Favorite printers?

[Gary]

Friends -

Can we talk printers for a moment?

My Epson 780 has not been very dependable, and I'm thinking of upgrading. I've always used Epson (1270 & 1280 at the studio); should I stick with that brand or are there some other photo quality makes/models I shoud consider?

I'm printing various D30 files and don't need capacity larger than letter size, really.

Gary,
Minnesota

[John - NJ]

I'm using the Epson Stylus Photo 890 with very good results. It uses lots of ink but produces very good photo quality prints.

[Eric F.]

Hi Gary,

I have been using a HP 970 for a few years now with pleasing results. Only thing I don't like about it is, like most HP printers it leaves little scratches on the paper that you can see if you are looking closely. Otherwise, I like its results but fear that one day it will stop and/or I will not be unable to resist the allure of the "best" printer.:) Therefore, I am always looking around just to be ready. :eyes I recently came accross this comparison of printers which I thought was interesting. You might want to check it out. http://www.dp-now.com/Features/Printer_reviews/Photo-inkjets/Print_quality/print_quality.html

GOOD LUCK!!!

Please share your findings and discovery process so I can be one step closer when my day comes. ;)

[onehotrx7]

I went to a pre-release product launch a couple of weeks ago, and would suggest from that the new range of Canon machines would be well worth a look... one of the new machines will throw out a full A4 page photographic quality print in less than a minute - combined with the PR101 Professional quality paper they're pretty nice machines - there's also one with an optional lcd screen for printing direct from memory cards...

Cheers,
Stuart

[Kintama]

I have a Epson 980 and it's fast (tho not 1 minute) but fast enough I can cut boarders and mount in my display book while the next print is coming out.

I have no reason to upgrade other than I would like to print boarderless and larger format. My 980 however runs a long time on cartridge of ink. I think from 150 pints I did last christmas at nearly full page (1" boarder) I changed the cartridge once... and that was at 2800 DPI which consumes much more ink. I recalled reading someone did about 85 full sized prints on one cartridge.

My only bitch is that when the jet plugs up it spends 10% the ink supply to unplug it. and in that 150 print run I had to clean it 3 - 4 times. When I put the new cartridge in it didn't have problems so mighta just been that one.

Now that I have a D30, (I used to have a G1) I can see that now my camera is better than the printer again... tho these are very accpetable prints and everytime I show a serious photographer they always compliment it and ask where I had them done :-)

The printer technology in the 980 is pretty current. The 875+ range of printers looks good but droplet size is bigger however they go edge to edge, they also burn through ink (smaller carts?), and don't allow for refills aparently (I don't refill, I want the epson ink). The 980 and machines based on these mechanicals/drivers are smaller dots but not "photo" printers... I seem to recall a slight downside to it but I don't remember what it is. Both the 875 family and 980 family are good.

I'll wait for something significantly better before I upgrade. when they can get the little dots to not show up (my wife has extremely good eye... no inkjet printer fools her... NONE.) then I'll upgrade. I like the Olympus dye sub for smoothness but I don't like it's resolution. For my next printer I would want something as smooth as dye sub but able to go 11x17. If they don't have anything that smooth, I'd still go with something as good as the 980 that can print 11x17 edge to edge because the 980 is smooth enough really, my complaints are just being overly picky.

So my point is that it's damn good.. and to get me to upgrade to a new printer it will have to be more than marginally better.

I prefer epson printers cause they produce results that are more like photos to me. And equally as important I find that I'm used to how to get the most out of them. It takes a lot of printing and experimenting to know how to get what you want out of any printer, and I'm trained on epson at this point.

Oh one other complaint I have (this is not my printer I don't think... but more testing will prove it one way or the other) and that is printing black and white isn't true black. I find for best black and white I use color to do it it. However on the paper I use which I like for color it's not truly black... it's greenish or bluish depending on the light temp. While you may think anything would be odd under different color temp lights, this is obviously way tainted by the light.. more so than anything else your eye would adapt too in the room so the print stands out freakish. I use Brand: Jet PhotoPaper. Type: Professional Photo Paper Superior GLoss Finish. It's much whiter than epson and costs 50 cents a sheet. For color I love it. I do need to test epson again tho for b/w prints to see if they have a blu or grn cast when I use the color cart for b/w printing.

James

[snapdog]

I'm on my 3d generation of Epson, 1270. It give me great skin tones and great b/w. There's a ton on great papers available as well. I've been really liking the Premium Luster, and the new Ilford line of papers. I shoot mostly erotic art and the prints I show in galleries and sell all come from my Epson. (No, do not work for Epson:-)
Cheers,
Joe
http://www.portraitsoflight.com

[john_houghton]

kintama wrote:
I find for best black and white I use color to do it it. However on the paper I use which I like for color it's not truly black... it's greenish or bluish depending on the light temp.

FYI, this effect is called metamerism, and is caused by the different spectral response characteristics of the inks. It is not difficult to more-or-less eliminate the colour cast by applying a colour correction with the Photoshop curves feature. Print a greyscale with black ink for reference, then print it in colour mode. Selectively adjust the colour of each patch of the greyscale image to match the reference print. Measure the rgb values of the adjusted greyscale image and use them to produce your curves file. But, as you have observed, having corrected the print in daylight, you can expect a magenta hue when you view it in artificial light. One solution is to give the print a deliberate tone such as sepia, that looks acceptable in all lighting conditions (though not the same).

John

[Transfix]

Just recently, I went from an HP 722c photo printer to an Epson 1280.

It's like night and day for me. The Epson is absolutely amazing. I print mainly sports photography, and it works great.

[boBquincy]

I was very happy printing very good photo prints from my HP1220, even though the wisdom of most lists told me this derivative of the HP 900 series was not really photo quality (it is, in most cases).

I now use a Canon S9000 for my photo prints, it is enough of a step up from the HP that I can clearly see the difference (most of the time).

I print in whatever the best mode is, usually on Ilford Galerie Classic Pearl, which works very well on both of these printers.

The HP *never* had a clog, the Canon is too new to tell, but it is *fast*!


boB

[D30man MI]

The same number of people useing a darkroom for their negs will soon be useing a home printer. Get out there and use a pro printer. You can send them out lab through any ritz camera shop and get the same paper used with 35mm negs. VERY good.

Why shoot with a $100 dollar 35mm camera and print have them printed on a $300,000 machine,

and spend 2000 to 3000 dollars on a digital camera and print on a $200 printer.

that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard.


Take the cost of one 8x10 sheet of paper, devide that by 3. that's your cost for one 4x6 print. (remember to inclue your $40 ink) now think about only paying $.30 per 4x6 that's a million times better. On a pro lab like the frontier 390 or 370, there arn't any dots of ink, no dyes, it's all exposed, just like your 35mm film which still has better color range than digital.... STILL.



Dave

[BobbyC]

Dave is just wrong.

[onehotrx7]

It's easy to say that Dave's wrong, but how about a little bit more of an explanation as to why you think so??

I, for one, am inclined, at least in part, to agree with him... I print a lot of my own shots, but I also get a lot developed - I have a budget lab that prints what I give them for 20c per print, and a pro lab that does colour corrections, etc for 40c per print - I often layout multiple shots on a page like an album, and print them to Kodak Ultima paper or Canon PR-101 using photographic ink - the paper alone is over 60c per page, but the results are worth it... if I want 5 X 7's it's pretty much a break even exercise, but for an 8 X 10 or A4 photo, the printer wins out...

