Best Printer Subject Again

[gs121002]

It has been several months since the last thread on the best photo printer to buy. After a short review of the contenders, I'm thinking about the Canon i9100. Does anyone have any advise or experience with this choice or better suggestions?

[defordphoto]

Either that or the infamous Epson 2200.

[JABACo]

I looked at both the Canon S9000 and the Epson Stylus 2200. I went with the Epson 2200 because of past experience. However, I bought the Epson before my 10D purchase. That could have swayed my decision a little at that time.

Either printer will serve your needs if your looking to produce photo's and such up to 13x19. The Epson can produce photo's as high as 13x44 if you use the roll paper. I don't have need for that.

With the Epson, stock up on the Light Cyan and the Light Magenta. It really really likes these to colors. But I'm sure most photo printers do also.

The Epson 2200 uses 8 seperate ink cartridges. Only 7 are used at a time allowing you to swap out the Photo Black and the Matte Black. Giving this, you only replace the ink you need. I'm not certain about the Canon S9000.

In conclusion, my Epson 2200 does an outstanding job and I couldn't be happier.

Good Luck

Bradley

[iwatkins]

I have the Canon i9100 and cannot fault it. Well, except for the fact that it uses ink ;)

Prints from it, even A3 sized are just perfect. I do prefer the output on Matt paper rather than gloss.

The printer is quick, fairly quiet and was a breeze to set up.

Cheers

Ian

[AndrewEllinas]

"Canon has today announced three new printers, the i865, i905D and i965. These replace the i850, S830D and i950."

I found this at: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/

I'm in the market for a new printer, but I'm going to wait to read the reviews of the i950 first.

[scottbergerphoto]

I use an Epson 2200. The prints are awesome. The Epson supplied ICC profiles on the CD for Epson Inks and papers are dead on. I was able to fully color manage my system without spending extra money on custom printer profiles, about $100 a pop. My monitor is calibrated with Spyder/Optical. I shoot Adobe RGB. I set my output in Photoshop Elements 2.0 to one of the Epson ICC profiles supplied on the CD and my prints are almost identical to the monitor.
Scott

[robertwgross]

Most people here will have the sense to put print quality high on the priority list. Some people still put initial printer cost high on the priority list, and that is faulty thinking. For most of us, ink cartridge cost will be much higher than the initial printer cost (and we will assume that paper cost will be a constant across different printer brands). So, the smart thing to do is to figure ink cost on a yearly basis.

I figure I've paid twice as much for ink cartridges in this year alone as compared to the initial cost of the printer.

---Bob Gross---

[mapdealer]

I LOVE the i9100. I have taken photos with the 10D and printed them 13x19 and had peoples jaw drop when I tell them it's a digital photo printed on a bubble jet. On most prints you honestly can't tell the difference from an emulsion print. It does use a lot of ink though.

[HeatherJL]

I LOVE my Canon i950, I think the prints are amazing. The amount of ink that it uses doens't bother me, I replace photo cyan and photo magenta regularly, but the other colors seem to last pretty long.

If I have a large volume of work, I upload to Printroom for prints.

[ChrisNardone]

I went with the i950 after 3 iterations of Epsons. The speed advantage was the lure. I have also experienced a lot less waste with the Canon. i.e. not as much trouble with nozzle clogging or alignment etc.

[LuckyCritters]

I bought a 2200 and an i950.

I haven't printed a single print on the 2200 since I bought the i950. Don't get me wrong the 2200 is an incredible printer, but for what I do, I prefer the i950.

Anyone in the Portland, OR area looking for a slightly used (40 prints) Epson 2200?

[zebron]

Would anyone here consider using i950 or 2200 prints for commercial purposes? I assume that the ink is not water resistant. What about resistance to "dragging a sweaty thumb across a dry print?" Does anyone know if the prints can stand up to the heat necessary for plaque mounting?

There is a reason I ask:

I have a contract to produce 200 9"x36" (printable area ="7x32") prints. In the past I have always gone with a reputable photo developing company. Are we are the point where I can actually publish my prints in my home office?

Thanks for any advice,

Z

[scottbergerphoto]

The 2200 is a superb printer. Epson has been nice enough to supply ICC profiles for its ink and paper. My prints match my monitor. For an unbiased review:

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,111843,00.asp

Scott

[JABACo]

zebron wrote:
Would anyone here consider using i950 or 2200 prints for commercial purposes? I assume that the ink is not water resistant. What about resistance to "dragging a sweaty thumb across a dry print?" Does anyone know if the prints can stand up to the heat necessary for plaque mounting?

There is a reason I ask:

I have a contract to produce 200 9"x36" (printable area ="7x32") prints. In the past I have always gone with a reputable photo developing company. Are we are the point where I can actually publish my prints in my home office?

Thanks for any advice,

Z

Depends on what you mean. If your contract specifies that the prints will be outdoors 24/7, then none of the consumer printers will help you. If it's an occasional spilled glass of water and clean immediatly, well then you'll be ok.

Bradley

[zebron]

Hi Bradley,

Thanks for your reply. In theory the prints will be sold either pre-plaque mounted, or loose to be autographed and framed (they are of a hockey team). They will more than likely end up in a typical basement rec room or sports memorabilia room. If they can withstand even minimal abuse then I would consider producing them on my own.

Thanks again for any help,

Z

[zebron]

Another question about the 2200. Does the internal paper cutter only cut to 4x6 or can you customize it? Does the paper cutter do a good job?

