If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printer?
I have reached the point of putting together some photos for
local exhibit in a photography store. My HP 8250 (6 color inks), only prints up to 11 x 14 and somewhat larger sizes are required for exhibiting. So, it's time to buy a printer designed specifically for printing photos for exhibit and perhaps sale. (I have a b&w laser for daily stuff). Is Epson the way way to go or is there another brand of equal quality for photographic work? Which ones would you recommend? TIA Louise |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printer?
louise wrote:
I have reached the point of putting together some photos for local exhibit in a photography store. My HP 8250 (6 color inks), only prints up to 11 x 14 and somewhat larger sizes are required for exhibiting. So, it's time to buy a printer designed specifically for printing photos for exhibit and perhaps sale. (I have a b&w laser for daily stuff). Is Epson the way way to go or is there another brand of equal quality for photographic work? Which ones would you recommend? TIA A3+ (13" width): Epson R1800 / 2400 (2400 for monochrome and matte papers) HP B9180 Canon Pixma "Pro" 9500 Larger than A3 (17" width and up) Epson R3800 and up HP Z2100/3100 Canon 5000 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printer?
On Jun 13, 11:29 pm, louise wrote:
I have reached the point of putting together some photos for local exhibit in a photography store. My HP 8250 (6 color inks), only prints up to 11 x 14 and somewhat larger sizes are required for exhibiting. So, it's time to buy a printer designed specifically for printing photos for exhibit and perhaps sale. (I have a b&w laser for daily stuff). Is Epson the way way to go or is there another brand of equal quality for photographic work? Which ones would you recommend? TIA Louise Look into Canon or Epson, the Canon ipf5000 is slightly better built than the Epson 3800, output is about equal. I would give the output edge to the Canon, but I have the Canon so that is a subjective judgement. The 12 inks give slightly better blues, there is no change involving black inks. The 3800 is better than the 4800 with black inks, having to exchange inks between matte and photo papers, the 4800 uses $75 of ink in the black cart exchange. My understanding is the 3800 you just need to clear the black line to the head. Canon has finally decided to warranty the printheads at $600 each that is a big one, though a dead head in an Epson would cost about the same (they are warrantied also). The ipf5000 is a lame duck will be replaced this fall by the ipf5100, so they are cheap right now. Then the Epson 3800 will be a best buy again. I will vouch for the Canon output, I'm getting the best prints I have ever gotten, including pro labs. I do like having roll paper options, much cheaper. The Epson has its fans too. If you have to take the printer to a 2nd floor, up stairs, the 38lb Epson will be easier than 120lb Canon. Tom |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printer?
"Tomm101" wrote in message oups.com... On Jun 13, 11:29 pm, louise wrote: I have reached the point of putting together some photos for local exhibit in a photography store. My HP 8250 (6 color inks), only prints up to 11 x 14 and somewhat larger sizes are required for exhibiting. So, it's time to buy a printer designed specifically for printing photos for exhibit and perhaps sale. (I have a b&w laser for daily stuff). Is Epson the way way to go or is there another brand of equal quality for photographic work? Which ones would you recommend? TIA Louise Look into Canon or Epson, the Canon ipf5000 is slightly better built than the Epson 3800, output is about equal. I would give the output edge to the Canon, but I have the Canon so that is a subjective judgement. The 12 inks give slightly better blues, there is no change involving black inks. The 3800 is better than the 4800 with black inks, having to exchange inks between matte and photo papers, the 4800 uses $75 of ink in the black cart exchange. My understanding is the 3800 you just need to clear the black line to the head. Canon has finally decided to warranty the printheads at $600 each that is a big one, though a dead head in an Epson would cost about the same (they are warrantied also). The ipf5000 is a lame duck will be replaced this fall by the ipf5100, so they are cheap right now. Then the Epson 3800 will be a best buy again. I will vouch for the Canon output, I'm getting the best prints I have ever gotten, including pro labs. I do like having roll paper options, much cheaper. The Epson has its fans too. If you have to take the printer to a 2nd floor, up stairs, the 38lb Epson will be easier than 120lb Canon. Tom Read the above message carefully, Louise. 12 ink tanks! Each one costing a King's ransom, compared to the cost of HP inks. Canon are so obsessed with market share, they are experimenting with customer's money. The "new" models from Canon use different tanks to the existing ones and they are destined to be even more expensive than the existing ones. Has anyone mentioned yet the Canon range are ink slurpers? HP on the other hand are very conservative in their claims. They are equally conservative in their ink usage and produce photographs of excellent quality. Don't over look the aging but exceptionally good, Designjet 130. It's a 24" wide, 6 colour printer and not easy to coax B&W of the quality Epson pigment printer's get ...but for colour, it takes a very careful look through a loupe to see any difference in quality to an Epson print. Ink usage is miserly. A $50 AUD ink tank will outlast 5, $25 (AUD) Epson or $32 (AUD) Canon tanks. I've been selling exhibition prints done on a DJ 130 ever since I bought one nearly 3 years ago. The only shortcoming is the dye ink. It's long lasting but really needs to be coated with a protective spray to avoid humidity related issues. Canvas prints I've made with this printer and coated with a clear acrylic, have been on display in my gallery, often exposed to direct sunlight, for 2 years and still look like the day they were printed. If you have been happy with your HP. Stay with brand. The new "Z" range leave everything else behind in quality and economy. -- Douglas, Those who can, just do it. Those who can't become bullies. http://www.bullyonline.org |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printer?