Basically, I print my own proofs for every 'acceptable' shot, often enlarge at home, and put the best shots in for mini-lab processing when there's a collection to print - it gets cheaper in batches of 36 (how they love the old film quantities...)

The one question that I still keep asking, is why, when we provide a collection of shots, does it cost exactly the same as it would if we brought in a film, but there are no developing costs??? Surely we should only have to pay for the prints themselves?? (or is developing free if you use 35mm film??)

Cheers,
Stuart

[BobbyC]

As I said in another post, and as it appears most people agree, I have yet to find a lab (locally) that makes a print as good as I can on my Epson 1270. This is not a $200.00 dollar printer so I may have been wrong about saying Dave is wrong.

I get a lot of this kind of attitude from people I know at the labs, but what would you expect, they don't like it.

I can even say my film scans printed on my 1270 look better. I cannot say that there aren't labs out there that can do it, but my experience has been I would have to send it off and wait for it.

As for the price, my costs for a 4x6 is about .40 cents using Color Life paper. I buy it and my ink online and don't pay the high prices at the local Comp USA or the like.

I'm not trying to flame Dave personally, only respectfully disagree.

Bobby

[Jim C.]

You might want to check out the Canon S9000 or S900.
They are getting pretty good reviews and many say they are equal to or better than current Epson printers.........
Well at least for the next month or two. :)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/s9000.htm

[gmaggelet]

When it comes to printers, I have tried a few and keep coming back to my Epson Photo 1200. I know it is a little older, but I have found through trial and error that I can product better quality prints than the 1280. I have found that using paper other than Epson's paper is one key to getting a more brillant print, believe it or not I get fantastic results using Jet Print papers and I use Carrot's ink, not epson ink. I have found that I get the best results with this combination of paper and inks. I also get fantastic results using Ilford inkjet papers, but they are a little pricey compared to Jet Print papers.

Just my opinion...

[UK_Terry]

HP 940c and the quality is excellent.
also dependant of course on the type of paper being used.

[Anthony8858]

Gotta love my Kodak 8660 dyesub.
This thing gives me colors and longevity.

[T a z]

While the type and/or brand of printer is important, what is equally important is the color profile that's used to print your work. A good color managed work flow from input to output has far more bearing on the quality of your print than does the printer itself.

As far as handing your files over to someone else to print is concerned...while there are some labs out there that do understand ICC color management, they seem to be few and far between. And of those that do, even fewer have the knowledge and/or the desire to allocate the resources necessary to keeping their Fuji Frontier's and the like properly calibrated. All devices drift over time and profiles need to be re-calibrated.

There has recently been some very good discussion on the ProDigital Talk forum at DP Review http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=2476710 and at Ron Gailbraith's Image Prep & Workflow forum on the subject.

Bottom line is...while which printer to buy is an important purchasing decision for the digital photographer. ..an equally important puchasing decision should be how much of the budet should be allocated toward quality profiling software.

Just my two centavos, for whatever they are worth.

-Taz

[oops]

I have the Epson C80 and the quality is super to my untrained eye. If it causes those around me to be super impressed, then I got my $149 worth.

I am still struggling with ICC profiles and getting the print to match the screen. So, Taz, you are right on with regard to software. I havn't waded through the Dp threads you gave but I am sure I will be more confused after the experience. Somebody, someday, will nail this down so it works on my system with my settings and my level of experience.:)

Until then, it is worth the price of admission to NOT visit the "camera dude" and hear what a dumb ass I am. My C80 pics look fine enough for now.8)

[greatfallsmt]

Just wanted to say...
If you're just filling a photo album with pics from your family reunion, it would be much more economical to get your film processed, for sure. The point missed, however, is that to DO anything more with your photos afterward you need a photo that is digital and high quality.

That is, unless you have a drum scanner and several cans of air. (not economical).

The ability to take a poster-quality photograph, seeing if it suffices before leaving the site, loading it into a computer immediately and manipulating a scratch-free photo is the value of the D-60. The quality of the digital photo and the time saved are money to me.

By the way, in fitting with the theme of this dialogue, I use an Epson 1270. I've done prints for a photographer who spent $6,000 on a Sony print system, and my little $300 printer cranked out far superior prints, even without a color matching system.

[Foreside PhotoGraphics]

Dave-

I realize that this message of yours has been here awhile and is a tad long in the tooth, but why do you persist in saying things which simply do NOT have any basis in fact?

First of all, the original poster asked about favorite printers (as in what kind should he buy for his digital darkroom). He wasn't asking about whether he should send his prints out to a photofinisher; or to you (after all the free publicity you've given Ritz camera, I don't even refer to them as Ritz anymore, rather Dave's store ). ;-)

Secondly, (these remarks are in response to your post, see below), do you know what is in wet process color photographic paper ? Silver halide particles in DYE layers; so don't kid yourself as to what magic elixer is present in photographic paper, it's DYE- which in turn has it's limitations with regards to reproducing detail from your slide, negative, digital file... and it FADES!

Your economic breakdown between inkjet prints and photos is just plain WRONG.

1 Sheet of Epson heavyweight matte paper (8.5x11) costs about .26 (USD). That's about .08 per 4x6 (using your math to get 3-4x6 prints from a sheet).

The ink used in my 1270 to do a 4x6 is less than .13 per 4x6. (The 5 color cartridge costs $24. at www.atlex.com) That's .21 for a 4x6 print. If I were to use a continuous feed ink system (readily avavilable for the 1270), my ink costs would be about .02 for a 4x6, ok?

Print longevity with the 1270 (using DYE based inks and heavyweight matte paper is about 25 years- Wilhelm Institute accelerated fading test results).

Print longevity with the Epson C80 PIGMENT ink printer and archival matte paper is 70 years (again Wilhelm).

And if you really think people from the future will want to look at your photos, the Epson 2000P with it's encapsulated dye crystal PIGMENT ink and archival matte paper is rated at 200 years!

Think your DYE based Frontier prints will give the 2000P a run for it's money in the longevity department?

Your unsubstantiated claims regarding the superiority of machine processed, organic dye based wet process prints is so, so, stone age, my friend!

Inkjet is not a mature technology; it has a ways to go. Sometimes I produce inkjet prints that might look better if printed conventionally. This I will grant you.

However, silver halide photography as we know it is in it's death throws, for a number of reasons: cost of product, turn around time factor, environmental issues regarding dealing with by-products of conventional wet process waste products, and certainly the issue of relinquishing control of part of the creative process to a microprocessor (or a Ritz/Wallmart employee) will eventually render those $300k paper processors obsolete, no ifs ands or buts.

I will produce any 4x6 print you can throw at me with my 1270, and I defy you to tell it apart from your Fuji Frontier machine print.

I admire (sort of) your loyalty to those who put bread on your table; but please, get some of your facts in order before you (once again start stating how conventional wet process prints are a "million" times better than inkjets, ok?

I have spent over 10 years hand producing exhibition prints for many famous photogs (if I mentioned their names, you'd know them, honest). I tell you that in 10-20 years your Fuji Frontier printer will be resting comfortably next to the Wright Brothers plane in the Smithsonian Institute!

How could ANY conventionally produced print in the world be "a million times better"? Has the Frontier somehow managed to create the 3rd dimension on a 2 dimentional piece of paper? If the answer is no, then let's not go overboard with our praise for the Fuji, ok?

Remember, there are a lot of readers on these boards, who take the statements of others as the "gospel"; let's try to practice responsible "reporting" for their sakes, ok?

