Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

To Epson 4000 or not to Epson 4000?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 14, 2005 9:00:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What are the pros and cons of the Epson 4000? I think about it mostly
because of the print size. In particular, I am doing medium format, and,
believe it or not, I like the square format (which is no crime, I hope).
This means that on an A3 printer I am losing about 4 inches or so in each
direction, which makes a difference. Thanks in advance for your comments,
in particular to Bill, who I know is the proud owner a 4000 (and, what's
more, he actually uses it).
Nobody

More about : epson 4000 epson 4000

Anonymous
March 14, 2005 9:00:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nobody <nobody@nowhere.com.re> writes:

> What are the pros and cons of the Epson 4000? I think about it mostly
> because of the print size. In particular, I am doing medium format, and,
> believe it or not, I like the square format (which is no crime, I hope).
> This means that on an A3 printer I am losing about 4 inches or so in each
> direction, which makes a difference. Thanks in advance for your comments,
> in particular to Bill, who I know is the proud owner a 4000 (and, what's
> more, he actually uses it).

The print speed is lovely. The size is lovely. The price, well;
nothing's perfect.

There is no crime in liking square pictures. Some photos really want
to be square, which annoys me with my 35mm equipment :-).

The one thing about the 4000 that might bite you is that the Epson ink
cartridges say they should be used within 6 months of opening. How
much printing do you do? The 4000 can take two sizes of cartridges,
but even the small is more than 5 times bigger than the ones for the
little printers. (The ink's a lot cheaper in those big cartridges,
too; unless it expires on you.) I also haven't experimented with my
smaller printers with what happens if it does get that old. I'm sure
it doesn't instantly curdle on the 180th day or anything. And if you
do enough printing this may not be a consideration at all.

You can feed roll paper on the 2200, can't you? That would let you
print square pictures without wasting paper, at some additional
effort.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 9:00:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nobody wrote:

> What are the pros and cons of the Epson 4000? I think about it mostly
> because of the print size. In particular, I am doing medium format, and,
> believe it or not, I like the square format (which is no crime, I hope).
> This means that on an A3 printer I am losing about 4 inches or so in each
> direction, which makes a difference. Thanks in advance for your comments,
> in particular to Bill, who I know is the proud owner a 4000 (and, what's
> more, he actually uses it).
> Nobody



Advantages:

* two black carts, should be good for BW printing
* good choice for printing on heavy, fine art matte papers
* pigment inks, inherent longevity
* excellent dot placement
* good user community
* rugged construction
* large ink carts (110 or 220 ml)

Disadvantages:

* permanent, non-removable heads
* pigment inks not optimal for glossy or satin papers
* pigment inks more prone to settling, clogging than dyes
* slow


You might also consider the HP DesignJet 130
or the soon-to-be-released DesignJet 90,
particularly if your preference runs to
glossy papers. Either of these will cost
substantially less than the Epson 4000.

If you like working on heavy, fine-art matte
papers, go with the Epson.

Right now, the Epson 4000 holds a unique
position in the market, for C sized prints
(17" wide.) The Designjet 130 does 24" wide,
and the DesignJet 90 will do 18" wide.

Epson is now "100% pigment ink" on all their
pro printers. HP is pushing a system of dye
inks with matching and proprietary HP media.
If you stick with the approved media, you
get an 82-year print longevity prediction
courtesy of Henry Wilhelm.

I'm almost certain the DesignJet 30 will
be considerably faster.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Related resources
March 15, 2005 3:18:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks, but how do the HP printers you refer to compare to the Epson 4000 in
terms of image or print quality?
Nobody


On 14/3/05 8:19 pm, in article
4235f1ea$0$8881$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "rafeb" <rafe@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>
>
> nobody wrote:
>
>> What are the pros and cons of the Epson 4000? I think about it mostly
>> because of the print size. In particular, I am doing medium format, and,
>> believe it or not, I like the square format (which is no crime, I hope).
>> This means that on an A3 printer I am losing about 4 inches or so in each
>> direction, which makes a difference. Thanks in advance for your comments,
>> in particular to Bill, who I know is the proud owner a 4000 (and, what's
>> more, he actually uses it).
>> Nobody
>
>
>
> Advantages:
>
> * two black carts, should be good for BW printing
> * good choice for printing on heavy, fine art matte papers
> * pigment inks, inherent longevity
> * excellent dot placement
> * good user community
> * rugged construction
> * large ink carts (110 or 220 ml)
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> * permanent, non-removable heads
> * pigment inks not optimal for glossy or satin papers
> * pigment inks more prone to settling, clogging than dyes
> * slow
>
>
> You might also consider the HP DesignJet 130
> or the soon-to-be-released DesignJet 90,
> particularly if your preference runs to
> glossy papers. Either of these will cost
> substantially less than the Epson 4000.
>
> If you like working on heavy, fine-art matte
> papers, go with the Epson.
>
> Right now, the Epson 4000 holds a unique
> position in the market, for C sized prints
> (17" wide.) The Designjet 130 does 24" wide,
> and the DesignJet 90 will do 18" wide.
>
> Epson is now "100% pigment ink" on all their
> pro printers. HP is pushing a system of dye
> inks with matching and proprietary HP media.
> If you stick with the approved media, you
> get an 82-year print longevity prediction
> courtesy of Henry Wilhelm.
>
> I'm almost certain the DesignJet 30 will
> be considerably faster.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:43:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Take a look at the new Epson R1800, the wide carriage version of the
Epson R800. Better yet and cheaper is the Canon i9900 unless you are
selling your prints; then pigmented inks does offer some advantage.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>nobody <nobody@nowhere.com.re> writes:
>
>
>
>>What are the pros and cons of the Epson 4000? I think about it mostly
>>because of the print size. In particular, I am doing medium format, and,
>>believe it or not, I like the square format (which is no crime, I hope).
>>This means that on an A3 printer I am losing about 4 inches or so in each
>>direction, which makes a difference. Thanks in advance for your comments,
>>in particular to Bill, who I know is the proud owner a 4000 (and, what's
>>more, he actually uses it).
>>
>>
>
>The print speed is lovely. The size is lovely. The price, well;
>nothing's perfect.
>
>There is no crime in liking square pictures. Some photos really want
>to be square, which annoys me with my 35mm equipment :-).
>
>The one thing about the 4000 that might bite you is that the Epson ink
>cartridges say they should be used within 6 months of opening. How
>much printing do you do? The 4000 can take two sizes of cartridges,
>but even the small is more than 5 times bigger than the ones for the
>little printers. (The ink's a lot cheaper in those big cartridges,
>too; unless it expires on you.) I also haven't experimented with my
>smaller printers with what happens if it does get that old. I'm sure
>it doesn't instantly curdle on the 180th day or anything. And if you
>do enough printing this may not be a consideration at all.
>
>You can feed roll paper on the 2200, can't you? That would let you
>print square pictures without wasting paper, at some additional
>effort.
>
>
March 15, 2005 10:40:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafeb" <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4235f1ea$0$8881$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...

