Which printer?

fish · April 5, 2004

My old Deskjet 970 is great for everyday stuff...from printing emails to slide presentations, but it sucks for photos.

Which photo printer would you recommend? I'm not sure I need one of the big old honkin' jobs that will do 13x19 borderless, but 8x10 would certainly be a reasonable size. Canon? Epson? Let's hear your recommendations.

tia

pathfinder · April 5, 2004

fish wrote:

My old Deskjet 970 is great for everyday stuff...from printing emails to slide presentations, but it sucks for photos.

Which photo printer would you recommend? I'm not sure I need one of the big old honkin' jobs that will do 13x19 borderless, but 8x10 would certainly be a reasonable size. Canon? Epson? Let's hear your recommendations.

tia

What is your budget amount? I like bigger prints better - maybe my eyes are going bad - There are any number of printers for 8x10 that will do a good job - are you interested in dye or pigment based images - dyes may have slightly larger color gamut but pigments usually get the nod for longevity. And how long do you want your prints to last. 6 months or 50 years or 100 years. Decisions,decisions.

Currently I use an Epson Photo Stylus 2200 - I wanted 16x20 but settled for 13x19 inch and Ultrachrome pigment based inks. I also own an Epson 960 for printing on CDR's. It uses dye inks and prints lovely glossy 8x10s. I have used HP printers, but when I bought the 2200 I decided to go with the ink and the company that the majority of photographers seem to prefer, even tho we use HPs to print images at the office. Go figure - you have to go along with your partners to get along some times.

cletus · April 6, 2004

Another vote for the Epson 2200

patch29 · April 6, 2004

I have a 2200 as well. It is nice because you can print on a variety of papers.

Don't forget that Costco, Sam's Club, Wal-marts, etc around the country have installed Fuji Frontiers and Noristu printers that turn out great prints, inexpensively and quickly on real photo paper, matte or glossy. If your color is good and in srgb colorspace you should get pretty close to what you see. That equal no fussing with ink or drivers, etc. The Noritsu I print on can handle up to 12x18 prints.

pathfinder · April 6, 2004

patch29 wrote:

I have a 2200 as well. It is nice because you can print on a variety of papers.

Don't forget that Costco, Sam's Club, Wal-marts, etc around the country have installed Fuji Frontiers and Noristu printers that turn out great prints, inexpensively and quickly on real photo paper, matte or glossy. If your color is good and in srgb colorspace you should get pretty close to what you see. That equal no fussing with ink or drivers, etc. The Noritsu I print on can handle up to 12x18 prints.

Good point, Patch. And now a plug for your local camera store! My local camera store can print to 20x40 with an Epson commercial sclae inkjet printer. I just take in the file and he loads it into Photshop and for a small ( or not so small sometimes ) fee, I get a jumbo print on nice lustre paper. I made several 16x24 in prints for Christmas last winter this way. Colors were very nice.

rutt · April 6, 2004

pathfinder wrote:

Good point, Patch. And now a plug for your local camera store! My local camera store can print to 20x40 with an Epson commercial sclae inkjet printer. I just take in the file and he loads it into Photshop and for a small ( or not so small sometimes ) fee, I get a jumbo print on nice lustre paper. I made several 16x24 in prints for Christmas last winter this way. Colors were very nice.

And what about smugmug? Has anyone compared with his/her own 2200 prints?

fish · April 6, 2004

Thanks for the responses. I checked out the 2200 and it's probably bigger than I need (er, bigger than will fit on my desk, actually). I think I'll just leave the 13x19 and larger printing to smugmug.

I'm leaning toward the Canon i960 ($200!). Seems to be getting good reviews and it's available. The other option is the Epson R800, but it seems to be backordered all over and is twice the price of the i960. I'd have to see similar prints in person to know if it's twice the quality, but somehow I doubt it. I've also heard reports of problems printing 4x6 and with clogging on the R800.

Anybody have any experience with the Canon i960?

lynnma · April 6, 2004

fish wrote:

Thanks for the responses. I checked out the 2200 and it's probably bigger than I need (er, bigger than will fit on my desk, actually). I think I'll just leave the 13x19 and larger printing to smugmug.

