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
|
|||
|
|||
need help choosing photo printer - 9900 vs 2200
Seems that the Epson 2200 and Canon i9900 are in the final running for me.
Any comments on merits of each? I want the best looking output for potential gallery use, shows. Thanks! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
From: "Donald Specker"
Seems that the Epson 2200 and Canon i9900 are in the final running for me. Any comments on merits of each? I want the best looking output for potential gallery use, shows. Print quality from either of these is excellent. Epson 2200 prints are rated to last about 3x as long as the Canon prints, per Wilhelm Research. This is because it uses pigment inks instead of dye inks. If you're selling fine art prints this is probably the deciding factor. Epson 2200 prints very well on softer watercolor "fine art" papers. In particular the Epson Velvet - Fine Art is an incredible paper for display prints. Epson has better support from the makers of expensive fine art papers like Arches Infinity or Hahnemuehle Photo Rag, with full ICC support for their papers, while color managed support for the Canon printers is far less wide-spread. Canon i9900 is a couple hundred bucks cheaper and is a faster printer, though this is rarely a concern for fine art prints. The dye-based printers like this one do a better job on glossier papers than the 2200, which tends to show 'gloss differential' in large areas of black ink, so if you're planning on printing mostly glossy then the i9900 is probably a better choice. We sell a fair number of portrait prints on the Premium Luster paper using the 2200 inks (actually using the 4000, same inks as the 2200 but 17" wide carriage) and these look fine, but for glossy prints the dye ink printers do a better job. The dye-ink printers *don't* do as well on the softer fine art papers though, for various reasons. For my money better fine-art watercolor paper support and the longevity issue are the best arguments for the 2200, while speed and better glossy prints are the best arguments for the i9900. Depends on what's important to you. Below is a link to a comparison of the i9100 (previous Canon equiv to the i9900), Epson 1280 and Epson 2200 from someone who sells all three ... good background info. Personally I'd try to get a sample print of a couple of images from each printer and check them carefully before plunking down the bucks since tastes vary ... nothing like seeing prints side-by-side to cut thru the fog. http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_04-18-04.html ... scroll down a couple of screens to "Q: What are my choices for 13" wide photo inkjet printers, and which is best?" Bill |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message ... From: "Donald Specker" Seems that the Epson 2200 and Canon i9900 are in the final running for me. Any comments on merits of each? I want the best looking output for potential gallery use, shows. Print quality from either of these is excellent. Epson 2200 prints are rated to last about 3x as long as the Canon prints, per Wilhelm Research. This is because it uses pigment inks instead of dye inks. If you're selling fine art prints this is probably the deciding factor. Epson 2200 prints very well on softer watercolor "fine art" papers. In particular the Epson Velvet - Fine Art is an incredible paper for display prints. Epson has better support from the makers of expensive fine art papers like Arches Infinity or Hahnemuehle Photo Rag, with full ICC support for their papers, while color managed support for the Canon printers is far less wide-spread. Canon i9900 is a couple hundred bucks cheaper and is a faster printer, though this is rarely a concern for fine art prints. The dye-based printers like this one do a better job on glossier papers than the 2200, which tends to show 'gloss differential' in large areas of black ink, so if you're planning on printing mostly glossy then the i9900 is probably a better choice. We sell a fair number of portrait prints on the Premium Luster paper using the 2200 inks (actually using the 4000, same inks as the 2200 but 17" wide carriage) and these look fine, but for glossy prints the dye ink printers do a better job. The dye-ink printers *don't* do as well on the softer fine art papers though, for various reasons. For my money better fine-art watercolor paper support and the longevity issue are the best arguments for the 2200, while speed and better glossy prints are the best arguments for the i9900. Depends on what's important to you. Below is a link to a comparison of the i9100 (previous Canon equiv to the i9900), Epson 1280 and Epson 2200 from someone who sells all three ... good background info. Personally I'd try to