Choosing a printer

I am planning to purchase a new printer and I would like
recommendations, please. I want a something that will give me good
print stability and large prints and will cost less than $1000. I have
been looking at the Epson 2200. Are there others I should consider?
Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Morton Klotz wrote:
I am planning to purchase a new printer and I would like
recommendations, please. I want a something that will give me good
print stability and large prints and will cost less than $1000. I have
been looking at the Epson 2200. Are there others I should consider?
Any suggestions will be appreciated.

I hemmed and haw-ed between that and the Canon i9900, for months. Bought
the Canon. Don't remember why, but I'm sure it was reasoned and
reasonable reasons.

Haven't unpacked it yet (having a new printer in view seems to have
cured what ailed my old Epson 750, so I'm using up Epson supplies while
the using is good; have no room to set up both).


--
Frank ess

"Morton Klotz" wrote in message
...
I am planning to purchase a new printer and I would like
recommendations, please. I want a something that will give me good
print stability and large prints and will cost less than $1000. I have
been looking at the Epson 2200. Are there others I should consider?
Any suggestions will be appreciated.

The Canon 9900 is a good alternative, but it doesn't use pigmented inks, so
print life is, in theory, shorter than the Epson 2200. Its big advantage is
that it is about $200 less than the Epson, and much faster. Print quality
is about equal, from what I've seen.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:5uCQc.11779$ih.6166@fed1read07...
"Morton Klotz" wrote in message
...
I am planning to purchase a new printer and I would like
recommendations, please. I want a something that will give me good
print stability and large prints and will cost less than $1000. I have
been looking at the Epson 2200. Are there others I should consider?
Any suggestions will be appreciated.

The Canon 9900 is a good alternative, but it doesn't use pigmented inks,
so
print life is, in theory, shorter than the Epson 2200. Its big advantage
is
that it is about $200 less than the Epson, and much faster. Print quality
is about equal, from what I've seen.

You should get brighter, punchier prints from the 9900, if only because you
can use glossy paper with it (IMHO, the Canon printers tend to render shadow
areas a bit brighter/clearer than Epson does, but that's just my subjective
impression). The 2200 probably does B&W better, but the droplet size is a
tad large, so it probably can't render all the detail your 6x7 and 6x9
cameras capture, making we unrepentant grain sniffers unhappy. I'd guess for
artsy-fartsy stuff, the 2200 with matt paper would be preferrable to the
9900.

The 2200 is getting a tad long in tooth, and I expect Epson to replace it
with something using the R800 inks, but I could be wrong.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:5uCQc.11779$ih.6166@fed1read07...
"Morton Klotz" wrote in message
...
I am planning to purchase a new printer and I would like
recommendations, please. I want a something that will give me good
print stability and large prints and will cost less than $1000. I have
been looking at the Epson 2200. Are there others I should consider?
Any suggestions will be appreciated.

The Canon 9900 is a good alternative, but it doesn't use pigmented inks,
so
print life is, in theory, shorter than the Epson 2200. Its big advantage
is
that it is about $200 less than the Epson, and much faster. Print quality
is about equal, from what I've seen.

You should get brighter, punchier prints from the 9900, if only because you
can use glossy paper with it (IMHO, the Canon printers tend to render shadow
areas a bit brighter/clearer than Epson does, but that's just my subjective
impression). The 2200 probably does B&W better, but the droplet size is a
tad large, so it probably can't render all the detail your 6x7 and 6x9
cameras capture, making we unrepentant grain sniffers unhappy. I'd guess for
artsy-fartsy stuff, the 2200 with matt paper would be preferrable to the
9900.

The 2200 is getting a tad long in tooth, and I expect Epson to replace it
with something using the R800 inks, but I could be wrong.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

From: Morton Klotz

I am planning to purchase a new printer and I would like
recommendations, please. I want a something that will give me good
print stability and large prints and will cost less than $1000. I have
been looking at the Epson 2200. Are there others I should consider?
Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Assuming you need the 13x19" paper you have a couple of other choices but the
Epson 2200 is the best for long print life. Here's a good summary of the
13x19" printers from an inkjetart.com newsletter ... they sell all these models
so have no stake in which one you buy ... I have two of these right now, an
Epson1280 and a 2200 and the 2200 is much better except for glossy prints, I
feel, but your needs may vary. (I also have an Epson 4000 Pro which is even
better).

