All I want is a good printer, dammit!

[KO_300D]

Did I say good?
Sorry I meant great. I want something that will print such great images that people will not know they're not from a lab. C'mon it's hardly a difficult job considering today's technology. If we can walk on the moon and split the atom, then I'm pretty confident we can print out decent photos from home.

Now all you need to do this, is a good printer (aside of the obvious - an image, paper, etc)

I thought Laser printers were the best on the market and in recent years they have dramatically dropped in price... which makes it very tempting to buy one. The cost of toner is far cheaper and they're more durable than inkjet print cartridges.
I've read a lot of critiques that say lasers are not all that good for photos compared to inkjets.
In fact, I've read more critiques than I care to mention about which brands people prefer as well as if they recommend laser or inkjet etc etc.

All I want to know really, is do any of you guys get stunning prints from your printers? What do you use? What media? What are the downsides?

Help!!!!!!!

[scottbergerphoto]

Epson Stylus Photo 2200
Epson Ink
Epson Paper
Epson ICC profiles.
Simple, isn't it? :D
Good Luck,
Scott

[IanD]

Ko,
I am currently using a Canon i960 and love the output. Up to 8 x 10 it is nearly impossible for the "ordinary" person to tell that a print form it was not done in a lab. I use Canon inks and Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy.
Prints very quickly, is very economical (ink). IMHO the best 8 x 10 printer out there. I think you will find that there are many other folks who agree with this.
The only down side to the i960 is the max 8 1/2 x 11 1/2 paper size. Larger than that I send out.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Epson ?

I thought she said she wanted a good printer?

To my way of thinking that would mean a printer that will actually "work"
:mrgreen:
lol


Sorry.. obviously this is a maater of personal experirence,. but I have yet to see an Epson printer last a full year.

I really like the Canon printers. If 8.5X11" is large enough,. then the i960 is hard to beat.

I DO get Stunning prints from both the i950 and the i9100 large format..

[JadeCat]

Do you want to just print photos? From what I have read from Canoni960 users, it's a great printer for that.

Do you want to sell your prints? or is archival an important quality to you? Then the i960 isn't the best, and I suggest the Epson2200. The jury is still out on the R800 on that matter, but from all reports so far, it seems like a cheaper alternative to the 2200, but still archival quality.

And I've never had a problem with any of the epson printers I've owned.

[evilenglishman]

Help!!!!!!!


tip: try looking for a dye sublimation printer - of course I hope money is no object :wink:

Now to be really stupid look for an Iris Realist :D
I used to use one of these at a magazine publishing company.
Pretty much the best you can get but expect to be paying approx $35,000 for it :shock:



The Iris Graphics 3047
When quality absolutely counts.
This is the only direct digital printer capable of printing continuous tone photographs and fine art on a wide variety of both coated and uncoated papers. It is its unique ability to generate pleasing results on uncoated papers that has garnered this printer such accolade from photographers and fine artists. Its a non-compromising quality that other large format ink jet printers just don't have. So when "close" or "close enough" are too far for your standards, the Iris 3047 printer will more than satisfy your concept of quality.

The Iris has features that others don't, can't and won't.
Iris printers use a patented continuous drop ink jet technology that produces variable sized drops of ink from 3 to 93 picolitres in size. Since 3 picolitres is about the size of a red blood cell, Iris drops are small. Real small. And even better, they are sprayed in such a way that they form on top of each other so that continuous tone is not assimilated through fancy patterns, but by the unique Iris printing process. Other ink jet printers whether micro-piezo or thermal, just can not compare to Iris quality when viewed side-by-side.


Specifications make the machine.
The Iris 3047 printers utilize 4 inkjet nozzles which continuously spray ink at the rate of 1,000,000 drops a second. Going 90 mph, these drops form variable sized dots of ink that can be specified to form either matrices that un-noticeable, or a matrix that assimilates an offset rosette pattern.

The drum will accept media as large as 35 by 47 inches and print an image as large as 34 by 46.8 inches. It utilizes cyan, magenta, yellow and black inks which can be chosen from a wide variety including archival-quality inks made by ConeTech, Lyson Specialist Fluids, and Iris Graphics.

