need help choosing photo printer - 9900 vs 2200
Donald Specker
Any comments on merits of each? I want the best looking output for
potential gallery use, shows.
Thanks!
Bill Hilton
>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
William Graham
"Bill Hilton" <bhilt...@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20041117174724...@mb-m10.aol.com...
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........
Annika1980
>Seems that the Epson 2200 and Canon i9900 are in the final running for me.
Enjoy your new Epson!
ThomasH
>
> >From: "Donald Specker" donald....@verizon.net
>
> >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
DALLAS
Printing your own at home is a very expensive option. When I first bought
a digital SLR in 2001 I had an Epson 880 Color Stylus and it printed
beautifully. It sits in the box in my garage now because finding the right
ink for it was a ball ache. It was also very expensive ink.
The paper isn't cheap either. I did a costing exercise and it turned out
that my home-made ink-jet prints were costing me about 1.5 times that of a
digital lab such as a Frontier. I only print from the Frontier now and if
I am unhappy with any of the prints they make, I just get them to do them
again. Fortunately this doesn't happen too often.
I've considered getting a newer ink jet but there is about to be a
revolution in colour laser printers, so I think I will wait for them to
reach the same quality levels as ink before I buy another printer.
Donald Specker
"DALLAS" <dont....@sshole.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.11.18....@sshole.com...
Mr Jessop
"Donald Specker" <donald....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BpPmd.13927$2V4.8896@trndny06...
> 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.
I believe the i9900 is an american i9950 without the dvd print tray. All
the reviews of said machine have been very encouraging. As for the epson i
know the 2100 was well received though there was an issue with metamerism
with the pigmented inks. This is especially noticeable when viewing from
extreme angles. This i think is the biggest point against gallery use. On
the other hand epson are said to be better at fade resistance.
Mr Jessop
"Bill Hilton" <bhilt...@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20041117174724...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> one do a better job on glossier papers than the 2200, which tends to show
> 'gloss differential' in large areas of black ink,
I believe this is metamerism. You can actually see raised areas of ink as
the darkest parts look like they are laid on thicker. Not only that but
there is a metalic sheen to it so that it almost looks like a negative.
Mr Jessop
"Bill Hilton" <bhilt...@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20041117174724...@mb-m10.aol.com...
>
> Below is a link to a comparison of the i9100 (previous Canon equiv to the
> i9900),
I am seriously considering the i9100 myself. Unless you view the i9950
prints next it the i9100 are more than satisfactory and the i9950 only looks
marginally better. It basically comes down to better reds and greens. Some
say too bright red. The latest pixma using the 8 ink system seems to over
do the red in skin tones. I am basically hovering over the the i9100 and
i9950. i have broached the subject on the appropriate newsgroup. There are
anti HP. PRo HP. anti epson and pro canon and anti canon.
Most people say espon yeah great but head clogs like mad and is not a user
serviceable part.
canon yeah but heads burn out after the warranty expires. and longevity is
issue
HP is yeah great pictures yeah longevity not bad and no head issues due to
disposable head in cartridge. but..
bloody hell are they expensive cartridges.
Lexmark just suck! ;)
For me i don't do 5000 pages a month and i paid extra for the 3 eyar
warranty so head burn outs aren't an issue.
also i don't sell my prints and any prints i do have are carefully stored.
Displayed stuff is under glass out of direct sunlight. Also third party
running costs are so good that longevity isn't an issue for me. Just churn
out another one.
CAnon also very fast. 6 and 8 ink colour management is practically spot on
out of the box. minor adjustments required if you use third party
consumables.
Final stumbling block is that i9100 may be out of production, getting hard
to locate.
Mr Jessop
will also find that the best canon paper is also the dearest. If using all
third party consumables even without refilling a3 printing is comparatively
cheap than lab prints. labs win on the high quantity small prints 10pence
over here for 50 6x4 or 6.99 for 50 7x5. But colour profiled quality a3 is
hideous prices. MInd you, you have to churn out alot on a regular basis to
justify the initial purchase prices. All in all for quality gallery
purposes i would find a pro lab that uses a fuji frontier or an agfa d lab1.
Real photopaper but with laser precision. Heavy canvas printing on the other
hand has to be an epson.
DALLAS
> Great input. Thanks!
You're welcome.
Something I forgot to mention is that if you make a screw up on your home
printing it's for your own account, whereas if the lab makes a screw up,
they pay for it.
William Graham
"Mr Jessop" <anony...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:cDand.18010$up1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
will take heavy canvas, so you can make prints that look like paintings, but
I don't know the model and/or the price.......
Uranium Committee
This is 35mm equipment. What the fuck is that question doing here?
ThomasH
>
> "Bill Hilton" <bhilt...@aol.comedy> wrote in message
> news:20041117174724...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> > >From: "Donald Specker" donald....@verizon.net
>
> >
> > Below is a link to a comparison of the i9100 (previous Canon
> > equiv to the i9900),
So you chose to ignore the warning posted by me here?
i9100 uses exact the same paper and inks fo the S9000:
BCI-6, 13ml tanks. See:
http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading
Canon has refused to even look at the images with the
argument that the many different factors make it irrelevant
why it happened in my particular case. Image hit counter
was 0 up to now, as I made *today* the gallery public.
I wanted get the issue settled without any public bashing.
Steve Sanders of Steves Digicams gave Canon printers a
raving review. Many people bought the printers partly
because of such reviews. On his own photo forum a few
users have reported problems comparable to mine. See:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=14438&forum_id=40
message by RobK send on "Sat May 17th, 2003" and replied
to by Steve Sanders himself.
I was (fore?)last weekend at http://www.kspphoto.com/ and
I stumbled into a Canon rep presentation of their cameras
and lenses at the digital store:
http://www.kspphoto.com/activepages/digitalstore.html
Prior to talking to them, I spoke to the Keeble and
Shuhat personnel. I was browsing large demo prints made
with diverse Epson and Canon printers and looked at the
printers. I plan to get the Epson 4000, except that my
wife protests... I wanted her to see the big monster :-)
I asked about Canon printers, and if K&S have received
reports of problems. He said, yes, and that he knows about
Canon people are not replying or not looking at the images.
That's because they (Canon) knows for a long time about
the issue and its drastic proportions!!! The devices come
from Japan and they have to face angry customers here in
the US and cannot do much about it except to reassure
you they did not meant to deceive anybody.
You will hear from Canon arguments like: Only the Photo
Paper *Pro* (not *plus*) is a four layer paper and could
hold for up to 28 years, if put behind glass, and if,
if, if...
I will post a summary soon of details under which
Canon believes to warranty their anyway inferior
durability.
One of the Canon reps told me that Canon will bring
next year "something" to improve the fading problem.
Currently, since I have a legal insurance, I have an
appointment with consumer rights lawyer in Dec.
I demanded from Canon to take back the S9000, but
they do not answer. I will also that they *PRINT* on
the box of their printers "CAN FADE AWAY DURING 12
MONTHS on following Canon papers with our Canon
BCI-6 'durable ink.'"
Their photo paper and the inks are sinn expensive, I
wonder how many people would than buy their printer
with such label in place and knowing about such
performance!!
Thomas