Sue,
I think you would be better off with an Epson printer. If dye-based inks are permanent enough for you, the Epson 1280. If you want more permanent pigment-based inks, the Epson 2200. Both models can print sheets as large as 13" x 19" and panoramas as wide as 44 inches. Canon also makes a good dye-based printer that can print 13 x 19, although I don’t believe it can do 44-inch panoramas.
— Burton —
Hi Burton,
Susan, I don’t mean to hijack your thread–but I think that it will be useful info to you as well. Burton is a great source of information and I like to "tap his brain" when I’m lucky enough to bump into him.
For the last month I have been experiencing a printer nightmare once again. (I hesitate to name the "brand" of printer because the company has been very good to me in the sense of technical support and "stepping up to the plate" so to speak), but it is frustrating beyond belief that my thought process is no longer—"gosh, have I learned enough to really think about venturing out to earn money in my "dream career of graphic computer art". Instead, it’s, do I dare take on this job for creating a baby announcement or a 13×19 photo collage for a family reunion etc. and risk not being able to follow through because my printer once again choked and died. I need to be sure to allow enough days that they can express ship a replacement printer. Not a good thing.
I’ve started doing other printer research such as the Epson 2200, but the printing speed is a concern to me. I want the photo quality with "work horse" capability. I don’t do much with photo paper—mostly card stock type paper. The print specs for the 2200 are 8×10 on matte paper to be 2 minutes. So maybe the 2200 is "too good of quality" for me. I don’t need the ink to outlast my life-span—so is there a blend?
TIA to All,
Patty
p.s. Susan, all I can say, is do your homework before you buy. I absolutely love my printer that I have (when it is working.)
Susan,
You should be able to find a Photo Lab with a Fuji Frontier that will do prints at prices that work out less than your media/ink costs doing it in house….
Burton: Thank you for pointing me towards the Epson, I’ll be looking more into it shortly.
LenHewitt: Going to a Photo Lab will have to be my next option if I can’t find a printer sooner than I had hoped and thank you also for your reply.
Patty: Sorry to hear about your printer. I had experienced the same sort of problem before with a Lexmark printer I use to have. It was just my luck that I picked up a printer that was totally unreliable, but Lexmarks exchange policy can’t be beat. They picked up and dropped off a new printer for me withing 2 days of letting them know the problems I was having with their product without any added cost.
I’m amazed that it’s taking me this long to find the right Printer for my needs. Having to ask sales people from Big Box Stores like Future Shop and Staples is like asking them for the full meaning of Life.
Thanks again for all your input! Hope to hear more.
Sue
I’d second what Len says. I have an Epson 2200 and like it for colour fidelity over time, but printing to a Fuji or Noritsu is actually cheaper.
Whatever printer you buy, in the desktop area, if you stick to the manufacturers ink you will pay dearly over time. I recommend reading the book, Mastering Digital Printing. I bought it(the book) before I bought my printer and it cleared up a lot of misconceptions I had. I’m fully aware of the pitfalls of in-house printing and so what I decided was to get a 13×19 printer. Anything larger I send out.
Otto
Sue,
If you do decided to buy a 1280 or 2200, you can get very nice aftermarket inks outside of Epson. If you invest in a CFS system ( continuos flow system ) printing from bulk ink bottles is a cost saver over Epson cartridge prices. Should you go this route, however, you’ll either need a media profiling package, or get some media profiles made from Dry Creek Photo, for example.
I have used the Epson 1280 and have had great results. With that said, I just ordered the new EPson Stylus Pro 4000 which is new and backordered. It isn’t cheap at $1600, but the reviews so far have been awesome. As an FYI, I was about to buy the Epson 2200 based on the fact I read so many raving pro graphic reviews that it was clear it was what most were using. Everywhere I searched the net, the 2200 consistently jumped to the top. The only reason I am not buying the 2200 is because the new 4000 is coming.
One other option, if you do not need larger than 8.5 x 11 is the new Epson R800 for about $359. Due out in a few weeks, 7 ink cartidges like the 2200. Looks real nice for the money
You can read about the 4000 and the R800 on the Epson site.
I have two words for both Susan and Patty: Canon i9100. Well, actually, one word and a number. 😉
While Len is correct about costs, the lead time in testing is rather long. Nothing like having the printer right there while running color checks etc.
You can purchase bulk inks and blank carts from sources like MIS for 1/10 the cost of OEM inks.
Patty,
I’ve started doing other printer research such as the Epson 2200, but the printing speed is a concern to me. I want the photo quality with "work horse" capability. I don’t do much with photo paper—mostly card stock type paper. The print specs for the 2200 are 8×10 on matte paper to be 2 minutes. So maybe the 2200 is "too good of quality" for me. I don’t need the ink to outlast my life-span—so is there a blend?
Are you saying that 2 minutes for an 8×10 is too slow for you? If so, the Canon i9100 that Lawrence just mentioned might be what you are looking for. It is the fastest affordable photo quality printer in the market.
— Burton —
Harrill,
The only reason I am not buying the 2200 is because the new 4000 is coming.
That’s a pretty good reason. I envy you the Epson Stylus Pro 4000. It has the best Epson pigment ink technology currently available, with simultaneously mounted dual black cartridges, large capacity cartridges, and it can print significantly larger than the Epson 2200. Hopefully my budget will let me get one next year. By that time a decent selection of 16-inch papers should be available.
— Burton —
I hanging tough for the 4000 also. I just hope it isn’t a slowpoke!
Lawrence,
I just hope it isn’t a slowpoke!
