Reviews of Wide Printers?
PTRAVEL
My "Is the Epson 2200 the way to go?" post opened a whole can of worms for
me. I read a review of the printer and have two concerns: bronzing on
glossy paper (I like glossy paper), and cost of ink. Though I'm strictly an
amateur photographer, I'm not a casual "snap shooter." I travel a lot and
do as-yet amateur video travelogues which frequently incorporate still
montages. Besides being used in the videos (and doing standard-duty in
photo albums), I like to make large, high-quality enlargements of my travel
shots.
I'm getting rid of my color darkroom in favor of an all-digital (my purchase
of a Canon 10d was the key -- I'm comfortable that digital finally
approaches chemical film in quality). I don't sell my work -- just put them
up in my house and office and give them to friends who say, "Hey, nice
picture!" I routinely print 16 x 20 in the darkroom. 13 x 19 is close
enough, so the sub-$1000 printers will do nicely. I'm not concerned with
archival-quality. Whether the print lasts 10 years or 100 years doesn't
matter to me. I won't be around for the latter end of the spectrum, and if
a print starts to fade, I can always reprint it.
Which brings me to my concerns:
From the review that I read, the Epson 2200 is the printer of choice IF
you're doing fine-art prints on, specifically, Epson matte paper. I don't
want to be restricted in my paper choices and, as I've mentioned, I prefer
glossy prints. I also don't want to be in a situation where each print
costs me more than the same print if I used my chemcial darkroom; if the
Epson inks and papers are too costly, I'll never hear the end of it from my
wife. ;) I understand that the Epson 2200 is also slow; I don't want to
spend 30 minutes waiting for a print to finish, when I can do a chemical
print in 10 minutes, though, I suppose, I can set up a print run at night
and wake in the morning to a stack of nice prints. Bronzing on glossy paper
is also an issue, though I read something that suggested that the problem
could be eliminated by using a UV protective spray (which probably isn't a
bad idea, anyway). Has anyone tried this? Does it work?
The Epson 1280 was suggested by some people. Unfortunatley, I haven't been
able to find any comparison reviews (I wish dpreview.com covered printers).
Evidently, it is older technology than the 2200, but uses dyes, rather than
pigment inks. Just how good is it? The 2200 review implied that prints
from the 1280 aren't as bright, sharp or saturated. Are we talking about
barely-perceivable differences, or is the quality difference significant?
I'm only concerned with image quality -- I want prints that equal what I do
in the darkroom. If the 1280 can do this, then it might be a better choice.
And how about HP's printers? I know they make wide-carriage ink jets. Are
these for photo work? Any good?
Price isn't the driving concern, and I'd rather not compromise on quality if
it just means saving a couple of hundred dollars (though the cost of the
Epson 2200 is about as much as I'm willing to spend).
I'd really appreciate it if anyone can direct me to comparison reviews of
these printers. I'd also very much like to hear from any advanced amateurs
(or pros) who can give me an objective evaluation of the printers,
particularly as compared to chemcial photographic prints. I'm grateful to
those who've responded to my first post, but I'm hoping for a little more
detail if possible.
And, in return, if anyone wants any advice about digital video, I'd be happy
to oblige. ;)
Thanks!
Bill Hilton
>My "Is the Epson 2200 the way to go?" post opened a whole can of worms for
>me. I read a review of the printer and have two concerns: bronzing on
>glossy paper (I like glossy paper), and cost of ink.
If worried about the bronzing just use either the semi-gloss paper (which is
excellent) or the Luster.
http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_03-14-03.html for info on ink costs
(scroll down a bit) ... a bit over $3 for 11 x 16.5". Darn sight cheaper than
buying a custom Ilfochrome ...
>I'm not concerned with archival-quality. Whether the print
>lasts 10 years or 100 years doesn't matter to me.
The Epson 1280 or Canon S9000 would be fine for someone like you.
>From the review that I read, the Epson 2200 is the printer of choice IF
>you're doing fine-art prints on, specifically, Epson matte paper.