On Jun 14, 3:57 pm, "Ryadia" wrote:
"Tomm101" wrote in message oups.com... On Jun 13, 11:29 pm, louise wrote: I have reached the point of putting together some photos for local exhibit in a photography store. My HP 8250 (6 color inks), only prints up to 11 x 14 and somewhat larger sizes are required for exhibiting. So, it's time to buy a printer designed specifically for printing photos for exhibit and perhaps sale. (I have a b&w laser for daily stuff). Is Epson the way way to go or is there another brand of equal quality for photographic work? Which ones would you recommend? TIA Louise Look into Canon or Epson, the Canon ipf5000 is slightly better built than the Epson 3800, output is about equal. I would give the output edge to the Canon, but I have the Canon so that is a subjective judgement. The 12 inks give slightly better blues, there is no change involving black inks. The 3800 is better than the 4800 with black inks, having to exchange inks between matte and photo papers, the 4800 uses $75 of ink in the black cart exchange. My understanding is the 3800 you just need to clear the black line to the head. Canon has finally decided to warranty the printheads at $600 each that is a big one, though a dead head in an Epson would cost about the same (they are warrantied also). The ipf5000 is a lame duck will be replaced this fall by the ipf5100, so they are cheap right now. Then the Epson 3800 will be a best buy again. I will vouch for the Canon output, I'm getting the best prints I have ever gotten, including pro labs. I do like having roll paper options, much cheaper. The Epson has its fans too. If you have to take the printer to a 2nd floor, up stairs, the 38lb Epson will be easier than 120lb Canon. Tom Read the above message carefully, Louise. 12 ink tanks! Each one costing a King's ransom, compared to the cost of HP inks. Canon are so obsessed with market share, they are experimenting with customer's money. The "new" models from Canon use different tanks to the existing ones and they are destined to be even more expensive than the existing ones. Has anyone mentioned yet the Canon range are ink slurpers? HP on the other hand are very conservative in their claims. They are equally conservative in their ink usage and produce photographs of excellent quality. Don't over look the aging but exceptionally good, Designjet 130. It's a 24" wide, 6 colour printer and not easy to coax B&W of the quality Epson pigment printer's get ...but for colour, it takes a very careful look through a loupe to see any difference in quality to an Epson print. Ink usage is miserly. A $50 AUD ink tank will outlast 5, $25 (AUD) Epson or $32 (AUD) Canon tanks. I've been selling exhibition prints done on a DJ 130 ever since I bought one nearly 3 years ago. The only shortcoming is the dye ink. It's long lasting but really needs to be coated with a protective spray to avoid humidity related issues. Canvas prints I've made with this printer and coated with a clear acrylic, have been on display in my gallery, often exposed to direct sunlight, for 2 years and still look like the day they were printed. If you have been happy with your HP. Stay with brand. The new "Z" range leave everything else behind in quality and economy. -- Douglas, Those who can, just do it. Those who can't become bullies.http://www.bullyonline.org Ok I use a Canon iPF5000 at home and a HP B9180 at work. The Canon uses less ink, hard really to quantify, but I have printed almost 150 pics (from 4x6s to 16x24s) from the Canon and I'm still on the 90ml starter carts. The HP at work is drinking light magenta like it is on skid row. The HP Designjet is a good printer, but it is a dye based printer and that means you are limited to swellable emulsion papers, HP makes 2 types only, gloss and luster (semi-gloss), this is limiting especially if you like fine art papers. Of course if you are looking for glossy printing the Designjet series should be considered. Yes at $72 each the Canon 130ml replacement cartridges are a hit, you need 12 eventually, but they should do hundreds of prints. Unless you are just going to print glossy photos I would suggest useing a pigment ink based printer, far more choices in papers, much better life on most papers. The Designjet series does very well on the HP papers, but is not tested on any other papers. Tom |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printer?