Z

[JABACo]

zebron wrote:
Another question about the 2200. Does the internal paper cutter only cut to 4x6 or can you customize it? Does the paper cutter do a good job?

Z

My paper cutter is still in wrapping as it came. I sure I'm missing out on something but I just order the pre-cut paper. It seems when I did the math, in concern of the 13x19's, the role paper was more per page than the pre-cut.

And to answer your question, I have no idea.

Sorry

Bradley

[zebron]

Hi Bradley, do you order customized precut paper, or only in stadard formats? If so where do purchase your paper?

Z

[JABACo]

zebron wrote:
Hi Bradley, do you order customized precut paper, or only in stadard formats? If so where do purchase your paper?

Z

I usually buy my paper and ink from either www.thenerds.net or www.atlex.com. Atlex usually is a tad higher but have more inventory. TheNerds.com have a lower price but their inventory is usually spotty. Atlex is about $8.91 per ink cartridge and TheNerds is $8.50. The 13x19, a box of 50, is about the same around $80.00.

I have never used anything but the original Epson paper and usually it's the 13x19 sheets. Every so often I'll use the 8.5x11 (for 8x10's) every so often.

However, the advantage to the "roll paper" is you can print which ever you want without swapping paper size.

Hope this helps

Bradley

[zebron]

It helps a lot, thanks again for the tips!

Z

[JABACo]

zebron wrote:
It helps a lot, thanks again for the tips!

Z

Zebron,

I failed to mention earlier that I only use the Premium Luster Paper for all photo's.

Bradley

[gs121002]

Thanks. Lots of good input but nothing substantial enough yet to sway me to the Canon or the Epson until I read this thread on the “Digital Photography Now GENERAL Forum” / Anyone using the Canon i9100 printer?

http://www.dp-now.com/cgi-bin/forum/forum.pl/noframes/read/8099

The guys on this forum indicate that the Epson does a poor job on high gloss paper where the Canon excels on high paper. That could be enough to sway me toward the Canon.

FYI, they reviewed the new Kodak Pro 8500 Dye Sub Printer in the October Shutterbug but that unit is limited to 8x10 and is $999.

[TomKa]

Also the KODAK PROFESSIONAL 8500 Digital Photo Printer is not bad....
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/printers/8500/8500.jhtml?id=0.2.10.36.13.14&lc=en

[Motorsports Photo]

I'll add another important thing to consider with buying a printer:

What happens when it goes bad?

My experience with Epson is in the first year, they just give you another printer. After a years use, you're screwed!

In my world of 2000P use, I have had 8 replacement printers. None seem to last more than a few months. Epson WILL NOT give any explanation for the problems.

-Pete

[robertwgross]

Motorsports Photo wrote:
...
My experience with Epson is in the first year, they just give you another printer. After a years use, you're screwed!
...


When my old Epson 1270 was about three years old, it would fail to register (existing on an XP system). I called Epson, and they said it would require repair, and one authorized repair shop was about two miles from my home. I took it there early one morning and picked it up late in the afternoon. $50 fee. It has worked fine since then.

That's not bad.

Probably 99% of the paper that I use is Epson Premium Glossy or Luster, so there is virtually no paper dust to clog up the print heads. So, it has no clogging problems.

---Bob Gross---

[John_T]

GS, I've had my i9100 since June and can only say superlatives about it, also confirming the reviews I read about it before I bought it. I also had the opportunity to do ABC tests in a professional photo company and it was the i9100 hands down. Printers are often blamed for things that are not due to the printer. Calibrate your monitor and get to know the printer driver options toroughly and you will never look back.

[JABACo]

robertwgross wrote:
[quote]Motorsports Photo wrote:
...

Probably 99% of the paper that I use is Epson Premium Glossy or Luster, so there is virtually no paper dust to clog up the print heads. So, it has no clogging problems.

---Bob Gross---



I concur with Bob. Use quality paper and your problems with be held to a minimum. I only use the Epson "Premium Luster". Tried Kodak and it just didn't fill the bill.

Bradley

[gs121002]

Motorsports Photo wrote:
I'll add another important thing to consider with buying a printer:

What happens when it goes bad?

My experience with Epson is in the first year, they just give you another printer. After a years use, you're screwed!

In my world of 2000P use, I have had 8 replacement printers. None seem to last more than a few months. Epson WILL NOT give any explanation for the problems.

-Pete


Pete, what I have started doing at work is to buy an insurance plan (through Stapes Office Supply) with the printer. These are usually through third party companies. The manufacturer's warantee covers the first year then the extended warantee takes over. If anything goes wrong with the printer, they swap it for a new one. If that printer is no longer manufactured, then they give you a like product of newer technology. I find this is well worth the additional cost especially with a mechanical product.

[bnpndxtr]

Maybe a dumb question in 2003- and I don’t want to offend anyone. Don’t the inkjet inks still have horrible problems with UV fading? This problem alone is a fundamental show stopper for me in terms of considering spending any money for one. I was surprise to read in another thread that some people sell prints to people in a professional relationship that were printed using an inkjet. If someone tried this with me- I’d demand my money back.

To me a print should last years and years, but I have NEVER seen an ink photo last very long at all, especially in an office-lit environment under fluorescent lights. It just seems like a waste of money to buy a printer that generates effectively “temporary” prints- unless the idea is to create fast non-archival articles. I understand that all prints will fade some, but to me inkjet is a subterfuge relative to quality over life of the print.

At around $0.20 for 4x6 prints, and very reasonable prices for 8x10s, I have a hard time not just going to Sams and having prints done on the Fuji laser optical printer.