[MD Optofonik]

I decided to print some pix up on the 3880 the other day, mostly for proofing before putting together a group of B&W photos for the bedroom wall, and haphazardly grabbed some older paper off the paper shelf. Older, HP paper. Paper for a Vivera ink printer that I gave away awhile ago. A inkjet printer that uses dye based ink.

The Epson is pigment based.

Before realizing my mistake I was happy enough with the prints that I decided they would be fine for my first "home gallery" set. So, I framed and hung them. All eight of them.

Arrrghh!

Thing is, they really don't look half bad. It was also good practice since I hadn't done any printing in awhile. Of course the pigment is sort of just sitting there on top of the paper with no where to go so I'll have to re-print them all.

My new Canon all-in-one uses swellable paper with it's insanely expensive dye based inks so there's that...

Heavy sigh.

[tim60]

At last I have seen someone who has observed and can explain an effect which bothered me.


I have used Epson 435 printer (general purpose inkjet) with glossy photo paper and found that the ink seems to sit on the surface. Grossly disappointing results, glossy for some lower density parts and matt finish for the darker parts of the picture, and the ink deposit can be rubbed off, making them unsuitable for handling.


What is the solution?


I note that none of the packets of materials states technical detail about compatibility.

[MikeD]

At last I have seen someone who has observed and can explain an effect which bothered me.


I have used Epson 435 printer (general purpose inkjet) with glossy photo paper and found that the ink seems to sit on the surface. Grossly disappointing results, glossy for some lower density parts and matt finish for the darker parts of the picture, and the ink deposit can be rubbed off, making them unsuitable for handling.


What is the solution?


I note that none of the packets of materials states technical detail about compatibility.

you are never going to get a very good print with that printer. You could buy some inexpensive mat paper and try that. But i think your best bet is to take a flash drive to WalMart or some place like that and let them print for you. They are cheap and will give you much better than what you got. If your pics are really good send them to Bay or one of the other professional labs.

[MD Optofonik]

At last I have seen someone who has observed and can explain an effect which bothered me.


I have used Epson 435 printer (general purpose inkjet) with glossy photo paper and found that the ink seems to sit on the surface. Grossly disappointing results, glossy for some lower density parts and matt finish for the darker parts of the picture, and the ink deposit can be rubbed off, making them unsuitable for handling.


What is the solution?


I note that none of the packets of materials states technical detail about compatibility.

It sounds like you might be fighting two battles. One is with the printer itself. The other may in fact be a paper/ink mismatch which exacerbates the problems with the printer. The ink rubbing off is strong evidence for a paper/ink mismatch. After realizing my mistake I wanted to be sure of what I was seeing and ran water over one of my test prints. The ink rinsed right off the paper. Either way, choice of printer or choice of paper, I agree that taking your pix to Walmart might be a better solution and cost less than the ink and photo paper used to print a batch of photos at home on your all-in-one. Take a moment to read this for some insight.

If you're committed to making your own prints and want better ones that will last long enough to become "attic treasure" for your grandchildren I would suggest purchasing a dedicated photo printer. Pigment based ink seems to have maintained the "archival" edge but I understand dye based ink is catching up. Dedicated photo printers can be found at a range of prices. This article is a decent primer and not too old.

Seeing as how you're using an all-in-one printer for your photos I'll assume you don't want to spend $1000 on a dedicated photo printer, at least not right now. However, there are two very good reasons to opt for a dedicated photo printer you might have to budget and save for. The first is reliability. I took a risk on the 3880 because my experience with the R-800 was dismal; worse than dismal. I spent so much time effort and money on ink and paper trying to fight constant clogs that I had to stop printing for while. I was throwing good money after bad.

After I moved to Southern California and got settled in I started thinking about printing again and did the research. The Epson 3880 came up again and again as, "the one to buy". I rolled the dice, gave Epson a second chance, and have been satisfied as a result. The 3880 works, has done so for a considerable amount of time, and in the long run has cost me less than owning an R800 did (two actually; one was a refurb to replace an out of warranty troublemaker). Much of the cost savings have been due to the larger ink tanks in the more advanced 3880 (assuming the R800 would have been as trouble free); paper didn't get less expensive.

