New Printer

[like_no_other]

Hi,

I'm looking for advice regarding buying a photo printer (ink).

Up to today I have given my digital files to a shop for printing. I was quite happy with the results. So I withstanded to buy a photo printer for home use.

Recently my trusty old laser printer died.
Good chance to buy a printer for occasional text and photo printing.

DIN A4 size should be large enough although A3 would be better. But there are some other factors I'm not sure about.
Because of minimizing costs of printing I think I should choose a model with 4 ink cartridges compared to one with more, e.g. 8. I'm not sure how much this difference would influence photo quality.
Next question is about printing heads and occasional use. Are there some models that are better suited for this scenario than others regarding drying out (clocking? correct word?) when used not too often?
Another question. Is it important to have a look at the resolution (dpi) of the printer?

Mostly I will print colour photos, probably 20% will be B&W. I would like to spend not more than €400 for the starter kit including one set of ink cartridges.
In this price range I don't expect absolutely professional photo quality for every situation but would like to be sure to buy a printer that delivers sufficient quality 'to be happy with my prints watching them hanging at the wall' which means no obviously visible stripes or color casts in B&W.

I think the choice will be between the main manufacturers Canon, HP and Epson models.
Because there are too many models in the market which I can't assess I kindly ask for your advice hopefully leading to one or two favorite printers.

Thanks very much.
Philip

[wparsonsgisnet]

Philip,

I don't think cost cutting is the right emphasis. The newer printers have inks with better longevity and, of course, multiple ink cartridges. I think, in fact, that you save more money with a greater number of cartridges.

I use Epsons and would recommend a 2200 or 2400. I don't know which corresponding models would give you a4, but my wife keeps asking for prints bigger than that. If agree that 13x20 is quite impressive for viewing. I calculate that such a print costs me $3-5, not a significant amount of money and actually quite impressive for a custom print!

Good luck,

[robert_parker]

Philip

Ink-drop size and number of cartridges makes a big difference, IMHO

I've tried a Canon A3 printer (S9000) but found it hard to profile well to produce really accurate colour or B+W. Having said that I know many swear by Canon.

Got on a lot better with the Epson R800, which is much sharper and seems easier to profile - it's also A4

I've left mine a long time without it drying and the individual cartridges aren't too expensive - can't comment on its B+W capabilities, though.

There are also a range of A3 and A2 printers now, eg Epson 3800 but i've no experience of them.

[eronald]

I profile regularly for customers, and they pay if they like the result, so I know whether they're happy. For some reasons, profiles always seem to work better for matte and pearl than on glossy. I think it's something to do with the spectros, or the perception of color.

I use Epson printers myself but don't want to get drawn into a public brand war.

Edmund

Originally Posted by robert_parker

Philip

Ink-drop size and number of cartridges makes a big difference, IMHO

I've tried a Canon A3 printer (S9000) but found it hard to profile well to produce really accurate colour or B+W. Having said that I know many swear by Canon.

Got on a lot better with the Epson R800, which is much sharper and seems easier to profile - it's also A4

I've left mine a long time without it drying and the individual cartridges aren't too expensive - can't comment on its B+W capabilities, though.

There are also a range of A3 and A2 printers now, eg Epson 3800 but i've no experience of them.

[carstenw]

I am very happy with my Epson R2400. It does have small cartridges, but the results are stunning.

[dman]

I've just bought a HP photosmart b9180, and im very impressed with both b/w and colour printing - it's a world away from my old epson 2100. At just over €700 it may over your budget but it's the first printer I've bought which I'm really happy with, and the longevity of the prints is up to 200 years. The luminous-landscape has a good review if your interested..
<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/HP-B9180.shtml>Link..</a>

[eronald]

Originally Posted by dman

I've just bought a HP photosmart b9180, and im very impressed with both b/w and colour printing - it's a world away from my old epson 2100. At just over €700 it may over your budget but it's the first printer I've bought which I'm really happy with, and the longevity of the prints is up to 200 years. The luminous-landscape has a good review if your interested..
<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/HP-B9180.shtml>Link..</a>

Yes, I recommended this to a customer, and profiled it.