I think the Epson 2000 set a record for slowness. As I recall, users reported that it could take 45 minutes to print a 13×19.
I expect that the Epson 4000 will be at least as fast as the Epson 2200 on the same sized print, but obviously if you are printing a 16×24 you would expect it to take longer than a 13×19. On a large print, I tend to be somewhat patient. After all, there is quite an investment in paper and ink involved and I would just be kind of holding my breath (figuratively) until the print came out successfully. It’s kind of like giving birth to a baby. Only I don’t know nuthin’ ’bout birthin’ no babies. (grin)
— Burton —
The reason the epson 2200 is so slow is that you don’t have a heart attack when the light magenta ink goes from full to empty in a few prints. It sneaks up on you instead.
Philo,
I think the Epson 2200 is way faster than the Epson 2000. But it is very humane that Epson has limited the Epson 2200’s print speed to avoid cardiac arrests. Some public vehicles have speed governors as well. (grin)
— Burton —
wrote in message news:…
The only reason I am not buying the 2200 is because the new 4000 is coming.
Just note that 4000 is not the larger version of R800. 4000 has low resolution (2880 x 1440) and larger drop (3.5pico) while R800 is 5760 x 1440 and 1.5pico.
(See epson’s web site).
If anyone is still interested in the R800, you might want to check out this review.
<
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20R800/pa ge_1.htm>
I purchased one today and am in the process of comparing it to the 2200 (which I find fast BTW and excellent overall). I can tell you that it prints high gloss prints on Epson Premium Glossy paper much more glossy than the 2200. But I am not convinced, after only 6 prints, that it is any better or maybe not even as good as the 2200 (for same sized prints) yet. I’m not a qualified reviewer and have not finished my observations. The review listed above is very positive to most aspects of the R800.
My two cents.
While it has been pointed out, and is generally acknowledged, that manufacturers can low ball the printer for your ink business, it isn’t necessarily without merit. Sure, it gives them a continuous stream of revenue, and their profit margins are insane.
But not all inkjets are created equal. The long and short of it has to do with the nano technology that is implemented in placing drops on the paper. Epson has a proprietary technology and so does HP – but they are different.
That means that the chemical and physical characteristics of the ink are "tuned" to provide the best result with a particular technology. In some printing systems, they can tolerate more crystallization of the ink, others have a lower tolerance. Be especially wary of this if you decide to use inks from someone other than the manufacturer.
Speed is important, but as with all things there is a tradeoff between speed and quality. There is no panacea (uhm… that I’m aware of).
In regards to inkjet printing itself, I prefer an Epson for photo quality work.
HP is the king of business printing. There, form follows function. That market prints mostly text, some graphics, and usually do not have as "fine an eye" for color and longevity as the graphics community. HP satisfies that market well. Lexmark is another business printer with graphics desires. IMO, businesses that try to be too many things to too many people usually fall short on at least one, if not all accounts.
One of the reasons I like Epson, is because they are a decided "graphics print leader". That’s where their focus is. And as an off shoot of that, it’s one of the most widely used, and thus, characterized and supported printer brands in the professional graphics community.
That’s a long winded way to say, everybody and his brother uses an Epson, and you can get everything from media profiles to driver support, if you need to.
I have no experience with Fuji or Noritsu so cannot comment.
I would never use a dye sub printer, or any "laser" printer that class. That technolgy is not ready for prime time yet. Sure, there are people who get good results, but the technology is all over the place and what you want, is something that is consistent, that you can predict. Again, just one Joe’s opinion.
They also are quite limited in paper handling, in general, and you have to be wary of the feed mechanism to accommodate media type and weight, moreso than with inkjet technology.
Lawrence continually points to that Canon. It’s a great contender, and exceptionally fast. I almost bought it, but opted for the Epson 1280, myself. I can’t say it would have been a mistake to buy the Canon, but the reason I opted for Epson was plain and simple: Support. If I have a color problem, there are a hundred people I can ask. But that Canon is a zippy printer.
Finally, it comes down to inks and longevity. Every man (or woman) marches to the beat of their own drummer in this arena. I do photo quality printing, but the gamuts and the hues I need to produce do not vary as widely, with what *I’m* printing, as compared to photographs, to justify the Epson 2200 or the 4000.
So to a certain extent, you have to decide what you will be printing and the needs for individual ink carts, etc. I don’t care if my images last 100 years or not. If anyone complains, they can sue me in 100 years (kidding).
But this won’t be true for everyone, so at some level one has to shore up what they know they want to print, understand the limitations, and decide if they can tolerate those limitations.
That’s my two cents…
Peace,
Tony
Mike,
That review of the new Epson R800 is great. I have to agree with the reviewer’s statement,
"The R800 is for the creative photographer who wants the highest quality pigment ink printer currently available. I hope Epson don’t leave it too long before they introduce a larger format printer using the new UltraChrome inks and Gloss Optimizer. Wouldn’t it be nice if the delay on the 4000 printer was due to a re-design to incorporate the new inks. All we need now is the announcement of the Epson Stylus Pro 2300 – just wishful thinking."
It is problematic that so little of the red ink and the blue ink get used, but since the inks are in separate cartridges, that shouldn’t be a deal breaker. The B/W renditions were on the warm side, but definitely usable. Epson has raised the bar again.
Now, for Epson’s next trick, I would like to see a full hexachrome ink set in there with the CMYKK. And spot colors. Yep. If Home Depot can mix paints, then we should be able to mix Pantone inks and use them as spot colors. And since we are talking pigment inks here, toss in some metallics.
— Burton —
