Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sanking 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,
Epson 2200 vs R2400 for digital negatives... 
Linear Mode
