished work immediately.

The Canon pigment-based ink system produces beautiful color prints, and absolutely gorgeous black and white prints!

For my needs and wishes, the Canon printers I've mentioned work very well. It's up to individual photographers to decide how far they want to go into the printing realm. I know of many photographers who rely on printing services for the relatively rare times that they want a finished print produced. For many photographers, their primary medium of display is the screen. 

The good news is that digital photo printers are excellent, and keep getting better. The important factor is to find a good fit to your requirements and wishes. 

Edited by DadDadDaddyo
Added digital sources
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...