Printers...

What printer are you using for photography?

Pros/cons of it?

Plans to upgrade, change approach, etc.

Thanks,
Alan

PS: I'm esp. interested in small pro printers such as the Epson 3800 and
Canon iPF5100, but all comments are very welcome.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:29:33 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

What printer are you using for photography?

Pros/cons of it?

Plans to upgrade, change approach, etc.

Thanks,
Alan

PS: I'm esp. interested in small pro printers such as the Epson 3800 and
Canon iPF5100, but all comments are very welcome.


I am considering both of those printers. The Canon has a clear advantage
in that the image quality is about the same but has the same number of ink
channels as color carts plus it has a roll feeder. And since it takes
110ml tanks the ink cost per ml is less.

That said the Epson Pro3800 offers equal image quality, better support for
non Epson photo paper, costs about $700 less, costs less to change the ink
tanks even though the cost per ml is higher, and appears to be a better
value.

Unfortunately, neither has drivers for Linux.

And while Canon is more heavily dependent on their drivers and PS plugins
Epson appears much more versatile in that regard.

So what do you think?

measekite wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:29:33 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:


PS: I'm esp. interested in small pro printers such as the Epson 3800 and
Canon iPF5100, but all comments are very welcome.


I am considering both of those printers. The Canon has a clear advantage
in that the image quality is about the same but has the same number of ink
channels as color carts plus it has a roll feeder. And since it takes
110ml tanks the ink cost per ml is less.

That said the Epson Pro3800 offers equal image quality, better support for
non Epson photo paper, costs about $700 less, costs less to change the ink
tanks even though the cost per ml is higher, and appears to be a better
value.

Unfortunately, neither has drivers for Linux.

Another breakdown on the Linux highway... (Sorry if I chuckle, but after
a few years of trying to work with Linux, I've given up. Win/Mac is
just more realistic, esp. for photography. I've converted to a mainly
Mac environment.)

And while Canon is more heavily dependent on their drivers and PS plugins
Epson appears much more versatile in that regard.

So what do you think?

Thanks for your comments.

Another thing is it appears (from the Canon site) that the carts
included with the printer are not full, but 'starter' carts. So for the
difference in price alone, one gets an additional set and a half of
carts for the Epson (as well as the full carts it comes with).

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan wrote on Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:54:46 -0400:

measekite wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:29:33 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

PS: I'm esp. interested in small pro printers such as the
Epson 3800 and Canon iPF5100, but all comments are very
welcome.

I am considering both of those printers. The Canon has a
clear advantage in that the image quality is about the same
but has the same number of ink channels as color carts plus
it has a roll feeder. And since it takes 110ml tanks the ink
cost per ml is less.

That said the Epson Pro3800 offers equal image quality,
better support for non Epson photo paper, costs about $700
less, costs less to change the ink tanks even though the cost
per ml is higher, and appears to be a better value.

Unfortunately, neither has drivers for Linux.

Another breakdown on the Linux highway... (Sorry if I chuckle,
but after a few years of trying to work with Linux, I've given
up. Win/Mac is just more realistic, esp. for photography.
I've converted to a mainly Mac environment.)

And while Canon is more heavily dependent on their drivers
and PS plugins Epson appears much more versatile in that
regard.

Have you seen this site?
http://www.zedonet.com/en_p_turboprint_printers.phtml

The claimed compatabilities are impressive.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

James Silverton wrote:

Have you seen this site?
http://www.zedonet.com/en_p_turboprint_printers.phtml

The claimed compatabilities are impressive.

.... perhaps, but nothing for the Epson 3800 and Canon iPF5100 ...

(ps: the DX3800 is not the 3800, not even close).

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:
What printer are you using for photography?

I don't.

Pros/cons of it?

Inkjet printers are expensive and too much work to correctly color
calibrate. If I want a stack of 4x6 prints I'll upload them to be
printed on real photographic paper at a local store for pickup.

Big prints I'll upload and have shipped to me.

Plans to upgrade, change approach, etc.

Nope. My HP inkjet is in the garage getting dusty. The price they
charge for ink cartridges is (IMO) outrageous.

--
Ray Fischer

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:47:23 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

James Silverton wrote:

Have you seen this site?
http://www.zedonet.com/en_p_turboprint_printers.phtml

The claimed compatabilities are impressive.

... perhaps, but nothing for the Epson 3800 and Canon iPF5100 ...

(ps: the DX3800 is not the 3800, not even close).


I have the trial version. No drivers for those printers. I sent them an
email (twice) and received no response. That tells me that when I company
that is a commercial company that wants your money is not willing to
provide any support one should think twice about giving it to them.

On 14 Sep 2008 21:05:43 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:
What printer are you using for photography?

I don't.

Pros/cons of it?