>
> You might also consider the HP DesignJet 130
> or the soon-to-be-released DesignJet 90,
> particularly if your preference runs to
> glossy papers. Either of these will cost
> substantially less than the Epson 4000.
>
I have a designjet 130 and I couldn't be happier. There are actually two
models. In line with the vow of poverty I took when taking up Photography, I
made the mistake of buying the cheaper one with no roll feed. I print almost
exclusively on rolls now! Figure that one.

Anyway... I had a very serious look at the Epson before ordering the HP
sight unseen. I print on Canvas, satin and gloss paper. The HP is no faster
than the Epson but it sure as hell beats Epson hands down for ink cost and
versitility. I ended up making a roll holder from timber and now I have a
printer every bit as good as the Epson with the ability to make vivid prints
on canvas as well as permenant dye ink prints on paper.

These HPs have about half the running cost of an Epson, the inks don't go
off and the print heads are replacable for very little more than the cost of
fresh ink. A friend of mine with a 4000 is on his second set of heads and
has decided to buy a HP when the latest heads need replacing. That must say
something about the HP, surely? If you buy the roll feeder option there is
not a lot of difference in the cost of the two printers but the HP will save
you bucks in ink costs.
March 15, 2005 10:40:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thank you for the information, but have you compared the results from the HP
130 and the Epson 4000 in terms of image or print quality? How do they
compare?
Nobody


On 14/3/05 9:40 pm, in article 39melvF62lcj2U1@individual.net, "Douglas"
<decipleofeos@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> "rafeb" <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:4235f1ea$0$8881$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
>>
>> You might also consider the HP DesignJet 130
>> or the soon-to-be-released DesignJet 90,
>> particularly if your preference runs to
>> glossy papers. Either of these will cost
>> substantially less than the Epson 4000.
>>
> I have a designjet 130 and I couldn't be happier. There are actually two
> models. In line with the vow of poverty I took when taking up Photography, I
> made the mistake of buying the cheaper one with no roll feed. I print almost
> exclusively on rolls now! Figure that one.
>
> Anyway... I had a very serious look at the Epson before ordering the HP
> sight unseen. I print on Canvas, satin and gloss paper. The HP is no faster
> than the Epson but it sure as hell beats Epson hands down for ink cost and
> versitility. I ended up making a roll holder from timber and now I have a
> printer every bit as good as the Epson with the ability to make vivid prints
> on canvas as well as permenant dye ink prints on paper.
>
> These HPs have about half the running cost of an Epson, the inks don't go
> off and the print heads are replacable for very little more than the cost of
> fresh ink. A friend of mine with a 4000 is on his second set of heads and
> has decided to buy a HP when the latest heads need replacing. That must say
> something about the HP, surely? If you buy the roll feeder option there is
> not a lot of difference in the cost of the two printers but the HP will save
> you bucks in ink costs.
>
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 10:40:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nobody wrote:

> Thank you for the information, but have you compared the results from the HP
> 130 and the Epson 4000 in terms of image or print quality? How do they
> compare?


Both are excellent. You won't see any difference
in the detail without a loupe.

The HPs on glossy/satin paper will deliver better
Dmax. Scroll down the page below for closeup view
of shadow detail (HP vs Epson 4K.)

<http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi031/HP_D...;

[You'll need a well-calibrated monitor to see
the difference.]


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:01:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Douglas" <decipleofeos@yahoo.com> writes:

> Rafe just told you. On gloss or satin the HP is brighter, clearer and just
> as long lasting. On Archival matte there is not enough difference to pick
> which is which.

What's your evidence for just as long-lasting? The Wilhelm Research
Institute numbers show it lasting less than half as long.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 3:17:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> "Douglas" <decipleofeos@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>>Rafe just told you. On gloss or satin the HP is brighter, clearer and just
>>as long lasting. On Archival matte there is not enough difference to pick
>>which is which.
>
>
> What's your evidence for just as long-lasting? The Wilhelm Research
> Institute numbers show it lasting less than half as long.


HP dye: 82 year years
Epson Ultrachromes: about 75 yrs.
Epson Archival: about 200 yrs.


Mind you the "Epson Archival" inkset isn't the
current one and (AFAIK) only available on a
few Epson Pro models (eg. the Epson 10000.)

The Ultrachrome inkset is what's used with
all the current "Pro" models (except maybe
the 10x00.)



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:53:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> Rafe B writes ...
>>
>> Epson Ultrachromes: about 75 yrs.
>> Epson Archival: about 200 yrs.

> Tom Scales writes ...
>
> I don't believe you're right. I believe it is the same ink
(Ultrachrome)
> but depends on the paper.

What Rafe calls "Epson Archival" is the original Epson six color
pigment ink set used in the 2000p and 7500 etc printers. The
Ultrachromes for the 2200, 4000, 9600, 7600 printers are rated (by
Wilhelm) at about half the print life but have a significantly wider
gamut and most of the metamerism problems were fixed, so it's a
trade-off most professionals were happy to make.

Wilhelm has a much fuller chart on the 4000 on his site than for
earlier printers, with estimates for several papers without glass, with
plain glass, with UV glass, with print spray protection (which doubles
most of the estimates), etc etc.

Bill
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 5:18:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Rafeb writes ...
>
> HP dye: 82 year years
> Epson Ultrachromes: about 75 yrs.

While HP has done a good job of catching up on print life, the actual
numbers are a bit more complex than this. Here are Wilhelm links to
the numbers for the HP and the Epson 4000 ... note that using Wilhelm's
bread-and-butter number (ie, under glass with no UV protection) the
4000 estimates range from 71 years (Luster) to 108 years (Ultrasmooth
Fine Art). But if you add UV glass and (for some papers) Premier Art
Spray the numbers jump much higher, with most between 150 to over 200
years for Velvet Fine Art (my favorite Epson paper) and Watercolor -
Radiant White.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/hp_dj130_preview.htm...

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/SP4000.html

Bill
March 15, 2005 9:07:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rafe just told you. On gloss or satin the HP is brighter, clearer and just
as long lasting. On Archival matte there is not enough difference to pick
which is which.


"nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote in message
news:BE5BDA40.422%nobody@nowhere.com.re...
> Thanks, but how do the HP printers you refer to compare to the Epson 4000
> in
> terms of image or print quality?
> Nobody
>
>
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:14:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> writes:

> "rafeb" <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:423718b4$0$8911$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>
>>
>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
>>> "Douglas" <decipleofeos@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rafe just told you. On gloss or satin the HP is brighter, clearer and
>>>>just as long lasting. On Archival matte there is not enough difference to
>>>>pick which is which.
>>>
>>>
>>> What's your evidence for just as long-lasting? The Wilhelm Research
>>> Institute numbers show it lasting less than half as long.
>>
>>
>> HP dye: 82 year years
>> Epson Ultrachromes: about 75 yrs.
>> Epson Archival: about 200 yrs.

Epson Ultrachrome in the Epson R800, as per Wilhelm research at
<http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R800.html&gt;, says greater than
150 years as I read it. What condition are you choosing, though?

The figure comparable to that one for the HP 8750 is 108 years, so the
Epson is being rated for *considerably* longer life (I'm using "framed
under glass" here; for "dark storage" they get 185 years and >200).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:25:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafeb" <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:423718b4$0$8911$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
>
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> "Douglas" <decipleofeos@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Rafe just told you. On gloss or satin the HP is brighter, clearer and
>>>just as long lasting. On Archival matte there is not enough difference to
>>>pick which is which.
>>
>>
>> What's your evidence for just as long-lasting? The Wilhelm Research
>> Institute numbers show it lasting less than half as long.
>
>
> HP dye: 82 year years
> Epson Ultrachromes: about 75 yrs.
> Epson Archival: about 200 yrs.
>
>
> Mind you the "Epson Archival" inkset isn't the
> current one and (AFAIK) only available on a
> few Epson Pro models (eg. the Epson 10000.)
>
> The Ultrachrome inkset is what's used with
> all the current "Pro" models (except maybe
> the 10x00.)
>
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>

I don't believe you're right. I believe it is the same ink (Ultrachrome)
but depends on the paper.

Tom
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 2:20:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:14:15 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
wrote:


>Epson Ultrachrome in the Epson R800, as per Wilhelm research at
><http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R800.html&gt;, says greater than
>150 years as I read it. What condition are you choosing, though?
>
>The figure comparable to that one for the HP 8750 is 108 years, so the
>Epson is being rated for *considerably* longer life (I'm using "framed
>under glass" here; for "dark storage" they get 185 years and >200).


What Bill Hilton said.

Epson's initial foray into pigment inks actually
had substantially better longevity ratings than
their current "Ultrachrome" inkset. About double,
in fact. But it had other problems that almost
everyone complained about, so the Ultrachromes
traded some of that longevity for a reduction in
the undesirable characteristics of the orignal set.

I believe the "original" set are still standard on
the Epson 10000 and 10600 but I'm not terribly
familiar with either of those models. It was
also standard on the 5500, 7500, and 9500.

The current crop -- 4000, 7600, and 9600 --
all use Ultrachomes.

Of course the longevity will be influenced
by the substrate, method of framing, exposure
to air and light, etc.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:15:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Douglas writes ...
>
>We've been here before Bill

Most people understand it, some don't. You don't.

>You keep suggesting an "institute" financed by a printer manufacturer
>to carry out testing which ignores the real source
>of degradation is somehow a viable source of information

Wilhelm isn't financed by any printer manufacturer. He began these
longevity studies in the late 1960's and refined the technique in the
1970's, 25 years before Epson or anyone else brought out an inkjet
printer. His early financial angel was a Grinnel, Iowa businessman and
he was also financed by the motion picture industry, primarily Martin
Scorsese, as they struggled with how to save those old 1930's
Technicolor films.

He charges $5,000 to test a paper but as you can see from his site most
of the big companies (Kodak the big exception) are paying this because
he's the official seal of approval, since his testing methods are
widely seen as the most accurate and reliable. This includes Epson,
HP, Canon, Arches, Legion, etc.

> The Wilhelm institute is substantially funded by Epson

No it's not.

> and their estimates of print life are distorted towards Epson
>products without any evidence to suggest Epson are any better
>(or worse) than anyone else's.

Look, there are two separate parts to these longevity tests. The first
is scientific ... repeat, SCIENTIFIC ... you expose the paper with a
test pattern, measure the color densities with a spectrophotometer,
expose the print under fixed, repeatable accelearated light conditions,
re-measure, repeat until a certain % of density is lost. This is
repeatable, anyone can buy the gear and run this exact same test.
EVERY company doing these types of tests does pretty much the same
thing. How could he fake it for Epson when you know their competitors
are duplicating his tests? (There's a description of the tests in the
ANSI standards and also in his 1993 book). There is no way to fake the
data since anyone can repeat the test. And the same test standard was
in place back in the 1970's used for testing Kodacolor prints and
Cibachrome prints so only an idiot would say he's slanted the tests so
that Epson does better (since Epson didn't have a printer for the first
25 years or so that he was running the tests). So far as I can tell
the only change he made was to increase the intensity of the
accelerated lighting from 21,500 lux to 35,000 lux because newer
materials weren't fading quickly enough to get readings in a reasonable
time.

The second part of this is more an art and not a science and that's
deciding what non-accelerated criteria to use and whether to assume
it's linear or not. Wilhelm decided to use 450 lux for 12 hours/day at
a certain temperature and relative humidity, displayed under glass.
This is not scientific since you can't assume every place displaying
photos will adhere to it but if you read his book you can see that he
measured the actual display light intensities in hundreds of homes,
museums, galleries etc before reaching these numbers. He's assuming a
linear relationship for the light (ie, one year at 4,500 lux is
equivalent to 10 years at 450 lux) but has also run tests on papers
from the 1970's and 80's to see if there is a reciprocity failure or
not and has published this in his book as well (you can download the
book in PDF form for free from his website). There is some reciprocity
failure (for example, the yellow patch in Ilfochrome prints fades in
about 18 years instead of the projected 29 years) but at least he's
trying to document it.

There are 20 companies (printer and paper companies, mostly) publishing
longevity estimates with their products and 18 of them are using
Wilhelm's estimates or close to it (a couple assume 500 lux at 10
hours/day, for example).

The two that are not using Wilhelm's display assumptions are Kodak and
Agfa. They assume only 120 lux and slightly more forgiving temperature
and relative humidity conditions. Also, whereas Wilhelm defines a
"fade" as the least density loss that is discernible by the human eye
(typically 7-15% density loss, depending on the color patch) Kodak
defines a "fade" much more liberally, up to 30% density loss. The net
result is that Kodak numbers look about 500% better than Wilhelm
estimates even for the same materials. In other words, Kodak claims
100 years for the new Supra papers yet Wilhelm sees only 18-22 years,
even though they both get the exact same fade rate in the scientific
part of the test.

