roscoetuff
Well-known
Like to find out how many of us there are out there who've decided to venture down the rabbit hole and pull out a Piezographic print, all carbon, black-only or what have you. So I've put together a poll for those B&W printing folks. Play along if you want. Attitude pro or against welcome; contributions, passion, etc. - it's all part of the game. Why? I guess I'm just curious. I sense from the Photrio group that more folks engage in alternative processes using historic methods than trying to create a "similar look" from digital ink. I'm not a wet print guy as much as I respect those who are. My interest with these alternate printing methods lies in the potential method involved for tying a print back to the negative in a way that otherwise seems less consistent or "regular" with inkjet prints than the old zone system. No, zone is not the end all and be all, but it can help with the process of seeing, or visualizing what I want. Having said this, I expect blow back, and each and every point about pre-visualizing not requiring this is absolutely valid. My defense is that there are grays I'd like to get on paper, and hope this gets closer to refining that in a systematic process. So it is NOT the magic bullet: Crappy photo printed this way is still a crappy photo, only what differs may be the speed of distraction. Call me one of those guys who holds there is more to a photo than sharpness. Yeah... it could have more gray, and go ahead and tell me to focus elsewhere. I'm doing that, too. Cone promises only that Piezography will reveal all the warts in the photograph, and somehow, there's absolutely an appeal in that as a challenge... a creative challenge. I'm in the game. Curious who else plays.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Voted no, but because there wasn't a "Not Yet" choice.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I used 3rd party inks for about 10 years. Then, about 8 years ago, Epson came out with the 2400 printer, the ABW driver and improved inks which eliminated the 3rd party ink need for me. I have no problem exhibiting large B&W prints made with Epson inks.
Do note that I am one who will always choose a simple solution over the complex one if both yield great results.
Do note that I am one who will always choose a simple solution over the complex one if both yield great results.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
"Do you print or prep digital negatives with B&W 3rd Party Inks?"
Yes, I do. My BW inks are third party. And my color cartridges are as well.
Do I print digital negatives? Yes, I do. For contact prints in the darkroom.
Do I print with black only inks? No. In addioton to comment above, here is commnet #2 in this link:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=52243.0
Main reason - I don't think here is cost effective option for piezography printing. Just as now with darkroom paper prices.
So, I'll try to get more in the files as it mentioned in the same comment at the link. Maybe get Monochrome Classic later on or M8 again.
Right now I like BW files I could get from M-E. I recently printed in OEM BW mode from BW file I get with M-E in special BW shooting mode (not in-camera BW mode).
Prior to this I was excited about black as real black on my pigment inks prints, but this print came with more variations of grey. Different from BW prints I did before.
I was going to scan it to show it here, but mother-in-law took it to her place today.
Aslo, I never seen piezography prints, I wonder is here any place in GTA to see them.
Forgot to add. Halton Camera Exchange . Alex and Nathan. If I want best possible bw print I ask them. Single printer for all, color and BW, but Nathan constantly prints my BW files as amazing. I have them at the walls in our house and they are among my darkroom prints. I like Nathan's BW ink prints, they are not piezography and costs very reasonably.
Yes, I do. My BW inks are third party. And my color cartridges are as well.
Do I print digital negatives? Yes, I do. For contact prints in the darkroom.
Do I print with black only inks? No. In addioton to comment above, here is commnet #2 in this link:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=52243.0
Main reason - I don't think here is cost effective option for piezography printing. Just as now with darkroom paper prices.
So, I'll try to get more in the files as it mentioned in the same comment at the link. Maybe get Monochrome Classic later on or M8 again.
Right now I like BW files I could get from M-E. I recently printed in OEM BW mode from BW file I get with M-E in special BW shooting mode (not in-camera BW mode).
Prior to this I was excited about black as real black on my pigment inks prints, but this print came with more variations of grey. Different from BW prints I did before.
I was going to scan it to show it here, but mother-in-law took it to her place today.
Aslo, I never seen piezography prints, I wonder is here any place in GTA to see them.
Forgot to add. Halton Camera Exchange . Alex and Nathan. If I want best possible bw print I ask them. Single printer for all, color and BW, but Nathan constantly prints my BW files as amazing. I have them at the walls in our house and they are among my darkroom prints. I like Nathan's BW ink prints, they are not piezography and costs very reasonably.
icebear
Mentor
I ventured down the rabbit hole but I am glad I did...
It all started with a friend printing some of my images with his Epson printer with a Piezography Pro ink set. 12x18 on 17x22 paper. The larger printer wasn't ready and I gave a local camera store a try. They used the exact same paper but a large format Canon printer with a color ink set. I went for 22x34 on 24x36 paper. The print was $125, not exactly cheap. Although all the detail was there as in the smaller prints that my friend made, the Canon print is simply dead on paper.
The Cone Edition software with QTR (quad tone rip) allows a custom fine tuning of split tone adjustment (separate for highlights/mid tone/shadows) which at this level of accuracy is simply not possible in any wet printing process. I don't print on a regular basis, so owning a printer myself isn't an option, maintenance is a pain I'm not going to deal with.
The Cone Edition prints, 20x30 on 24x36 paper, that I have made with them in their studio in VT are so head and shoulders above the Canon print that once you realize what print quality is possible from a high quality image, then you are lost for anything else. The prints, portraits in sense, are "alive" on paper. They have an eerily realistic warmth to them.
The printing process clearly enhances the image from what I had achieved with the file preparation in LR. The images are great to begin with but these large prints are stunning.
Don't ask about the cost. If someone had told me 6 month ago that I was about to shell out this much money for printing, I had him certified as nuts. I guess I've gone nuts now.
If you have images that are worth it, then go for it, there is no other way, at least for me.
It all started with a friend printing some of my images with his Epson printer with a Piezography Pro ink set. 12x18 on 17x22 paper. The larger printer wasn't ready and I gave a local camera store a try. They used the exact same paper but a large format Canon printer with a color ink set. I went for 22x34 on 24x36 paper. The print was $125, not exactly cheap. Although all the detail was there as in the smaller prints that my friend made, the Canon print is simply dead on paper.
The Cone Edition software with QTR (quad tone rip) allows a custom fine tuning of split tone adjustment (separate for highlights/mid tone/shadows) which at this level of accuracy is simply not possible in any wet printing process. I don't print on a regular basis, so owning a printer myself isn't an option, maintenance is a pain I'm not going to deal with.