Tomm101 wrote:
On Jun 14, 3:57 pm, "Ryadia" wrote: "Tomm101" wrote in message oups.com... On Jun 13, 11:29 pm, louise wrote: I have reached the point of putting together some photos for local exhibit in a photography store. My HP 8250 (6 color inks), only prints up to 11 x 14 and somewhat larger sizes are required for exhibiting. So, it's time to buy a printer designed specifically for printing photos for exhibit and perhaps sale. (I have a b&w laser for daily stuff). Is Epson the way way to go or is there another brand of equal quality for photographic work? Which ones would you recommend? TIA Louise Look into Canon or Epson, the Canon ipf5000 is slightly better built than the Epson 3800, output is about equal. I would give the output edge to the Canon, but I have the Canon so that is a subjective judgement. The 12 inks give slightly better blues, there is no change involving black inks. The 3800 is better than the 4800 with black inks, having to exchange inks between matte and photo papers, the 4800 uses $75 of ink in the black cart exchange. My understanding is the 3800 you just need to clear the black line to the head. Canon has finally decided to warranty the printheads at $600 each that is a big one, though a dead head in an Epson would cost about the same (they are warrantied also). The ipf5000 is a lame duck will be replaced this fall by the ipf5100, so they are cheap right now. Then the Epson 3800 will be a best buy again. I will vouch for the Canon output, I'm getting the best prints I have ever gotten, including pro labs. I do like having roll paper options, much cheaper. The Epson has its fans too. If you have to take the printer to a 2nd floor, up stairs, the 38lb Epson will be easier than 120lb Canon. Tom Read the above message carefully, Louise. 12 ink tanks! Each one costing a King's ransom, compared to the cost of HP inks. Canon are so obsessed with market share, they are experimenting with customer's money. The "new" models from Canon use different tanks to the existing ones and they are destined to be even more expensive than the existing ones. Has anyone mentioned yet the Canon range are ink slurpers? HP on the other hand are very conservative in their claims. They are equally conservative in their ink usage and produce photographs of excellent quality. Don't over look the aging but exceptionally good, Designjet 130. It's a 24" wide, 6 colour printer and not easy to coax B&W of the quality Epson pigment printer's get ...but for colour, it takes a very careful look through a loupe to see any difference in quality to an Epson print. Ink usage is miserly. A $50 AUD ink tank will outlast 5, $25 (AUD) Epson or $32 (AUD) Canon tanks. I've been selling exhibition prints done on a DJ 130 ever since I bought one nearly 3 years ago. The only shortcoming is the dye ink. It's long lasting but really needs to be coated with a protective spray to avoid humidity related issues. Canvas prints I've made with this printer and coated with a clear acrylic, have been on display in my gallery, often exposed to direct sunlight, for 2 years and still look like the day they were printed. If you have been happy with your HP. Stay with brand. The new "Z" range leave everything else behind in quality and economy. -- Douglas, Those who can, just do it. Those who can't become bullies.http://www.bullyonline.org Ok I use a Canon iPF5000 at home and a HP B9180 at work. The Canon uses less ink, hard really to quantify, but I have printed almost 150 pics (from 4x6s to 16x24s) from the Canon and I'm still on the 90ml starter carts. The HP at work is drinking light magenta like it is on skid row. The HP Designjet is a good printer, but it is a dye based printer and that means you are limited to swellable emulsion papers, HP makes 2 types only, gloss and luster (semi-gloss), this is limiting especially if you like fine art papers. Of course if you are looking for glossy printing the Designjet series should be considered. Yes at $72 each the Canon 130ml replacement cartridges are a hit, you need 12 eventually, but they should do hundreds of prints. Unless you are just going to print glossy photos I would suggest useing a pigment ink based printer, far more choices in papers, much better life on most papers. The Designjet series does very well on the HP papers, but is not tested on any other papers. Tom Thanks for the comparison. I am certainly not only doing glossy prints so I need to take that into account. Have you noticed a difference in the color "trueness" of the HP vs the Canon? I have been under an impression, perhaps incorrectly, that Canon tends to produce very saturated and intense color, which is not what I prefer. For example, I used to prefer Kodak papers to Fuji papers - with Ilford usually being the gem for b & w. And one more question: I notice that you do not have an Epson in either location. Some of the photo stores (Adorama and B&H) have given me the impression that Epson is the "preferred" photo printer. Did you, have you ever, tried Epson? What are your thoughts about them? Thanks again. Louise |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printer?