>If you could stop the bullshit coming from their predictions and
somehow
>explain how an estimate can become a statistic

An estimate is an estimate. As explained, there's a scientific,
repeatable basis for this, then there's an assumption based on display
conditions. It is what it is ...

>Why can we not compare an inkjet
>print's life to the life of a chemical print?

Wilhelm has been running the exact same set of tests for over 30 years,
starting with Kodacolor and Ilfochrome prints (and whatever else was
around) in the early 1970's and using the same tests on early inkjet
prints (which lasted 6 months to 2 years at first) to later inkjet
pigment ink prints (which is where the current 75-200 year estimates
come from). Same tests, same conditions (except for increasing the
accelerated light intensity from 21.5K lux to 35K lux).

>Why too must we accept a
>totally different set of measurement in estimating the worth of paper
and
>ink prints compared to real photographs?

The tests are identical Douglas. Hello .... anybody there?

>It wouldn't by any chance be because even today, the life of
>inkjet prints is fractional compared to chemical ones, would it?

? The Kodacolor chemical prints had estimates of 14-18 years, then
later as the process improved 18-22 years to Wilhelm's criteria.
Ilfochromes (Cibachromes) were estimated at around 29 years. These
processes are old enough that he could do actual 2x tests (ie, 450 lux
24 hours/day instead of 12) and found that the estimates were slightly
long due to reciprocity. He's running the same accelerated tests on
inkjet prints today. Since the tests are the same why would you
conclude that an Epson pigment print with say 90 years estimated life
would fade faster than say an Ilfochrome with an estimate (proved
correct by the non-accelerated tests) 1/3 that. This makes no sense to
me ... same tests, same conditions.

>One of the most significant print
>life factors effecting ink prints is the environment a print will be
stored
>in and this has nothing to do with fading from exposure to light.

This is true, and why the display conditions are part of the fine
print. So?

>Exposing a print to ordinary domestic kitchen odours can
>remove the colour from Canon prints in days.

Read Wilhelm's book ... in one section he describes putting up test
prints in various rooms of his house for years, some uncovered and some
under glass, and he found that prints in the kitchen did indeed fade
faster (even when not exposed to extra light), concluding as you have
that gases affected the print life (this is with conventional silver
prints, these tests were done before inkjets came out).

If you look at his test array on the 4000 link I gave he has a box for
"gas fastness". After some users found Epson 1270/1280 prints on PGPP
faded very quickly when uncovered in certain environments Wilhelm added
this gas fastness test and published the results. Before this he was
always assuming prints would be displayed under glass.

>Wilhelm has somehow managed to create an opportunity to profit from
the
>estimation of life that so many gamblers have sought to do for
hundreds of
>years without success.

You miss the point ... it's a scientific test under accelerated
conditions to get the raw numbers, then a semi-scientific guess as to
how long they'll last under assumed display conditions (light
intensity, temperature, rel humidity).

>If he had produced some evidence his results are not
>tainted by the source of his funds ...

His "evidence" starts with his 744 page book published in 1993, widely
hailed as a classic. Where is your "evidence" that his results are
tainted? If you test the Epson papers under the same conditions you
should get the same results. If you find differently I'm sure Canon
and HP and other Epson competitors would pay you well for your findings
:) 

> ... and his results came even close to what many people who rely on
> these things for a living have independently discovered

Again, where is your proof? Here in the US we have a set of scientific
boards which set standards for things like this, called ANSI (American
National Standards Institute). The European parallel is ISO
(International Standards Organization). Wilhelm was one of the
founding members of the ANSI committee on print longevity and served as
the secretary for many years. Where is the independent proof that he
is a shill for Epson? There is none.

Bill
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 1:09:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Bill

> Most people understand it, some don't. You don't.

Thanks for the excellent point-by-point
canvas-slammin' takedowon of Douglas'
silliness.

Wilhelm is THE owner of this field. He's put in
the sweat and the thought. He's an important scientific
pioneer, an example of the best of that breed.

-- stan
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 8:41:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Douglas wrote:


> Hs anyone got a colour print on gloss paper from an Epson Stylus Pro made
> about 1996 or 97 they can reference?

How about 1998, from my first Sytlus Color 600?

Most of them are looking as good as the day they
were printed.

The Canon prints on Red River paper, from two
years ago... not so good. But that was no-name
generic ink, and I've got no one to blame but myself.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
March 16, 2005 10:09:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1110925135.119434.238880@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >Rafeb writes ...
>>
>> HP dye: 82 year years
>> Epson Ultrachromes: about 75 yrs.
>
> While HP has done a good job of catching up on print life, the actual
> numbers are a bit more complex than this. Here are Wilhelm links to
> the numbers for the HP and the Epson 4000 ... note that using Wilhelm's
> bread-and-butter number (ie, under glass with no UV protection) the
> 4000 estimates range from 71 years (Luster) to 108 years (Ultrasmooth
> Fine Art). But if you add UV glass and (for some papers) Premier Art
> Spray the numbers jump much higher, with most between 150 to over 200
> years for Velvet Fine Art (my favorite Epson paper) and Watercolor -
> Radiant White.
>
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/hp_dj130_preview.htm...
>
> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/SP4000.html
>
> Bill
>
We've been here before Bill... You keep suggesting an "institute" financed
by a printer manufacturer to carry out testing which ignores the real source
of degradation is somehow a viable source of information about products from
rivals of that company. Hello...

The Wilhelm institute is substantially funded by Epson and their estimates
of print life are distorted towards Epson products without any evidence to
suggest Epson are any better (or worse) than anyone else's. At my print
centre we run a number of printers. One uses solvent inks for outdoor
display and our own tests are in massive conflict with the estimation
testing done by that institute.

If you could stop the bullshit coming from their predictions and somehow
explain how an estimate can become a statistic, there might be half a chance
of discovering comparative lifespan. Why can we not compare an inkjet
print's life to the life of a chemical print? Why too must we accept a
totally different set of measurement in estimating the worth of paper and
ink prints compared to real photographs? It wouldn't by any chance be
because even today, the life of inkjet prints is fractional compared to
chemical ones, would it?

We know for example what to expect from traditional photographic prints by
virtue of the fact they have real world history of how long they will and
will not last under certain conditions. One of the most significant print
life factors effecting ink prints is the environment a print will be stored
in and this has nothing to do with fading from exposure to light. Under some
conditions of simply leaving a print in the path of an airconditioner's
airflow, it will show significant degradation in as little as a month.

Storing prints in a draw which has formaldehyde glue used in it's
construction will severely degrade some prints from some printers in a
matter of weeks. Exposing a print to ordinary domestic kitchen odours can
remove the colour from Canon prints in days.

