Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

PortraitPro 17 SITEWIDE 50% off sale + EXTRA 15% OFF code EPZR18

Is it me or is the R1800 useless...

Henchard 13 2.7k 1 United Kingdom
15 Dec 2005 11:17PM

Quote:life expectancy of up to 10 years can be expected with both the gloss and pearl papers, depending on the ink used.

Well can't say I'm too bothered if my prints last 75 years or not cause I won't be here then. Also, whilst non fading is a big plus anything really important is kept on disk and no doubt in 10 years time I'd be able to print it out on an even better printer.

However, the spec sheet you refer to was written in 2002 - I suspect before Ultrachrome inks came into general use. The Ilford website states.

ILFORD has combined the premium quality of the ILFORD GALERIE inkjet media range with the latest digital print technology from Epson to create digital prints that will last for up to 75 years.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

digicammad 14 22.0k 39 United Kingdom
15 Dec 2005 11:43PM
I have the R800, which is the same engine. When I first got it the results were not bad but not good. I got a profile done by Fotospeed and am now over the moon with the quality of prints I get.

I used to use Epson Durabrite but have moved to Kirkland High Gloss and get really vivid colours.

Westers 13 3.9k 1 Burkina Faso
15 Dec 2005 11:51PM
Wow, thanks everyone for your response. Loads of stuff to have a go at and try.

Thanks Peter for the email - I'll definately be trying this tonight.

I'll let you all know how I get on - I know the R1800 beast will be good, it's just a pain at the moment to get at it.
Westers 13 3.9k 1 Burkina Faso
16 Dec 2005 1:28AM
Slight improvement but still less than happy with it. I've tried all the suggestions when it comes to playing arround with PS/Printer driver (including your articles Peter) and whilst it's close regarding colours, it doesn't give me the warmth, depth or saturation that the picture on screen shows.

It's not as if it's close and I'm nit picking - it's far enough out to give the printed picture a different feel.

Starting to regret choosing Epson but guess I'll have to stick with it. I'll see if I can get some Ilford paper.
digicammad 14 22.0k 39 United Kingdom
16 Dec 2005 1:48AM

Quote:Starting to regret choosing Epson

I suspect you would have the same problems regardless of which manufacturer you chose. From my own experience and reading the threads on here I reckon colour profiling is harder to get to grips with than taking the photos in the first place.

Westers 13 3.9k 1 Burkina Faso
16 Dec 2005 1:54AM
Ian, I think you're right - certainly about the colour profiling side of things.

I should add that the printer and quality of the print is superb - it's just the picture doesn't actually match what's on screen, lol.

One work arround solution is to soft proof the picture in PS using the Epson profile and then tweak the image so it's back close to the original. It does require some work and you end up suffering from the "is that colour different to that one" syndrome but it gets closer.

It just looks like the Epson paper profiles are not accurate, so I'll get some Ilford and see if that improves things. Otherwise it'll be a custom profile.
digicammad 14 22.0k 39 United Kingdom
16 Dec 2005 1:59AM
Well if you go for the custom option I can recommend Fotospeed . Good service and the profile is spot on. There is also a piece of software called Profile Prism, developed by the same people as Qimage, which allows you to create your own profiles providing you have a half decent scanner.

willf1 13 51
16 Dec 2005 2:57AM
Westers: I'm not glad that you are suffering, however, I am glad that someone is having the same frustrations trying to print what is on their scren to a pson printer - R200 in my case.

I have also Spyder calibrated my montior but the prints are very dark with dirty colours and bear no resemblance to the screen image.

I'm getting Scott Kelby's book on CS2 off Father Christmas so I hope he can sort me out. My only other option is to write to Jim.

Westers 13 3.9k 1 Burkina Faso
16 Dec 2005 3:09AM
Lol - I've been through the dark and muddy phase, now I'm in the light and cool phase. Have a look at www.computer-darkroom.com. There are several articles and tutorials:

Printing in PS7 and CS - article

Using an inkjet as a Proof Printer - tutorial
RGB soft proofing - tutorial

The first one is pretty much what Pete sent me in his email.

The other two are interesting and the using an inkjet as a proof printer is ok but I feel this is a work arround rather than a solution.

Oh, and if you drop me an email I'll send the documents Pete sent to me.
I've tried all of the above and coupled with Pete's emails (which just helped to confirm a few things) I've come to the conclusion that it is the Epson paper profile that is useless. I'm going to test this theory tonight as Steve said Ilford have accurate profiles and I'm sure I've read that elsewhere.

If I can get some good results with Ilford then if I want to use Epson paper (for longevity of print life, eg) I'll have to get a custom profile made.
willf1 13 51
16 Dec 2005 3:20AM
I'll send you an email now, Ian.

JohnHorne 13 1.0k
16 Dec 2005 3:48AM
In the interests of fairness and accuracy I'd better update my previous comment. Ilford have edited the text on their website since I copied the wording above. They now say that prints on Ilford Galerie Smooth (Gloss or Pearl) paper will last up to 10 years with dye-based inks but over 30 years with pigment inks.

Westers 13 3.9k 1 Burkina Faso
16 Dec 2005 4:37AM
Agree with you John but Epson claim 75 years with theirs. Now, I'm guessing for most people 35 years is good enough but 75 years is even better, lol.

Bought some Ilford paper today from Jacobs - buy one get one free (50 sheets of A4 for 11.95). The girls in the store even let me mix and match so I got 25 sheets of Pearl and 25 sheets of Matte)
Carabosse 15 41.0k 269 England
16 Dec 2005 5:01AM
Not sure why all the fuss about print longevity. The good thing about storing pics digitally (whether taken on digital or scanned from film) is that you can always print out a fresh new copy whenever you want! Smile
Westers 13 3.9k 1 Burkina Faso
16 Dec 2005 5:06AM
It's a fuss if you're selling/planning to sell prints...
JohnHorne 13 1.0k
16 Dec 2005 6:29AM
As Westers says, longevity is important if you are selling. Not only that, but I'm inclined to take some of these claims with a pinch of salt because:
(a) what manufacturers call "noticeable fading" will be interpreted in a way that they consider most favourable to them, ie: probably after I would have noticed the fading;
(b) you can bet that storage conditions for my prints will not be as good as the idealised conditions used by the manufacturers in their tests.

All of which means that the life span of my prints will be less than the figures indicated. So I want the figures to be more than acceptable to me.


Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.