Print Inkjet WORK

The Canon Print inkjet/selphy app was designed for use with Android or iOS devices and is not compatible with the Chrome OS. If you have a Chromebook, you can connect it using the steps below on your Chromebook.

In every meaningful and measurable way--e.g. color accuracy, color gamut, optical density / contrast range, available surfaces, likely archival properties*, resolution--years ago inkjet prints surpassed what are often called C prints, i.e. today those made with the RA-4 process.

Print Inkjet

Download File 🔥 https://urluso.com/2y3CjQ 🔥

So I disagree with any suggestion that a C print is "proper" in some way that an inkjet print is not. Yes, I suppose that a C print is made with a truly photographic process and an inkjet print is not. But clinging to that distinction strikes me more as fetish than functional choice.

Might someone reasonably choose a C print over an inkjet print with a reasonable basis? Yes. Cost is certainly one--the cheaper services and options tend to be C prints. The somewhat better-established archival properties of C prints has some room for consideration. And of course, get what you like!

*The likely archival properties of C current prints are established to an extent by the history of C prints going back several decades, while inkjet prints are comparatively new, making their future somewhat less certain, and based on accelerated exposure / aging tests and projections. I believe in the science behind such tests, but IMO the degree of uncertainty is greater.

I agree. Inkjet prints are far superior in color accuracy, fidelity and they have a greater choice of papers. C prints were never considered exhibition quality even back in the film days. If you wanted to make a truly archival color print, you'd make a Cibachrome print. At worst, you'd make an R print. A C print was reserved for work that was shot on color negative film, which couldn't rival the slower slide films in color and sharpness. C prints were also made by those on a budget, who couldn't afford to do a direct R print or a Cibachrome from a slide, so they would go to a lab that would make an internegative and then print it as a C print, which was MUCH cheaper.

In addition to the technical superiority cited here already, the accessibility of the technology is for me a major plus of inkjet prints. Being able to produce my own high-end prints at home is something I value a lot, both in terms of artistic process and craftmanship.

Of course not everyone can put a large-scale inkkjet printer into their home or office, but if you are serious about your prints, having an A3+ or A2 printer at home already covers a lot of bases, producing print sizes sufficient for many applications and allowing you to experiment with paper types and print quality. And for those large prints you can still access professional services based on the same technologies and processes you have established at home.

I know all about dye transfer and how it was done for high end advertisement prints back in the 50s - I was going to get a print made and there were only two or three guys still doing it about 15 years ago

Optical density range is the difference between paper white (Dmin) and maximum printable black (Dmax). I don't think paper whites are much different between current inkjet papers and current RA-4-process papers with similar surfaces. I think you will find that many current and recent-past photo inkjets can, on suitable papers, print equal and sometimes greater Dmax.

Gamut is the range of colors that can be printed. Decent inkjet prints have significantly larger gamuts than any C prints. Going from memory, the full gamut of 'perfect' human vision is about 2,000,000 CCU; the best photo inkjets on the best papers can produce gamuts of around 900,000 CCU; my cheap little Epson dye-ink inkjet, depending on the paper, produces a gamut of around 500,000 to 780,000 CCU; and modern RA-4 papers can produce gamuts of about 400,000 to 500,000 CCU.

Obviously a printer not being able to handle sufficient bit depth could be a source of banding or similar, but I have not seen any evidence suggesting that if you do your editing in a high enough bit depth and a suitable color working space, the bits depths that any current printers accept are themselves a problem.

Then it gets thornier. AFAIK all current RA-4 papers use three layers of dyes, cyan, magenta, and yellow, to form the final image. How many gradations can there be with three color layers printed at 300 ppi with inputs of 8 bits per RGB channel (i.e., 256 steps from no red to maximum red, and the same for each of green and blue)? I think the answer is, 'For normal purposes and visual assessment, almost always enough.' But inkjets with enhanced photo-printing capabilities have between 5 and 11 colors of ink instead of three layers of dye, print 'normally' at 300 or 360 ppi but often with a simple user option for 600 or 720 dpi, and in some cases accept greater-than-8-bit RGB data. Oh, and say what you will about 'continuous tone'--not that I think our films and light-sensitive photo papers truly produce what I'd call continuous tone, even when printed in an enlarger--but if we're talking about digitally-exposed C prints, then that's imposing certain limits that exclude anything like true continuous tone.