I'm leaning toward the Canon i960 ($200!). Seems to be getting good reviews and it's available. The other option is the Epson R800, but it seems to be backordered all over and is twice the price of the i960. I'd have to see similar prints in person to know if it's twice the quality, but somehow I doubt it. I've also heard reports of problems printing 4x6 and with clogging on the R800.

Anybody have any experience with the Canon i960?

I have a Canon s600 and I'm very pleased with it Fish...

jimf · April 6, 2004

lynnma wrote:

I have a Canon s600 and I'm very pleased with it Fish...

To be honest there are a lot of pretty good printers out there. I hit the review sites before I bought mine, an Epson R300. I remember the Epsons as having a slight edge in print quality, which is why I went for one, but I definitely took a gander at the i900 -- they're all over the place at decent prices.

The R300 had a few features I wanted, though: An LCD panel for printer status (no more guessing what the blinking lights mean!) and six individual ink tanks.

A reason to consider HPs is that the ink jets are part of the ink cartridge rather than being separate. That means a new one each time you put in a new cartridge, which can't be anything but good for quality. On the other hand it means it's going to be more expensive.

I note that I still haven't seen a consumer grade printer that had good enough quality for anything but proofs IMO, although I admit to having used it to make a picture that I hung at my desk at work :-). When I want a quality print I take it to the pros.

patch29 · April 6, 2004

Did you check here for reviews? He has some info on them.

ian408 · April 6, 2004

Most of the printing I do is not photo related so I opted for the i860.
It does well on photos but will not print large sizes. But I would opt
for a better quality printer at somewhere like Costco for the few times
I need it.

Overall, I am very happy with the i860.

Ian

fish · April 6, 2004

patch29 wrote:

Did you check here for reviews? He has some info on them.

Yes. Very positive review on the Canon i960. And on the Epson 2200 and R800. I'm not sure I've seen a review where he didn't like the product. :lol

rutt · April 7, 2004

fish wrote:

Yes. Very positive review on the Canon i960. And on the Epson 2200 and R800. I'm not sure I've seen a review where he didn't like the product. :lol

OK, here is one argument for the 2200 that Pathfinder touched on. This is the little brother of two large format professional printers. It uses the same inks and paper. I think this means that you can proof on this printer and then have the image printed professionally on one of the bigger models and have a good chance of getting something that looks very similar in terms of colors. But Pathfinder would know more about this than I do, since he has actually done this.

fish · April 7, 2004

Decision Made
Canon i960. Couldn't pass up the quality/$. $199 at Best Buy. I bought a 120 pack of 4x6 paper and a 7 port USB hub with it, and they gave me a $30 gift card. Not a bad deal.

Took about 15 mins to set it up, made a couple of prints (8x10 on Kodak 8.5 x 11 premium picture paper and a 4x6 borderless on Canon Photo Paper Pro.

Wow. Excellent.

Bryan · April 11, 2004

I love my i960. The prints are great and it works good with Kodak paper (good buy at Costco). But the one thing that made me go Canon was this review site: http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html
they pointed out a site that they buy their ink from inkgrabber.com http://www.inkgrabber.com/ They are selling ink for the canon i960 at $2 a cartridge. My first order will be here next week. I'll let you know how well the ink works.

--Bryan

fish wrote:

Thanks for the responses. I checked out the 2200 and it's probably bigger than I need (er, bigger than will fit on my desk, actually). I think I'll just leave the 13x19 and larger printing to smugmug.

I'm leaning toward the Canon i960 ($200!). Seems to be getting good reviews and it's available. The other option is the Epson R800, but it seems to be backordered all over and is twice the price of the i960. I'd have to see similar prints in person to know if it's twice the quality, but somehow I doubt it. I've also heard reports of problems printing 4x6 and with clogging on the R800.

Anybody have any experience with the Canon i960?

lynnma · April 18, 2004

Bryan wrote:

I love my i960. The prints are great and it works good with Kodak paper (good buy at Costco). But the one thing that made me go Canon was this review site: http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html
they pointed out a site that they buy their ink from inkgrabber.com http://www.inkgrabber.com/ They are selling ink for the canon i960 at $2 a cartridge. My first order will be here next week. I'll let you know how well the ink works.

