Kodak 8500: persuade me

Greetings,

So, I've done the Epson inkjet things...followed suit with the HiTi and fell in love.

Convinced it is just a much easier way to go I have been really looking at the Kodak 8500 for my 8x10 work.

I am about ready to take the plunge so now is your chance...sell me or make me walk away!

8500 owners: should I? I am very interested in your Pro / Con thoughts on this great looking printer!

Thanks,

Kevin

Okay, one point I kept on reading in this forum that has NO resolutions, even Bob Charolette (sp?) from Kodak said there is no workaround...

This dye-sub bleeds. Not blood, but especially at high contrast edges, like dark clothes in front of a light background, then the dark color will bleed into the light background, making the prints look less sharp and not professional.

Apparently the 8600 suffers much less bleeding than 8500, but 8600 is also significantly more expensive than 8500.

poisenoire said:

Greetings,

So, I've done the Epson inkjet things...followed suit with the HiTi
and fell in love.

Convinced it is just a much easier way to go I have been really
looking at the Kodak 8500 for my 8x10 work.

I am about ready to take the plunge so now is your chance...sell me
or make me walk away!

8500 owners: should I? I am very interested in your Pro / Con
thoughts on this great looking printer!

Thanks,

Kevin

Click to expand...

--
Fotografer
...like, a total himbo

fotografer said:

This dye-sub bleeds.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I followed those threads too. I don't suppose ANYONE has an example they could post? I understand about scanning printouts, but a decent example wouldn't hurt.

The one I did see that was posted was hard to make out.

Kevin

Kevin,

I thought someone posted something here and the example of a little boy infront of a white (?) background was quite a clear illustration of this phenomenon.

But I think the best is for you to get one sample print of your own file from this printer. Choose an image wisely and judge for yourself...

poisenoire said:

fotografer said:

This dye-sub bleeds.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I followed those threads too. I don't suppose ANYONE has
an example they could post? I understand about scanning printouts,
but a decent example wouldn't hurt.

The one I did see that was posted was hard to make out.

Kevin

Click to expand...

--
Fotografer
...like, a total himbo

fotografer said:

I thought someone posted something here and the example of a little
boy infront of a white (?) background was quite a clear
illustration of this phenomenon.

Click to expand...

Yep, that's the one I saw too...but I attributed some of that quality (possibly incorrectly) to what appeared to be a bad scan and web posting...hard to believe the quality would be THAT bad.

I will look for a local dealer, but it hasn't been easy. I have been in and out of the country for the last few weeks.

So, I guess I would pose a new question then: does anyone with a Kodak 8500 have any high-key printouts they are happy with, or do they all exhibit excessive bleed?

Kevin

Under certain circumstances, you will see some bleeding on the 8500 printer. There is a correction that can be applied in the driver (Enhancement feature) that significantly improves the bleeding (in many cases it almost completely eliminates it).

Where you are most likely to see bleeding, even with Enhancement on, is if you have a dark or colored object against a near-white background. If the background is a medium-light density or darker, you likely won't see it.

It depends upon the type of images that you routinely print. If you often print images that contain dark or colored areas against a nearly white background, then you will see some bleeding. If you rotate the image 180 degrees (checkbox for this in the driver), the bleeding will go in the opposite direction. Often, you can "hide" the bleeding by rotating the image so that a colored object now is trying to bleed into a darker background, where the correction is more effective.

I hope this helps clarify the situation.

Bob Collette

fotografer said:

Okay, one point I kept on reading in this forum that has NO
resolutions, even Bob Charolette (sp?) from Kodak said there is no
workaround...

This dye-sub bleeds. Not blood, but especially at high contrast
edges, like dark clothes in front of a light background, then the
dark color will bleed into the light background, making the prints
look less sharp and not professional.

Apparently the 8600 suffers much less bleeding than 8500, but 8600
is also significantly more expensive than 8500.

Click to expand...

Bob Collette said:

Under certain circumstances, you will see some bleeding on the 8500
printer. There is a correction that can be applied in the driver
(Enhancement feature) that significantly improves the bleeding (in
many cases it almost completely eliminates it).

Click to expand...

Bob,

Thanks for the reply!

While I don't take many high-key photographs, or even bright background photos for that matter, it is of some interests.

As a rep. of the company and someone with extensive end-user knowledge, would you say this has been a significant issue for your pros doing portrait work?

My primary use will be for portraits, so it is of concern although it isn't my primary type of imaging.

Kevin

Kevin,

Many professional photographers are currently using the 8500 printer without any major issues. The 8500 bleeding, while evident on some images, is generally as good or better than most of the other low-cost dyesub printers on the market today.

One Hollywood photographer, who shoots lots of movie stars, uses an 8500 printer in his work, and is pleased with its performance. The printer is very popular with Event Photographers (not exactly what you're going to be using it for) because of it's speed, portability, and image quality.

Bob

poisenoire said:

Bob,

Thanks for the reply!

While I don't take many high-key photographs, or even bright
background photos for that matter, it is of some interests.

As a rep. of the company and someone with extensive end-user
knowledge, would you say this has been a significant issue for your
pros doing portrait work?

My primary use will be for portraits, so it is of concern although
it isn't my primary type of imaging.

Kevin

Click to expand...

poisenoire said:

poisenoire wrote:
My primary use will be for portraits, so it is of concern although
it isn't my primary type of imaging.

Kevin

Click to expand...

If you are buying for studio use. Look at a Fujix Pictrography referb's and lab gear going off lease are affordable, but hardly portable. The Kodak would be a one person portable. The Fuji output is predictable and repeatable without bleeding or banding.

John

Thanks everbody, for the input!

I will get some samples from the 8500 and check it out. While I would love the pictography, it is a little above my price point and definitely larger than I can accomodate right now.

I look forward to the test print and seeing what this thing can do!

Regards,
Kevin