Most larger more advanced printers with a higher initial cost usually incorporate higher capacity ink tanks. The savings in the cost of replacing larger cartridges tends to mitigate the initial cost of the printer. In particular, the Epson 3880 is delivered with full cartridges, not starter cartridges, and that brings the cost of the hardware down to about $620.00. What that means in real world terms is that after the ink lines have been primed you'll still have some ink remaining to do a good bit of printing before replacing any cartridges. Priming the lines uses about half the volume of each cartridge.

As usual YMMV.

---

Last edited by MD Optofonik; 10-05-2014 at 11:58 AM.

[yorik]

If your pics are really good send them to Bay or one of the other professional labs.

I have the good fortune to live a 5 minute walk away from the Bay Photo Labs main office. When I want something printed well, I place the order, and then walk down
the next day to pick it up. And the prices are very good.

On the other hand, for 4x6 fridge photos, our older HP all-in-one (J4450) actually produces reasonable pictures that stand the test of young fingers.

[Miguel]

What is the solution?

What was the specific paper brand and type?
There are two types of paper choices for dye-based inkjet printing: porous, and swellable. These types are not broadcast on the box of paper, sadly, so often it is a matter of spend, trial, error and spend some more. I would try another type of paper. Sometimes swellable papers have on their package words like high gloss or quick drying. Sometimes porous papers have on their package words like instant drying. Porous papers are not as hard as swellable in that they can have colors rub off and they fade more quickly.

Fading is also related to how the image is displayed (framed with UV-resistant glass will last longer) and the type of dye inks used. Newer dye-based inks from Canon, Epson, and HP are much more archival, but you have to display them right. Pigment inks are found in more expensive printers and are considered more archival overall. Having owned several of both types, I favor the more saturated look of dye-based inks. That is in part because they handle glossy paper much easier than pigment inks which tend to have light reflecting artifacts, especially in the dark tones. Baryta paper for pigments can produce a very classy glossy look though, but it's pricey. I save it for exhibition requirements.

M

[adwb]

did you print on the correct side? the correct side is sticky if you touch it to your lip

[tim60]

Today I did an experiment. I printed the same image on both the Epson paper I had lying about and the Sepom paper that had caused my problem. The Epson paper did perform better. The Sepom paper is labelled 'waterproof', which in the absence of any information additional to that I took like traditional print papers "RC" and "fibre base", to be just a difference in the technology of the paper, not what it was for, since they were all sold in retail outlets as photo print paper. I did not know there were multiple technologies of ink jet inks that were not compatible with papers, particularly as I have only ever been in the printer is almost disposable end of the market. We have had a few printers and concluded that with our use volume there is no point stocking up on ink because by the time we need more some problem like irretrievable nozzle blockage will have occurred. That experience is the biggest thing that puts me off buying a premium photo printer - I am busy and would only print small volumes (the busyness also makes it hard to attend a shop to get them printed), also do not want clutter all over the house, and so I would be worried that I would have major maintenance issues leading to replacement of the printer after very little work.


BTW: do things like the maintenance routines on premium printers REALLY work. I have found them dodgy at the lower end of the market - which puts me off spending more money to get a result that I am not convinced about.

[Miguel]

Most of the maintenance routines seem to involve refreshing the inkflow through the lines and heads to prevent clogging. That's not needed if you print every day, depending upon your environment of course. YMMV.
Printing costs for consumables is a racket, but for me it is worth it just for convenience, plus I like the craft of printing.

M

[MD Optofonik]

I don't have experience with any "premium" printers outside the R800 and 3880. I am not convinced the R800 was really a "premium" printer; more like an overpriced "everyday" printer marketed to photo enthusiasts. The 3880 really does perform at a different level and I am comfortable referring to it as a "premium photo printer".

I imagine that what keeps the 3880 from being a genuine "professional" printer has more to do with the chassis construction, which is mostly plastic, than the technology and print head reliability. It's suitability for high volume output in a "shop" environment might also be questionable; I don't think that's it's design intent.

Look around the various relevant forums and you'll see that there many who have a favorable impression of the 3880, especially with regard to print head reliability.