The Epson 2100 is very good actually when custom profiled, and well worth keeping. For black and white, Quadtone RIP (Welcome to QuadToneRIP) deals with the 2100's metamerism.


Edmund

[ho_co]

Philip--
You might want to check The Online Photographer for an idea or two. Check The Online Photographer: January 2007, and search for "Nothing Wrong with That" under the entry for January 27.

Mike Johnston offers some points to consider in thinking about printers. His choice is an HP9180, though it is more expensive than you prefer, but he raises good questions.

--HC

[DaveEP]

Originally Posted by robert_parker

Philip
I've tried a Canon A3 printer (S9000) but found it hard to profile well to produce really accurate colour or B+W. Having said that I know many swear by Canon.

Got on a lot better with the Epson R800, which is much sharper and seems easier to profile - it's also A4

I have a Canon i9950 and the profiling is almost a disaster from start to finish. I have never been happy with any profiles, whether I generated them myself (using profiling hardware tools) or buying them. The Ilford (free) profiles come as close as any....

The Canon does seem to be expensive to run, but it could be perception rather than reality. However, the speed is amazing (A3 in about 90 seconds) with stunning colour - I just wish the colour was right !

I have since bought an Epson 4800 and like the results so far.... especially for B&W and Panoramas (printing on a 17" roll).

Also, check out some of the newer HP printers because they have built in colour profiling for different paper types. The only negatives I hear about the HP printers are B&W performance and water resistance for the prints.

[Eoin]

Like Dave, I run a Canon i9950. I always had trouble matching screen with print while I was running Windows. But since I moved to Macs I've had nothing but very pleasing results. It's interesting that I also use ilford classic pearl paper and profiles.
Very fast printer, seems thirsty for ink, not a purists B&W printer by any means.

[DaveEP]

Originally Posted by Eoin

It's interesting that I also use ilford classic pearl paper and profiles.
Very fast printer, seems thirsty for ink, not a purists B&W printer by any means.

Very interesting Eoin ..... I must get over to Dublin some time I heard the sausages are great there too

[Eoin]

Originally Posted by DaveEP

Very interesting Eoin ..... I must get over to Dublin some time I heard the sausages are great there too

Thats the problem Dave, I make better sausages that photographs, LOL

[Jager]

I would recommend against trying to do both text and photo printing with the same printer, Philip. A cheap ink jet such as is commonly used for text work will do a passable - but not great - job on photos. And a higher-end photo printer, although it will print text just fine, is unduly expensive to operate that way.

You can pick up a cheap printer for basic text and desktop use for next to nothing.

I would recommend the Epson 2400 as an outstanding photo printer at a reasonable price point.

Jeff

[eronald]

Originally Posted by DaveEP

Also, check out some of the newer HP printers because they have built in colour profiling for different paper types. The only negatives I hear about the HP printers are B&W performance and water resistance for the prints.

Unless something new came out this week,
AFAIK this is wrong - except for the BIG EXPENSIVE Z-series .

What some of the smaller models have is self-calibration which brings them back to a known state for certain HP papers; the profile supplied itself is generic and not necessarily very good, and this does not work for third party papers. You will still need to get a profile for third-part papers, and I would recommend one even for HP papers.

As for the BIG HP printers, the profiles you get with them are ok. Just ok.

Look guys, I don't want to be rude, but in the present state of play custom profiles are really a good idea for any printer. Any good color consultant 's custom profile will usually beat any generic profile.

And I don't want to say this too loudly, but for the fine art crowd, I would recommend Epson - they have the best track record here. Canon have been getting their act together over the past year, and HP are now roaring out of the starting blocks with the big Z-series since Photokina, but haven't yet moved this stuff down to the prosumer market. And they won't, I fear, the spectro head is costly.


Edmund

PS. What you should really all be asking is what screen to buy, and what screen calibrator to use.