The Cone Edition prints, 20x30 on 24x36 paper, that I have made with them in their studio in VT are so head and shoulders above the Canon print that once you realize what print quality is possible from a high quality image, then you are lost for anything else. The prints, portraits in sense, are "alive" on paper. They have an eerily realistic warmth to them.
The printing process clearly enhances the image from what I had achieved with the file preparation in LR. The images are great to begin with but these large prints are stunning.
Don't ask about the cost. If someone had told me 6 month ago that I was about to shell out this much money for printing, I had him certified as nuts. I guess I've gone nuts now.
If you have images that are worth it, then go for it, there is no other way, at least for me.
Last edited:
roscoetuff
Well-known
Thank you so much for these comments. Had some trouble setting up the poll and tried to junk the whole thing... but then it posted anyway and I had to try to "fix it". So there were only 2 choices as a result of my accident. But it is good to see folks who care about there prints enough to push their process as hard as they can. And I want to thank you folks for sharing that here.
Icebear: You're printing Monochrome M's shots? I think that's what I see on your linked images. Very nice. Like the stuff!
KoFe: Always like your stuff. On that link, "Mark's" comments always seem to some I credit most. He's LuLu's printing expert, and a very helpful guy btw. Pricing stuff out the other day, if you print no wider than 13-inches, Piezography doesn't have to be all that expensive. Even with a new Epson P400, you can get into it for less than $1,200 - which includes a set of PiezoPro inks - and enough ink to refill cartridges several times. Buy a used Epson 1430 refurbished ($200 or so) and the price falls further. Inks are cheaper than Epson prices for the same amount of ink, but paper is paper. I've been a fan of Red River inkjet paper, but Cone's own paper prices aren't all that bad - unless you use a lot. And my "learning to print" and translate your "vision" into the print you want is about more than simply the cost of one proof. Printing ain't cheap!!
Note that the comments are all from 2011... which while still relevant, may be stale. Cone's inks have changed, Epson and Canon continue to lift their game. I'm not sure where you end up. So for me, the key point as "Mark" (I think it's Mark Segal) points out, and by his account, many of the folks doing Piezo stuff care enough to push their negative scans and/or image files in the first place, and then to be finicky about the printing... so the results may speak less to the media and more to their technique. One often facilitates the other, however, so it's never that simple I guess. And it may be that by going to Piezo, you begin to push your process forward, chicken and egg style, "self selecting" as Mark puts it. There are other all B&W ink approaches out there, other RIP's besides QuadtoneRIP, etc. but Cone's is best known and his inks seem to be considered "best" at this. Guess I'll be finding out one way or the other... warts and all. But see some of Paul Roark's all B&W approach. He's got a photo of a tree that's outstanding: http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/ which of course I'm judging by the web!!! so my bad.
Icebear: You're printing Monochrome M's shots? I think that's what I see on your linked images. Very nice. Like the stuff!
KoFe: Always like your stuff. On that link, "Mark's" comments always seem to some I credit most. He's LuLu's printing expert, and a very helpful guy btw. Pricing stuff out the other day, if you print no wider than 13-inches, Piezography doesn't have to be all that expensive. Even with a new Epson P400, you can get into it for less than $1,200 - which includes a set of PiezoPro inks - and enough ink to refill cartridges several times. Buy a used Epson 1430 refurbished ($200 or so) and the price falls further. Inks are cheaper than Epson prices for the same amount of ink, but paper is paper. I've been a fan of Red River inkjet paper, but Cone's own paper prices aren't all that bad - unless you use a lot. And my "learning to print" and translate your "vision" into the print you want is about more than simply the cost of one proof. Printing ain't cheap!!
Note that the comments are all from 2011... which while still relevant, may be stale. Cone's inks have changed, Epson and Canon continue to lift their game. I'm not sure where you end up. So for me, the key point as "Mark" (I think it's Mark Segal) points out, and by his account, many of the folks doing Piezo stuff care enough to push their negative scans and/or image files in the first place, and then to be finicky about the printing... so the results may speak less to the media and more to their technique. One often facilitates the other, however, so it's never that simple I guess. And it may be that by going to Piezo, you begin to push your process forward, chicken and egg style, "self selecting" as Mark puts it. There are other all B&W ink approaches out there, other RIP's besides QuadtoneRIP, etc. but Cone's is best known and his inks seem to be considered "best" at this. Guess I'll be finding out one way or the other... warts and all. But see some of Paul Roark's all B&W approach. He's got a photo of a tree that's outstanding: http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/ which of course I'm judging by the web!!! so my bad.
I converted my R2400 quite a few years ago with a CIS neutral K7 inks from Jon Cone. I got interested in the inks over a decade ago when I saw some prints from an Epson 3000 next to some darkroom prints. From normal viewing distance, the two prints were so close I decided to give them a try. I have since done several exhibitions with those prints the most recent being a little over six weeks ago. I have found a system that works for me and I love the prints. Now retired, I have started doing more printing to leave for my family so they can see why I enjoyed this passion. I also believe in the saying it isn't a photograph until it is printed.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
The resolution and expanded tonality of Piezography is real, but it may not be realized unless one can create a technically great file, and unless you print really big. If you print big this is where Piezography can not only look like medium format, but also at times like large format.
In say 13x19 inch images you might not see much of a difference between a OEM and a Piezography print.
I shoot a Monochrom with a 2X Heliopan filter on my 28 Cron to minimize post processing, and my files only require minor tweaking. The idea here is to minimize post processing as to minimize digital artifacts and noise, because Piezography does not use a "Dither" to blend tone like with an OEM inkset.
What makes Piezography costly is the paper and ink. The ink is about half the cost of OEM, but you kinda use about twice as much ink, so there is no real cost savings. In a 50 foot roll of 24 inch wide paper I only get 15 prints 20x30 image on 24x36 sheet.
Then I run two printers and I use two different inksets/systems. In one year I spent $10K on paper and ink, loading up the truck, bulking up for savings, and taking advantage of sale pricing to save money. Because of this I was invited by Jon Cone to be an "early adopter" of Piezography Pro. This was like being a "beta tester" for almost a year before this inkset/system was available to the general public.
Currently I use Piezography Pro in a Epson 3880 and I print only glossy on Baryta coated papers for simulated wet print look. These inks are all carbon based, the black is likely the highest D-max available, and there are warm and cold darks, mids, and lites blended in the printhead to be able to create an infinate blending of split-tones.
What is striking about PP is the remarkable contrast, and the flexibility for tweaking and tailoring the splitone for different papers. This is one-pass printing (gloss overcoat gets printed with the blacks) so this takes half the time of printing K-7 Glossy.