Peace-

Gary Shepard
Foreside PhotoGraphics
Maine, USA

d30man MI wrote:
The same number of people useing a darkroom for their negs will soon be useing a home printer. Get out there and use a pro printer. You can send them out lab through any ritz camera shop and get the same paper used with 35mm negs. VERY good.

Why shoot with a $100 dollar 35mm camera and print have them printed on a $300,000 machine,

and spend 2000 to 3000 dollars on a digital camera and print on a $200 printer.

that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard.


Take the cost of one 8x10 sheet of paper, devide that by 3. that's your cost for one 4x6 print. (remember to inclue your $40 ink) now think about only paying $.30 per 4x6 that's a million times better. On a pro lab like the frontier 390 or 370, there arn't any dots of ink, no dyes, it's all exposed, just like your 35mm film which still has better color range than digital.... STILL.

[BobbyC]

Well said Gary!

[D30man MI]

Gary Shepard

You always seem to bash me Gary. I respond nicely but why are you so hung up on your inkjet? This is a site to inform, I want people to try it. THEN they would see for their self.

” Your unsubstantiated claims regarding the superiority of machine processed, organic dye based wet process prints is so, so, stone age, my friend!”

The Frontier is digital mini-lab. They are relatively new in photo finishing, just try to find one! Not in k-mart! Or Walgreens. People come from MILES AND MILES to get their prints done here. Fuji can’t fill the orders for these things. I’m not saying the Fuji machine is the best, but it’s the one I know, I’m sure the Kodak’s are just as good. Or agfa’s new one.

As far as saying I have my facts wrong by saying “a million times better” it’s a figure of speech, don’t insult people on here saying they really believe it’s 1,000,000 x better.

I really don’t know of any national chain where people can go to get professional digital prints besides us. Of course the local pro lab may do it, but where’s that? They are here and there. We bought all 350 Wolf stores so even more people know of Ritz now. So if I don’t tell them about us, where could they go?

I totally understand the silver halide system, and I don’t think there is anything better. You’re acting like everyone should print at home, and maybe get a film scanner to scan in all the negs they shoot, and print them on your inkjet too. Then spend HOURS cutting out 300 photos from their vacation trip. Give me a brake!!

“Your economic breakdown between inkjet prints and photos is just plain WRONG”
Well Gary, maybe you were tired when you quoted me WRONG, but I didn’t say inkjet. The example I was using was with MY Olympus P400 Dye-sub. And it IS $2 a sheet. Making 4x6’s $.66 whereas a lab could do better for less. I didn’t even give a price at home. Maybe it’s a few pennys less with some printers but the time it takes to print at home, and cut them out, is crazy and remember no one cuts that good even with a rotary board, so you pics will be all different sizes. (I’m sure your going to disagree with me on that last one)

“However, silver halide photography as we know it is in it's death throws, for a number of reasons: cost of product, turn around time factor”

Which brings me to my next point. The output of our machine is 2400 prints a hr. So it’s MUCH faster than a home inkjet. Cost is $.05 for a 4x6. If we charge $.30 it’s a pretty nice mark up. We just installed the 390 on Jan 8th 02 and have profited from it this month.

“environmental issues regarding dealing with by-products of conventional wet process waste products”

We “harvest” out silver every month to recycle it, but of course you’re right, it isn’t the best for the environment, but since when has that stopped anyone from doing something?

“Think your DYE based Frontier prints will give the 2000P a run for it's money in the longevity department?” did I Ever say that? No. Gary is trying to pick a fight, making up things. Regular ink jets, YES. And come on, 70 yrs? 80 yrs? 100yrs? 200yrs? I won’t really care when I’m dead.

I have an idea for you Gary. Since only a hand full of our 1300 stores have a Frontier, why don’t you go to Ritz Camera HQ in Beltsville MD and tell them that we can do better and save HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS by using 1300 of your 1270’s? I’m sure they would believe that you are right, our brand new mini labs are going to be junk in 10-20yrs. And if so, that’s AWESOME!! Think about how many MILLIONS we would make! I would put every penny I had into knowing something would make money for 10-20yrs!!! I mean, you are not just bashing me, but an industry. But hey, you know better than the big wigs at ritz, you really should save them from going out of business.

I posted this because you shouldn’t spend a few 100’s of a printer. If it’s pennies less that’s gonna take you a LONG time to break even.

You said ” Sometimes I produce inkjet prints that might look better if printed conventionally. This I will grant you.” WTF? Does that mean that the lab is better or not???????? What a weird thing to say when you bash it like crazy, then come back with something like that.

The Wright Brothers plane in the Smithsonian Institute is there for being something that changed the world. Do you really think our machine is that good, to be RIGHT next to it? Haha J

Please email me a file to print, I’ll print it 8x10 and mail it to you. Dwill23@aol.com
‘til then, stop being mean, it’s not nice. I WANT you to tell me what you think. Really. But I wouldn’t respond to someone personally and talk the way you do.

Dave

PS
BOBBY C, I was wondering how long it takes you to think up those whacky long responces?

[BobbyC]

Talk about bashing! I didn't say anything insulting to you. You may need to look inside yourself because you must have some other issues going.

People like you are why people like us who actually make money in photography don't use places like Ritz camera for processing. You think because you work for a consumer camera shop that you are an "expert"

You can post all you want, make insults to me and I'm sure in your own mind you believe what you say, but it won't make you a professional photographer or whatever you think you are.

I'm sure the owners of Ritz Camera would be so pleased at your professional attitude and all the free advertising you are trying to get. Frankly, I would pass on you as a salesman.

Cheers!

[Foreside PhotoGraphics]

Dave-

Dave, first of all, I am NOT bashing you, so don't take things so personally, OK? I haven't said one single degrading personal remark about/to you, so I really don't feel that I am "bashing" you by taking an opposing view to your opinions. I fully respect your right to believe whatever you want to believe (even if it is somewhat biased).

Secondly, re-read this thread's first post; or re-read my last post. This thread ISN'T about commercial Fuji Frontier printers in Ritz photo shops, do you understand that?

1) This thread is about opinions on the best INKJETS, do you understand that? (Apparently not).

You seem to hop into every post that has anything to do with inkjets and use it as an opportunity to launch into a long winded oration about Ritz camera and their Fuji printers.

The situation, Dave, is that these people (myself included) WANT to print their own work. But for you, I don't think this part of the equation has sunk in.

Commercial labs have been around for 50 years; they are nothing new. Mini labs have been around for 15-20 years; they, too, are nothing new.

Everybody knows that they can drive to their nearest commercial lab/mini lab, drop off their negs, slides, digital files, wait awhile and then return to pick them up. This is how ALL of us did it in the past. However, now their is an alternative, it's called the (in home) digital darkroom.

I'm positive that this looms as a great threat to commercial/ mini lab owners the world over. (I would be worried if I were amongst their ranks; I would do all I could to denounce the new technology as inferior).

The same thing occurred when digital cameras happened upon the scene. Make no mistake about it, they will eventually replace film; you may as well get used to that notion. Last year, 25 million digital cameras were sold world-wide.

2) You said "As far as saying I have my facts wrong by saying “a million times better” it’s a figure of speech, don’t insult people on here saying they really believe it’s 1,000,000 x better."

Better yet, maybe YOU shouldn't "insult" them by saying it in the first place. I'm not the one who is doing the insulting; YOU are the one who is doing the misleading, when you say something like that.

3) You said "Well Gary, maybe you were tired when you quoted me WRONG, but I didn’t say inkjet. The example I was using was with MY Olympus P400 Dye-sub. And it IS $2 a sheet."