[markjames]

I've owned both Canon's and Epson's and for the last three years the Epson 2200 has done EVERYTHING I need in a printer. Those that work in my office are not allowed to go near it (!) having to make due with the Epson 1280 I have for presentations - not a bad printer either when profiled properly. I use the ImagePrint RIP from Colorbyte software for perfect, no color cast, black and white without using special inks and the Epson's color when printed through ImagePrint is perfectly saturated most of the time. Inks are pretty affordable and it works well with Epson's Enhanced Matte (recently renamed). Canon's and HPs I've had in the past have not calibrated all that well to profiles. If I ever buy another printer it will be Epson's 3800 but the 2200 works so well I can't justify it.

Mark

PS- First, of course, calibrate your (high-quality) monitor - I use Pantone's EyeOne hardware/software. Then, using the IP RIP avoids all the custom settings needed to print properly through Photoshop.

[Shootist]

Just my point of view.
I never used a Epson but I was thinking of buying a 2400 until the new HP B9180 came around.
After careful consideration and reading all the reviews on both printers I chose to buy the HP B9180. No need to change out ink cartridges with the HP to go from glossy to matte paper or color to B&W. No excessive ink use to do it's normal maintenance. Changeable print heads just in case they get clogged.
I am very happy with the HP and wouldn't even think of switching to a Epson.

Yes the Epson 2400 was the top dog for some time and that is why you will see many use and recommend it. But the HP is just a better system today, IMHO.

[robert_parker]

Philip

Just a thought but you can get sample prints from most of the manufacturer's websites - some will even frint a file you send them.

Hope this helps

[carstenw]

Ed, there are pros and cons to both systems. The Epson needs to clean the heads from time to time, but the HP printers are dye sublimation printers, aren't they? These tend to have ink clogging problems when they are turned off, and the heads cool down, IIRC. I think it is Luminous Landscape which has a podcast on the pros and cons. Anyway, the top printers from HP and Epson are all very good, so these are probably small niggles, comparatively speaking.

[Bill Wendlandt]

Epson 2400. I bought mine from the Epson website as a refurb with free shipping. Sometimes they offer them with an additional discount. Mine was $599 and I could not see one scratch on it when I unpacked it. I previously had the Epson 2000. Superb prints.The 3800 would be my next choice if you have the room for it.

[Shootist]

Originally Posted by carstenw

Ed, there are pros and cons to both systems. The Epson needs to clean the heads from time to time, but the HP printers are dye sublimation printers, aren't they? These tend to have ink clogging problems when they are turned off, and the heads cool down, IIRC. I think it is Luminous Landscape which has a podcast on the pros and cons. Anyway, the top printers from HP and Epson are all very good, so these are probably small niggles, comparatively speaking.

No the HP B9180 is a pigmented ink system and it is recommended by HP not to never turn it off. It does it's own checking and cleaning on a regular basis and if the heads are clear it doesn't use any ink when doing the checking.
I have had one for about 2 months and although the first one I had was replaced by HP with a new unit because of a paper jamb error that wasn't real both have produced great prints.
There was a problem with the first units and the first firmware but since the current firmware straightens all this out my new unit has been running fine.
I do not print every day, or every week for that matter, and the unit I now have has never given me any problems.
HP replaced my first unit with a so called NEW unit with all new print heads and ink cartridges. It did take me asking to speak to a manager to get a NEW unit, as they were going to send out a refurb without new print heads or cartridges. But after me talking to a manager they sent out a "New" unit. Although that new unit was made in September and had the newer October firmware on it. So I suspect it was not what I would call NEW.

All in all I am very happy with this unit and do recommend it.
Now if you can afford and have a need to print larger then 13x19 then the Epson 3800 might be in your future.
The whole idea of having to change out black ink on the Epson was one of the desiding factors for going with the HP.
I have mine connected to my network and although it is not to far away from me the thought of getting up, going over to the printer to SEE which ink is in there, becasue I doubt I would remember, then either changing it to do whatever printing I needed to do, and possibly having to change it twice during that printing session was not to appealing.