Inkjet printers are expensive and too much work to correctly color
calibrate.

I've just discovered Printfix Pro 3. It's transformed the output of my
printer. See
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ix%20Pro.shtml

If I want a stack of 4x6 prints I'll upload them to be
printed on real photographic paper at a local store for pickup.

You are more likely to get dye sublimation prints. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye-sublimation_printer
http://printscan.about.com/od/revie2/tp/TP_DyeSub.htm

Big prints I'll upload and have shipped to me.

Plans to upgrade, change approach, etc.

Nope. My HP inkjet is in the garage getting dusty. The price they
charge for ink cartridges is (IMO) outrageous.



Eric Stevens

Alan Browne wrote:

What printer are you using for photography?

Pros/cons of it?

Plans to upgrade, change approach, etc.

Thanks,
Alan

PS: I'm esp. interested in small pro printers such as the Epson 3800 and
Canon iPF5100, but all comments are very welcome.

I'm using an R1800 (13" carriage width). I bought it 3 years ago. It
took about a year of effort to really nail /my/ workflow so that I can
get a great result first time.
I use it to print mainly on matte (true matte) and semi-gloss papers.
For matte papers, the later "K3" (ie for 3800) inksets are better (R1800
gamut on deep saturated greens is more limited) For pearl (or gloss)
finish papers, there's very little difference. For monochorome,
printers with the multi-shade black inks should be better, but OTOH, I
can churn out better monochrome than many I've seen displayed printed
with Epson K3 by pros who apparently either don't know what they're
doing - or have strange taste or are colourblind etc.
An advantage that Epson /might/ have over Canon is that the Piezo
print-heads do not age, and each printer is factory colormetrically
calibrated. This applies to R1800 - not limited to "pro" (production
models) as reported by non-experts like Luminous Landscape. Thermal
heads do age (due to cycling of heating elements) and AFAIK, Canon does
not self-calibrate. HP's pro level thermal printers do self calibrate.
(in fact the high end models can also produce custom profiles using
inbuilt colorimeter)

Despite much supposedly good advice that "epson printers clog all the
time", in 3 years use, sometimes with extended periods of complete
non-use, my R1800 has never clogged and never missed a beat. I have
still not had to run a "cleaning cycle". The only extra reason for my
"good luck" may be that I periodically inspect the seals around the
printhead station to make sure that there is no ink build-up or paper
shards, and vacuum the interior to remove dust etc.

Print cost is much less for large prints than any local pro lab, plus I
can print on matte papers which are better IMO for framing. Conversely,
print cost for small prints is much higher than local discount labs, let
alone the time and hassle to print (OTOH the ability to be able to print
off small photographs immediately is sometimes priceless).

In article , Me
wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

What printer are you using for photography?

Pros/cons of it?

Plans to upgrade, change approach, etc.

Thanks,
Alan

PS: I'm esp. interested in small pro printers such as the Epson 3800 and
Canon iPF5100, but all comments are very welcome.

I'm using an R1800 (13" carriage width). I bought it 3 years ago. It
took about a year of effort to really nail /my/ workflow so that I can
get a great result first time.
I use it to print mainly on matte (true matte) and semi-gloss papers.
For matte papers, the later "K3" (ie for 3800) inksets are better (R1800
gamut on deep saturated greens is more limited) For pearl (or gloss)
finish papers, there's very little difference. For monochorome,
printers with the multi-shade black inks should be better, but OTOH, I
can churn out better monochrome than many I've seen displayed printed
with Epson K3 by pros who apparently either don't know what they're
doing - or have strange taste or are colourblind etc.
An advantage that Epson /might/ have over Canon is that the Piezo
print-heads do not age, and each printer is factory colormetrically
calibrated. This applies to R1800 - not limited to "pro" (production
models) as reported by non-experts like Luminous Landscape. Thermal
heads do age (due to cycling of heating elements) and AFAIK, Canon does
not self-calibrate. HP's pro level thermal printers do self calibrate.
(in fact the high end models can also produce custom profiles using
inbuilt colorimeter)

Despite much supposedly good advice that "epson printers clog all the
time", in 3 years use, sometimes with extended periods of complete
non-use, my R1800 has never clogged and never missed a beat. I have
still not had to run a "cleaning cycle". The only extra reason for my
"good luck" may be that I periodically inspect the seals around the
printhead station to make sure that there is no ink build-up or paper
shards, and vacuum the interior to remove dust etc.

Print cost is much less for large prints than any local pro lab, plus I
can print on matte papers which are better IMO for framing. Conversely,
print cost for small prints is much higher than local discount labs, let
alone the time and hassle to print (OTOH the ability to be able to print
off small photographs immediately is sometimes priceless).

My printer as well, my next step in the work flow cycle is to buy a
color profiler. It should end the need for test prints.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.