--Bryan

I have a CanonS600, I think I paid around $300 for it (I might be wrong) and I love it.. I don't know about the i960 but I think Canon does a nice printer... I love the crispness and quality of mine. Great info on the ink and paper Bryon, I'll be interested to know how that works out.
Lynn

photobug · May 1, 2004

Fish,

We sold a Deskjet 970 last time we upgraded photo printers, about a year and a half ago. You're right, it did NOT make very good (or durable) photo prints -- for a long time, the dear spouse used its photo prints as an argument to blow off digital and stick with film in order to get "real" photo prints.

When we sold the 970, we paid $200 at the time for a used HP 7550 (available sometimes at Fry's now for $79!). It's a 7-ink system and does a pretty fine job -- so far, *I* am (my Photoshop, etc skills) are the limitation, not the printer. HP claims that the 7550's inks, on HP premium glossy photo paper, has something like 65-year durability (per Wilhelm Research). The 7550's successor, 7660, is available for something like $150 if I recall.

Down the road, I may consider a printer that can make prints larger than 8x10 (e.g. Epson 2200 or similar), but for now the 7550 is doing a great job by me.

Epilogue re my wife's position on digital prints: she still shoots film, herself, but now accepts digital prints as just fine for her major need: scrapbooking (which she has really gotten into). That's a major shift from her position back in the "OfficeJet" days :-).

= bug

photobug · May 1, 2004

Bryan wrote:

I love my i960. The prints are great and it works good with Kodak paper (good buy at Costco). But the one thing that made me go Canon was this review site: http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html
they pointed out a site that they buy their ink from inkgrabber.com http://www.inkgrabber.com/ They are selling ink for the canon i960 at $2 a cartridge. My first order will be here next week. I'll let you know how well the ink works.

The reviews on the i960 pretty much '"gush". Good choice, Bryan and Fish.

Re the InkGrabber.com cartridges -- you want to make sure that those cartridges are filled with Canon ink (which is unlikely, as I doubt that Canon sells its ink in bulk to anyone). I used to buy off-brand ink cartridges until even Consumer Reports totally blasted them as a "bad buy" . The off-brand inks don't have the durabilty (sometimes 1 year compared to 60 years), the colors aren't always as accurate, and most damning of all, they don't even work out to be cheaper to use.

(also note: if print longevity is important to you, the particular combination of paper and ink is very important)

granann · May 13, 2004

Fuji frontiers at Wal-Mart, etc.
The new digital printers that have been installed at Wal-Mart and Sam's are printing film where it has a digital look. I am very disappointed in the pictures I receive from them now that they have the new printers. Does anyone else have this problem?

patch29 wrote:

I have a 2200 as well. It is nice because you can print on a variety of papers.

Don't forget that Costco, Sam's Club, Wal-marts, etc around the country have installed Fuji Frontiers and Noristu printers that turn out great prints, inexpensively and quickly on real photo paper, matte or glossy. If your color is good and in srgb colorspace you should get pretty close to what you see. That equal no fussing with ink or drivers, etc. The Noritsu I print on can handle up to 12x18 prints.

jimf · May 13, 2004

granann wrote:

The new digital printers that have been installed at Wal-Mart and Sam's are printing film where it has a digital look. I am very disappointed in the pictures I receive from them now that they have the new printers. Does anyone else have this problem?

Are they Frontiers? The professional photo shop I use to do my printing has one of those and aside from only having 8-bit resolution (they complained when I gave them 16-bit tiffs :-) the picture quality is excellent.

Someone else said that the Frontier gives you pictures that a "pretty close to what you see." I found that the color match is excellent but it tended to print a little darker than my monitor was displaying using the stock color profile for Photoshop. It's pretty darn close now that I installed the color profile for the printer though.

Argusphoto · June 13, 2004

Large prints
It is probably not worthwhile to print large photos at home.
Big Photo http://www.bigphoto.com Will print virtually any size for $3.75 /square ft.
Wally

tmlphoto · July 14, 2004

New Epson 4000
What does everyone think about the new Epson 4000. Kind of pricey, but it looks like it might actually be able to replace a pro lab. Has anyone seen any prints from this 80 lb hog?

mercphoto · July 16, 2004

Epson 4000

tmlphoto wrote:

What does everyone think about the new Epson 4000. Kind of pricey, but it looks like it might actually be able to replace a pro lab. Has anyone seen any prints from this 80 lb hog?

