A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

need help choosing photo printer - 9900 vs 2200



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 17th 04, 09:30 PM
Donald Specker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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!


  #2  
Old November 17th 04, 10:47 PM
Bill Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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





  #3  
Old November 17th 04, 10:47 PM
Bill Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 18th 04, 12:47 AM
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old November 18th 04, 12:47 AM
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old November 18th 04, 12:47 AM
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old November 18th 04, 12:57 AM
Annika1980
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: "Donald Specker"

Seems that the Epson 2200 and Canon i9900 are in the final running for me.


Enjoy your new Epson!




  #8  
Old November 18th 04, 12:57 AM
Annika1980
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: "Donald Specker"

Seems that the Epson 2200 and Canon i9900 are in the final running for me.


Enjoy your new Epson!




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.