get a sample print of a couple of images from each printer and check them carefully before plunking down the bucks since tastes vary ... nothing like seeing prints side-by-side to cut thru the fog. http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_04-18-04.html ... scroll down a couple of screens to "Q: What are my choices for 13" wide photo inkjet printers, and which is best?" Bill A guy I talked to the other day, who uses the 2200, and sells his stuff at fairs and the like, said the only thing that he would prefer is a printer that could print on canvas, or some thicker media than his 2200. He had one in mind, but I forget what it was now. He liked to duplicate paintings from his slides, using a Canon camera, a Nikon 4000 dpi scanner, Photoshop and the Epson 2200........ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message ... From: "Donald Specker" Seems that the Epson 2200 and Canon i9900 are in the final running for me. Any comments on merits of each? I want the best looking output for potential gallery use, shows. Print quality from either of these is excellent. Epson 2200 prints are rated to last about 3x as long as the Canon prints, per Wilhelm Research. This is because it uses pigment inks instead of dye inks. If you're selling fine art prints this is probably the deciding factor. Epson 2200 prints very well on softer watercolor "fine art" papers. In particular the Epson Velvet - Fine Art is an incredible paper for display prints. Epson has better support from the makers of expensive fine art papers like Arches Infinity or Hahnemuehle Photo Rag, with full ICC support for their papers, while color managed support for the Canon printers is far less wide-spread. Canon i9900 is a couple hundred bucks cheaper and is a faster printer, though this is rarely a concern for fine art prints. The dye-based printers like this one do a better job on glossier papers than the 2200, which tends to show 'gloss differential' in large areas of black ink, so if you're planning on printing mostly glossy then the i9900 is probably a better choice. We sell a fair number of portrait prints on the Premium Luster paper using the 2200 inks (actually using the 4000, same inks as the 2200 but 17" wide carriage) and these look fine, but for glossy prints the dye ink printers do a better job. The dye-ink printers *don't* do as well on the softer fine art papers though, for various reasons. For my money better fine-art watercolor paper support and the longevity issue are the best arguments for the 2200, while speed and better glossy prints are the best arguments for the i9900. Depends on what's important to you. Below is a link to a comparison of the i9100 (previous Canon equiv to the i9900), Epson 1280 and Epson 2200 from someone who sells all three ... good background info. Personally I'd try to get a sample print of a couple of images from each printer and check them carefully before plunking down the bucks since tastes vary ... nothing like seeing prints side-by-side to cut thru the fog. http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_04-18-04.html ... scroll down a couple of screens to "Q: What are my choices for 13" wide photo inkjet printers, and which is best?" Bill A guy I talked to the other day, who uses the 2200, and sells his stuff at fairs and the like, said the only thing that he would prefer is a printer that could print on canvas, or some thicker media than his 2200. He had one in mind, but I forget what it was now. He liked to duplicate paintings from his slides, using a Canon camera, a Nikon 4000 dpi scanner, Photoshop and the Epson 2200........ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message ... From: "Donald Specker" Seems that the Epson 2200 and Canon i9900 are in the final running for me. Any comments on merits of each? I want the best looking output for potential gallery use, shows. Print quality from either of these is excellent. Epson 2200 prints are rated to last about 3x as long as the Canon prints, per Wilhelm Research. This is because it uses pigment inks instead of dye inks. If you're selling fine art prints this is probably the deciding factor. Epson 2200 prints very well on softer watercolor "fine art" papers. In particular the Epson Velvet - Fine Art is an incredible paper for display prints. Epson has better support from the makers of expensive fine art papers like Arches Infinity or Hahnemuehle Photo Rag, with full ICC support for their papers, while color managed support for the Canon printers is far less wide-spread. Canon i9900 is a couple hundred bucks cheaper and is a faster printer, though this is rarely a concern for fine art prints. The dye-based printers like this one do a better job on glossier papers than the 2200, which tends to