Dave, actually, I had just gotten up and wasn't the least bit tired; nonetheless, could you point out in your post where you mentioned "dye sub"? I can't seem to find it mentioned ANYWHERE. And, besides, aren't we talking about INKJETS?

4) You said “Think your DYE based Frontier prints will give the 2000P a run for it's money in the longevity department?” did I Ever say that? No. Gary is trying to pick a fight, making up things. Regular ink jets, YES. And come on, 70 yrs? 80 yrs? 100yrs? 200yrs? I won’t really care when I’m dead. "

Dave, I am making up NOTHING; these are published facts. Go to the Wilhelm Institute's website, and see for yourself. The longevity figures that I quoted are a matter of record, period.

As far as not caring about the photos after you're dead, what about your relatives, friends, children, grandchildren? Maybe THEY would care, maybe they would like to know what their ancestors looked like. It's not just about you.

5) You said "I have an idea for you Gary. Since only a hand full of our 1300 stores have a Frontier, why don’t you go to Ritz Camera HQ in Beltsville MD and tell them that we can do better and save HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS by using 1300 of your 1270’s? I’m sure they would believe that you are right, our brand new mini labs are going to be junk in 10-20yrs. And if so, that’s AWESOME!! Think about how many MILLIONS we would make! I would put every penny I had into knowing something would make money for 10-20yrs!!! I mean, you are not just bashing me, but an industry. But hey, you know better than the big wigs at ritz, you really should save them from going out of business. "

Dave, first let me say that here in Maine, no self respecting photographer would even GO to Ritz Camera, so forgive me if I don't hold your employer in the same high esteem that you do, OK?

Personally, I don't care how they run their business. However, if they are (as you stated) making .25 on every print they sell, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they invested in thousands of Fuji printers (all the while knowing that they would be obsolete in 10 years). In those ten years, they would be making a handsome profit, and would no doubt have paid them all off by the time they became obsolete. (Business 101).

6) I said ” Sometimes I produce inkjet prints that might look better if printed conventionally. This I will grant you.” To which you responded (very insightfully) with "WTF? Does that mean that the lab is better or not?? What a weird thing to say when you bash it like crazy, then come back with something like that."

Dave, you take my words out of context to suit your argument. I prefaced the above remark with "Inkjet is not a mature technology; it has a ways to go. Sometimes I produce inkjet prints that might look better if printed conventionally. This I will grant you."

You somehow seemed to leave that part out. If you were just tired and it was merely an oversight on your part, I'll understand.

You seem to imply that I am saying that conventional wet process prints are bad. This could not be farther from the truth.

If I had a Fuji printer in my house, I would use it for all my printing needs if:

a) It only cost $300-$400 to purchase NEW. (Like an inkjet).

b) Consumables were equal in price to printing with inkjet technology.

c) I had hard numbers on the print's longevity. (My clients want to know these things, too. I really don't want them returning in 5 years with a wedding album full of faded Fuji Frontier photos and wanting their money back; see where I'm coming from on this one?).

d) Lastly, if the Fuji produced prints, which were, in YOUR own words, "a million times better than an inkjet print". (Pun intended, please don't get angry, ok?)

As far as sending you a file for you to print, thanks for the offer. However, I had my local Wallmart (who also owns a Fuji Frontier) make a print for me, so that I could put my money where my mouth was, so to speak.

Well, guess what? It looked good. A "million times better than an inkjet"? Nope. How about two times better? Nope. Well then, as good as my 1270 inkjet print? Yep.

You mean a $300k printer makes prints that are only equal to my $400. inkjet printer??? 'Fraid so.

Dave- be scared...be very, very scared!

Oh, and have a nice day! It's really nothing personal, honest. As I've said to you before- let's just agree to disagree.

Gary Shepard
Foreside PhotoGraphics
Maine, USA

[native1]

All This over ink Jet printers ????!!!! This is beter than the soaps.

J

[BobbyC]

It is hard to believe, isn't it?

[Rudi]

One of my friends just purchased a Canon S9000, and while a very impressive machine, we managed to come across an often-reported "issue" with the Canon printers: banding!

In clear areas of the pictures that we printed, banding can clearly be seen. This was while using Canon papers (everything up to and inclusing Photo Paper Pro). Now, at the moment I am assuming that it is most probably our fault, that we are doing *something* wrong during the print setup, although we tried just about every setting and variation that we could come up with! ???

Unfortunately, we are both perfectionists, so we picked the banding straight away. Most people probably wouldn't worry about it, or even notice it. What we did instead, was spend a sleepless night trying to come up with a perfect print, even downloading an updated printer driver off the Canon website.

It was very frustrasting, because the printer is obviously capable of so much more, but we just couldn't coax it out of it... :(

Has anyone else here had any experiences with the new Canon S820, S820D, S900 or S9000, and did you come across any similar problems?

I would buy the new S9000 in a heartbeat, if I could make the banding go away. They are FAST! :)

[BobbyC]

I can't speak on those particular printers, but I had a banding problem with my 1st Epson 1270, they sent me a replacement and it's worked great for almost 2 years now. Once you've exhausted all possibilties, it could be the printer. I've heard a lot of good things about that printer so I'm inclined to think something is wrong somewhere.

Probably didn't help you much, but I tried.

Bobby

[Patricknyc]

Gary
I got the Epson 1280 a month ago and must say it is fantastic. I don't think i'll ever use a photo lab again.
I love the digital 'darkroom' freedom, and I just ordered the D60 from B&H so even 35mm film scanning will soon be history. Its a great time to be in to photography!
If I cared so much about 'cost per print' I'd stick to disposable cameras. This is my hobby.
Patrick

[soumya63]

I have S800 and it never produced any band. Solid areas always appear solid. So I think it is your printer which is faulty. First try to align your head by using alignment option in the driver. If that does not cure, just get a replacement. The new one should print perfectly.

Rudi wrote:
One of my friends just purchased a Canon S9000, and while a very impressive machine, we managed to come across an often-reported "issue" with the Canon printers: banding!

In clear areas of the pictures that we printed, banding can clearly be seen. This was while using Canon papers (everything up to and inclusing Photo Paper Pro). Now, at the moment I am assuming that it is most probably our fault, that we are doing *something* wrong during the print setup, although we tried just about every setting and variation that we could come up with! ???

Unfortunately, we are both perfectionists, so we picked the banding straight away. Most people probably wouldn't worry about it, or even notice it. What we did instead, was spend a sleepless night trying to come up with a perfect print, even downloading an updated printer driver off the Canon website.

It was very frustrasting, because the printer is obviously capable of so much more, but we just couldn't coax it out of it... :(

Has anyone else here had any experiences with the new Canon S820, S820D, S900 or S9000, and did you come across any similar problems?

I would buy the new S9000 in a heartbeat, if I could make the banding go away. They are FAST! :)

[Rudi]

We tried re-aligning the printhead. We tried everything.

I think you're right, he will have to exchange it and see if the replacement is any better.

Of course, this means that I will have to wait a little to see which printer *I* will buy next. I was all set to buy an Epson 1290, then I saw the Canon, and I almost changed my mind... then we saw the banding! Now it's back to the 1290, unless we can make the banding go away.

So, I'll have to plug along with my Epson Photo Stylus 720 for the time being. It's not a bad printer, just *slow*... :)

[Inactive Member 17]

I have this banding problem but it only seems to be when I use Adobe Photoshop. When I use Jasc Paint Shop Pro or even just the print wizard on Windows XP everything comes out fine. Does anyone have any ideas of what tho change in Adobe to make this banding go away ???