Wilhelm has somehow managed to create an opportunity to profit from the
estimation of life that so many gamblers have sought to do for hundreds of
years without success. If he had produced some evidence his results are not
tainted by the source of his funds and his results came even close to what
many people who rely on these things for a living have independently
discovered, his predictions might not be in the same class as those from
Nostradamis.

Douglas
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:09:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

So ... Douglas ... please point us in the direction of someone who is
making print life tests that you agree with.




"Douglas" <decipleofeos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39qbe6F647oqgU1@individual.net...
>
> >
> > While HP has done a good job of catching up on print life, the actual
> > numbers are a bit more complex than this. Here are Wilhelm links to
> > the numbers for the HP and the Epson 4000 ... note that using Wilhelm's
> > bread-and-butter number (ie, under glass with no UV protection) the
> > 4000 estimates range from 71 years (Luster) to 108 years (Ultrasmooth
> > Fine Art). But if you add UV glass and (for some papers) Premier Art
> > Spray the numbers jump much higher, with most between 150 to over 200
> > years for Velvet Fine Art (my favorite Epson paper) and Watercolor -
> > Radiant White.
> >
> > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/hp_dj130_preview.htm...
> >
> > http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/SP4000.html
> >
> > Bill
> >
> We've been here before Bill... You keep suggesting an "institute"
financed
> by a printer manufacturer to carry out testing which ignores the real
source
> of degradation is somehow a viable source of information about products
from
> rivals of that company. Hello...
>
> The Wilhelm institute is substantially funded by Epson and their
estimates
> of print life are distorted towards Epson products without any evidence
to
> suggest Epson are any better (or worse) than anyone else's. At my print
> centre we run a number of printers. One uses solvent inks for outdoor
> display and our own tests are in massive conflict with the estimation
> testing done by that institute.
>
> If you could stop the bullshit coming from their predictions and somehow
> explain how an estimate can become a statistic, there might be half a
chance
> of discovering comparative lifespan. Why can we not compare an inkjet
> print's life to the life of a chemical print? Why too must we accept a
> totally different set of measurement in estimating the worth of paper and
> ink prints compared to real photographs? It wouldn't by any chance be
> because even today, the life of inkjet prints is fractional compared to
> chemical ones, would it?
>
> We know for example what to expect from traditional photographic prints
by
> virtue of the fact they have real world history of how long they will and
> will not last under certain conditions. One of the most significant print
> life factors effecting ink prints is the environment a print will be
stored
> in and this has nothing to do with fading from exposure to light. Under
some
> conditions of simply leaving a print in the path of an airconditioner's
> airflow, it will show significant degradation in as little as a month.
>
> Storing prints in a draw which has formaldehyde glue used in it's
> construction will severely degrade some prints from some printers in a
> matter of weeks. Exposing a print to ordinary domestic kitchen odours can
> remove the colour from Canon prints in days.
>
> Wilhelm has somehow managed to create an opportunity to profit from the
> estimation of life that so many gamblers have sought to do for hundreds
of
> years without success. If he had produced some evidence his results are
not
> tainted by the source of his funds and his results came even close to
what
> many people who rely on these things for a living have independently
> discovered, his predictions might not be in the same class as those from
> Nostradamis.
>
> Douglas
>
>
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:09:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:09:18 +1000, "Douglas" <decipleofeos@yahoo.com>
wrote:


>We've been here before Bill... You keep suggesting an "institute" financed
>by a printer manufacturer to carry out testing which ignores the real source
>of degradation is somehow a viable source of information about products from
>rivals of that company. Hello...
>
>The Wilhelm institute is substantially funded by Epson and their estimates
>of print life are distorted towards Epson products without any evidence to
>suggest Epson are any better (or worse) than anyone else's. At my print
>centre we run a number of printers. One uses solvent inks for outdoor
>display and our own tests are in massive conflict with the estimation
>testing done by that institute.


So tell us more about "your print centre" and why it's less
biased than Wilhelm's. Is it because you have no paying
clients (yet?) Where are your test results posted?

It is regrettable that we need to take so much on faith from
Dr. Wilhelm. OTOH, one can set up informal testing of print
longevity at reasonable cost. Harald Johnson explains how
to do that in his book, "Mastering Digital Printing."

Even in the Epson community, opinion is deeply divided about
Wilhelm's credibility and the worth of his print-life estimates.
A good deal of this aninmosity stems from the "orange-shift"
fiasco with the original Epson 1270/1280.

But like any good scientist -- Wilhelm revised and refined
his testing regime and moved on.

Aside from RIT and Wilhelm, who else is there that does any
sort of standardized testing of print longevity?

How do you get "objective" measurements of commercial products?

The FDA can't (or won't) even do that on prescription drugs,
where the results are far more critical.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
March 17, 2005 3:03:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks. I am probably going to go for the 130nr, which, presumably, has the
roll feed. However, I saw an 130 in a shop placed on two large legs, not
unlike the Epson 7600. Are the legs necessary for the roll feed? The HP
130nr seems to be a desk top printer, judging by the pictures of it I saw on
different websites, including B & H. Would I be able to use the roll feed
without the Epson 7600-like legs? Any comments?


On 14/3/05 9:40 pm, in article 39melvF62lcj2U1@individual.net, "Douglas"
<decipleofeos@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> "rafeb" <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:4235f1ea$0$8881$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
>>
>> You might also consider the HP DesignJet 130
>> or the soon-to-be-released DesignJet 90,
>> particularly if your preference runs to
>> glossy papers. Either of these will cost
>> substantially less than the Epson 4000.
>>
> I have a designjet 130 and I couldn't be happier. There are actually two
> models. In line with the vow of poverty I took when taking up Photography, I
> made the mistake of buying the cheaper one with no roll feed. I print almost
> exclusively on rolls now! Figure that one.
>
> Anyway... I had a very serious look at the Epson before ordering the HP
> sight unseen. I print on Canvas, satin and gloss paper. The HP is no faster
> than the Epson but it sure as hell beats Epson hands down for ink cost and
> versitility. I ended up making a roll holder from timber and now I have a
> printer every bit as good as the Epson with the ability to make vivid prints
> on canvas as well as permenant dye ink prints on paper.
>
> These HPs have about half the running cost of an Epson, the inks don't go
> off and the print heads are replacable for very little more than the cost of
> fresh ink. A friend of mine with a 4000 is on his second set of heads and
> has decided to buy a HP when the latest heads need replacing. That must say
> something about the HP, surely? If you buy the roll feeder option there is
> not a lot of difference in the cost of the two printers but the HP will save
> you bucks in ink costs.
>
>
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 3:03:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nobody wrote:

> Thanks. I am probably going to go for the 130nr, which, presumably, has the
> roll feed. However, I saw an 130 in a shop placed on two large legs, not
> unlike the Epson 7600. Are the legs necessary for the roll feed? The HP
> 130nr seems to be a desk top printer, judging by the pictures of it I saw on
> different websites, including B & H. Would I be able to use the roll feed
> without the Epson 7600-like legs? Any comments?