? Dunno where you heard this from but the part about matte paper is definitely
not true. The 7600 and 9600 use the same inks but it costs about $100 to
switch from matte black to photo black on them so owners tend to pick one ink
and stick with it. Almost all the guys I know using these printers are
printing landscapes on Semi-Gloss and portraits on Luster (except for the b/w
guys and people printing non-photo images like digital paintings, who seem to
prefer the matte black inks and art papers). And the matte has the shortest
print life of the six papers Epson supports. To my eye the Watercolor -
Brilliant White looks much better.
Matte HW is a top choice for people selling prints from the 1280 because it has
a longer print life than PGPP, but that doesn't matter to you.
>I understand that the Epson 2200 is also slow; I don't want to
>spend 30 minutes waiting for a print to finish, when I can do a chemical
>print in 10 minutes
I think it takes me 7-8 minutes most of the time, maybe 15 minutes for a 12 x
18" print ... speeds up if you use the USB or Firewire ports rather than the
parallel port.
>The Epson 1280 was suggested by some people. Unfortunatley, I haven't been
>able to find any comparison reviews ... Evidently, it is older technology than
the 2200,
> but uses dyes, rather than pigment inks. Just how good is it? The 2200
review
> implied that prints from the 1280 aren't as bright, sharp or saturated.
If you're really losing sleep over this go to this site and blow $45 and order
four test prints, two each from the 2200 and 1280 on papers of interest, and
compare them directly so you can decide for yourself. That's what I did when
the 2200 first came out (I already had the 1280) ... I bought the 2200 too
after comparing image quality, which seemed very comparable (but I wanted the
longer print life).
http://www.inkjetart.com/custom/
They will print the test image on 7 different papers for you for a fee. You
will learn more from looking at the test prints than from posting 20 more
questions on the newsgroups.
>And how about HP's printers? I know they make wide-carriage ink jets. Are
>these for photo work? Any good?
Epson and Canon S9000 are better for photo work.
>I'd really appreciate it if anyone can direct me to comparison reviews of
>these printers.
Try these ...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/1280.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/Epson2200.shtml
At the end of the 2200 review he briefly discusses which printer to buy, the
2200 vs 1280 vs S9000.
>I'm hoping for a little more detail if possible.
Buy a couple of test prints and decide first-hand if still on the fence. From
what you describe I think you'll be fine with the 1280 or Canon S9000, you
don't really need the 2200.
Bill
PTRAVEL
"Bill Hilton" <bhilt...@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20030801162512...@mb-m04.aol.com...
Thanks for the information, Bill. I think, after reading the various links
and reviews, I'm leaning towards the Canon S9000. It sounds like it will do
everything I need, and it's half the cost.
Bob Hatch
news:bgef0j$nfthp$1...@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de...
Bronzing on glossy paper
> is also an issue, though I read something that suggested that the problem
> could be eliminated by using a UV protective spray (which probably isn't a
> bad idea, anyway). Has anyone tried this? Does it work?
>
Luster. I spray each print with 2 or 3 light coats of Lumijet ImageShield
Spray. The bronzing disappears.
>
--
http://www.bobhatch.com
Our web site about RV Stuff
A work in progress
Abrasha
>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:bgef0j$nfthp$1...@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Bronzing on glossy paper
> > is also an issue, though I read something that suggested that the problem
> > could be eliminated by using a UV protective spray (which probably isn't a
> > bad idea, anyway). Has anyone tried this? Does it work?
> >
> Yes, bronzing is a problem with the 7600 as well, and I use mostly Premium
> Luster. I spray each print with 2 or 3 light coats of Lumijet ImageShield
> Spray. The bronzing disappears.
>
What is bronzing?
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com
Dierk Haasis
wrote:
>My "Is the Epson 2200 the way to go?" post opened a whole can of worms for
>me. I read a review of the printer and have two concerns: bronzing on
>glossy paper (I like glossy paper), and cost of ink
Bronzing is way exaggerated in most comments. One, usually you don't
examine photos at an angle (and to see the effect you need quite a
large one). Second, if you don't know of the effect you won't realise
it. Third, the effect isn't as pronounced as sometimes written.
BTW, I remember a time (the 70s) when certain laboratory papers were
used to create such an effect.
--
Dierk
PTRAVEL
"Abrasha" <abr...@abrasha.com> wrote in message
news:3F2B3DA6...@abrasha.com...
Areas with heavy concentrations of ink "glaze over," forming a reflective
patch.
