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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

"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

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

"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