Can someone advise on a photo printer please?

R
Posted By
Ryadia
Jul 21, 2004
Views
337
Replies
8
Status
Closed
I have an Epson A4 inkjet printer at the moment. I am very pleased with the output except it isn’t large enough. I intend to purchase an A3 or A2 photo printer and while I am interested in the 2100 Epson, I really have no idea if this is the best choice.

I sell my photographs as wall art. Presently I send them to a Professional Lab and get the prints back, not always as I would like. If I have control over the output, I can only blame myself if they are not correct so; Could I have a recommendation on the right printer for a photographer please?

Ryadia.

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

N
nomail
Jul 21, 2004
Ryadia wrote:

I have an Epson A4 inkjet printer at the moment. I am very pleased with the output except it isn’t large enough. I intend to purchase an A3 or A2 photo printer and while I am interested in the 2100 Epson, I really have no idea if this is the best choice.

I sell my photographs as wall art. Presently I send them to a Professional Lab and get the prints back, not always as I would like. If I have control over the output, I can only blame myself if they are not correct so; Could I have a recommendation on the right printer for a photographer please?

If you sell prints, it is essential that they do not fade quickly, even if people hang them close to a window. That makes it essential to use pigment inks IMHO, which means you do not have a lot of choice. The Epson 2100 is the only A3+ printer that uses pigment ink if I’m not mistaken, and the Epson 4000 is the only A2 printer.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
IE
Irene Elliott
Jul 21, 2004
ALSO,
I to sell prints I have worked on in PS. However my regular "wet" photo lab also out puts on photo paper my digital files so I only have to worry about the fading of a photographic print. My finished prints ABSOLUTLY match what I want. The reason is that the lab gave me a "calibration" file and photo print so I was able to have my monitor, and my Epson 1200 outputs matching what the lab gave me.
Yours,
Tom
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
Ryadia wrote:

I have an Epson A4 inkjet printer at the moment. I am very pleased with
the
output except it isn’t large enough. I intend to purchase an A3 or A2
photo
printer and while I am interested in the 2100 Epson, I really have no
idea
if this is the best choice.

I sell my photographs as wall art. Presently I send them to a
Professional
Lab and get the prints back, not always as I would like. If I have
control
over the output, I can only blame myself if they are not correct so;
Could I
have a recommendation on the right printer for a photographer please?

If you sell prints, it is essential that they do not fade quickly, even if people hang them close to a window. That makes it essential to use pigment inks IMHO, which means you do not have a lot of choice. The Epson 2100 is the only A3+ printer that uses pigment ink if I’m not mistaken, and the Epson 4000 is the only A2 printer.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
A
alshaw
Sep 4, 2004
Can any one tell me where to buy an Epson sp4000.

I have tried for months, and all I get is they will be here "next week."

Thansks,

als

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:35:51 -0400, "Tom Ellliott" wrote:

ALSO,
I to sell prints I have worked on in PS. However my regular "wet" photo lab also out puts on photo paper my digital files so I only have to worry about the fading of a photographic print. My finished prints ABSOLUTLY match what I want. The reason is that the lab gave me a "calibration" file and photo print so I was able to have my monitor, and my Epson 1200 outputs matching what the lab gave me.
Yours,
Tom
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
Ryadia wrote:

I have an Epson A4 inkjet printer at the moment. I am very pleased with
the
output except it isn’t large enough. I intend to purchase an A3 or A2
photo
printer and while I am interested in the 2100 Epson, I really have no
idea
if this is the best choice.

I sell my photographs as wall art. Presently I send them to a
Professional
Lab and get the prints back, not always as I would like. If I have
control
over the output, I can only blame myself if they are not correct so;
Could I
have a recommendation on the right printer for a photographer please?

If you sell prints, it is essential that they do not fade quickly, even if people hang them close to a window. That makes it essential to use pigment inks IMHO, which means you do not have a lot of choice. The Epson 2100 is the only A3+ printer that uses pigment ink if I’m not mistaken, and the Epson 4000 is the only A2 printer.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
J
Jim
Sep 4, 2004
"A. L. Shaw" wrote in message
Can any one tell me where to buy an Epson sp4000.

I have tried for months, and all I get is they will be here "next week."

Thansks,

als
Get on a list somewhere. The supply seems to be less than the demand. Jim
R
Ryadia
Sep 9, 2004
Jim wrote:
"A. L. Shaw" wrote in message

Can any one tell me where to buy an Epson sp4000.

I have tried for months, and all I get is they will be here "next week."

Thansks,

als

———
I waited for many weeks just to see one of these printers. Finally I got a demonstration from the local supplier. His quotation for the printer and a set of ink tanks looked like the serial number instead of a price!