From inkjetart.com, last spring so Canon may now have a new model ...

Q: What are my choices for 13" wide photo inkjet printers, and which is best?

A: Not knowing your needs will require a little
more explanation, since what is "best" for one
person, may not be for another. There are three
choices: The Epson Stylus Photo 1280 ($399), The
Canon i9100 ($499), and the Epson Stylus Photo
2200 ($699). These first two printers use "dye"
ink. Image longevity with these dye inks is
about the same for both printers: about 10-15
years behind glass before noticeable fading with
most papers. You can get 25-38 years with
special swellable polymer papers (Epson ColorLife
Photo Paper and the Ilford Galerie "Classic"
papers), but they are only available in gloss or
semi-gloss finishes. Either, way the dye inks
are quite suitable for certain "event"
photography prints or flea market art prints
where longevity is not an issue. Dye ink is also
suitable for your portfolio prints, where images
are changed every few years, or whenever prints
are displayed in a book (dark storage longevity
is usually twice as long wall display longevity)
rather than on the wall Some artists prefer the
Epson dye inks over the pigment inks for their
portfolio books because they print slightly more
saturated than even the best pigmented inks (and
the blacks from the Epson dye ink on Epson Matte
paper Heavy Weight is the deepest black we've
ever seen --slightly richer than the 2200's
UltraChrome Matte Black ink on Epson Enhanced
Matte).

The Epson 1280 is priced about $100 less than the
Canon, but the Canon is about three times faster
in print speed (making it a better choice as a
location "event" printer). The Canon is slightly
more economical to operate because it uses 6
individual ink cartridges, whereas the epson uses
a black and a 5-cell color cartridge. If one
color cell goes dry, you have to toss the
cartridge (Epson cartridges are opaque, so you
can't see how much ink you're throwing away - the
individual Canon ink "tanks" are clear).
Throwing out the E1280's color cartridge usually
wastes about 20% of the ink, UNLESS you are
printing a bunch of prints from the same image
file. I these cases it's not uncommon to have
40% or more of the other colors still left when
one color cell runs dry, because the light
magenta or light cyan or yellow inks go quickly
(depending on your image). As for print quality,
the Epson 1280 the Canon i9100 are closely
matched. However, to get that quality on the
Canon, you'll need to stick with Canon's Photo
Paper Pro, which is very expensive. The Epson
1280 seems to print well on a much wider variety
of papers, even many non-Epson papers. One last
thing, the Canon i9100 is limited to media that
is 13" x 19", whereas the Epson 1280 can print
panoramic images as long as 43" (on up to 13" x
44" media). The Epson 1280 can also handle 2"
core roll media. Canon does not offer a roll
paper option. Both printers can do borderless
printing in all popular sizes up through 13" x
19".

http://www.inkjetart.com/canon/index.html -- Canon i9100
http://www.inkjetart.com/1280/index.html -- Epson 1280
http://www.inkjetart.com/cis/index.html -- Bulk ink system for 1280

Your other 13" solution is the Epson 2200. It's
more expensive, but worth it if you are
interested in prints that last. It's pigmented
UltraChrome inks (7 inks -- this inkset adds a
"Light Black") are the current industry standard
in fine art "giclee" printing (with display
longevity on most fine art papers hitting around
70-100 years, and dark storage over 200 years on
many papers). Color gamut of these inks is very
near to that of dye inks, with the exceptions
I've already noted above. The 2200's individual
ink carts give fairly decent economy. Expect ink
costs to be between $2.00 - $3.00 per square foot
(11 x 14 image), depending on image density (this
is about 10-20% higher than the two printers that
use dye inks). There are several continuous bulk
inking systems available for 2200 and the 1280
(we haven't discovered a bulk feed system for the
Canon i9100) that greatly reduce your ink costs
(1/5 to 1/10 the cartridge operation costs), but
you'll lose the advantage of having the option of
choosing between Epson's Photo Black cartridge
(best for gloss and luster finishes) and the
Matte Black cartridge (best for matte and fine
art papers). The bulk ink systems must use a
"universal" black ink that is a compromise,
because it has less DMax on gloss/luster papers
and less DMax on matte/fine art papers than the
DMax you get when matching the right Epson black
cartridge with your media. Many third party
bulk inks do not match ("plug-n-play") the Epson
inks, so you also must also use the
manufacturer's custom ICC profiles in order to
get good color management. A BIG benefit of the
model 2200 is the straight paper path option in
the back of the printer. Both the Epson 1280 and
Canon i9100 choke on thick fine art papers that
are over 0.012" (12 mil) thick (usually about 250
gsm in weight). The 2200 can easily take papers
that are over 500 gsm in weight and over 0.050"
(50 mil) thick! The Epson 2200 can handle media
sizes up to 13" x 44". It can also handle 2"
core roll media, and includes an automatic roll
paper cutter, which is detachable if you rarely
print from roll paper.

