I ordered the PDN package, and I'm sure I'll need a new printer to work with. Currently I have an Epson R800, but from reading past posts it seems its not too good for Kallitypes.

I'm only concerned with using the printer for digital negatives. So, is there really much of a difference between these two when used for this purpose.

I was also thinking of the Epson 1280, but I'm not sure how this preforms compared to other newer Epsons.

I would be interested in trying perhaps some of the newer HP or Canon printers, but that might be fairly costly to do when starting out and not knowing enough about the newer inks.

The two methods I'm working with are B&W fiber prints and Kallitypes.

Keep in mind, I'm a student and trying to keep costs as low as possible.

Regards,
Martin

I ordered the PDN package, and I'm sure I'll need a new printer to work with. Currently I have an Epson R800, but from reading past posts it seems its not too good for Kallitypes.

I'm only concerned with using the printer for digital negatives. So, is there really much of a difference between these two when used for this purpose.

I was also thinking of the Epson 1280, but I'm not sure how this preforms compared to other newer Epsons.

I would be interested in trying perhaps some of the newer HP or Canon printers, but that might be fairly costly to do when starting out and not knowing enough about the newer inks.

The two methods I'm working with are B&W fiber prints and Kallitypes.

Keep in mind, I'm a student and trying to keep costs as low as possible.

Regards,
Martin

If you want to make digital negatives for kallitype or Pt./Pd. either the Epson 1280 or 2200 will work fine. The 2200 gives a slightly grainer look but you won't see this on most art papers.

In fact, I use the 2200 for making digital negatives for carbon printing on fixed out silver papers, and the grain look is not there. However, when printing on AZO I see the grain.

Sandy

If you want to make digital negatives for kallitype or Pt./Pd. either the Epson 1280 or 2200 will work fine. The 2200 gives a slightly grainer look but you won't see this on most art papers.

In fact, I use the 2200 for making digital negatives for carbon printing on fixed out silver papers, and the grain look is not there. However, when printing on AZO I see the grain.

Sandy

I agree with Sandy here. I use the 1280 and the 2200. I will mention the following though.

AFAIK, the Epson 2200 is no longer sold new and has been discontinued being replaced by the 2400.

The 2200 driver and inks provide a lot of flexibility when choosing the ink load to use compared to the 1280, though most of the time this isn't a problem with either printers except when calibrating alt processes that require a high contrast negative such as a pure palladium print with no restrainer or salt prints.

Both the 1280 and 2200 need to be aligned by running an alignment test on your transparency material of choice. Though more expensive, I have standardized on OHP. It has a dot gain of almost zero and allows one to get the printer into best alignment.

Generally, based on my experience the 2200 gives smoother results than the 1280, especially in areas of smooth continous tone such as skin or sky areas, otherwise both can produce very good results especially with alt process type prints. Silver gelatin prints will always show substrate grain. However I do intend on trying Costco's Kirkland glossy inkjet paper for producing negatives for silver gelatin prints. A fellow PDN user in SC swears by the paper and has sent me a sample print that has almost no substrate grain. The Kirkland paper is realtively cheap ($19 for 150 sheets of 8.5 x 11). Unfortunately the largest size available is the 8.5 x11 size. Apparently the paper can accept a good ink load without puddling and has very low dot gain. Quite a few b&w injet printers like this product for it's high quality and low cost. So it might be good for proofing also.

You can use cheap non OEM inks for the 1280 as they seem to perform very similarly for making digital negs. You may also wish to experiment with the Kodak/Encad white backlit film with the 1280 as a less expensive substrate alternative. It works very well with dye based inks, though it does block more light (UV and visual) so expect printing times to at least double when compared to OHP. I plan to work with this material more, later this year when time permits.

THe Epson 2400 is an excellent printer but ink consumptiom for this printer is greater and the inks are more expensive. I would be leary of using non OEM pigmented inks for the 2200 or 2400 (due to clogging issues) thought there may be some good substitutes (the applicability and performance of third party pigmented inks is something I would love to be able to test but don't have the time or money to do so.)

Atlantic Exchange has the best prices on the net for OEM ink carts.


Good luck,

Thanks for the replies. I really appreciate it.

I would like the ability to print some nice silver gel prints also. Most likely that would be my main focus, while learning more about Kallitypes. I did notice the lower cost inks for the 2200 at Atlex, and I guess that is something in favor of the 2200. I'm guessing it would cost me a little less then $400 for a refurb 2200, as per the Epson site.

So now my dilemma is, are the grainy prints really that bad in comparison to say, the R2400? Or maybe the 1280 would be a better option for me.

Honestly at this point I'm not too sure... Guess I'll have to give it some more thought.

Thanks again,
Martin

Thanks for the replies. I really appreciate it.

I would like the ability to print some nice silver gel prints also. Most likely that would be my main focus, while learning more about Kallitypes. I did notice the lower cost inks for the 2200 at Atlex, and I guess that is something in favor of the 2200. I'm guessing it would cost me a little less then $400 for a refurb 2200, as per the Epson site.

So now my dilemma is, are the grainy prints really that bad in comparison to say, the R2400? Or maybe the 1280 would be a better option for me.

Honestly at this point I'm not too sure... Guess I'll have to give it some more thought.

Thanks again,
Martin

Hi Martin,

Here is my 2 cents worth.

A refurb 2200 may not be the bargain that it seems. I've read good and bad reports about refurbed Epson scanners and printers. I'm not sure what the return policy is for units that are refurbs or to what extent the warranty will cover failures. So buy refurbed units with that in mind.

As for the 2400 the printer certainly has better metrics for dot size than the 2200 does but comsumes more ink than the 2200 and the ink is 30% more expensive. IOW, it sucks down the ink with it's built in self inititated ink head cleaning cycles and that includes when you change or replace a single ink cart. However if digital negatives for silver gelatin prints is your primary goal the 2400 is likely to produce the best quality negative, however substrate grain will still be an issue. Pictorico is scheduled to introduce a new and improved version of OHP that may improve the substrate graining issue. Additionally the Kodak/Encad backlit film may provide an alternative substrate comparble to Pictorico while film. Be aware that the K/E BLF may not be compatible with pigmented inks so check product requirements carefully before purchasing.

One technique that Dan Burkholder recommends is to place a sheet of 0.001 inch clear optical mylar between the film and printing paper and/or placing a sheet of translucent mylar on top of the negative to reduce the graining effect of the substrate. I've not tried these "tricks" so I don't know if they will work.

Good luck,

Thanks for all the advice! Really I appreciate it a LOT...

I'm waiting for PDN to arrive ordered it last weekend (I should go check my mail now). Right now I have an Epson R800, so I think I'll try running some tests with that, and see how they turn out. This was the printer I used to make my first negatives, but never completed testing properly. After I work a bit with the materials I have, then I'll decide if its worth me dropping the money on a new printer or perhaps outsourcing if I can find someone willing to make negatives for me if I supply the materials.

I'll keep at it and post some updates soon I hope.

Take care,
Martin