>
> Abrasha
> http://www.abrasha.com
Roger N. Clark
> >And how about HP's printers? I know they make wide-carriage ink jets. Are
> >these for photo work? Any good?
>
> Epson and Canon S9000 are better for photo work.
Hey Bill, I have to disagree.
I have an HP1220C (originally $500) and it works great.
It also works great as a general printer for text
and graphics.
I know a professional photographer who bought a bunch of
epson printers, including the really big ones, heted them
and sold most of them off. I don't knwo what he replaced
them with; I'll have to ask.
I personally do not like the greens of the epsons. They
can't seem to match the greens of vegetation: they seem
muddy to me, like the difference between kodachrome and
fuji films.
The HP can also do 1200x1200 dpi and 1200x2400 dpi printing.
This adds a sharpness that makes the prints have more
snap (if you have the pixels and image detail in the first
place). Here are some tests:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi
I still have to add the blind tests. Something like 90%
of people can readily tell the difference between 300 ppi
and 600 ppi prints. When I posted this to rec.photo.digital
some tried printing test and the epsons couldn't record more detail
beyond 300 ppi.
The color tests on this page were also printed on the HP1220C:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.6mpxl.digital.html
I also like the HPs for the color cartridges: if one clogs, pop in
a new one; no expensive repair.
Roger
Bill Hilton
>>> ink jets. Are these for photo work? Any good?
>>Bill Hilton wrote:
>>
>> Epson and Canon S9000 are better for photo work.
>From: "Roger N. Clark" rnc...@qwest.net
>
>Hey Bill, I have to disagree.
Roger and I will try to argue this one with civility, since we've met while
photographing birds at Bosque del Apache and are friends!
>I know a professional photographer who bought a bunch of
>epson printers, including the really big ones, hated them
>and sold most of them off.
I think the wide carriage 7500 and 1000 models that used the 2000p type pigment
inks had some issues with metamerism and what not, but all this has been pretty
much fixed with the Epson 7600 and 9600 series. I know of maybe two dozen big
name nature and wildlife photographers who bought these and love them, and the
manager of a big lab told me that these have practically killed off his
LightJet 5000 business because they are so good. These are clearly the best
photo printers available right now.
In fact two of the best California labs, West Coast Imaging and Calypso, now
offer 9600 prints for *exactly* the same price as LightJet 5000 prints. Pretty
amazing when you consider one printer costs $5,000 and the other $130,000. You
get very similar print quality with the same inks in the narrower carriage 2200
for $650.
>The HP can also do 1200x1200 dpi and 1200x2400 dpi printing.
>This adds a sharpness that makes the prints have more
>snap
This sounds impressive, but the Epsons print up to 2880 x 1440 dpi with 7
pigment inks. Plus you have a choice of light blacks, matte for art papers or
photo black for glossier papers, for better blacks. Neither Canon nor HP offer
this.
>I also like the HPs for the color cartridges: if one clogs, pop in
>a new one; no expensive repair.
I've owned four Epson photo printers since 1995 and never had the so-called
clogging problem with any of them (original Stylus Photo, Photo EX, 1280 and
2200). I think it was at its worst with the 870/1270 models (judging from
internet posts) but even then many of the people reporting clogging were using
3rd party inks or not parking the heads when turning off the machine.
A couple months ago I dusted off an old Epson EX (about 5 years old) that I
hadn't used in a year. A relative wanted a printer so I figured I'd see if
this one still worked and give it to him or donate it if it was terminally
clogged (which I expected it was since I hadn't used it in so long). Two
cleaning cycles and it was printing fine.
I don't really see clogging as a major problem myself and you know I live in a
very hot, dry climate. The 2200 has never clogged and the 1280 clogged badly
once (actually had air bubbles) when I ran a cart dry trying to see how many
extra prints I could get after the 'out of ink' warning. But I just don't have
a problem with it and neither do my friends who use Epsons.
See you in Ouray for the aspens perhaps? :)
Bill
Roger N. Clark
I didn't respond this weekend as I was upgrading computers.
Bill Hilton wrote:
> >>> And how about HP's printers? I know they make wide-carriage
> >>> ink jets. Are these for photo work? Any good?
>
> >>Bill Hilton wrote:
> >>
> >> Epson and Canon S9000 are better for photo work.