I think I might be able to find you a JPG
of a home-built roll holder for the DesignJet
130. It was made from PVC pipe. Bottom line,
yes, you can use it on a table-top.

Ah, here it is:

<http://www.bobsplanet.com/gallery/Cool-Gear&gt;



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 4:03:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Douglas writes ...
>
>I always thought when you set yourself up in business, you had to
>understand the industry you are in and the materials you use.

People buying Epson Pro printers like the 4000 are generally selling
fine art prints and those will generally be displayed under glass, not
hung on the refrigerator door. For us Wilhelm's ratings make good
sense.

> ... after he purchased a Canon S9000 ... one quick and dirty test
>you can all do for yourself is to mount prints on a board and hang
them
>in a draughty area, exposed to kitchen odours...

It seems like this is the main thing you are whining about, prints not
displayed under glass that fade when subjected to bad air. As
mentioned, the main Wilhelm number (the one most people quote) is for
prints displayed under glass. When the Epson 1270/1280 orange shift
fiasco problem arose he added additional tests to check for this, in
particular what he calls a "bare blub" test (ie, not under glass) and a
new "ozone test". Anyone wanting to understand this should go to this
link and read the footnote material and read footnotes 4 and 6 ...
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/SP4000.html

The main problem he saw is that certain paper types (micro-porous
papers) printed with dye inks were highly susceptible to gas fading.
The biggest culprits are the Epson 1270/1280 series with PGPP (Premium
Glossy Photo Paper) and the Canon S9000 and similar replacement models.


I'll quote from footnote 4, since this is exactly what you are
mentioning (and accusing him of not addressing):

(quote) "Gas fading" is another potential problem when prints are
displayed unframed, such as when they are attached to kitchen
refrigerator doors with magnets, pinned to office walls, or displayed
inside of flourescent illuminated glass display cases in schools,
stores, and offices. Field experience has shown that, as a class of
media, microporous "instant dry" papers used with dye-based inkjet inks
can be very vulnearable to gas fading when displayed unframed and/or
stored esposed to the open atmosphere where even very low levels of
ozone and certain other air pollutants are preesent. In some
locations, displayed unframed prints made with microporous papers and
dye-based inks have suffered from extremely rapid image deterioration.
This type of premature ink fading is not caused by exposure to light.
....(snip a list of causes) ... Because of the wide range of
environmental conditons in which prints may be displayed or stored,
Display Permanance Ratings for the bare-bulb illumintation condition
will not be listed for paper/ink combinations of known susceptiblility
to gas fading. For all of the resons cited above, prints made from
microporous papers and dye-based inks should always be displayed framed
under glass or plastic.
(/quote)

>I carried out my own testing and devised a process for
>grading the life of my prints. I'm mystified as to who no
>one else has done it.

Others are mystified that you seem so unaware of the tests Wilhelm is
running, tests with a lot more science and a lot less attitude than
yours.

> If you want to pay me, I'll publish the information.

Anyone aware of your past internet history as the Techno-Aussie, Rydia
and your other constantly changing aliases will no doubt get a good
laugh at this offer.

I'll repeat once again the crux of what Wilhelm says about micro-porous
papers and dye inks ... "prints made from microporous papers and
dye-based inks should always be displayed framed under glass or
plastic." If people would simply do this then 99% of the conspiracy
theorists would fade away.

Bill
March 18, 2005 2:27:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What is the best photo paper to use with the 130 series? I looked up the HP
website, and the choice is a little bewildering (I am about to take the
plunge). Thanks for the past, and hopefully, future advice and/or comments.
I am a little surprised that our Bill Hilton has not commented on the
differences (if any) in image or print quality between the Epson 4000 and
the HP 130nr. This would make 3 votes, instead of only 2... :-)
Nobody

PS: All this talk about longevity of 82 or 185 years leaves me rather cold.
Isn't image quality what is all about? Even a disgruntled client might be
pacified if supplied with a new print - however, I am my own client, and
unlikely to sue myself!


On 14/3/05 9:40 pm, in article 39melvF62lcj2U1@individual.net, "Douglas"
<decipleofeos@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> "rafeb" <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:4235f1ea$0$8881$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
>>
>> You might also consider the HP DesignJet 130
>> or the soon-to-be-released DesignJet 90,
>> particularly if your preference runs to
>> glossy papers. Either of these will cost
>> substantially less than the Epson 4000.
>>
> I have a designjet 130 and I couldn't be happier. There are actually two
> models. In line with the vow of poverty I took when taking up Photography, I
> made the mistake of buying the cheaper one with no roll feed. I print almost
> exclusively on rolls now! Figure that one.
>
> Anyway... I had a very serious look at the Epson before ordering the HP
> sight unseen. I print on Canvas, satin and gloss paper. The HP is no faster
> than the Epson but it sure as hell beats Epson hands down for ink cost and
> versitility. I ended up making a roll holder from timber and now I have a
> printer every bit as good as the Epson with the ability to make vivid prints
> on canvas as well as permenant dye ink prints on paper.
>
> These HPs have about half the running cost of an Epson, the inks don't go
> off and the print heads are replacable for very little more than the cost of
> fresh ink. A friend of mine with a 4000 is on his second set of heads and
> has decided to buy a HP when the latest heads need replacing. That must say
> something about the HP, surely? If you buy the roll feeder option there is
> not a lot of difference in the cost of the two printers but the HP will save
> you bucks in ink costs.
>
>
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 3:05:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> nobody writes ...
>
> I am a little surprised that Bill Hilton has not commented on the
> differences (if any) in image or print quality between the Epson
> 4000 and the HP 130nr.

I don't know anyone who owns the HP and have never seen a print from
it, much less compared the same file printed on that vs the 4000 (which
I do have and love). I realize there's a long standing newsgroup
tradition that favors giving definitive opinions based on zero personal
experience, but I try to break from that tradition occasionally since
speaking about the little I do know gets me in enough squabbles as it
is :) 

That said, if I were you and wanted to do a comparison I'd get a couple
of sample prints of the same image file from each printer and compare
them directly, side by side. You'll learn a lot more from that than
from listening to internet chatter by people who likely don't own
either printer, much less both. Companies in the US will print these
test prints for around $10 if you use their image or maybe $15 if you
supply your own file. I've run such tests twice (when deciding between
the 1280 and 2000p and when deciding whether or not to get the 2200)
and it's a real eye-opener.