show 'gloss differential' in large areas of black ink, so if you're planning on printing mostly glossy then the i9900 is probably a better choice. We sell a fair number of portrait prints on the Premium Luster paper using the 2200 inks (actually using the 4000, same inks as the 2200 but 17" wide carriage) and these look fine, but for glossy prints the dye ink printers do a better job. The dye-ink printers *don't* do as well on the softer fine art papers though, for various reasons. For my money better fine-art watercolor paper support and the longevity issue are the best arguments for the 2200, while speed and better glossy prints are the best arguments for the i9900. Depends on what's important to you. Below is a link to a comparison of the i9100 (previous Canon equiv to the i9900), Epson 1280 and Epson 2200 from someone who sells all three ... good background info. Personally I'd try to get a sample print of a couple of images from each printer and check them carefully before plunking down the bucks since tastes vary ... nothing like seeing prints side-by-side to cut thru the fog. http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_04-18-04.html ... scroll down a couple of screens to "Q: What are my choices for 13" wide photo inkjet printers, and which is best?" Bill A guy I talked to the other day, who uses the 2200, and sells his stuff at fairs and the like, said the only thing that he would prefer is a printer that could print on canvas, or some thicker media than his 2200. He had one in mind, but I forget what it was now. He liked to duplicate paintings from his slides, using a Canon camera, a Nikon 4000 dpi scanner, Photoshop and the Epson 2200........ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Hilton wrote:
From: "Donald Specker" Seems that the Epson 2200 and Canon i9900 are in the final running for me. Any comments on merits of each? I want the best looking output for potential gallery use, shows. Print quality from either of these is excellent. Epson 2200 prints are rated to last about 3x as long as the Canon prints, per Wilhelm Research. This is because it uses pigment inks instead of dye inks. If you're selling fine art prints this is probably the deciding factor. I am an owner of the S9000 for over one year and I was surprised to discover a *drastic* fading of the images on the Canon Glossy Photo Paper Plus. The fading is fatal, I must say. I urge you to chose the Epson. A paradox is that the *cheaper* matte papers seem to hold better, despite the lack of the protective layer. Search also Steves Digicams forums. People have already reported such problems. I will write on the weekend more about my experience with Canon support and my conclusion. Prior to these revelations I was a happy camper with the S9000. Fast, quiet, impressive results. The matter of fact is, that your investment in "consumables" with literally fade away! Thomas |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Hilton wrote:
From: "Donald Specker" Seems that the Epson 2200 and Canon i9900 are in the final running for me. Any comments on merits of each? I want the best looking output for potential gallery use, shows. Print quality from either of these is excellent. Epson 2200 prints are rated to last about 3x as long as the Canon prints, per Wilhelm Research. This is because it uses pigment inks instead of dye inks. If you're selling fine art prints this is probably the deciding factor. I am an owner of the S9000 for over one year and I was surprised to discover a *drastic* fading of the images on the Canon Glossy Photo Paper Plus. The fading is fatal, I must say. I urge you to chose the Epson. A paradox is that the *cheaper* matte papers seem to hold better, despite the lack of the protective layer. Search also Steves Digicams forums. People have already reported such problems. I will write on the weekend more about my experience with Canon support and my conclusion. Prior to these revelations I was a happy camper with the S9000. Fast, quiet, impressive results. The matter of fact is, that your investment in "consumables" with literally fade away! Thomas |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
4x6 printer... | CNT | Digital Photography | 41 | January 18th 05 11:10 AM |
Try DVD Photo Album version 3.01 to make digital photo album playable on TV with DVD player | Michael Shaw | Digital Photography | 2 | September 24th 04 10:10 AM |
Choosing a printer | Morton Klotz | Digital Photography | 16 | August 7th 04 12:22 AM |
Printer question: multipurpose vs. dedicated photo, fixed head vs.on-cartridge | not really me | Digital Photography | 0 | July 19th 04 03:28 AM |
Best photo printer mostly borderless 6" x 4" 's. | Warren Jones | Digital Photography | 6 | July 1st 04 05:47 PM |