I particularly had issues with the cost of individual ink tanks and the fact that it only printed 18" wide. Anyway, I ended up buying a HP Designjet 130 which prints 24" wide, has broad industry support, 6 colour (permanent) dye ink and it makes prints every bit as good as the Epson. I would go so far as to say the colours are more vibrant than Epson’s. HP say 100 year print life.

I have made 6 prints so far. All have been 24" wide. The longest is 5 feet long. I am absolutely thrilled with this printer. It does it’s own colour calibration via inbuilt sensors so no matter what paper you use, the colour will be exact. Epson’s approach to correct colour is messy and time consuming, often not giving accurate results without many test prints.

Perhaps the best news of all is the price. Half that of the Epson. I don’t know about where you live but in Australia, getting parts to repair Epson’s is a major drama. I have been waiting for 2 week for a print head for my (3 months old) r310 Epson. God only know how I would be expected to run my business if it relied on this printer!

http://www.technoaussie.com/ryadia/

I am presently writing an article about this printer and how to get small digital images enlarged so you can take advantage of it’s capabilities. Sometime towards the end of this month I’ll put it on-line. All I can say about the Epson 4000 is have a real close look at what HP are doing with colour inkjets… Before buying an Epson.

Ryadia
N
nomail
Sep 9, 2004
Ryadia wrote:

I waited for many weeks just to see one of these printers. Finally I got a demonstration from the local supplier. His quotation for the printer and a set of ink tanks looked like the serial number instead of a price!
I particularly had issues with the cost of individual ink tanks and the fact that it only printed 18" wide. Anyway, I ended up buying a HP Designjet 130 which prints 24" wide, has broad industry support, 6 colour (permanent) dye ink and it makes prints every bit as good as the Epson. I would go so far as to say the colours are more vibrant than Epson’s. HP say 100 year print life.

The HP really is a good printer, but I do caution you to use it only with HP’s own paper. The 100 year print life that HP claims is only guaranteed with special ink and paper combinations, and using other paper may reduce the life span considerably, even down to just a few years! Also, the Kodak paper you show on your website is under heavy debate, because Kodak used different (much lower) standards to get to the "100 year" they claim for this paper.

See http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ for the latest findings on this printer and different papers.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
R
Ryadia_
Sep 9, 2004
The paper Johan, was just to show the size of the thing. Yes, I know about papers. The new HP dye based inks with life as good or better than Epson’s pigment inks are fine on rag based archival paper as well as HPs own Photo Gloss and proofing paper. Also the new HP heavy weight satin paper (if you can get it) will give long life.

I also have reason to believe Canson 200Gsm satin paper in rolls will give long life prints too. The only problem Canson have with HP inks is the drying time… At least 24 and probably 36 hours! In any case, I mount all my larger prints with a vacuum press and coat them with a UV sealer. Some I apply a finish called "Celoglaze" which is a lot like laminating except it is only 8 micron thick and does not add any bulk to the paper. This gives them long life, limited only by how much sunlight gets to them.

I run several HP wide format printers at work. The longevity (and lack of it) of HP inks and paper is well known to me. In fact HP themselves put out quite conservative life expectancy times for their various papers. They also publish realistic life expectancy about their inks too. Pity the Japanese printer makers weren’t as honest.

The Kodak papers in question are no worse than other ceramic coated papers from Fuji, Konica and Epson, to name a few. Laminate them or spray them with a sealer and they are fine. The paper in the picture is not coated with ceramic dust. It therefore has a reasonable life expectancy. When high gloss paper is marked "quick dry" it probably has ceramic coating and likely to last no time at all without protection from the atmosphere.

I have a number of prints on various papers with a variety of ink on my wall at work. Some date back to 1996 when I bought a Stylus colour printer, my first colour printer. Most are faded. Some are faded to disappearance while other are remarkably well preserved given that I work in an air-conditioned office with lots of ozone floating around from the digital printers. One of the longest lasting prints came off an Epson 640 printer. It’s on double sided Kodak "everyday picture paper".

All the hoo-ha about Kodak paper is confined to a few gloss types and I believe Kodak are about to, or already have, changed the manufacturing process somewhat to overcome the problem. Not before time either. I think it got it’s reputation when used with Canon inks which are amongst the worst on the planet for life expectancy. Plain paper and plain rag based paper will outlast all the coated photo papers on the market. It’s only quite recently printers have been able to get a bright image on plain paper.

As for the Wilhelm institute? You really have to take all he says in it’s proper context. He is after all funded by Epson! Personally, I’d have more faith in his findings if he were independent of the stigma associated with being paid by one company to "test" their products against others and actually finding them to last longer. That’s probably just my cynical attitude but you’d have to concede, the possibility for abuse of the system and manipulation of findings is high.