Two days and no reply to you, so I thought I would.

The reviews look good on that printer, for sure. And can do 16x20 prints in-house.

I myself am curious as to how good a printer can get. To me, a photographic print always looks different than even the best ink jet prints. Photographic paper just has a different texture, sheen, feel, even if the detail isn't any better.

I notice that you seldom are told a price-estimate per photo from these printer reviews. How much does a typical 8x12 cost? 11x14? 16x20? Maybe we need the equivalent of an EPA estimated miles per gallon rating for printers.

The first question that popped into my mind, when I read your question, was what quality are you expecting from the printer in order to replace your pro lab? And I mean "quality" in the general sense: not just image quality, but other qualities as well, such as price per print, time per print, printer maintenance, convenience of in-house printing, the space the printer will occupy, and how many prints/months/years it takes to pay back the price of the printer.

tmlphoto · July 17, 2004

mercphoto wrote:

Two days and no reply to you, so I thought I would. The reviews look good on that printer, for sure. And can do 16x20 prints in-house.

I myself am curious as to how good a printer can get. To me, a photographic print always looks different than even the best ink jet prints. Photographic paper just has a different texture, sheen, feel, even if the detail isn't any better.

I notice that you seldom are told a price-estimate per photo from these printer reviews. How much does a typical 8x12 cost? 11x14? 16x20? Maybe we need the equivalent of an EPA estimated miles per gallon rating for printers.

The first question that popped into my mind, when I read your question, was what quality are you expecting from the printer in order to replace your pro lab? And I mean "quality" in the general sense: not just image quality, but other qualities as well, such as price per print, time per print, printer maintenance, convenience of in-house printing, the space the printer will occupy, and how many prints/months/years it takes to pay back the price of the printer.

Thanks for responding. My main issue is convenience and getting the print to come out exactly as I had hoped. I'm mostly interested in making my own enlargements. I'm a little reluctant to have a customer order larger than an 8x10 through smugmug. It feels funny not seeing the actual print before hand so that I know it looks like I want it too. I've done some enlargements in town with a pro lab, but have had to get reprints etc to get it right. Not just color management, but subtle exposure differences etc. If I could get a quality print at home, even it it cost more, it might be worth it. As to quality, it is interesting that most customers are not nearly as picky about some of these issues as the photographer

. Some of my regular old ink jet prints look pretty good in an 8x10 frame on the table, but I'm sure they wouldn't hold up to analysis with a loupe etc. This printer is heavy, but I think it will fit easily on a desk. In short I would love the control a home lab would give, but I need the quality to be at a level to please both me and my customers. This is really just a hobby for me, but I would like to keep the quality high.
Plus, its just really cool to be able to make your own prints....

mercphoto · July 17, 2004

Quality

tmlphoto wrote:

Thanks for responding. My main issue is convenience and getting the print to come out exactly as I had hoped. I'm mostly interested in making my own enlargements. I'm a little reluctant to have a customer order larger than an 8x10 through smugmug ... If I could get a quality print at home, even it it cost more, it might be worth it. As to quality, it is interesting that most customers are not nearly as picky about some of these issues as the photographer .

No, they are not. Either because they do not know how good it COULD be, or they are truly happy with the way something is already. My neighbor showed me a picture of her child's baseball team. You know, three rows of players, coaches in the fourth row, stair-stepped, etc. The photographer had the DOF so shallow that the coaches weren't in focus anymore. I found that an amazing error, but my neighbor didn't even notice until I told her about it. She was happy until I had informed her.

Also, sometimes the customer is concerned about something that you are not, and vice versa. You could bust your butt "fixing" a part of the image, while neglecting what the customer thinks is most important. I was at a dirt bike track this morning showing off my photos. In general I get very high remarks on my photos, but I learned something today -- bikers want to see flying dirt, rooster tails, in shots of them riding. I had great shots, but few with rooster tails. So sometimes it isn't that the customer isn't as picky as the photographer, but maybe picky about something different.

tmlphoto · July 17, 2004

mercphoto wrote:

Also, sometimes the customer is concerned about something that you are not.