On Jun 15, 3:22 pm, louise wrote:
Tomm101 wrote: On Jun 14, 3:57 pm, "Ryadia" wrote: "Tomm101" wrote in message groups.com... On Jun 13, 11:29 pm, louise wrote: I have reached the point of putting together some photos for local exhibit in a photography store. My HP 8250 (6 color inks), only prints up to 11 x 14 and somewhat larger sizes are required for exhibiting. So, it's time to buy a printer designed specifically for printing photos for exhibit and perhaps sale. (I have a b&w laser for daily stuff). Is Epson the way way to go or is there another brand of equal quality for photographic work? Which ones would you recommend? TIA Louise Look into Canon or Epson, the Canon ipf5000 is slightly better built than the Epson 3800, output is about equal. I would give the output edge to the Canon, but I have the Canon so that is a subjective judgement. The 12 inks give slightly better blues, there is no change involving black inks. The 3800 is better than the 4800 with black inks, having to exchange inks between matte and photo papers, the 4800 uses $75 of ink in the black cart exchange. My understanding is the 3800 you just need to clear the black line to the head. Canon has finally decided to warranty the printheads at $600 each that is a big one, though a dead head in an Epson would cost about the same (they are warrantied also). The ipf5000 is a lame duck will be replaced this fall by the ipf5100, so they are cheap right now. Then the Epson 3800 will be a best buy again. I will vouch for the Canon output, I'm getting the best prints I have ever gotten, including pro labs. I do like having roll paper options, much cheaper. The Epson has its fans too. If you have to take the printer to a 2nd floor, up stairs, the 38lb Epson will be easier than 120lb Canon. Tom Read the above message carefully, Louise. 12 ink tanks! Each one costing a King's ransom, compared to the cost of HP inks. Canon are so obsessed with market share, they are experimenting with customer's money. The "new" models from Canon use different tanks to the existing ones and they are destined to be even more expensive than the existing ones. Has anyone mentioned yet the Canon range are ink slurpers? HP on the other hand are very conservative in their claims. They are equally conservative in their ink usage and produce photographs of excellent quality. Don't over look the aging but exceptionally good, Designjet 130. It's a 24" wide, 6 colour printer and not easy to coax B&W of the quality Epson pigment printer's get ...but for colour, it takes a very careful look through a loupe to see any difference in quality to an Epson print. Ink usage is miserly. A $50 AUD ink tank will outlast 5, $25 (AUD) Epson or $32 (AUD) Canon tanks. I've been selling exhibition prints done on a DJ 130 ever since I bought one nearly 3 years ago. The only shortcoming is the dye ink. It's long lasting but really needs to be coated with a protective spray to avoid humidity related issues. Canvas prints I've made with this printer and coated with a clear acrylic, have been on display in my gallery, often exposed to direct sunlight, for 2 years and still look like the day they were printed. If you have been happy with your HP. Stay with brand. The new "Z" range leave everything else behind in quality and economy. -- Douglas, Those who can, just do it. Those who can't become bullies.http://www.bullyonline.org Ok I use a Canon iPF5000 at home and a HP B9180 at work. The Canon uses less ink, hard really to quantify, but I have printed almost 150 pics (from 4x6s to 16x24s) from the Canon and I'm still on the 90ml starter carts. The HP at work is drinking light magenta like it is on skid row. The HP Designjet is a good printer, but it is a dye based printer and that means you are limited to swellable emulsion papers, HP makes 2 types only, gloss and luster (semi-gloss), this is limiting especially if you like fine art papers. Of course if you are looking for glossy printing the Designjet series should be considered. Yes at $72 each the Canon 130ml replacement cartridges are a hit, you need 12 eventually, but they should do hundreds of prints. Unless you are just going to print glossy photos I would suggest useing a pigment ink based printer, far more choices in papers, much better life on most papers. The Designjet series does very well on the HP papers, but is not tested on any other papers. Tom Thanks for the comparison. I am certainly not only doing glossy prints so I need to take that into account. Have you noticed a difference in the color "trueness" of the HP vs the Canon? I have been under an impression, perhaps incorrectly, that Canon tends to produce very saturated and intense color, which is not what I prefer. For example, I used to prefer Kodak papers to Fuji papers - with Ilford usually being the gem for b & w. And one more question: I notice that you do not have an Epson in either location. Some of the photo stores (Adorama and B&H) have given me the impression that Epson is the "preferred" photo printer. Did you, have you ever, tried Epson? What are your thoughts about them? Thanks again. Louise Louise, It is a good time to look at printers, Canon, Epson or HP. I like the Canon iPF5000 better than the HP B9180 I have at work. But I'm only using the HP for my medical images, on glossy paper. No experience with Epson, but the 3800 is very popular, as is the 4800 the problem with the latter is that you loose a lot of ink switching blacks between matte and photo papers, about $75 worth. The Canon has no switch at all, the Epson 3800 has minor ink loss when switching blacks. The 17 inch printers make sense especially if you consider the extra ink you get. For gloss and satin papers I have used Canon and Ilford, the 5000 has a little problem loading Ilford from its from its front cassette, but you can easily load single sheets. The Canon takes roll paper too, saving on paper costs.For matte paper I have used Parrot Angelica Smooth white, an unbrightened 100% rag, lovely with the Canon and Innova Fibaprint White Matte, I'm testing this now. The Canon and the HP have had no surprises with me, both have had service calls on warranty, the HP was replaced once and has a problem with our hospital network, but works OK 99% of the time. The Canon had a faulty roll feed, fixed within 48 hrs by their service contractors. The Canon is a BIG printer 120lbs worth fully loaded, Canon has a new model in the pipeline so the 5000 is going for a song right now, check Shades of Paper and ITSupplies. The HP B9180 is a good sized printer, it and the Epson 3800 weigh 30+ lbs. Any of these printers are good printers and capable of delivering prints that are as good or better than most labs. Tom |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printer?