I have a Epson 7800 that I call the "Jersey Barrier" because it is kinda big and heavy. I use this printer for K-7, where I print with 7 shades of black and I blend my own splitone where I have warm shadows and cool highlights. My K-7 can be upgraded to K7 "High Density" where I use the black developed for Piezography Pro with my six other inks and new curves.
K-7 I think is capable of higher ink loads because of being a two pass system. First 7 shades of black are printed. Generally I like the print to dry for a full day, and then I print the gloss overcoat. Each printing takes about 40 minutes for a 20x30 image on 24x36 sheet.
The PP has a more compressed range of contrast that is very punchy when compared to K-7 HD. K-7 HD has the broad tonality of large format and a more detailed midrange. Of course all this gets exaggerated in big prints.
There is a level of perfection to be exploited, but I'm not so sure this could be harnessed and utilized by everyone. Any defect becomes evident. Big prints don't lie, and if you don't want to print big, or emulate larger formats, all this precision and perfection is not required and would likely be wasted.
About 3-4 years ago I brought a small print to gift to Robert Rodriguez, the Canson Artist-In-Residence who I see at PhotoPlusExpo who has been a helpful mentor over the years. The image was a dramatic image of the Domino Sugar Refinery on the East River taken with my Monochrom, 28 Cron at F5.6 with a 2X yellow Heliopan filter from the Wiliamsburg Bridge with Madhattan in the background. The print was only a 13x19.
After giving the print to Robert I went to the Leica booth with my SL2-MOT as the SL was newly released, and I asked why would I need a new SL when I have an old one? So this Leica Rep named Richard Herzog starts talking with me asking me about my work, and I excuse myself saying I'll be right back.
I returned with the print I had gifted Robert Rodrigueiz and pretty much blew everone in the Leica booth away. Really crushed them. Richard Herzog use to be a manager for Phase One in California, and is a large format shooter. He asked me if the print was a wet print, and he was blown away that image capture was with a Leica Monochrom.
He gave me his card and wanted to know more about Piezography. They made me show this print to some old guy with a thick German accent. He offered to give me a show if I ever go to California. He also gave me his card.
The initial attraction to Piezography was the concept of contact printing silver wet prints. Now these systems are so evolved and are basically turn-key. I am very happy I went this route. BTW I never printed with OEM inks ever. I gave away the entire inkset from my 3880 to my friend Joe. Also know that if I had a 44 inch printer I would/could print bigger.
Cal
In say 13x19 inch images you might not see much of a difference between a OEM and a Piezography print.
I shoot a Monochrom with a 2X Heliopan filter on my 28 Cron to minimize post processing, and my files only require minor tweaking. The idea here is to minimize post processing as to minimize digital artifacts and noise, because Piezography does not use a "Dither" to blend tone like with an OEM inkset.
What makes Piezography costly is the paper and ink. The ink is about half the cost of OEM, but you kinda use about twice as much ink, so there is no real cost savings. In a 50 foot roll of 24 inch wide paper I only get 15 prints 20x30 image on 24x36 sheet.
Then I run two printers and I use two different inksets/systems. In one year I spent $10K on paper and ink, loading up the truck, bulking up for savings, and taking advantage of sale pricing to save money. Because of this I was invited by Jon Cone to be an "early adopter" of Piezography Pro. This was like being a "beta tester" for almost a year before this inkset/system was available to the general public.
Currently I use Piezography Pro in a Epson 3880 and I print only glossy on Baryta coated papers for simulated wet print look. These inks are all carbon based, the black is likely the highest D-max available, and there are warm and cold darks, mids, and lites blended in the printhead to be able to create an infinate blending of split-tones.
What is striking about PP is the remarkable contrast, and the flexibility for tweaking and tailoring the splitone for different papers. This is one-pass printing (gloss overcoat gets printed with the blacks) so this takes half the time of printing K-7 Glossy.
I have a Epson 7800 that I call the "Jersey Barrier" because it is kinda big and heavy. I use this printer for K-7, where I print with 7 shades of black and I blend my own splitone where I have warm shadows and cool highlights. My K-7 can be upgraded to K7 "High Density" where I use the black developed for Piezography Pro with my six other inks and new curves.
K-7 I think is capable of higher ink loads because of being a two pass system. First 7 shades of black are printed. Generally I like the print to dry for a full day, and then I print the gloss overcoat. Each printing takes about 40 minutes for a 20x30 image on 24x36 sheet.
The PP has a more compressed range of contrast that is very punchy when compared to K-7 HD. K-7 HD has the broad tonality of large format and a more detailed midrange. Of course all this gets exaggerated in big prints.
There is a level of perfection to be exploited, but I'm not so sure this could be harnessed and utilized by everyone. Any defect becomes evident. Big prints don't lie, and if you don't want to print big, or emulate larger formats, all this precision and perfection is not required and would likely be wasted.
About 3-4 years ago I brought a small print to gift to Robert Rodriguez, the Canson Artist-In-Residence who I see at PhotoPlusExpo who has been a helpful mentor over the years. The image was a dramatic image of the Domino Sugar Refinery on the East River taken with my Monochrom, 28 Cron at F5.6 with a 2X yellow Heliopan filter from the Wiliamsburg Bridge with Madhattan in the background. The print was only a 13x19.
After giving the print to Robert I went to the Leica booth with my SL2-MOT as the SL was newly released, and I asked why would I need a new SL when I have an old one? So this Leica Rep named Richard Herzog starts talking with me asking me about my work, and I excuse myself saying I'll be right back.
I returned with the print I had gifted Robert Rodrigueiz and pretty much blew everone in the Leica booth away. Really crushed them. Richard Herzog use to be a manager for Phase One in California, and is a large format shooter. He asked me if the print was a wet print, and he was blown away that image capture was with a Leica Monochrom.
He gave me his card and wanted to know more about Piezography. They made me show this print to some old guy with a thick German accent. He offered to give me a show if I ever go to California. He also gave me his card.
The initial attraction to Piezography was the concept of contact printing silver wet prints. Now these systems are so evolved and are basically turn-key. I am very happy I went this route. BTW I never printed with OEM inks ever. I gave away the entire inkset from my 3880 to my friend Joe. Also know that if I had a 44 inch printer I would/could print bigger.
Cal
roscoetuff
Well-known
"What makes Piezography costly is the paper and ink. The ink is about half the cost of OEM, but you kinda use about twice as much ink, so there is no real cost savings..."