I know what you mean. I'm am having trouble figuring out my work flow with digital. I have been doing some quick & dirty levels work etc on all of the decent pictures and tossing out all of the technically inadequate ones. I have asked folks to let me know if they are going to buy an enlargement so I can due some further post processing before printing. Instead , every single person has gone ahead and ordered the prints as is. It saves alot of time, but I would like my best work out there, not an enlarged proof. I have considered having a seperate proofs gallery with prints turned off, and a final print gallery with the good stuff. I suspect this would hurt sales and irritate folks. My first few sessions I adjusted all of the decent images and put them up for sale, but that means alot of work on pictures nobody cares about. What do you think. How have you been doing it? Its seems impossible to pick the pictures that someone will like best, so I am afraid to toss out any technically good picture.

mercphoto · July 17, 2004

Work flow

tmlphoto wrote:

I know what you mean. I'm am having trouble figuring out my work flow with digital.. I have asked folks to let me know if they are going to buy an enlargement so I can due some further post processing before printing. Instead , every single person has gone ahead and ordered the prints as is... My first few sessions I adjusted all of the decent images and put them up for sale, but that means alot of work on pictures nobody cares about. What do you think. How have you been doing it? Its seems impossible to pick the pictures that someone will like best, so I am afraid to toss out any technically good picture.

I've only done two commissioned sessions so far, so the work was not great on my part. I did a shifter kart race, non-commissioned, and to make the work flow easier I shot in fine-JPG mode in the camera. Used a custom white-balance and Av mode and trusted the camera on the rest. It actually worked very well. I've done some MX the same way.

I don't shoot RAW unless the image is going to be real tough to expose properly, or unless its a commissioned shot. And most shots, like the racing, I won't tweak much at all. As you said, most people are happy with less. I need to put my time into the marketing side, growing a business. A photo 10% better is not going to get me any more customers.

tmlphoto · July 17, 2004

mercphoto wrote:

I've only done two commissioned sessions so far, so the work was not great on my part. I did a shifter kart race, non-commissioned, and to make the work flow easier I shot in fine-JPG mode in the camera. Used a custom white-balance and Av mode and trusted the camera on the rest. It actually worked very well. I've done some MX the same way.

I don't shoot RAW unless the image is going to be real tough to expose properly, or unless its a commissioned shot. And most shots, like the racing, I won't tweak much at all. As you said, most people are happy with less. I need to put my time into the marketing side, growing a business. A photo 10% better is not going to get me any more customers.

Thanks for the feedback. Good luck with your business.

pathfinder · July 19, 2004

tmlphoto wrote:

What does everyone think about the new Epson 4000. Kind of pricey, but it looks like it might actually be able to replace a pro lab. Has anyone seen any prints from this 80 lb hog?

M Reichman reviewed this printer here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-4000-update.shtml

He spoke VERY highly of it Also said it is large, heavy ( 80 lbs) and expensive. - It is as good a printer as is available anywhere today. This comment comes from a fine art printer and photographer!! I suspect that properly used the printer is much better than we are. It uses Ultrachrome inks like the 2200, 7600, 9600 all do.

I want one myself this fall. I have been looking for a printer that will print 17x22 at home and the 4000 will do that on roll paper.

tmlphoto · July 20, 2004

pathfinder wrote:

M Reichman reviewed this printer here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-4000-update.shtml

He spoke VERY highly of it Also said it is large, heavy ( 80 lbs) and expensive. - It is as good a printer as is available anywhere today. This comment comes from a fine art printer and photographer!! I suspect that properly used the printer is much better than we are. It uses Ultrachrome inks like the 2200, 7600, 9600 all do.

I want one myself this fall. I have been looking for a printer that will print 17x22 at home and the 4000 will do that on roll paper.

I'm seriously considering it as well. I'd like to see some pirnts first. thanks for the link.

tmlphoto · July 25, 2004

tmlphoto wrote:

I'm seriously considering it as well. I'd like to see some pirnts first. thanks for the link.

A Canon dealer let me demo the new i9900 printer. It can make prints up to 19x13 inches. I printed out 10 test prints at that size and I must say that they look great. The printing is very fast and quiet. The quality is excellent. The price is around $500 or less. I'd still like to compare to some Epson 4000 prints before commiting. I wonder about longevity of the prints vs the epsons. Does anyone know anything about spraying ink jets prints with some type of "sealer" in order to stabalize?

Which printer?

Comments