I would try to get two prints from each printer, one on glossier paper
(for the 4000 maybe Luster or similar) and one on a fine art paper (for
the 4000 something like Velvet Fine Art or Ultrasmooth Fine Art).
Wouldn't surprise me if the Epson does better on fine art and the
dye-ink printer does better on glossy, but that's why you run the test,
to find out these things.

Bill
March 19, 2005 2:11:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thank you very much Bill, I shall return the compliment by posting an
article on the results of the test, once they are available. Clearly, to
have a 24 inch printer for the price of a 17 inch one is a very attractive
proposition, in particular for somebody who likes MF (and has a very good
scanner, and I mean very good).
Regards,
Nobody


On 18/3/05 8:05 pm, in article
1111176354.573227.143370@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Bill Hilton"
<bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

>> nobody writes ...
>>
>> I am a little surprised that Bill Hilton has not commented on the
>> differences (if any) in image or print quality between the Epson
>> 4000 and the HP 130nr.
>
> I don't know anyone who owns the HP and have never seen a print from
> it, much less compared the same file printed on that vs the 4000 (which
> I do have and love). I realize there's a long standing newsgroup
> tradition that favors giving definitive opinions based on zero personal
> experience, but I try to break from that tradition occasionally since
> speaking about the little I do know gets me in enough squabbles as it
> is :) 
>
> That said, if I were you and wanted to do a comparison I'd get a couple
> of sample prints of the same image file from each printer and compare
> them directly, side by side. You'll learn a lot more from that than
> from listening to internet chatter by people who likely don't own
> either printer, much less both. Companies in the US will print these
> test prints for around $10 if you use their image or maybe $15 if you
> supply your own file. I've run such tests twice (when deciding between
> the 1280 and 2000p and when deciding whether or not to get the 2200)
> and it's a real eye-opener.
>
> I would try to get two prints from each printer, one on glossier paper
> (for the 4000 maybe Luster or similar) and one on a fine art paper (for
> the 4000 something like Velvet Fine Art or Ultrasmooth Fine Art).
> Wouldn't surprise me if the Epson does better on fine art and the
> dye-ink printer does better on glossy, but that's why you run the test,
> to find out these things.
>
> Bill
>
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 10:44:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Would you please give me the e-mail address of a reputable company in
US
>which I could trust, and which would do the tests for me. The idea
would be
> to send them a CD with the relevant files, and pay for the paper and
shipping
>of the results, etc.

http://www.inkjetart.com/custom/ for Epsons ... the closest they have
to a 4000 is the 7600. Dunno anyone who does this for the HP models
but Rafe B is a good guy and I'll bet he'll do it for you for a very
small fee. Right, Rafe?
March 19, 2005 2:14:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill, it's me again. I live on the other side of the pond, and it seems
next to impossible to get here anybody to do the tests you suggest. Would
you please give me the e-mail address of a reputable company in US which I
could trust, and which would do the tests for me. The idea would be to send
them a CD with the relevant files, and pay for the paper and shipping of the
results, etc. A little expensive, however, what else can I do? Thanks
again.
Nobody

On 18/3/05 8:05 pm, in article
1111176354.573227.143370@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Bill Hilton"
<bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

>> nobody writes ...
>>
>> I am a little surprised that Bill Hilton has not commented on the
>> differences (if any) in image or print quality between the Epson
>> 4000 and the HP 130nr.
>
> I don't know anyone who owns the HP and have never seen a print from
> it, much less compared the same file printed on that vs the 4000 (which
> I do have and love). I realize there's a long standing newsgroup
> tradition that favors giving definitive opinions based on zero personal
> experience, but I try to break from that tradition occasionally since
> speaking about the little I do know gets me in enough squabbles as it
> is :) 
>
> That said, if I were you and wanted to do a comparison I'd get a couple
> of sample prints of the same image file from each printer and compare
> them directly, side by side. You'll learn a lot more from that than
> from listening to internet chatter by people who likely don't own
> either printer, much less both. Companies in the US will print these
> test prints for around $10 if you use their image or maybe $15 if you
> supply your own file. I've run such tests twice (when deciding between
> the 1280 and 2000p and when deciding whether or not to get the 2200)
> and it's a real eye-opener.
>
> I would try to get two prints from each printer, one on glossier paper
> (for the 4000 maybe Luster or similar) and one on a fine art paper (for
> the 4000 something like Velvet Fine Art or Ultrasmooth Fine Art).
> Wouldn't surprise me if the Epson does better on fine art and the
> dye-ink printer does better on glossy, but that's why you run the test,
> to find out these things.
>
> Bill
>
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 2:40:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 19 Mar 2005 07:44:52 -0800, "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com>
wrote:

>>Would you please give me the e-mail address of a reputable company in
>US
>>which I could trust, and which would do the tests for me. The idea
>would be
>> to send them a CD with the relevant files, and pay for the paper and
>shipping
>>of the results, etc.
>
>http://www.inkjetart.com/custom/ for Epsons ... the closest they have
>to a 4000 is the 7600. Dunno anyone who does this for the HP models
>but Rafe B is a good guy and I'll bet he'll do it for you for a very
>small fee. Right, Rafe?


No problem.

Truth be known, I've been having some
issues with color management on the HP
lately. Something's out of kilter.

The internal color calibration simply
doesn't work on glossy paper, and
hasn't since day one.

There are rumors of inconsistencies
between paper lots. I just haven't
gotten to the bottom of it or re-
profiled this last box. Annoying
to have to do that.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
March 19, 2005 7:41:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks Bill.
Nobody


On 19/3/05 3:44 pm, in article
1111247092.589205.150160@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Bill Hilton"
<bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

>> Would you please give me the e-mail address of a reputable company in
> US
>> which I could trust, and which would do the tests for me. The idea
> would be
>> to send them a CD with the relevant files, and pay for the paper and
> shipping
>> of the results, etc.
>
> http://www.inkjetart.com/custom/ for Epsons ... the closest they have
> to a 4000 is the 7600. Dunno anyone who does this for the HP models
> but Rafe B is a good guy and I'll bet he'll do it for you for a very
> small fee. Right, Rafe?
>
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 7:41:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nobody wrote
>
> Thanks Bill.
> Nobody
>

I second that, what a great idea... Actually a "smaller version"
of such personal assessment test is to go to a good photo store,
where they have proof prints on display, and to browse them for a
while. I did it at the Digital Store of Keeble and Shuchat
http://www.kspphoto.com/. They have approx. 30-40 large format
prints, albeit mostly made by Epson printers. They document on
each print the origin of the image, most notable what resolution
of the file was used.

To be a bit off topic, I was stunned a bit to see a 17" wide prints
made from 5Mpix images taken with Leica Digilux 2. Razor sharp...
They told that the image was not processed in any way. This shows
that 5Mp might be enough for the full size utilized by the Epson
4000, assuming that you use good glass. Getting a 17" printer for
private home use is not so farfetched!