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...



You should get brighter, punchier prints from the 9900, if only because
you
can use glossy paper with it (IMHO, the Canon printers tend to render
shadow
areas a bit brighter/clearer than Epson does, but that's just my
subjective
impression). The 2200 probably does B&W better, but the droplet size is a
tad large, so it probably can't render all the detail your 6x7 and 6x9
cameras capture, making we unrepentant grain sniffers unhappy. I'd guess
for
artsy-fartsy stuff, the 2200 with matt paper would be preferrable to the
9900.

The 2200 is getting a tad long in tooth, and I expect Epson to replace it
with something using the R800 inks, but I could be wrong.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



I didn't know you couldn't use glossy paper with the Epson? Ilford Gallerie
Smooth papers are claimed to be Epson 2200 compatible, and the line includes
a glossy paper.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...



You should get brighter, punchier prints from the 9900, if only because
you
can use glossy paper with it (IMHO, the Canon printers tend to render
shadow
areas a bit brighter/clearer than Epson does, but that's just my
subjective
impression). The 2200 probably does B&W better, but the droplet size is a
tad large, so it probably can't render all the detail your 6x7 and 6x9
cameras capture, making we unrepentant grain sniffers unhappy. I'd guess
for
artsy-fartsy stuff, the 2200 with matt paper would be preferrable to the
9900.

The 2200 is getting a tad long in tooth, and I expect Epson to replace it
with something using the R800 inks, but I could be wrong.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



I didn't know you couldn't use glossy paper with the Epson? Ilford Gallerie
Smooth papers are claimed to be Epson 2200 compatible, and the line includes
a glossy paper.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Skip M" wrote:

I didn't know you couldn't use glossy paper with the Epson? Ilford
Gallerie
Smooth papers are claimed to be Epson 2200 compatible, and the line
includes
a glossy paper.

Whoops! I'm wrong. My (apparently failing) memory has it that Epson didn't
even recommend glossy papers with the 2200, and that the whole point of the
R800 is the "Gloss optimizer" cartridge. Sigh. But Epson _does_ recommend
glossy papers with the 2200.

Maybe I'm (incorrectly) remembering this comment:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...pson2200.shtml

"Oh yes - one more thought. My preference is for matte printing papers, and
the 2200 is outstanding with these. But frankly, with glossy papers the 2200
isn't quite as good and one should look at sample prints before making a
purchase decision if high gloss papers are your preference."

Or this thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=008qh1

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Skip M" wrote:

I didn't know you couldn't use glossy paper with the Epson? Ilford
Gallerie
Smooth papers are claimed to be Epson 2200 compatible, and the line
includes
a glossy paper.

Whoops! I'm wrong. My (apparently failing) memory has it that Epson didn't
even recommend glossy papers with the 2200, and that the whole point of the
R800 is the "Gloss optimizer" cartridge. Sigh. But Epson _does_ recommend
glossy papers with the 2200.

Maybe I'm (incorrectly) remembering this comment:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...pson2200.shtml

"Oh yes - one more thought. My preference is for matte printing papers, and
the 2200 is outstanding with these. But frankly, with glossy papers the 2200
isn't quite as good and one should look at sample prints before making a
purchase decision if high gloss papers are your preference."

Or this thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=008qh1

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan