High-end InkJet Photo Printers?
Bill Crocker
looking at HP, Canon, and Epson's better models.
While I'm normally up on all the new gear, this market is very confusing.
In the past, I've always favored HP, never considered Canon, (even though
their digital cameras are super), and had mixed emotions regarding Epson.
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Bill Crocker
Bill
Camera res.?
Bill Crocker
Bill Crocker
"Bill" <sorry...@spamless.org> wrote in message
news:ShbEa.4041$fh....@news2.east.cox.net...
BF
"Bill Crocker" <wcroc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pLqdncAKs_P...@comcast.com...
Bill
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=22403490
or better
Jerry Schwartz
- The others (Epson and HP) I was considering had features I would never
use;
- The Canon was somewhat cheaper than the others I considered;
- The Canon was the only one available locally, so I couldn't see print
samples of the others.
I was in somewhat of a hurry, because I was stuck with no printer at all.
However, the consensus seems to be that the Canon i950 gives the best
results as of this point in time. This will vary some from reviewer to
reviewer, and of course the three companies leapfrog one another every
couple of months.
If you need some of the features, the Epson 960 seems like a good bet; it
uses 2 pico-liter droplets, but it doesn't use the new DuraBrite. I've not
seen a print sample. The Epson 2200 uses UltraChrome inks in 7 colors
(rather than the more common 6), but with 4 pico-liter droplets. Both have a
lot of features for going beyond simply printing a photo, such as printing
directly on CDs or using rolls of photo paper.
The HPs seem to be also-rans in the print quality department, but I wouldn't
count them out.
You need to decide if you want to be able to print directly from your
camera, what types of paper you'll be using, and so forth. The whole
cost-of-ownership thing is a morass, too, what with the different numbers of
ink cartridges each model uses. I ignored it, figuring that saving my sanity
was more important than saving a penny per printout.
--
Jerry Schwartz
FidoNet 1:142/928
http://www.writebynight.com
"Bill Crocker" <wcroc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pLqdncAKs_P...@comcast.com...
Pete Sweat
"Bill Crocker" <wcroc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pLqdncAKs_P...@comcast.com...
Toby
The Ultrachrome inks, being pigment based, have considerably better
longevity than any dye-based inkjet printer. The addition of gray ink makes
for excellent B&W printing. Most photogs/fine art printing people I know are
using it.
Toby
"Bill Crocker" <wcroc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pLqdncAKs_P...@comcast.com...
Rafe B.
>If you are really talking high-end you should consider the Epson 2200/2100.
>The Ultrachrome inks, being pigment based, have considerably better
>longevity than any dye-based inkjet printer. The addition of gray ink makes
>for excellent B&W printing. Most photogs/fine art printing people I know are
>using it.
The 2200 is a fine printer but there are issues to be considered
with pigment inks:
1. inability to print on most glossy surfaces
2. Some metamerism (print looks different under different lighting
conditions)
3. "bronzing" effect -- a sort of metallic sheen in deep shadows that
is rather distracting, on certain paper surfaces.
4. higher incidence of nozzle clogs
5. slightly limited gamut compared to dye inks
6. moderately limited Dmax compared to dye inks on glossy paper
In a nutshell: use pigments if you really, really need your prints
to be archival. Judged stricly in terms of image quality, the 2200
isn't really that much of a breakthrough.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Flycaster
news:qddaevknt64f5glg6...@4ax.com...
> The 2200 is a fine printer but there are issues to be considered
> with pigment inks:
>
> 1. inability to print on most glossy surfaces
> 2. Some metamerism (print looks different under different lighting
> conditions)
> 3. "bronzing" effect -- a sort of metallic sheen in deep shadows that
> is rather distracting, on certain paper surfaces.
> 4. higher incidence of nozzle clogs
> 5. slightly limited gamut compared to dye inks
> 6. moderately limited Dmax compared to dye inks on glossy paper
>
>
> In a nutshell: use pigments if you really, really need your prints
> to be archival. Judged stricly in terms of image quality, the 2200
> isn't really that much of a breakthrough.
With respect to *just* the 2100/2200:
1. Not true.
2. True metamerism is nonexistant with this printer.
3. On certain papers (especially Epson), this *can* be an issue unless you
use RIP, or control the ink density with the driver.
4. Higher than what? There isn't an inkjet made that won't clog if you
don't use it from time to time.
5. True, but very "slightly." With custom profiles, the difference is
unnoticeable unless compared side by side...carefully.
6. Not true at all, in fact the exact opposite is true. The only people who
believe this have not used custom profiles, but rather rely on canned
profiles, or worse yet, allow the driver to control color management.
Remember, this is a hybrid "dye/pigment" inkjet printer with a second light
black ink that actually increases D-Max. It does NOT have the limitations
of its predecessor (Epson 2000) which uses strictly pigmented ink (ie,
paint).
Is it perfect? Of course not. But is it the best prosumer grade
photo-inkjet so far? In my opinion, as well as a large number of people who
sell prints for a living, yes.
Pete Sweat
but I think most of the brain dead people in here care only about getting by
with cheap printers like cannon printers. quality to them is far down their
list from cheap refillable ink cartridges.
"Flycaster" <nos...@noyb.com> wrote in message
news:3ee5415b$1...@nntp.bendcable.com...
John Eyles
and very clever user community for the 2100/2200, that is constantly
coming up with solutions to these problems.
> 2. Some metamerism (print looks different under different lighting
> conditions)
This is most noticeable on B&W prints. Epson lies through their teeth
when they say it produces good B&W prints right out of the box.
Fortunately, for Mac users, there is a very good solution to this
problem: OpenPrintMaker, a free download at www.bowhaus.com/inkjetcontrol.
> 3. "bronzing" effect -- a sort of metallic sheen in deep shadows that
> is rather distracting, on certain paper surfaces.
This can readily be addressed by spraying your prints with a product
called Kamar Varnish, available at hardware and art supply stores for
about $5 per spray can. At least on semigloss and glossy papers -
on matte papers the bronzing isn't really an issue. And it also
protects the print surface.
John
wally
>Some of these are valid objections, but fortunately there is a large
>and very clever user community for the 2100/2200, that is constantly
>coming up with solutions to these problems.
>
>> 2. Some metamerism (print looks different under different lighting
>> conditions)
So does most everything else! Look at the color of cars in
daylight vs street lamps in a parking lot!
I don't see any objectionable shifts when viewing my Epson 2200
Premium Glossy prints under "normal" household tungsten lights,
cool while kitchen flourescent, office flourescent, and daylight.
Maybe it depends on the paper used, but "normal" wet photos look
a bit different under different lighing too.
>
>This is most noticeable on B&W prints. Epson lies through their teeth
>when they say it produces good B&W prints right out of the box.
>Fortunately, for Mac users, there is a very good solution to this
>problem: OpenPrintMaker, a free download at www.bowhaus.com/inkjetcontrol.
>
Can't address this, haven't done any serious B&W printing yet.
>> 3. "bronzing" effect -- a sort of metallic sheen in deep shadows that
>> is rather distracting, on certain paper surfaces.
>
Definitely see this, but I don't see how its really a "problem"
since under viewing conditions that show it, specular reflections
from the light source(s) ruin the viewing of other parts of the
image. Once the prints are behind glass its simply not an issue.
--wally.