[Rudi]

AHA!!! :)

This is the one thing I suggested to him yesterday, to try printing from another program.

FWIW, we used Photoshop 6 to print the photos the other night. I have never had a problem with this sort of thing with my printer (Epson 720) and Photoshop 5.5. I will try printing with PS 6 to see if I see a problem.

Maybe this thing is only affecting the Canon printer drivers??? Has anyone got any other experiences with this?

[Inactive Member 17]

Well if this is a printer driver problem then it affects both the drivers that come with the printer on the cd and the new ones that you can download from their (Canon's) website. I have tried both these sets and get the same banding problem.

I have tried setting my quality to a lower setting as what was suggested in the Adobe PS forum but the banding still occurs. I hope I can get this figured out, it's very frusterating. :(

[Rudi]

Lisa,

Well, it could be his printer. He tried printing with another program, but the banding is still there... :(

At least the banding you're getting disappears if you don't use Photoshop...

Please let me know how you get on with this. Thanks!

Good luck! :)

[Inactive Member 17]

Thanks for responding, we talked with a level 1 technician from Canon today and they are gonna test it out and get back with us on it to see if it is a driver issue but it might take a few days. I'll let you know what they say. :)

[Greg M]

I have tried the frontier. I gave them a file and had them print it with no color correction. I had them print different sizes from that same file. Each of their prints had noticeable color differences from each other and non of them looked as good as the print I made on my 870. The techs running the machine could not believe how much better my print looked then their frontier prints. They contacted their service tech for their frontier and all he said was that it was OK. I agree that the frontier is good for when you have a lot of pics to print but I will not use them for any final prints. I do a better job myself.

I use an Epson 870 with a CFS which makes my ink costs almost nothing. I also use Epson Heavyweight Matte paper. I buy this paper for about $9 a pack. For those without a calculator that's .18 per page or .06 per 4x6. I would love to try the new Canon printers but I do not want to give up my CFS so I'll put up with the lack of speed for the cost savings.

[ethan1219]

i for one am in love with my epson 2000p...
the larger print size is great...the difference between 8x10 and 13x19 is like nite and day...
i was using an hp932c for a long time with decent results but if you can swing the epson(a new version is coming out as we speak) it is worth it for the size and the archival inks...

[onehotrx7]

Hi Rudi,

Canon have spent a lot of time & money in getting the banding down on their printers, pretty much revising the way that the ink is laid down, so I'd imagine they would be quite interested if you have a banding problem - I've managed to get pretty much perfect prints out of an S400, which isn't as advanced as the 9000 (or the 820, which is probably my next purchase), and I haven't seen any banding at all on the various prints I've seen at Canon launches... on the S400, I use photo inks, and Kodak Ultima paper or Canon PR101 - set the driver for maximum everything on glossy paper and the prints are spot on - I still get a little banding on printing, but after the ink soaks the fourth layer on the paper it's perfect... hey, that could be it - is the driver set for 'glossy' paper?? It lays ink slightly differently for different media...

Cheers,
Stuart

[Rudi]

G'day Stuart,

actually, it's my mate's printer. :)

The problem is particularly frustrating, though, because I want to buy an A3 printer, and the S9000 has everything I want (print quality and speed).

NOTE: I've just heard that Canon have confirmed that in this case it was a printer head problem, and are replacing it under warranty.

So, it appears that the problem has been solved. I'll let you all know how the new printer head behaves...

[Vipermike]

I placed my "lab"cebachrome 8x10 film prints, shot with (Nikon N60 35mm) side by side with my 8x10 prints out of my Epson Stylus Photo 820 (6 color) 2880dpi, printed on Pictorico Pro high-gloss white film. Shot with my D60.

The Epson 820 and D60 combo is visually better in my eyes.

Granted, 2 totally different technologies and maybe not a fair comparrison. but im not interested in fair. I want the best visual results..period

and yes, I have about $3000 into my D60. and it's not a $200.00 printer, it's $99.00 :P

--
Mike Malloy
-you want my D60?... Pry it from my cold dead hands :)
http://www.pbase.com/vipermike/canon_d60_images

[EugeneK]

I used an older Epson (something)-80 and had banding problems. It would print perfect prints for awile, then start banding. I if you went though the cleaning process (that eats about 1/4 of the ink) it would print ok for a while - sometimes only a print or two. We grew to really hate this printer until we gave it away!

I started using an Alps 1200 Dye-sublimation printer and had great results with it although it was VERY slow. Alps has stopped selling the printer and the ribbon supply has dryed up, so I am looking for a new printer. What do you think of the Olympus Dye-sublimation print? Does anyone have any experience with it?

-Eugene

[BobbyC]

EugeneK wrote:
I used an older Epson (something)-80 and had banding problems. It would print perfect prints for awile, then start banding. I if you went though the cleaning process (that eats about 1/4 of the ink) it would print ok for a while - sometimes only a print or two. We grew to really hate this printer until we gave it away!

That was exactly the problem I had with my first 1270, returned it for a new one and never had the problem again, 2 years+. I'd buy another today if I needed it.

[rocket702]

Kintama,

Can you tell me how to line up a 4 x 6 sheet in an epson 980? I can not get it to line up right. It is shifted to the right and down on the card, not in the middle. Prints wonderful, but not in the right spot.

[Rudi]

Hello everyone,

well, I thought I'd post an update on the Canon S9000 printer situation. After much to-ing and fro-ing, Canon have replaced the entire printer. Sound good?...

Unfortunately, the new printer exhibits exactly the same banding problem! :( On closer inspection, it became apparent that this printer's serial number is only 4 numbers off the old one, so they are likely from the same manufacturing batch.

So, at this stage, we are suspecting a bad batch somehow slipping through Canon's QC , but I'm again seriously looking at the Epson for my own use... what use is speed if the quality is iffy???

Should the third Canon be faulty, my decision will be made for me...

[vromb]

I have the Canon S820 for a week now, and I also noticed the linear screening (banding) you described. You see, I'm a perfectionist too, and the first thing I noticed after a neat print on Canon's Photo Paper Pro is this tiny vertical screening on my subject's flesh tones. A better look at the print revealed this screening was apparent on the complete picture... this was unexpected from a printer of this price and let me wandering if my printer was defective... until I read your post on this site! [see also this web site for comparative print results SHOWING this banding for Canon : http://www.dp-now.com/Features/Printer_reviews/Photo-inkjets/Print_quality/Eyes/eyes.html ] You see, any cheaper color printer are capable of doing their color screening without showing any "placement" pattern (like when using Floyd-Steinberg diffusion) - my Canon s820 is not able to! :( Those vertical lines are directly linked to Canon's technology choices: they are apparent in every print, whenever you choose technical (fine) or diffusion dithering method. It's a flaw I wasn't advised of when I decided to buy this printer. I think I'd rather have buy an Epson knowing this!

Any one else noticed the same symptom with their Canon printer??? Please post a reply...


Note: Those experiencing HORIZONTAL banding are not concerned by my post... In fact, they are in far more serious trouble :D , as their printer experience clear mechanical deffect.

[gorham]

I use a Canon S900 and haven't had a bit of problem with it. The best looking photo reprints I've ever seen. I don't print larger than 5x7 but haven't had any banding that I've noticed.

I wonder if one of you with the banding problems could post your photo and let some of the others of us try printing it to see what we get. I could use Photoshop 7 or PaintShopPro 7 to print from just for experimentation.