Fairly, I think this is true of ANY printing exercise where you care enough about the output to have a "proof" print to tune up your image. As I read it, this was common in the wet darkroom, and I find it's still true of ink printing today. It's why most people DON'T print. But it is also a good way to drive your image making forward which is in part my interest. So I'm not so sure I'd blame the cost on Piezography per se so much as your own desire to produce an excellent print - which you have by all accounts. But at least in my (limited) experience, that'd be costly almost no matter what medium you used I think.
You also mention what I find close to the greatest payback in photography: Producing an image which shares your joy with someone else. You can't put a price on that!!! I've seen great images on Pictorio that you'd have no idea weren't wet prints - even in color.
Inkjets have nothing to be embarassed about and in fact I think they do yield their secrets if you put the effort into it. There's a video of a Cibachrome guru out in Oregon/Washington who puts so much into his one-of-a-kind Cibachromes... there's a measure of what it takes. Forget about the disappearance of Cibachrome. That's not the point. The point is that even with great materials, he puts enormous effort into getting everything out of his images he can. Even with my OEM inks on my Epson P800, I've burned through a lot of ink and paper "learning". "Tuition" isn't inexpensive. But it's cheaper than an addicton to golf!!! so I don't complain. And the truth is, every image isn't worth this kind of effort... only the "keepers". But you really do see it.
That said, I have a new P600 which I sweated bullets over whether this would be worth it, and I'm still in the baby steps of getting it up and running and converted to the PiezoPro ink set. Cone and Blackwell suggest that you really need a printer in top form... so a new one (or equivalent). Maybe that's just for beginners? Dunno. Until the firmware problem gets resolved, my P800 is stuck as an Epson OEM machine... but I'd love to use it! Smaller, the P600 should still be able to handle up to 12 X 12 for me, or maybe even some 12 X whatever panoramas. Good enough to prove the concept. And for now, if I want bigger, I'll send Cone or someone a file and let them print it after I've done some proofs.
Much to learn... and a confusion of information to absorb. What else is new? For me, the calculated cost of failure is some ink and a slightly used P600. If you look it up, the cost of a green fee at Pebble Beach is $495. Add lunch, air fare to get there, cost of developing a golf game worthy of the outting, and I think my P600 and PiezoPro ink sets, cartridge sets (yes, you need 2), etc. all comes in for a lot less, and yield more than 3 hours of fun.
Fairly, I think this is true of ANY printing exercise where you care enough about the output to have a "proof" print to tune up your image. As I read it, this was common in the wet darkroom, and I find it's still true of ink printing today. It's why most people DON'T print. But it is also a good way to drive your image making forward which is in part my interest. So I'm not so sure I'd blame the cost on Piezography per se so much as your own desire to produce an excellent print - which you have by all accounts. But at least in my (limited) experience, that'd be costly almost no matter what medium you used I think.
You also mention what I find close to the greatest payback in photography: Producing an image which shares your joy with someone else. You can't put a price on that!!! I've seen great images on Pictorio that you'd have no idea weren't wet prints - even in color.
Inkjets have nothing to be embarassed about and in fact I think they do yield their secrets if you put the effort into it. There's a video of a Cibachrome guru out in Oregon/Washington who puts so much into his one-of-a-kind Cibachromes... there's a measure of what it takes. Forget about the disappearance of Cibachrome. That's not the point. The point is that even with great materials, he puts enormous effort into getting everything out of his images he can. Even with my OEM inks on my Epson P800, I've burned through a lot of ink and paper "learning". "Tuition" isn't inexpensive. But it's cheaper than an addicton to golf!!! so I don't complain. And the truth is, every image isn't worth this kind of effort... only the "keepers". But you really do see it.
That said, I have a new P600 which I sweated bullets over whether this would be worth it, and I'm still in the baby steps of getting it up and running and converted to the PiezoPro ink set. Cone and Blackwell suggest that you really need a printer in top form... so a new one (or equivalent). Maybe that's just for beginners? Dunno. Until the firmware problem gets resolved, my P800 is stuck as an Epson OEM machine... but I'd love to use it! Smaller, the P600 should still be able to handle up to 12 X 12 for me, or maybe even some 12 X whatever panoramas. Good enough to prove the concept. And for now, if I want bigger, I'll send Cone or someone a file and let them print it after I've done some proofs.
Much to learn... and a confusion of information to absorb. What else is new? For me, the calculated cost of failure is some ink and a slightly used P600. If you look it up, the cost of a green fee at Pebble Beach is $495. Add lunch, air fare to get there, cost of developing a golf game worthy of the outting, and I think my P600 and PiezoPro ink sets, cartridge sets (yes, you need 2), etc. all comes in for a lot less, and yield more than 3 hours of fun.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
So, if I don't print larger than Letter size I have permission from Cal to skip piezography. And M8 is OK for small sized (< or = L) BW prints.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Roscoe,
I'll cut the chase.
When I first started with Piezography, there was no Walter Blackwell and Jon Cone's website was information overload and one had to have a Master's Degree in Journalism to put everything together. Also is lucky that I have a boring day-job and access to the Internet to dig in.
The addition of Walter changed all that and things are all updated (curves/profiles included) and all the headaches of sorting through information overload are gone.
So here is some of the good, the bad, and the ugly. I bought my 3880 from B&H new. I took advantage of a $250.00 rebate, so I paid only $750.00 for the printer, and the inkset costs $450.00 alone. One of the first things I learned is that it was going to be expensive, and that I could really use a larger printer right away.
The 3880 does not have the best paper transport of the truely "Pro" printers. On some prints that have large areas of shadows and black I would get this artifact called "Pizzawheeling" from the 3880. I use a workround that was given to me by Walter Blackwell, but that limits my image size because I need at least a 1 1/2 boarder. With this workaround if I don't observe this minimum border I get "Head Strikes" on the last upper right at the very end of printing.
The 7800 has a superior paper transport that uses muffan fans to suck and create a vacuum to hold the paper flat. If you have the space get a 7800, 7880, or even a 9800 or 9880. These are said to be the most durable printers with the longest print head life.
I bought mine 7800 for only $100.00. A friend at the NYC Meet-Up asked me if I was interested, and Joe then kindly offered to be my driver since he owns a car. The deal was that this guy Mike was moving back to Japan and simply only wanted $100.00 for a working printer. Mike is a large format shooter and this 9 year old printer had only made 1805 prints over its 9 year life before I bought it.
I ran a few power cleans to test the printer and then loaded it with Piezoflush to restore and preserve the printer while I save money for paper and more carts. I remember spending about $500.00 on a set of refillable carts and a gallon of Piezoflush just to store the printer safely
So if you decide on doing K-7 I would say cut the chase and get a used 7800 or 7880. BTW these printers are user repairable and the 600 page maintenance/service manual is available as a free download. Of course I did this at work using their paper and ink. LOL. If I had the space I would buy spare 7800 and 7880's and maintain a printer "junkyard" for parts. Understand the difference between a 7800 and 7880 is basically an inkset.
I learned from a friend that the 7900 and 9900 are the perfered printers for Piezography Pro. There are something like 10 or 11 cart slots in this series of printer and the output is mucho superior over my 3880 because there are additional carts used for an added lite-light warm, and a light-light cool. What you get here on large prints is the smooth roll-off in the highlights that resembles the smoothness in film.
So in comparing K-7 HD verses Piezography Pro it really requires a side by side test in 12x18 image size (my proofing size: my small print size is 13x19 1/2 on 20x24). The PP has a more compressed range of tone and the effect is higher perceived contrast.
The K-7 HD voices itself in a broad midrange. Perhaps the rolloff in the highlights with K-7 HD als has a smoother roll-off also like say PP on a 7900. The K-7 being a two pass system seems to handle extreme use of blacks better and can print higher ink loads due to its being a two-pass system. With some prints I experienced problems with Piezography Pro when either mucho shadows or blacks are present in the image. The difficulty is buckling of the paper due to ink load and then having the print head scuff the print. Might be due to the paper transport in the 3880. This printer has been heavily used for about 5 years.
I think PP is less prone to clogging, but I think that is mostly due to usage. The 7800 I print big so less frequently. Also because it is two pass that either the "Gloss Overcoat" or the 7 shades of black alternatively get exposed to a lot of "air-time." I use to print in batches, but now I tend to moderate this practice to avoid one day when I just print 7 shades of black and the next day gloss overcoating. Pretty much these were the reasons for any clogging: bad practice. No doubt that the 7800 is a heavier duty printer with a superior paper handling.
So in the end if you decide to go off the deep end, find a now discontinued 78XX or 98XX for K-7; and secure a 7900 or 9900 for PP. I would want both because they are that close in IQ, but the best printer for the job depends on the image and how you want to voice it.
Understand that with Piezography Pro pretty much I use the same setting depending on paper. With K-7 HD I just have to add a bit of contrast using the tone curves in Lightroom for a file I proofed using PP.
Sadly my 3880 is too small and is not the best. I have beaten the snot out of this printer though with both K-7 and PP, and I think it will be further recycled back to a color printer using Jon Cone color inks. These color inks are about 1/10th the price of Epson OEM so in this case there is a vast cost savings.
Also know that I can "Gloss Overcoat" a color print to gain added depth and saturation. This "second printing" of K-7 Gloss Overcoat is easy, but that means having the 7800 online. Even more crazy would be to have all three printers online, but that would require another computer (I already have two). LOL.
I think at this level I consider myself a printer as well as a photographer. Also I think printing makes one into a better photographer. My technical skill really is minimum, but now I have a lot of experience and mostly I rely on my keen eye.
Cal
I'll cut the chase.
When I first started with Piezography, there was no Walter Blackwell and Jon Cone's website was information overload and one had to have a Master's Degree in Journalism to put everything together. Also is lucky that I have a boring day-job and access to the Internet to dig in.
The addition of Walter changed all that and things are all updated (curves/profiles included) and all the headaches of sorting through information overload are gone.
So here is some of the good, the bad, and the ugly. I bought my 3880 from B&H new. I took advantage of a $250.00 rebate, so I paid only $750.00 for the printer, and the inkset costs $450.00 alone. One of the first things I learned is that it was going to be expensive, and that I could really use a larger printer right away.
The 3880 does not have the best paper transport of the truely "Pro" printers. On some prints that have large areas of shadows and black I would get this artifact called "Pizzawheeling" from the 3880. I use a workround that was given to me by Walter Blackwell, but that limits my image size because I need at least a 1 1/2 boarder. With this workaround if I don't observe this minimum border I get "Head Strikes" on the last upper right at the very end of printing.
The 7800 has a superior paper transport that uses muffan fans to suck and create a vacuum to hold the paper flat. If you have the space get a 7800, 7880, or even a 9800 or 9880. These are said to be the most durable printers with the longest print head life.
I bought mine 7800 for only $100.00. A friend at the NYC Meet-Up asked me if I was interested, and Joe then kindly offered to be my driver since he owns a car. The deal was that this guy Mike was moving back to Japan and simply only wanted $100.00 for a working printer. Mike is a large format shooter and this 9 year old printer had only made 1805 prints over its 9 year life before I bought it.
I ran a few power cleans to test the printer and then loaded it with Piezoflush to restore and preserve the printer while I save money for paper and more carts. I remember spending about $500.00 on a set of refillable carts and a gallon of Piezoflush just to store the printer safely
So if you decide on doing K-7 I would say cut the chase and get a used 7800 or 7880. BTW these printers are user repairable and the 600 page maintenance/service manual is available as a free download. Of course I did this at work using their paper and ink. LOL. If I had the space I would buy spare 7800 and 7880's and maintain a printer "junkyard" for parts. Understand the difference between a 7800 and 7880 is basically an inkset.
I learned from a friend that the 7900 and 9900 are the perfered printers for Piezography Pro. There are something like 10 or 11 cart slots in this series of printer and the output is mucho superior over my 3880 because there are additional carts used for an added lite-light warm, and a light-light cool. What you get here on large prints is the smooth roll-off in the highlights that resembles the smoothness in film.
So in comparing K-7 HD verses Piezography Pro it really requires a side by side test in 12x18 image size (my proofing size: my small print size is 13x19 1/2 on 20x24). The PP has a more compressed range of tone and the effect is higher perceived contrast.
The K-7 HD voices itself in a broad midrange. Perhaps the rolloff in the highlights with K-7 HD als has a smoother roll-off also like say PP on a 7900. The K-7 being a two pass system seems to handle extreme use of blacks better and can print higher ink loads due to its being a two-pass system. With some prints I experienced problems with Piezography Pro when either mucho shadows or blacks are present in the image. The difficulty is buckling of the paper due to ink load and then having the print head scuff the print. Might be due to the paper transport in the 3880. This printer has been heavily used for about 5 years.
I think PP is less prone to clogging, but I think that is mostly due to usage. The 7800 I print big so less frequently. Also because it is two pass that either the "Gloss Overcoat" or the 7 shades of black alternatively get exposed to a lot of "air-time." I use to print in batches, but now I tend to moderate this practice to avoid one day when I just print 7 shades of black and the next day gloss overcoating. Pretty much these were the reasons for any clogging: bad practice. No doubt that the 7800 is a heavier duty printer with a superior paper handling.
So in the end if you decide to go off the deep end, find a now discontinued 78XX or 98XX for K-7; and secure a 7900 or 9900 for PP. I would want both because they are that close in IQ, but the best printer for the job depends on the image and how you want to voice it.
Understand that with Piezography Pro pretty much I use the same setting depending on paper. With K-7 HD I just have to add a bit of contrast using the tone curves in Lightroom for a file I proofed using PP.
Sadly my 3880 is too small and is not the best. I have beaten the snot out of this printer though with both K-7 and PP, and I think it will be further recycled back to a color printer using Jon Cone color inks. These color inks are about 1/10th the price of Epson OEM so in this case there is a vast cost savings.
Also know that I can "Gloss Overcoat" a color print to gain added depth and saturation. This "second printing" of K-7 Gloss Overcoat is easy, but that means having the 7800 online. Even more crazy would be to have all three printers online, but that would require another computer (I already have two). LOL.
I think at this level I consider myself a printer as well as a photographer. Also I think printing makes one into a better photographer. My technical skill really is minimum, but now I have a lot of experience and mostly I rely on my keen eye.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
KoFe,
Nothing wrong with small prints, Nothing wrong with Epson OEM prints either.
But if you really want to exploit Piezography and make files from a MM be mistaken for medium and even large format, perhaps Piezography is for you.
Also if you want to print digital negatives for contact printing pretty much we are at a level where I can do a Salgado without having the best French lab in Paris making me 4 foot by 5 foot silver wet prints.
Contact printing with a vacuum frame is about as large format as you can get. But then again some people don't like Fuji Acros because it looks "too digital." Like I said not for everyone and unless you go off the deep end and go all the way you might not see any or much of a difference. Again, "Big prints don't lie."
BTW I don't have to change inksets to make digital negatives anymore. Those days are gone as things now are turnkey.
Cal
roscoetuff
Well-known
Cal: Good information. For now, I've got the small guy, a 13-incher and that's enough to get started. The advice on the larger machines may come in handy down the road, for printing larger.Thanks! Due to size, these are Craigslist not ebay in my area.
But thank you especially for the detail on the K-7 inks. That explains a lot. Everyone seems to love the K-7 ink sets. Now I understand: it's in the (gray) mid-tones. Good to know.
Thanks, Cal. Great info.
- Best, Skip
But thank you especially for the detail on the K-7 inks. That explains a lot. Everyone seems to love the K-7 ink sets. Now I understand: it's in the (gray) mid-tones. Good to know.
Thanks, Cal. Great info.
- Best, Skip
icebear
Mentor
Indeed, all images that I have printed with PiezographyPro were shot with the MM.
Natural sunlight, wide open aperture, close focusing distance, light yellow filter, shutter speeds between 1/1000 and 1/4000, ISO320.
Only general adjustments in LR4.2 output for printing as tiff sized 20x30 inch at 400dpi.
If the image capture is squeezing the max. possible IQ and you don't loose too much along the way, then be prepared to have a print in front of you, that will make your jaw drop, gives you the goose bumps, makes your spine tingle or all of the above.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Skip,
The K-7 transcends format and has that mid-tone voice of the bigger formats. The give away that image capture was small format is the 6x9 aspect ratio. Change to 4x5 aspect ratio and pretty much confuse people further.
For speed and smaller prints Piezography Pro is so convenient. I understand that 7900's are not known for long print head life, but with Piezoflush many have been resurrected. I want to find one for no-money because the results with those extra channels is mucho smoothness in the highlights that compares with film on wet prints. I'm talking on big prints (20x30 image on 24x36 sheet).
Minimizing post and doing everything right like Klaus suggests at time of image capture is key to printing big. "Less is more."
Cal
roscoetuff
Well-known
Cal: So you're saying PiezoPro is like "nice and handy... sews its own clothes, everybody loves it, but K-7? that's is to die for"? Is that what you're suggesting? So next round... I should be looking at K-7 and flush out the PiezoPro?
FWIW, I'm a Capture One user. Went there back in my Fuji days 'cause the others didn't really handle Fuji greens well. In my Sony days, it was fine, too. Mostly shooting film these days, it's partly because it's how I grew up, partly 'cause it's less computer time, and partly 'cause I wasn't ready to spring for an MM. So I did a film Leica and took the step of acquiring lenses... which then led to MF, and Rollei. But one day could just as readliy still lead to a MM, yes... but not yet. FWIW, Paul Roark shoots a Sony adapted to a red shift (Kolarvision) sensitivity for his B&W and switched to Zeiss lenses, too. As a Zeiss man, I was headed there, and may still... but not yet, too. One step at a time.
Looked on ebay and there are some bargains on the 7800/7900 and 9000 series... especially if you live in New York!! So go for it! Down here, Craigslist is kind of shy at the moment. My view is you figure out this Piezography thing in general before gearing up to go big time and snag one of these. I'm trying to clear out the basement of other stuff, and warehousing printers ain't top of the list at the moment. I like the idea... but fairly, have some work to do first.... keep the better half (and me, too) happy kind of thing.
FWIW, I'm a Capture One user. Went there back in my Fuji days 'cause the others didn't really handle Fuji greens well. In my Sony days, it was fine, too. Mostly shooting film these days, it's partly because it's how I grew up, partly 'cause it's less computer time, and partly 'cause I wasn't ready to spring for an MM. So I did a film Leica and took the step of acquiring lenses... which then led to MF, and Rollei. But one day could just as readliy still lead to a MM, yes... but not yet. FWIW, Paul Roark shoots a Sony adapted to a red shift (Kolarvision) sensitivity for his B&W and switched to Zeiss lenses, too. As a Zeiss man, I was headed there, and may still... but not yet, too. One step at a time.
Looked on ebay and there are some bargains on the 7800/7900 and 9000 series... especially if you live in New York!! So go for it! Down here, Craigslist is kind of shy at the moment. My view is you figure out this Piezography thing in general before gearing up to go big time and snag one of these. I'm trying to clear out the basement of other stuff, and warehousing printers ain't top of the list at the moment. I like the idea... but fairly, have some work to do first.... keep the better half (and me, too) happy kind of thing.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Skip,
If I could only have one printer and one inkset it would be my 7800 and K-7 HD. Pretty much I can be happy the rest of my life. None better.