"Tomm101" wrote in message ups.com... Louise, It is a good time to look at printers, Canon, Epson or HP. I like the Canon iPF5000 better than the HP B9180 I have at work. But I'm only using the HP for my medical images, on glossy paper. No experience with Epson, but the 3800 is very popular, as is the 4800 the problem with the latter is that you loose a lot of ink switching blacks between matte and photo papers, about $75 worth. So you're saying you lose the entire cartridge when switching? Where do people get these bull**** ideas? Greg -- Ticket******* tax tracker: http://ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html Dethink to survive - Mclusky |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printer?
On Jun 19, 8:15 pm, "G.T." wrote:
"Tomm101" wrote in message ups.com... Louise, It is a good time to look at printers, Canon, Epson or HP. I like the Canon iPF5000 better than the HP B9180 I have at work. But I'm only using the HP for my medical images, on glossy paper. No experience with Epson, but the 3800 is very popular, as is the 4800 the problem with the latter is that you loose a lot of ink switching blacks between matte and photo papers, about $75 worth. So you're saying you lose the entire cartridge when switching? Where do people get these bull**** ideas? Greg -- Ticket******* tax tracker:http://ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html Dethink to survive - Mclusky The Epson design has the entire inkset flush when switching between photo black and matte black cartridges, a well known deficiency in the x800 pro printers. The Epson 3800 has a new design and only flushes the black lines. The estimate on a black ink change on the Epson 4800 is $75 of ink, on the 3800 because of other design changes the ink change is only a few $. Canon and HP have separate nozzles for matte black and photo black so in their printers there is no penalty for matte to photo paper changes. All these printers give very good prints. Tom |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Epson printer?
"Tomm101" wrote in message ups.com... On Jun 19, 8:15 pm, "G.T." wrote: "Tomm101" wrote in message ups.com... Louise, It is a good time to look at printers, Canon, Epson or HP. I like the Canon iPF5000 better than the HP B9180 I have at work. But I'm only using the HP for my medical images, on glossy paper. No experience with Epson, but the 3800 is very popular, as is the 4800 the problem with the latter is that you loose a lot of ink switching blacks between matte and photo papers, about $75 worth. So you're saying you lose the entire cartridge when switching? Where do people get these bull**** ideas? Greg -- Ticket******* tax tracker:http://ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html Dethink to survive - Mclusky The Epson design has the entire inkset flush when switching between photo black and matte black cartridges, a well known deficiency in the x800 pro printers. The Epson 3800 has a new design and only flushes the black lines. The estimate on a black ink change on the Epson 4800 is $75 of ink, Quit spreading lies. You're talking about the 7600 and 9600: Talking about the 4800, "Unlike on the 7600 and 9600, where changing the black cartridge meant that all of the ink lines were flushed, at a cost of about $75 in wasted ink into the maintenance tank". Greg -- Ticket******* tax tracker: http://ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html Dethink to survive - Mclusky |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
cs3 and epson printer | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 2 | June 2nd 07 07:04 AM |
which Epson printer for b&w prints? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 6 | March 28th 06 12:15 AM |
Got an Epson R1800 Printer? | doxusr | Digital Photography | 0 | March 23rd 06 09:24 PM |
Epson Printer Question | Steven Wandy | Digital Photography | 24 | November 25th 04 07:30 PM |
Epson 960 printer | ppdavid | Digital Photography | 2 | July 29th 04 03:21 AM |