G.

[Rudi]

gorham wrote:I wonder if one of you with the banding problems could post your photo and let some of the others of us try printing it to see what we get. I could use Photoshop 7 or PaintShopPro 7 to print from just for experimentation.

G.


Hey G,

here is the (now standard) test photo that the Canon printers in question consitently fail at (my mate is now on his sixth printer, and still going... :( ):

http://www.users.bigpond.com/ruda/0001/img0150_std.jpg

BTW, the photo is titled: "contemplation". Kinda appropriate, considering the whole printer saga... :D

It's just a small version lifted off my web site, but the smooth skin tones should show up any banding even at this size... PLEASE let me know your results!

[gorham]

Well...

First off, nice photo and great title. Friend of yours? :)

I printed it, with no editing, as follows:
PaintShopPro, using the multiple prints feature (which I use even with one image because it lets me position and resize exactly)
4x6 Canon Photo Paper Pro set for borderless printing
Default profile (because I haven't actually played with other profiles yet although I plan to as soon as I figure out how to mount them)
Carrot Ink cartridges (and this actually made me realize I will definitely go back to Canon ink when these are done)

Results: the colors are not as vibrant as on the monitor (not sure if this is my monitor setting or said ink and, as I say, no editing was done) but there is absolutely *no* banding. I held it to the light at all angles and none.

So. You didn't mention a size but it lent itself to 4x6 so that's what I used. If it would help, I could mail you the photo - I absolutely do not know how to take photos of photos.

Gorham.

[sovereignmkt]

[sovereignmkt]

I just bought a FUJI pictrography machine and it's incredible. If you went into a pro shop you couldn't get better prints. Works on Silver Halide. no inks

[Rudi]

gorham wrote:
First off, nice photo and great title. Friend of yours? :)


It's my mate's daughter, so although his printers don't work too well, everything else seems to... :D


If it would help, I could mail you the photo - I absolutely do not know how to take photos of photos.


I'd love to see it for myself, and show my friend that it IS possible to get good prints from one of these printers! (I think he's losing faith by this stage...). If you could mail me the print, it would be much appreciated!

I have emailed you privately with my address. I hope to return the favour some day... :)

[vromb]

Ok. Many people here seems to have the same printing problem with their Canon printers. I use Photoshop 7, and the 'banding' (bad dithering) problem is also mine when I print, like said previously.

Someone suggested to make an example avaible for others, so here it is...

here is the original picture:
http://vromb.tripod.ca/original-picture.jpg

and here's the printed result, Hi-Q with diffusion dithering on Canon Photo Paper Pro:
http://vromb.tripod.ca/s820-print.jpg

Don't look at color corectness: it's not the goal. But look particularly at flesh tones, and notice the strenght of the banding (vertical lines)... it's present in ANY print made out by this printer! This picture is just a partial scan (at 300 dpi) of a print. But believe me, it's pretty easy to see this pattern, looking not so closely to any print! :( It's deceiving...

NOW...

Some people have talked about printing from other software than Photoshop to avoid this problem...

DOES IT WORK? ???

I'd really like to know, and, like others, would like to look at the results (post your results scanned if you can)... I'd shure get an other software and dedicate it to printout if it is a proven solution! Otherwise, I'll try to get an exchange for my printer...

Too sad... :(

[Rudi]

Hi vromb,

after looking at your examples, it is clear that your printer is defective! The banding that I am talking about is nowhere as prominent as what your example shows.

How large is the print in your example? A4? (I'm trying to establish which way it is oriented on the page).

[Rudi]

While I'm at it, here is MY question about printers:

I am looking for opinions on the CIS (continuous inking system) for the Epson 1290. I am about to upgrade to this printer, and would like to hear from people who use this system. Am looking for actual experiences and potential problems that I might encounter. If you bought all over again, would you go with the CIS again? Has it ever presented any problems? Reliability? Will the printer head be more likely to clog? (etc., etc., etc...)

[vromb]

Canon 'banding' (screening) problems? ???

Here's my final contribution to this thread... It might help some people who don't clearly see what whe're all talking about to observe those samples. First, the head alignment itself...

This is a scan of my head alignment itself, on plain paper (satin ink-jet), scanned at 300dpi...

The color heads: http://vromb.tripod.ca/s820_-_Head_Aligment_-_colors.jpg
My choice for colors is (from left to right):
0, 0, -1, 0, -1
(! I have to agree this last selection [-1] is wrong and should rather be [0]... but it concerns PhotoMagenta ink only, so...)

The black head: http://vromb.tripod.ca/s820_-_Head_Aligment_-_black.jpg
My selection for black ink is:
0

Being there, I have to admit I found the printer to be an underperformer right at my first Head Alignment procedure, and still do! Canon want us to determine wich of these blocks are most 'evenly' dithered, but who can't see this linear pattern over all those swatches? ??? This is what makes me think all this screening some of us remarked is due to Canon technological choices (limitations I should say :( ) rather than software or drivers related.

So... now, printed output...

First, the original picture, wich I printed at 600 dpi:

http://vromb.tripod.ca/Color_reference_bar_01.jpg

And now, the printed result on s820, Photo Paper Pro, scanned at 900 dpi:
http://vromb.tripod.ca/s820_color_spread_-_Photoshop_7_print.jpg

[Note: I've also tried Paint Shop Pro 7, and the results are identical.]

The banding may not be distributed all over, but keep in mind this is a scan made at a lower resolution than dots generated by the print heads. Visually, by the naked eyes, when you look at the printed result you can clearly see this screening in every print of any subject, mainly in median tones up to the lighest ones. Flesh, cyans, greens and grays tones are affected in my particular case...

I suggest you to print the original 'color reference bar' and observe if your printer does the same.

I've expected to see 'dots' from my new ink-jet printer, of course... a distribution of smoothly spaced dots, like any Epson is able to do. But I didn't expected it to produce vertical banding, monospaced like in a TV screen!

Please, those who said their Canon printer (same technology, please) doesn't produce the same result, I invite you to look closer at your prints on Photo Paper Pro. Many of us here think their printer may be defective... but is it really? ??? Maybe you could use a magnifying glass to observe the printed result (your printer may be producing less strong patterns... if so, you may be lucky!), but still, if you then can observe a vertical screening, then Canon definitely made a questionable technological choice for those models.

Let us know.

We should (banding victims!) call Canon as soon as you (no problemo claiming) gave us ennough feedbacks wich demonstrate WE HAVE a DEFECTIVE PRINTER. Post pictures of your prints scanned at very high resolution if you can (a section of flesh tones for instance).

Thanks to all who contributes... I hope we'll find the truth about those printers soon. :D

[JR92]

I must be the one who uses the Olympus P-400. Though dye-sub stuff is expensive and hard to get, I will never go back to ink jet. I sell my photos, so quality is important to me as well as the customers.

[onehotrx7]

Vromb, I'm not a Canon technician, but in particular reference to the first picture you've posted, we'd normally attribute that to the head... I've seen it with new cartridges on an S400 straight out of the box, and I've seen it occur and be fixed by deep cleaning - and I've seen cartridges without the problem at all... we've noticed that the cartridges for the S400 were on backorder for a while, and the stock that's coming in now doesn't seem to be having the problem, so it may be an issue that's been addressed... my question would be, with a problem as clear as you have on your first posted picture, why haven't you approached Canon with it?? You've paid a fair amount for a high quality printer, and it's not giving the results that the printer is capable of, and you have a clear example of the problem - I for one would be taking it to a Canon center and complaining...

