Kodak 8500 questions

[TimMimpriss]

I am interested in the Kodak 8500 thermal printer and have read many of the posts here but still have some questions to ask. Most of my work is landscape, architecture and some informal portrait photography, so this may influence the results that I would get.

Are folk happy overall with the quality available from this printer?
Can it produce neutral monochrome images without marked illuminant metamerism? I do not do enough monochrome work to want a separate printer, so pleasing monochrome quality is important.
Is the Dmax sufficient to give contrasty pictures, when that is needed? Some inkjets are lacking in the Dmax department and produce flat images.
How does colour gamut compare with traditional lab prints. I find that restricted red and green gamut is a serious problem when printing flowers and foliage.
Is bleeding (smearing) a serious problem? I know some of you have commented on it, but is it only an issue in certain situations?
Is dust in the print a significant problem, i.e is there a significant rejection rate because of dust?

Is there anyone in the UK who would make some prints for me - at my expense of course?

Thanks for your help,

Tim Mimpriss

[Jonathan_Ratzlaff]

The main benifit of this printer is the fast printing speed. If you are not in a hurry I would not buy this printer. I have two of them for event photography. They are good in that regard. There is some bleed from dark to light.
I use an epson 220 printer for landscapes. I find the colour to be better. I have a better choice of paper and I can make different size prints and feed different paper sizes. It is also cheaper to operate than the 8500 because every print I make on the 8500 burns a complete piece of 8.5X12 paper and ribbon.

I have not tried monochrome images, however the blacks are not bad, but there is only a cmy ribbon so I don't think it would shine there. You can get fairly neutral black and whites from the 22oo by using a narrow gamut profile such as the ones from Nick Wheeler. they provide a fairly balanced monchrome print from the 2200.

[TimMimpriss]

Thanks for the reply.

I think that yours is a good summary, and that the 2200/2100 would be a much more flexible device for me. I see from one of Ethan Hansen's posts that the 2200 can have a very large gamut on suitable media.

Tim Mimpriss