>
> >From: "Roger N. Clark" rnc...@qwest.net
> >
> >Hey Bill, I have to disagree.
>
> Roger and I will try to argue this one with civility, since we've met while
> photographing birds at Bosque del Apache and are friends!
Yep. I guess I should have been clearer. The HPs
make nice photos and are good all around printers.
But in disagreeing I didn't mean to imply that HPs were
actually better than epsons or canons. Each printer is
a little different and has + and -. Bill: next time
were in the field together, I'll show you some HP prints.
Looking at samples in stores, many printers can print
photos nicely. While I like the greens of HPs, skin tones
show a little grainy, while the epsons do nice smooth
skin tones. I think anyone looking at printers should
consider the + and - of each for their tastes and use.
> >I know a professional photographer who bought a bunch of
> >epson printers, including the really big ones, hated them
> >and sold most of them off.
>
> I think the wide carriage 7500 and 1000 models that used the 2000p type pigment inks had some issues with metamerism and what not, but all this has
> been pretty much fixed with the Epson 7600 and 9600 series. I know of maybe two dozen big name nature and wildlife photographers who bought these
> and love them, and the
> manager of a big lab told me that these have practically killed off his LightJet 5000 business because they are so good. These are clearly the best
> photo printers available right now.
>
> In fact two of the best California labs, West Coast Imaging and Calypso, now offer 9600 prints for *exactly* the same price as LightJet 5000
> prints. Pretty amazing when you consider one printer costs $5,000 and the other $130,000. You get very similar print quality with the same inks in
> the narrower carriage 2200
> for $650.
This is good news to hear! I checked with my 8x10 photo
friend. He had older epsons, which he got rid of,
and now uses epson 2200 and 9000. But he doesn't like
epson inks and uses pigment inks. He says it's a pain and
he must clean the heads every day.
He agrees with you about the general quality of the 9600
series and lightjet output: very close. He thinks the
lightjet is slightly better, but very small considering the
price difference of the printers. This should help
bring prices down too. And at $5k now, the price should drop
so more normal people could afford them. I'll have to
look into this some more.
> >The HP can also do 1200x1200 dpi and 1200x2400 dpi printing.
> >This adds a sharpness that makes the prints have more
> >snap
>
> This sounds impressive, but the Epsons print up to 2880 x 1440 dpi with 7 pigment inks. Plus you have a choice of light blacks, matte for art
> papers or photo black for glossier papers, for better blacks. Neither Canon nor HP offer this.
Well, we need a test, right? Apparently the epson drivers
limit effective resolution to 300 ppi, regardless of the
printer dpi.
HP had a 6-color printer which was very good. They dropped
it for their new technology that spits out multiple ink
drops that blend while wet. The result is as good as
the 6-ink system in my opinion.
> >I also like the HPs for the color cartridges: if one clogs, pop in
> >a new one; no expensive repair.
>
> I've owned four Epson photo printers since 1995 and never had the so-called clogging problem with any of them (original Stylus Photo, Photo EX, 1280
> and 2200). I think it was at its worst with the 870/1270 models (judging from internet posts) but even then many of the people reporting clogging
> were using 3rd party inks or not parking the heads when turning off the machine.
>
> A couple months ago I dusted off an old Epson EX (about 5 years old) that I hadn't used in a year. A relative wanted a printer so I figured I'd see
> if this one still worked and give it to him or donate it if it was terminally clogged (which I expected it was since I hadn't used it in so long).
> Two cleaning cycles and it was printing fine.
>
> I don't really see clogging as a major problem myself and you know I live in a very hot, dry climate. The 2200 has never clogged and the 1280
> clogged badly once (actually had air bubbles) when I ran a cart dry trying to see how many extra prints I could get after the 'out of ink' warning.
> But I just don't have a problem with it and neither do my friends who use Epsons.
This is more good news. I've had numerous clogging problems
with HP's cartridges. It seems such a waste to throw a
half full one away. I often don't print for weeks, and then
there is a chance of clogged cartridges. Also, if a cartridge
sits in its package for months, it has a higher chance of
clogging.
> See you in Ouray for the aspens perhaps? :)
I'm planning on it. I'm hoping for a banner year.
Roger