Cheers,
Stuart Elflett

[gorham]

Just stating the obvious here, I'm sure, but have the people with banding problems on the Canon S printers recalibrated their print heads? When I put a new tank in and run the maintenance, some of the examples are hugely banded horizontally. If this is at all the banding some are seeing, I'd surely recommend a recalibration just to see if it makes a difference.

Gorham.

[acmeron]

S9000 printers with banding, odd colors, blue edges at the top have a printhead problem. Trying to solve the problem by doing this and that and wasting a lot of ink will not fix it. It needs a new printhead. Three weeks is the lifetime of a bad printhead. It will be interesting to see if the replacement printheads hold up. You will lose about 2 weeks time trying and getting the printer fixed. I have read a lot of posts, and the Epsons are nice, but if their printhead goes, it is major surgery. Hate to say it, but the old HP expensive tricolor cartridges are very reliable.

[Rudi]

acmeron wrote:
Hate to say it, but the old HP expensive tricolor cartridges are very reliable.

... and NOT at all close to photo-realistic... :(

[mrchips]

I have tried a few printers from Dye-sub (it will be finished tomorrow) :-) to wide bodied 43" 8 color ink jets. for work (I work for a publishing company) I must admit that the output from my Epson 1280 is top notch.

The only drawback is the use of non-epson ink gives very poor results.

Denny

[adrianweller]

The HP 900 series had been good for me but I had a chance to get a Canon S750 for the office being the latest model on the market where I live right now. I hoped the four separate ink cartridges would be cheaper than the HP 78 tri-colour. The Canon outperformed the HP significantly in shadow areas where all the image detail came through whereas the HP just blotted everything out as totally black. BUT the Canon had some strange markings in the pale areas like little ladders so maybe this is the banding everyone talks about ? Also where pale areas adjoined (sky/clouds etc) the edges aren't smooth but print as little squares as if they were massive pixels. Is this the same thing ? I did re-align time and time again but it didn't help and I just wonder if it's ever going to be possible, with the fine tolerances you need, for four, or in some cases now six individual cartridges, each with their own heads, to be lined up perfectly. These are only mechanical devices after all.

Anyway 'we' just now got a HP 5550 which can be used with either a black cartridge plus a tri-colour one or a new six-colour cartridge (all new style cartridges). The latter is supposed to be used for photoprinting but it isn't available here yet. However the printer is every bit as good as the Canon in the shadows and overall with the tri-colour and it seems to be just as good on the PhotoRet setting as with the 4,800 dpi one. I'm now looking back through some of my better prints to see which might be worth printing again on the HP 5550.

I can't wait to get hold of a six colour cartridge which should be even better (although I can't see how as it's great already) but I just fear with all these multi-ink cartridges it's going to cost me a fortune.

[vromb]

Hey! Stop talking about recalibration of the print head!

I went to the store where I bought my s820, looked at numerous output they printed with s900 and other 's' series Canon printers, from month ago to fresh output (and from different units), and THEY ALL SHOWS THIS 'BANDING'/'VERTICAL SCREENING'/'LADDER EFFECT'/'ANNOYING LITTLE THING THAT KEEP THE GOOD EYE AWAY FROM MISTAKING CANON 'S' PRINTS WITH REAL PHOTOGRAPHS', name it as you prefer, but this thing is present and is DEFINITLY LINKED TO DESIGN CHOICES MADE BY CANON. I've also seen a site (benchmark site) wich is not as hesitating as we are: they reveal those new Canon printers DOES PRODUCE SOME EVEN VERTICAL SCREENING, VISIBLE TO THE HUMAN EYE, before they add those are good performers overall [!] :(


So, it's almost a good news after all! Stop wasting your inks in deep cleaning or wasting your time in servicing your printer: IT JUST WORK PERFECTLY! ...but still, it's not what you may have expected from it, isn't it ? ? ?

This was my last Canon printer.

[oops]

Rudi wrote:
[... and NOT at all close to photo-realistic... :(



Rudi, you and I (and many other folks, I suspect) are so very much alike. If the good one costs $200 and the best one costs $800, we just gotta have the high dollar one! Gotta be better, right? The price alone proves that, right?

And...... to a certain extent I think we are on to something with this mentality. It hasn't let me down too many times in the past. However.......(this is where the shoe drops),

I have driven the Lincoln LS, a Lexus, a BMW, and an Epson printer. It doesn't matter how much was paid or what name adorns the trunk. If the SOB won't start and run no matter how hard you try or follow the instruction manual or follow the tech support liars then the Chevrolet is bound to come back out of the corn field and go for a ride to town!8)

My HP printers (I have 5 different models) have NEVER pissed me off like this Epson printer. The HPs print WYSIWYG every single time. Yes, I wish I had individual ink tanks, ink level monitors, colors that will out-live my pet house fly, and something more than three crayons (I'm a big boy now). Oh, and how about laying down the ink on the paper so it looks like I DIDN"T use my crayons. But even still, the Epson's in the corn field and the HP has a place back in the garage.

It's just the way it works out and it's not always as simple as it seems.

Chris

[Rudi]

Chris,

please don't use ME as an excuse for your behaviour! :D

I have to admit: I have an old HP printer that I have had for nearly 10 years, and it's only starting to play up now (it will be thrown through a window shortly! :)). It's a great printer for general office use: fast, reliable - NOT cheap to run, though! ... And every time you want to print a photo (no such thing on this printer, but humour me), you have to swap out the colour cartridge and do a re-align of the print heads!

I've had my Epson Stylus Photo 720 for a couple of years, and even unplugged it and stored it in a box for three months, had several periods when I didn't print for WEEKS at a time, etc., etc., and I haven't had ONE problem with this printer. NOT ONE!!!

... and it prints PHOTOS! I haven't seen an HP do that yet... :D

[davidwalton]

Rudi wrote:
and it prints PHOTOS! I haven't seen an HP do that yet... :D

Hi Rudi,

I have been using a HP2000c for printing photos for a few years with excelent results. Even my local PC shop uses a few of the prints I did as examples of the quality you can get using their photo paper.

The only thing about the 2000c is the ink cartridges are around £29.00 each :(

[toycollector]

My S9000 works flawlessly "again". It printed great out of the box, then had significant dot patterns and some slight banding with flesh/earth tones/solid colors but I got it working again....

It appears (inconclusive at this point) the color management profile may be to blame...

If you are having similar issues:
Go to:
Control Panel
Printers
S9000
Properties
Color Management
Replace default profile with sRGB color profile and see if that helps your problem.

This is preliminary but it worked for me. I'm even using 3rd-party inks and my images look great again as I'm re-printed several photos from the past month!

[Rudi]

toycollector wrote:
This is preliminary but it worked for me.


toycollector,

I'll tell my mate to give it a shot. He's been tearing his hair out over this, so any suggestions *will* be tried at this point, I'm sure! :)

Thanks for posting the info.

[oops]

Anyone keeping track?

Poor Gary who started this 6 months ago by asking, "Can we talk printers for a moment?" and anyone else new to this forum must think we're all kinda weird. Wow, go figure.

Out of the many posts on this thread we have as yet to have a clear winner on a favorite printer. It is as if we all chose a different model and waited in line to post our vote. Over twenty models have been mentioned with little duplication of choices. Nothing that would cause any of us to run out and buy something.