Ryadia
——————-

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
Ryadia wrote:

I waited for many weeks just to see one of these printers. Finally I got a demonstration from the local supplier. His quotation for the printer and a set of ink tanks looked like the serial number instead of a price!
I particularly had issues with the cost of individual ink tanks and the fact that it only printed 18" wide. Anyway, I ended up buying a HP Designjet 130 which prints 24" wide, has broad industry support, 6 colour (permanent) dye ink and it makes prints every bit as good as the Epson. I would go so far as to say the colours are more vibrant than Epson’s. HP say 100 year print life.

The HP really is a good printer, but I do caution you to use it only with HP’s own paper. The 100 year print life that HP claims is only guaranteed with special ink and paper combinations, and using other paper may reduce the life span considerably, even down to just a few years! Also, the Kodak paper you show on your website is under heavy debate, because Kodak used different (much lower) standards to get to the "100 year" they claim for this paper.

See http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ for the latest findings on this printer and different papers.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
S
Sam
Dec 16, 2004
I have been trying out the continuous ink system from
http://www.InkRepublic.com iINK system for more than 7
months for my Epson 2200. It works really cool, much "more" than what I expected. I bought a system – it can
works for both of my printers. I did not even know that until they told me.

Well, they are very honest to customers, and they dont even want to make money from me "again".
Not like other continuous ink system supplies, their system can only last 3-6 months, and you have
get back to them and buy the whole system again.

Many of the continuous ink systems are based upon a similar system to the way the original
cartridges function. That is, they have the ink sitting in a sponge or batting material in the base of the modified-cartridge, and it slowly drains to
the ink outlet and drains by demand of the head.

The reasons for this design in the original cartridges are to control the ink flow, so it doesn’t just drip out once the ink outlet of the cartridge is punctured and to keep the ink from sloshing around as the head goes back and forth, which could cause vibration in the head carriage movement.

In the continuous ink system system, there are similar concerns if the system uses
standard cartridges which have a hole drilled into each color compartment, into which is a tube that carried new ink.

The main problem with this modified-cartridge system is that the surface of this sponge or
batting can slowly either dry, or it can become an "early filter" in the
system, and the material can get filled with residue, particularly if you are using pigmented inks, which can impede ink flow. Secondary problem can be air bubbles can be temporarily trapped in the sponge or batting, which might end up in the head and could a gap in the ink flow.

Even Epson recognized there was a problem with this cartridge design. The intellege cartridges were, of course, mainly designed to make them difficult to refill, but Epson also made several other changes. They got rid of the batting/sponge material other than a small filter. They added a bunch of baffling to keep the ink from getting too much air surface, which can cause drying and oxidation, and it also slows the flow so they don’t leak, and they added a spring loaded valve at the ink
outlet, and the air vent, again to remove air flow, and leakage. Basically, the new cartridges seal when they are removed.

Now, there are problems with just using a pure ink cartridge, as mentioned above, and Epson’s more complex design has potential problems

for a continuous ink system as well. That’s where InkRepublic.com’s ink dampers come in.
They are designed to allow for ink feed fairly evenly, but without a problem with
siphoning ink or leakage. I believe it is a revolution of continuous ink system.

The continuous ink system systems that have been out there were jury-rigged, and although
they were better than buying individual cartridges each time, they were

not designed from the top down. As a result, I hear about many of these

installation users, either when they first get installed (and the difficulties in getting them to work) or more often, about a year after

they have been installed, when all the problems with the cartridge system comes out of the closet.

With dye inks, they work fairly well for most people. With inks that tend to be either corrosive or have a lot of residue, those systems often become subject to intermittent clogs, etc.

One of the reasons some 3rd party inks have a short installed life is because continuous ink systems tend to
use a air replacement systems for the ink to move. A much better design

would be ink dampers on the head end, and these collapsible ink sacks on the other.

But for my own experience toward using http://www.InkRepublic.com iINK, their
system is pretty well done besides, it is pretty flexible. Which means:

1. I can always apply the same system to most of my Epson printers without purchasing another "whole" unit. I can just buy the new chipsets, that’s it. This is big saving.

2. I can always use pigment and dye ink based on the printout.

3. No clogging, no leaking.

4. The best thing is, I dont have to "stick" with their ink, I can always use the ink from any other 3rd parties along with their system. InkRepublic.com does not enforce their customers using their ink. At least they are more customized and customers oriented.

Regarding the price and the function and environmental consideratioins, I would suggest you guys use a really good continuous ink system that can last longer and can be more flexible, just like the one from http://www.InkRepublic.com

Here are more reference for you:
http://www.inkrepublic.com/VideoClips.asp
http://www.inkrepublic.com/Comparison.asp
http://www.inkrepublic.com/testimonials.asp

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections