Epson 7600 dye and ultra chrome inks

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

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:55:03 +0100, nobody <nobody@nowhere.com.re>
wrote:

>B & H list 2 Epsons 7600, one is dye ink, the other ultra chrome, and the
>price is the same for both. Why would anybody buy a dye ink large format
>printer?


My Epson 7000 has never had anything other
than Epson dye inks run through it.

Dyes still deliver better gamut and Dmax
than Ultrachromes.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

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

aafe Bustin is adamant that dye is still better than ultra chromes. If you
were "young again" or could put the clock back, would you go for dye instead
of ultra chromes? When comparing to your old dye-days, are you missing a
great deal? Thanks in advance.
The eternally curious,
Nobody (not to be confused with another Nobody).


On 18/4/05 4:23 am, in article
1113794636.155337.112400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "Bill Hilton"
<bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

>> B & H list 2 Epsons 7600, one is dye ink, the other ultra chrome, and
> the
>> price is the same for both. Why would anybody buy a dye ink large
> format
>> printer?
>
> Almost no one bought the dye inks (I heard less than 1% of buyers) and
> most dealers don't even offer them anymore. I'm surprised B&H still
> has it listed. You might poke around on this dealer's site and email
> them for deatils, I think they're the ones who said the dye inks didn't
> sell ... http://www.inkjetart.com/pro/7600_9600/index.html
>
> Bill
>

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

Thanks Bill.


On 18/4/05 6:45 pm, in article
1113846302.096520.115570@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Bill Hilton"
<bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

>> Rafe Bustin is adamant that dye is still better than ultra chromes.
>
> Rafe's printer was an earlier Epson model (7000) that didn't use
> Ultrachrome inks. Instead it used the older pigment inks that had a
> longer print life but also had pretty bad metamerism problems and a
> much more limited gamut, two problems that the Ultrachromes pretty much
> fixed.
>
>> If you could put the clock back, would you go for dye instead
>> of ultra chromes?
>
> No one goes for the dye inks instead of the Ultrachromes ... I was told
> Epson offered dye inks for the 9600/7600 printers thinking people might
> use them for proofing or testing mockups, etc but few people even
> bought them for that purpose. Everyone doing fine art printing (at
> least everyone that I know of) is using the Ultrachromes since the
> print life is about 300% longer and the gamut is very good, especially
> on the fine art papers.
>
>> When comparing to your old dye-days, are you missing a
>> great deal?
>
> No, except the dye ink printers do a better job on the really glossy
> papers like PGPP.
>
> Bill
>

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

On 18 Apr 2005 10:45:02 -0700, "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com>
wrote:

>>Rafe Bustin is adamant that dye is still better than ultra chromes.
>
>Rafe's printer was an earlier Epson model (7000) that didn't use
>Ultrachrome inks. Instead it used the older pigment inks that had a
>longer print life but also had pretty bad metamerism problems and a
>much more limited gamut, two problems that the Ultrachromes pretty much
>fixed.


IIRC, the Epson 7000 was a dye ink printer from
the get-go. You're thinking of the Epson 7500
(along with the 5500 and 9500) that came with
the so called Epson Archival pigment inks.

The one and only advantage of pigment inks is
longevity on a large range of substrates.
In almost all other regards, pigment inks are
measurably worse, or more painful to use, than
dyes.

A pigment ink print, by itself, can be stunning,
but not when it's sitting right next to a print
made on glossy paper with dyes.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:r0U8e.2971$J12.1179@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> nobody wrote:
>
>>B & H list 2 Epsons 7600, one is dye ink, the other ultra chrome, and the
>>price is the same for both. Why would anybody buy a dye ink large format
>>printer?
>
> Well, the Canon i9900 produces the best results of any printer in its
> class.

And what class would that be? The 7600 will print on 24" wide roll paper.
Will the i9900 do that?

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

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113874938.996501.138370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >Tom Scales writes ...
>>Ultrachrome (in my 7600) does a great job on PGPP.
>>As good as my 1280.
>
> I have a 1280 and a 4000 and I'd agree with you if you're talking about
> bright colors, but the Ultrachromes have problems with blacks. Print
> something with a black patch (or a real image with deep shadows) and
> hold the print so you can twist it from 30 to 60 degrees with respect
> to the light and you'll see the blacks go to an ugly shade of gray.
> This is called "bronzing" and is a well-documented problem with
> Ultrachromes on PGPP.
>
> Bill
>

I'm aware of the problem but haven't found it to be that objectionable an
issue.

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

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 04:53:34 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Tom Scales wrote:
>
>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:r0U8e.2971$J12.1179@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>
>>>nobody wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>B & H list 2 Epsons 7600, one is dye ink, the other ultra chrome, and the
>>>>price is the same for both. Why would anybody buy a dye ink large format
>>>>printer?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Well, the Canon i9900 produces the best results of any printer in its
>>>class.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>And what class would that be? The 7600 will print on 24" wide roll paper.
>>Will the i9900 do that?
>>
>>
>In the wide format $400 class.


IOW, the Canon 9900 is not in the same class as the
Epson 7x00 or 9x00.

It is in the same class as the HP DesignJet 30, the
Epson 1280/1290, Epson 2200 and Epson R1800.


rafe b.
http://wwww.terrapinphoto.com