Just a sports update, gang. Carry on.:)

[Rudi]

Well, I'm extremely happy with my Epson 720... I just wish it was an A3 printer! That is why I was hoping the Canon S9000 would perform better, as it's fast and has separate ink tanks (it's just too bad that the images from the 6 printers that I have seen so far, well, suck! :()

I was considering the Epson 1290, and the way this is going, still am! :)

BTW, my main criteria is how the printer prints PHOTOS. I don't care about text. I can always buy a cheapie HP if I want to print lots of text fast...

[Rudi]

Gary wrote:
Friends -

Can we talk printers for a moment?

My Epson 780 has not been very dependable, and I'm thinking of upgrading. I've always used Epson (1270 & 1280 at the studio); should I stick with that brand or are there some other photo quality makes/models I shoud consider?

I'm printing various D30 files and don't need capacity larger than letter size, really.

Gary,
Minnesota


Gary,

in reply to your question:

If you don't need any larger than letter size, the Epson 890 can't be beat! A close friend of mine has just bought one about a month ago, and it produces stunning photographs on both the Epson Glossy and Epson Heavyweight Matte papers (I especially like the Espon HWM). I have also printed some photos on the Ilford Gallerie Smooth Pearl paper (a favourite of mine), and they are indistinguishable from real photos with the naked eye.

So it looks like I *will* be buying the 1290... :)

[EugeneK]

Does anyone have any experience with the HP 10ps Designjet printer. I have seen some prints from it and they look good, but I can not find many reviews on it. Has anyone used it? -Eugene

[vromb]

toycollector wrote:
My S9000 works flawlessly "again". It printed great out of the box, then had significant dot patterns and some slight banding with flesh/earth tones/solid colors but I got it working again....

It appears (inconclusive at this point) the color management profile may be to blame...

If you are having similar issues:
Go to:
Control Panel
Printers
S9000
Properties
Color Management
Replace default profile with sRGB color profile and see if that helps your problem. ...


I tried your recommendation. Didn't change anything for my s820 - Still visible banding in lighter tonal/flesh area.

Personnally, (and I'm shure I'm not alone!) I'd like to see a scan of an accurate print from a Canon 'S' serie. Only light flesh tones area of a print is needed, scanned at VERY HIGH resolution (over 900 dpi)... and there I could believe! Cause the more I see samples made by those printers, the more I'm convinced they are technically designed in such a way this banding will never disapear.

'ToyCollector', if you have some web space where you could make such a scan available to others, it would be great to show us your positive results with your last setting, and also submit the original source bitmap. We may be a lot waiting to see this printer work without this ****ty screening result.

Thanks...

[adrianweller]

I went back and tried the office S750 with that new profile and the pictures were definitely better although I had also needed to change two of the original cartridges which had been shipped with the printer (had only printed a few photos too) so maybe that was a contributory factor.

I'm still very pleased with the HP 5550 though and as I have a choice of which to use I'm sticking with that until I have a feel for how much the ink is going to cost.

Out of interest what settings do people prefer for photo printing with Canon S Series - just the 'High' setting or the Printing Advisor's - 'Print a top quality photo' one ? Is there any difference in fact ?

[SteveCliff]

Had an Epson 760, 890 and (cough) a £40 one I can't remember the model number of.

Have a guess how many of these I have had problems with ? Yep, you guessed it ... ALL OF THEM !!!

The only one I will excuse is the £40 running any-old-make ink with cheap copy paper. Even then, it very often produces more consisitent results that the other 2!

The 760 crapped out on me after 9-10 months. Lots of black ink splodges followed by no black in output at all. 4-5 head cleans and it finally comes back again. I junked this one for an 890.

The 890 produced excellent photographic prints for aroun 5 months before starting to exhibit a general drop in quality. I put up with this for about 3 months more and then Epson exchanged it for another one.

3 months after this, I was back where I started. I also happened to be talking to a Signs and Graphics shop who also had (amongst many others) an 890. They had the same problem.

Finally bought a Canon S9000. BRILLIANT! (so far ...)
Absolutely top notch quality (matches really nice with Ilford's Pearl paper and Jessops Ultra White Glossy). It's very quiet, has seperate ink cartridges and doesn't seem to be drinking as much ink as the 890.
Mine doesn't show up the banding that other people have been having either ..... thankfully!

[Rudi]

Steve,

I would be interested if you could try and print the "test" photo I posted earlier, and see if you see any banding under a strong light source.

I haven't seen ONE Canon printer that showed no banding, but the Epson 890 pulls it off... I can only report on what MY experiences are with these printers... :)

[SteveCliff]

Do you mean the small version of "contemplation" you posted up (27k 550x366) ?

I can certainly try printing it Rudi, but have you got the original RAW or TIF file as well as the JPG, just to make sure that the JPG hasn't 'lost' some detail that is really required ?

BTW, very nice picture!

[Rudi]

Steve,

Thanks for the compliment! :)

Yes, that's the photo in question (contemplation). It's not the pixellation that I am worried about, or any compression artifacts - it's the banding in smooth areas, such as skin and even the background it this particular shot.

Gorham mailed me a couple of prints that he printed on his Canon S900, and even though they are light years ahead of the best print that I have seen out of these printers (six examples of the Canon S9000), under a strong light source the banding is still evident. Printing the same print on an Epson 890/1290, the print is by no means perfect, but there is no regular banding!

Even a small 3" x 2" print should show the banding, if it's there.

[SteveCliff]

Ok Rudi - I'll have a go tonight and let you know how I get on!

[SteveCliff]

Ok Rudi, here's my results:

I printed 2 copies off, a 3" x 2" one and then a 100% one (about 7.5" x 5" ) using Photoshop 7 using the colour management of the printer and ICM turned on.

1) The face/cheek area are generally fine, but right in the middle of the cheek there is a hint of a vertical block.

2) The green area under her mouth shows definate signs of artifacts.

However, I then increased the scaling in Photoshop to 400% and looked at the image on the screen and found that both the problems are with the original image, not the print. The JPG compression has mangled the picture quite badly at places.

If this is a picture you are basing your decision on whether to buy an S9000 or not, I wouldn't cross it off your list yet :)

I am only a happy amateur, not a professional, so I might have mis-understood what you wanted me to test, but as far as I can tell, if there are problems with the original image that don't happen to show up at 72 dpi on screen, they may well show up on a 200dpi print.

Please let me know if this isn't what you wanted though Rudi - or I have screwed up somewhere ;)

If you want to email me the original file I can re-run the tests for you again just to see if there is a difference ?
(If you include your ppostal address, I'll stump up the postage and send the results back to you across the water!)

P.S. I've just thought - I've got an Epson 890 in the backroom - I'll have a go at printing the same image on that and see what happens!

[Rudi]

Steve,

yes, I am aware of those compression artifacts, and it even makes me happy to know that the compression is just right: good enough for web display, but if someone wants to rip it off, they have an essentially useless JPEG... :D

The banding I'm talking about is very regular, runs all the way across the picture (or up and down, depending on how it was printed). The bands are about 1/4 inch wide, may be very subtle, but are there. If your printer does not show this banding, cogratulations! Yours is the first I know of. :)

Examine the print again carefully, under a strong light source, and look for banding that runs in the same direction as the printer head moves across the paper. If there is none, would you be willing to mail me a small print? I'll gladly reimburse you for the cost, I'm just trying to prove to Canon Australia that it can be done!

(BTW, the banding is in prints made from the original RAW file, as well as the prints off the web. The banding that I describe is not in either image prior to printing, and is definitely a printer-introduced artifact.)