Printing Questions

[badgerdad]

For years I made Cibachrome (aka Ilfochrome) prints in a local darkroom for gallery displays and the extremely rare sale. Some are now 20 years old and show no obvious signs of aging. (I'm going to avoid the obvious self-deprecating quip here.) I am finding out that there a many more options in the digital world. One lab uses a laser to scan a digital image onto "regular" photographic paper. They look good, but I'm told the image is not anywhere near as archival as are Cibachrome prints, whatever paper is used. Is this laser method the same thing as "light jet" printing? Then there's the "ink jet" process. Have I been underestimating my Epson 820? Sometimes I can produce a really nice looking print, albeit only up to 8 X10. Yesterday I heard about "Iris" printing. I'm told it's a continuous tone (I hope I got that right) method of printing. I'm also told it's archival and very expensive. So how does that compare to what something like the Epson 2200 (?) can produce? Is that the digital equivalent of a dye transfer print? I know I'm asking for a treatise on printing, but if anyone has the time and knowledge, I would be grateful.

[rdenney]

badgerdad wrote:
...
I know I'm asking for a treatise on printing, but if anyone has the time and knowledge, I would be grateful.

Here's a quick run-down.

There are three major technologies for producing prints from a digital source. They are 1.) Print on photographic paper using laser or similar technology, 2.) Print on regular paper (okay, special regular paper) by spraying primary colors in a dithered pattern, and 3.) print on very special paper using dye sublimation.

The lightjet and Fuji Crystal Archive both use the first method. Chrystal Archive is supposed to be about as archival as it gets in chemical processes, with an estimated print life of three times that of Cibachrome. Some people don't like the color they get, and for that you depend on a lab technician. I have no opinion there, because I don't use this method.

The dye-sublimation method is true continuous tone, and uses a ribbon in the three primary colors, but I'm not familiar with the details of the process. Olympus printers use this method, and Kodak also sells professional printers that use this method. You must use the paper specified for that printer, and it is very special stuff. I read a recent review (in Camera Arts?) of the $1000 Kodak 8500 dye-sub printer that thought the prints did what they were supposed to do, but noted some flaws including contrast shadowing and other little character marks. Perhaps the Iris printer you mentioned works this way. It has been in the process color biz (that is--book publishing) for a long time for making proofs.

The third process is the one most of us use at home. This process builds up the image by spraying the primary colors in a dot pattern on regular paper (but still paper made specifically for this application). Within this range, there are two broad categories: printers that use dye-based inks, and printers that use pigment-based inks. The dye-based inks work well on both glossy and matte materials, and some have good longevity but not as good as Cibachrome. They longest-lasting ones are more like conventional RA-4 prints from negatives in longevity. The pigment-based printers, on the other hand, are even more archival and the Crystal Archive, with estimated longevity measured in hundreds of years, but they seem to perform best on matte materials from the reports I hear. They each have a different look, and which is better is a big debate occupying the time of camera-store junkies. Pros have done professional work with both. The Epson 1280 (and your 820) are dye-based inkjet printers. The Epson 2200 uses pigmented inks.

With inkjet printers, the resolution matters as well as the gradation of colors. The 1280 has a resolution of 2880 dots/inch, which renders smooth details even under a loupe, it seems to me. The 2200 is just as good. The 1280 uses six ink colors, and the 2200 uses 7 ink colors, both of which are far superior to the older four-color printers, especially in the highlights.

I have a 1270 now, and it makes marvelous prints that are different from Cibrachrome but just as good--better in fact because I have more control of the image going into it. But longevity is an issue for me and a 2200 is on my wish list.

Rick "who remembers when photographic prints weren't supposed to feel like plastic" Denney

[badgerdad]

Rick - I really appreciate your taking the time to do this. Thanks, Steve

[ctgoldwing]

Thanks for the excellent description Rick! I am now just getting back into 'serious' photography with my 10D. I long ago abandoned the darkroom & my F2. The past few years have been 'fun with digital' with point & shooters. Now I'm looking forward to the aggravation of producing a decent print again.

Jerry "who still has the print drier in the basement" Molaver