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And to mix metaphors, this is something you should see with your own eyes. Get yourself a set of test prints and see what you think. There are labs that will take your image and print it with a variety of processes and papers. Take a professionally-prepared, high-gamut test image--I like Bill Atkinson's, an sRGB version of which is at , just save the original-size version, or try Andrew Rodney's gamut test file, which you can download from -and-tricks.html, but you'll probably have to convert it from ProPhoto RGB to sRGB and save it as a JPEG--and get a lab to make you a set of test prints. For example, Bay Photo offers C prints on several brands and surfaces of paper ( -prints/), pigment inkjet prints on a bunch of different papers ( -art-prints/), and what I'm 92% sure are Canon dye-ink inkjet prints on multiple surfaces ( -prints/). Maybe, e.g., get 8x10s or 11x14s of those two test images, each on Kodak Endura Lustre E, Fuji Crystal Archive Pearl, Canson Platine, and the "Dream" Lustre; and/or do the same with Fuji Crystal Archive Matte (or Maxima Matte), Canson Rag Photographique, and the "Dream" Deep Matte. What do you see regarding their respective gamuts, optical density ranges, 'tonalities', etc.?

I saw early on that inkjets would ultimately surpass C prints at least. It's just logical that getting a high purity/durable dye that you can dissolve in a solution and squirt on a high quality paper has to be easier than getting the same result by binding them to paper using convoluted chemical processes. It's a lot simpler and more direct.

I don't think it's about a particular technology per se, rather, what the end results look like. I have a lab made inkjet print hanging on my wall that rivals my Cibachrome prints. The inkjets are SO good now that there is just no reason to go to an older technology of lesser quality just because it's "continuous tone".

The best would be if dye transfers where still a thing, saw a William Eggleston show last week in barcelona with 40 year old dye-transfers and they looked amazing, and richer than the recent reprints they had on display done with hahnemuhle photo rag. Same thing happened to me when in Tate modern they had some Martha Rosler c-prints that where amazingly beautiful, the same day I saw a new show by Thomas Struth with inkjets and in comparison the tones where lacking and the depth inexistent, something that was quite the opposite on previous work/prints done by him.

What you're complaining about really is an issue with pigment-ink inkjet prints, but very little if any problem with dye-ink inkjet prints. I've looked at a lot of inkjet prints on a lot of papers, made with both Canon ChromaLife 100+ and Epson Claria dye inks, and I've almost never seen any surface issues of the type you describe. In fact, the only time I can recall seeing surface weirdness with dye inkjet prints was with some Canson Platine--but not with the generally-similar Red Red Palo Duro Softgloss Rag (used a lot) or Epson Platine (used a very little)--so I tend to suspect there was some manufacturing defect in that batch.

All or at least very nearly all C prints are made on RC-type papers, and most 'art' inkjet prints are made on non-RC papers with pigment inks, so what you've seen is probably an apples-to-oranges comparison.

But suppose we prepared a comparison of more truly-comparable prints, i.e. C prints on the paper of your choice and inkjet prints on a comparable surface, probably (depending on the paper) made with dye inks. There are certainly outliers, but I'd bet heavily that with prints as just described, limited to similar gamuts and density ranges, the large majority of us would fail a double-blind test trying to differentiate between C prints and inkjet prints. In fact, I bet you'd fail such a test. I think what you've seen is about different paper types and non-comparable inks.

But of course part of what makes inkjets desirable is their ability to print on papers for which there are no comparable RC papers. and part of what makes inkjets desirable is their gamuts being much larger than RC papers' gamuts. And those things can be easy to see.

As I said earlier, inkjet has shown some remarkable improvement. In my opinion, the most important aspect has been both the color accuracy and the achievability. When it comes it the ink longevity only in this past 10 years or so is it something we can be confident in. Pretty much any name brand photo printer which usually includes Canon, Epson or HP is going provide archival grade inks. The papers you can purchase have also improved quite a bit to help withstand the years ahead. When I look at one of the first inkjet prints I did of some artwork in the 90s, it shows visible signs of fading. Actually it started showing those within a year or less of it being printed. In comparison, I have quite a few inkjet prints hanging on the wall of my office, some close to 10 years old. They were printed on an old HP plotter using a archival grade ink (one of the firsts) produced by HP. The prints still look as good as the day they came off the printer. 2351a5e196