Thomas


> On 19/3/05 3:44 pm, in article
> 1111247092.589205.150160@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Bill Hilton"
> <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Would you please give me the e-mail address of a reputable company in
> > US
> >> which I could trust, and which would do the tests for me. The idea
> > would be
> >> to send them a CD with the relevant files, and pay for the paper and
> > shipping
> >> of the results, etc.
> >
> > http://www.inkjetart.com/custom/ for Epsons ... the closest they have
> > to a 4000 is the 7600. Dunno anyone who does this for the HP models
> > but Rafe B is a good guy and I'll bet he'll do it for you for a very
> > small fee. Right, Rafe?
> >
March 20, 2005 2:03:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If I weren't afraid of David, I would tell you that with a very good scanner
I am getting incredible A3+ prints from many of my 35mm films. I have a few
A3 prints from Leica M lens, and the quality is excellent. The printer (at
the moment) is a Canon i9950. However, since I really like MF, it seems
such a waste not to go beyond 19 inches, the image seems to want it that
way.
Nobody


On 19/3/05 10:00 pm, in article 423CA113.82BB69C3@comcast.net, "ThomasH"
<henrymot@coco.net> wrote:

> nobody wrote
>>
>> Thanks Bill.
>> Nobody
>>
>
> I second that, what a great idea... Actually a "smaller version"
> of such personal assessment test is to go to a good photo store,
> where they have proof prints on display, and to browse them for a
> while. I did it at the Digital Store of Keeble and Shuchat
> http://www.kspphoto.com/. They have approx. 30-40 large format
> prints, albeit mostly made by Epson printers. They document on
> each print the origin of the image, most notable what resolution
> of the file was used.
>
> To be a bit off topic, I was stunned a bit to see a 17" wide prints
> made from 5Mpix images taken with Leica Digilux 2. Razor sharp...
> They told that the image was not processed in any way. This shows
> that 5Mp might be enough for the full size utilized by the Epson
> 4000, assuming that you use good glass. Getting a 17" printer for
> private home use is not so farfetched!
>
> Thomas
>
>
>> On 19/3/05 3:44 pm, in article
>> 1111247092.589205.150160@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Bill Hilton"
>> <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Would you please give me the e-mail address of a reputable company in
>>> US
>>>> which I could trust, and which would do the tests for me. The idea
>>> would be
>>>> to send them a CD with the relevant files, and pay for the paper and
>>> shipping
>>>> of the results, etc.
>>>
>>> http://www.inkjetart.com/custom/ for Epsons ... the closest they have
>>> to a 4000 is the 7600. Dunno anyone who does this for the HP models
>>> but Rafe B is a good guy and I'll bet he'll do it for you for a very
>>> small fee. Right, Rafe?
>>>
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 7:46:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have been using an Epson SP4000 for 2 months, have gone through
2sets of 110 carts!

I like the printer a lot.

I have not printed the heavy media which requires hand feeding from
the front. later this month.

Relatie to duration of prints. I have a couple of Great Dane Dogs. I
printed 2 16x20 prints, with an inch border all the way around. Taped
a portion of the white and printed picture with high end clear tape,
and placed the prints in their kennels to walk on, scratch, etc for
two weeks. The prints while harmed greatly, I believe could have been
scanned, and repaired with Photoshop to acceptable images.

Hope this helps.

Sonny

.. On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:20:20 +0000, nobody <nobody@nowhere.com.re>
wrote:

>Thank you for the information, but have you compared the results from the HP
>130 and the Epson 4000 in terms of image or print quality? How do they
>compare?
>Nobody
>
>
>On 14/3/05 9:40 pm, in article 39melvF62lcj2U1@individual.net, "Douglas"
><decipleofeos@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "rafeb" <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:4235f1ea$0$8881$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>
>>>
>>> You might also consider the HP DesignJet 130
>>> or the soon-to-be-released DesignJet 90,
>>> particularly if your preference runs to
>>> glossy papers. Either of these will cost
>>> substantially less than the Epson 4000.
>>>
>> I have a designjet 130 and I couldn't be happier. There are actually two
>> models. In line with the vow of poverty I took when taking up Photography, I
>> made the mistake of buying the cheaper one with no roll feed. I print almost
>> exclusively on rolls now! Figure that one.
>>
>> Anyway... I had a very serious look at the Epson before ordering the HP
>> sight unseen. I print on Canvas, satin and gloss paper. The HP is no faster
>> than the Epson but it sure as hell beats Epson hands down for ink cost and
>> versitility. I ended up making a roll holder from timber and now I have a
>> printer every bit as good as the Epson with the ability to make vivid prints
>> on canvas as well as permenant dye ink prints on paper.
>>
>> These HPs have about half the running cost of an Epson, the inks don't go
>> off and the print heads are replacable for very little more than the cost of
>> fresh ink. A friend of mine with a 4000 is on his second set of heads and
>> has decided to buy a HP when the latest heads need replacing. That must say
>> something about the HP, surely? If you buy the roll feeder option there is
>> not a lot of difference in the cost of the two printers but the HP will save
>> you bucks in ink costs.
>>
>>
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 7:46:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:46:04 GMT, A. L. Shaw <alshaw@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>Relatie to duration of prints. I have a couple of Great Dane Dogs. I
>printed 2 16x20 prints, with an inch border all the way around. Taped
>a portion of the white and printed picture with high end clear tape,
>and placed the prints in their kennels to walk on, scratch, etc for
>two weeks. The prints while harmed greatly, I believe could have been
>scanned, and repaired with Photoshop to acceptable images.


I think this story should be related to Henry Wilhelm
and the procedure somehow incorporated into the ANSI/ISO
standards for print permanence testing.

Why not tape the print to the inside of your toilet
and see how it looks after a week or two. LOL.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
April 17, 2005 8:40:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

">
> PS: All this talk about longevity of 82 or 185 years leaves me rather
cold.
> Isn't image quality what is all about? Even a disgruntled client might be
> pacified if supplied with a new print - however, I am my own client, and
> unlikely to sue myself!

You can get good prints on many printer and print longevity is one of the
few areas remaining that printer manufacturers can improve on.
What makes me cold is prints made of your parents that fades and bleeds in a
few years. You could throw out the pictures and print new one if you have
files on CDs that are readable.
What makes me cold is that even photos on dye base CD's may not last as long
as hard copy.
What makes me cold is that manufactures coming out with new printer models
forcing you to change when supplies gets hard to find.
What makes me cold is knowing that the specs of longevity for 82 to 185
years are inflated.

The person behind the camera is what really makes the most difference in
print quality now days as printer are getting to be quite good.
!