Rationalizing a printer purchase?

mercphoto

I'm close to replacing my dead R200 with an R1800, under the guise that I always prefer to view actual prints, rather than judge an image on-screen. And larger prints give you a better view of the image. Therefore, I'll learn faster if I can make prints at home.

Am I just making excuses or does anyone else also feel they get a better idea of the quality of an image by actually seeing a print?

dragon300zx

I spent $500 on a i9900 for home when I have one at work so I could see the prints when I was working on them at midnight. You need the printer. Its a must have. Buy It.

wxwax

I think they're two different things. So when you talk about the quality of an image, there's the web quality and the print quality.

That being said, I recently bought a used Canon 9000 for a pittance and now lust after an Epson 2200. I don't print much, but just as soon as I start making good pictures I shall. Nothing beats the pleasure of seeing your nice shot in print.

mercphoto

wxwax wrote:

I think they're two different things. So when you talk about the quality of an image, there's the web quality and the print quality.

Good point. I'm concerned primarily with print quality. I don't really care if they are optimized for web or not. Also, the lure of instant feedback ishigh, even though I could buy a lot of 12x18 prints at Costco for the price of an R1800.

wxwax

mercphoto wrote:

Good point. I'm concerned primarily with print quality. I don't really care if they are optimized for web or not.

Then you neeed the biggest, baddest printer out there!

Harryb

Never try to rationalize a photographic expenditure. If we all did that most of us would still be using disposable cameras.

Go for it. After you get it you can tell us how great it is and we will all be jealous. Hey thats a good reason to get it just by itself.

mercphoto

wxwax wrote:

Then you neeed the biggest, baddest printer out there!

Ok then, given the 13" width, what is it about the 2400 that makes it more money than an 1800? And, I've heard the 1800 is better for glossy anyway. True? I seldom do matte or fine art. Usually do glossy, sometimes luster.

Stan

wxwax wrote:

Then you neeed the biggest, baddest printer out there!

That one, a 44" printer at £7,000 $12,000 at exchange rate

Seriously though an Epson R1800 is fantastic, once you have seen a shot full size you will wonder how you survived without it. The only reason I have not bought one is the speed at which I would run through the ink $$ The Epson R1800 is not that expensive

pathfinder

mercphoto wrote:

I'm close to replacing my dead R200 with an R1800, under the guise that I always prefer to view actual prints, rather than judge an image on-screen. And larger prints give you a better view of the image. Therefore, I'll learn faster if I can make prints at home.

Am I just making excuses or does anyone else also feel they get a better idea of the quality of an image by actually seeing a print?

I absolutely feel that a print is where it is at. Prints that look good on screen do not always work on paper and vice versa. I like matte paper a lot too. Smaller prints work well with premium lustre and semi gloss, but for bigger than 8x10 or so, I tend to favor matte. And all my printers are Epson.

mercphoto

pathfinder wrote:

Smaller prints work well with premium lustre and semi gloss, but for bigger than 8x10 or so, I tend to favor matte.

Interesting. Is the reason something you can articulate, or is it just one of "those things"?

pathfinder

mercphoto wrote:

Interesting. Is the reason something you can articulate, or is it just one of "those things"?

To me it is a 'Visual thing" I guess - hard to verbalize. And it is not true for all images either - some seem better in matte, some seem better in a glossier version, irrespective of image size.

That is why a monitor image is not the final answer for me, I guess.

I guess I'm inarticulate

rutt

I like matte or fine art paper for prints that will be framed and under glass. Luster paper is a lot harder and works better in albums. I usually think it's a bad idea to have two shiny surfaces, the paper and the glass.

But for certain images that are very saturated, I like luster even under glass.

Jekyll & Hyde

mercphoto wrote:

Am I just making excuses or does anyone else also feel they get a better idea of the quality of an image by actually seeing a print?

J: I can usually tell how well an image will print just viewing it on-screen (at about 200% res.).

H: But then I just gotta have that print in front of me to tell me the image is Real.

J: I bought a new HP 8750 (13x19", 9-ink) a couple of weeks ago, and have simply been in hog heaven.

H: Do yourself a favor and get that big ol' printer, then just start a GRIN-in'.
J&H

mercphoto

Ok, I got the R1800. Prints slow as a pig. Is that because I'm doing it wireless, rather than Firewire?