But because I'm a lazy slacker and also a greedy American PP with its one-pass printing and also for its own distinctive look is also worth having, not just because of its convenience, but also for its own rendering.
I checked my Piezography Pro inks stockpile because a 700ml bottle of Gloss Coat Optimizer is near empty and I refilled all my carts last night as well as made a print. I still have full unopened 700ml bottles for a full complete inkset, as well as my open stock.
The 3880 is really good for proofing, and this allows for me to put the 7800 into storage mode filled with Piezoflush. The carts on the 7800 are oversized, I removed the doors because I can't close them, and I figure these oversized carts take 350-400 ml to fill. Pretty much Jon Cone supplies funnels to pour/empty bottles of ink into the carts. Also know that the initial fill exceeds 100 ml. On a 44 inch printer expect even more.
So I end up having to refill my gloss overcoat about every two weeks when it gets below half empty, and about once a month I do maintenance like cleaning the capping station and the wiper. At that time I top up the other carts. This is for either printer, big or small. The 7800 goes through mucho paper and ink. It is actually terrifying how these supplies get depleted, even if I print 13x19 1/2 image size on 24 inch wide roll which is cheaper than cut sheets.
So the only practical way to do what I do is to warehouse paper and ink when Jon Cone has sales. Also pays to bulk up for savings.
Having a small printer is good, because it saves a lot of wear and tear on the big printer. My big printer I basically run in the winter. Also I run a humidifier and try to maintain over 50% humidity in the winter to avoid drying the print head.
In a side by side of 12x18 images the differences between K-7 HD and PP is subtle. It is clear that k-7 with more shades has more dynamic range, and of course this all gets amplified when printing big. The difference though is very small. I was actually surprised because I thought the K-7 would crush the PP, but this was not the case. Hmmm...
Pretty much PP holds it own. But then there are those PP prints I saw that utilized a 7900 with the bonus light-light warm and cool.
So in the side by side PP verses K-7 HD of the same file and same image the better print depended on the shot. Not so much of a difference, both were great prints. The only solution to resolve this conflict is to have both. I'm already ruined.
I happen to find a 9900 that is available that has been refurbished (Epson???). A print head OEM replacement is about $1.6K alone for a 7900/9900. Good thing is a replacement Printhead for my 7800 is only about $1k. Not sure my gal would appreciate a 235 pound printer in our one bedroom apartment. LOL.
In the end it really comes down to do you prefer mids or contrast as the most important element to your photography. Also is this pursuit of perfection what you want to do? Again not for everybody.
Cal
If I could only have one printer and one inkset it would be my 7800 and K-7 HD. Pretty much I can be happy the rest of my life. None better.
But because I'm a lazy slacker and also a greedy American PP with its one-pass printing and also for its own distinctive look is also worth having, not just because of its convenience, but also for its own rendering.
I checked my Piezography Pro inks stockpile because a 700ml bottle of Gloss Coat Optimizer is near empty and I refilled all my carts last night as well as made a print. I still have full unopened 700ml bottles for a full complete inkset, as well as my open stock.
The 3880 is really good for proofing, and this allows for me to put the 7800 into storage mode filled with Piezoflush. The carts on the 7800 are oversized, I removed the doors because I can't close them, and I figure these oversized carts take 350-400 ml to fill. Pretty much Jon Cone supplies funnels to pour/empty bottles of ink into the carts. Also know that the initial fill exceeds 100 ml. On a 44 inch printer expect even more.
So I end up having to refill my gloss overcoat about every two weeks when it gets below half empty, and about once a month I do maintenance like cleaning the capping station and the wiper. At that time I top up the other carts. This is for either printer, big or small. The 7800 goes through mucho paper and ink. It is actually terrifying how these supplies get depleted, even if I print 13x19 1/2 image size on 24 inch wide roll which is cheaper than cut sheets.
So the only practical way to do what I do is to warehouse paper and ink when Jon Cone has sales. Also pays to bulk up for savings.
Having a small printer is good, because it saves a lot of wear and tear on the big printer. My big printer I basically run in the winter. Also I run a humidifier and try to maintain over 50% humidity in the winter to avoid drying the print head.
In a side by side of 12x18 images the differences between K-7 HD and PP is subtle. It is clear that k-7 with more shades has more dynamic range, and of course this all gets amplified when printing big. The difference though is very small. I was actually surprised because I thought the K-7 would crush the PP, but this was not the case. Hmmm...
Pretty much PP holds it own. But then there are those PP prints I saw that utilized a 7900 with the bonus light-light warm and cool.
So in the side by side PP verses K-7 HD of the same file and same image the better print depended on the shot. Not so much of a difference, both were great prints. The only solution to resolve this conflict is to have both. I'm already ruined.
I happen to find a 9900 that is available that has been refurbished (Epson???). A print head OEM replacement is about $1.6K alone for a 7900/9900. Good thing is a replacement Printhead for my 7800 is only about $1k. Not sure my gal would appreciate a 235 pound printer in our one bedroom apartment. LOL.
In the end it really comes down to do you prefer mids or contrast as the most important element to your photography. Also is this pursuit of perfection what you want to do? Again not for everybody.
Cal
roscoetuff
Well-known
Cal:
Yep. One step at a time. Remember I just got a P600 Friday, and a table to put it on today (have to assemble it). I haven't even filled a cartridge yet. So I'm way back the curve. Like you, I let my eyes lead me. I've tricked up my game in so many places, I have to absorb for a bit before the next one. Did you ever do one of Cone's workshops? or did those start happening after you learned how? My guess is that seeing a side-by-side might tell a lot, and that'd probably be a good place to see a lot of different work. Meantime, I'm excited to get an opportunity to print on just a small scale for now. It will take a few days given the calendar before I get the chance, but I'm really looking forward to it. Maybe 4th of July will have some down time? Will keep you posted.
Let me add again, thank you! You've encouraged me just the way I'd hoped. Your enthusiasm is wonderful. And I agree that a lot depends on the image you're printing - which it should. There's a lot of room to run between the two printers I have on hand now - especially if Jon and Walker get their next P800 tricks to work. But I am going to keep your comments on mid tones very much in mind. I've been re-editing a number of recent images the last few days really bringing those out. Sounds also like you mostly print glossy. I'm looking forward to seeing how that comes off as the Epson ABW versions didn't impress me much - even with Colorbytes Imageprint to manage it, the results still left me underwelmed and a convert to matte printing. I'd sure be nice to have glossy as an option again.
Yep. One step at a time. Remember I just got a P600 Friday, and a table to put it on today (have to assemble it). I haven't even filled a cartridge yet. So I'm way back the curve. Like you, I let my eyes lead me. I've tricked up my game in so many places, I have to absorb for a bit before the next one. Did you ever do one of Cone's workshops? or did those start happening after you learned how? My guess is that seeing a side-by-side might tell a lot, and that'd probably be a good place to see a lot of different work. Meantime, I'm excited to get an opportunity to print on just a small scale for now. It will take a few days given the calendar before I get the chance, but I'm really looking forward to it. Maybe 4th of July will have some down time? Will keep you posted.
Let me add again, thank you! You've encouraged me just the way I'd hoped. Your enthusiasm is wonderful. And I agree that a lot depends on the image you're printing - which it should. There's a lot of room to run between the two printers I have on hand now - especially if Jon and Walker get their next P800 tricks to work. But I am going to keep your comments on mid tones very much in mind. I've been re-editing a number of recent images the last few days really bringing those out. Sounds also like you mostly print glossy. I'm looking forward to seeing how that comes off as the Epson ABW versions didn't impress me much - even with Colorbytes Imageprint to manage it, the results still left me underwelmed and a convert to matte printing. I'd sure be nice to have glossy as an option again.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Skip,
I only print glossy. I also only print on Baryta coated papers. I live in a very small universe, but I'm happy.
Sounds like you are further along than you think. My friend John says the best tool is a trained eye.
I went to art school in the 70's and initially I was a painter. Back then I was a pretty good wet printer. As for Jon Cone's workshops: one day... My friend Scott from the Piezography Pro Forum from Texas recommends that I take a workshop with Jon Cone to learn how to fully calibrate my system. What interests me is the digital negative workshop.
I was a die-hard film only guy, and then Leica came out with the Monochrom which kinda remains a dream camera for me. I like the CCD rendering, I like that is primitive, not advanced, and is so basic. Pretty much it is so basic that it is like shooting a film camera. For me the CCD sensor has the mids.
Don't get me wrong, the M-246 is a vastly superior camera in every way: better shadow detail, smoother roll off in the highlights, better high ISO, more resolution, better dynamic range, faster, better screen...
The histogram on the CMOS sensor is kinda scooped though, and for me the guy who is trying to emulate larger formats the mids are everything.
Pretty much I shot my Monochrom for two years while I saved up to buy a 27 inch EIZO, the 3880 went on sale. Meanwhile I did my data mining to learn as much as I could. Some of the info on why the 78XX and 98XX series of printers that I shared here is gone. Pretty much I'm good and can keep this printer going for decades.
If I had a house and a basement I would collect and refurbish 78XX and 98XX printers. Remember the only difference between a 7800 and a 7880 is the inkset: the hardware is the same. This was a popular printer, parts are still available, and it was produced for a long time. Kinda like buying and refurbishing old pickup trucks. Does not hurt that these were the Epson printers known as the most durable and that had the longest printhead life.
Know that I built a 84 Jeep Scrambler that a Corvette engine in it with a Ford nine inch rear with Lincoln Continental disc brakes. It had a half cab and with the top was a micro sized pickup truck. Of course it sported big tires and a lift. Rebuilding printers would be a playful regression for me. Also I have an electronic background.
Cal
I only print glossy. I also only print on Baryta coated papers. I live in a very small universe, but I'm happy.
Sounds like you are further along than you think. My friend John says the best tool is a trained eye.
I went to art school in the 70's and initially I was a painter. Back then I was a pretty good wet printer. As for Jon Cone's workshops: one day... My friend Scott from the Piezography Pro Forum from Texas recommends that I take a workshop with Jon Cone to learn how to fully calibrate my system. What interests me is the digital negative workshop.
I was a die-hard film only guy, and then Leica came out with the Monochrom which kinda remains a dream camera for me. I like the CCD rendering, I like that is primitive, not advanced, and is so basic. Pretty much it is so basic that it is like shooting a film camera. For me the CCD sensor has the mids.
Don't get me wrong, the M-246 is a vastly superior camera in every way: better shadow detail, smoother roll off in the highlights, better high ISO, more resolution, better dynamic range, faster, better screen...
The histogram on the CMOS sensor is kinda scooped though, and for me the guy who is trying to emulate larger formats the mids are everything.
Pretty much I shot my Monochrom for two years while I saved up to buy a 27 inch EIZO, the 3880 went on sale. Meanwhile I did my data mining to learn as much as I could. Some of the info on why the 78XX and 98XX series of printers that I shared here is gone. Pretty much I'm good and can keep this printer going for decades.
If I had a house and a basement I would collect and refurbish 78XX and 98XX printers. Remember the only difference between a 7800 and a 7880 is the inkset: the hardware is the same. This was a popular printer, parts are still available, and it was produced for a long time. Kinda like buying and refurbishing old pickup trucks. Does not hurt that these were the Epson printers known as the most durable and that had the longest printhead life.
Know that I built a 84 Jeep Scrambler that a Corvette engine in it with a Ford nine inch rear with Lincoln Continental disc brakes. It had a half cab and with the top was a micro sized pickup truck. Of course it sported big tires and a lift. Rebuilding printers would be a playful regression for me. Also I have an electronic background.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Skip,
The Epson P7000 utilizes 10 carts, lists for $3350.00 at B&H, and currently has a $750.00 rebate to bring the actual cost to $2.6K. Selling the brand new unused inkset can further reduce the cost.
I looked back in my e-mails and soon to be released are these Jon Cone carts that are 700ml. There is this workaround where the chips have to be replaced after 700ml of ink has been used. No big deal.
The idea here is a new printer instead of securing a used 7900 for Piezography Pro use.
The ugly is this printer weighs 223 lbs. My 7800 is also a 24 inch wide printer, but it only weighs about 125 lbs.
Cal
The Epson P7000 utilizes 10 carts, lists for $3350.00 at B&H, and currently has a $750.00 rebate to bring the actual cost to $2.6K. Selling the brand new unused inkset can further reduce the cost.
I looked back in my e-mails and soon to be released are these Jon Cone carts that are 700ml. There is this workaround where the chips have to be replaced after 700ml of ink has been used. No big deal.
The idea here is a new printer instead of securing a used 7900 for Piezography Pro use.
The ugly is this printer weighs 223 lbs. My 7800 is also a 24 inch wide printer, but it only weighs about 125 lbs.
Cal