The printer auto configures to voltages from 110v to 240v and requires only a dedicated 20 amp line. It can be operated in a wide variety of environmental conditions and requires no special considerations other than protection from extreme cold or extreme humidity. It can fit through a standard doorway and weighs approximately 600 pounds.

The printers can receive color lookup table commands with up to 4 individual color characteristic "curves and tables" being applied simultaneously to the printing data. Because there are no "default" settings, Iris printers can be customized to produce different qualities of output. In fact, there is a definite and noticeable difference in studio quality in this industry between Iris printers controlled by ConeTech software and Iris printers controlled by either Iris Graphics software or ColorBurst software.



and you lot thought L glass was expensive

[maderito]

You can read reviews about printers for months and still not know what to do. Been there and done that.

So I bought a Canon S900 a few years back and was totally amazed by the pics. I then bought the Canon i950 (now i960). It's faster, quieter, and still makes prints that people always tell me look "professional."

If you can find an Epson printer with the same features and quality for the same price, then you have a real choice. But I think the Canon usually wins on best performance for price.

I'm not a Canon booster - just a very satisfied Canon printer customer. :D

[Tom W]

This thread brings up a question that I've had in my mind for quite a while - How do ink-jet prints compare to lab prints in terms of not just quality but longevity? I'm not yet ready to make the move to a photo-quality printer, but I suspect that I may do so in the future. The problem is that I don't want to sacrifice quality for convenience. I've gotten some excellent prints from the lab, from both digital and 35. I need comparible results or the printer isn't worth the money.

[w10d]

Hmmm, interesting... I have to agree with both Scott and CDS!

The print quality from the 2100/2200 is amazing, I had an art director call to find out what materials I was using to make my prints. I don't think he believed I was just using Epson branded ink and paper - he assumed I was keeping my choices secret. (A heavy weight paper is important for the look and feel of photo prints).

BUT I have to say the Epson's I've owned haven't been reliable, and their tech support is the worst I've experienced.

On balance, I'd recommend them for their output, but seriously consider investing in the 3 year on-site warrenty.

[mookiemeister]

I bought a Canon i560 InkJet printer recently on Amazon.com for around $120. I then took some photos with my G3 and print it out on the i560 printer with Canon photo paper glossy. The comment I got from the people I showed it to was 'amazing'. They thought I had some photo equipments at home to develop photo like that. It was very professional looking.

[scotgasch]

Epson ?

I thought she said she wanted a good printer?

To my way of thinking that would mean a printer that will actually "work"
:mrgreen:
lol


Sorry.. obviously this is a maater of personal experirence,. but I have yet to see an Epson printer last a full year.

I really like the Canon printers. If 8.5X11" is large enough,. then the i960 is hard to beat.

I DO get Stunning prints from both the i950 and the i9100 large format..

Really????

I have had two 785epx since they come out...no problems
Also bought a 9500 4 years ago...no problem
Many of my fellow photographers use Epson...especially on the fine art photography....


Maybe it's just you.... :?: :D

[Volatile]

For all the talk about "having a great camera is meaningless if you have cheap lenses", wouldn't the same relationship be true for the printing process? I am surprised that $250 printers are so highly recommended by people who have thousands into their cameras.

BTW, I have a Canon i950, and I've been very happy with the output. No experience with Epson, so I cannot say. Best Buy, CompUSA, et al, continually push HP, but I have no idea why...

And, as eventually comes up in every inkjet vs photo lab debate, if the colors of your print fade in a few years, print the darn thing again. By then the printers will be even better.

[Bruce Watson]

I picked up a Canon S9000 cheap last year. Coming from an older HP, I am still amazed at the print quality this rig produces, and having a blast making 11X14 and 13X19 prints for mounting.

Canon paper and ink are not cheap, but they make a great result.

After foam mounting, I spray my prints with a sealer. As another poster stated, if they start to fade, I will re-print, but am guessing they will last for years, longer if kept out of sunlight.

Next year will always bring a better model, but I am having fun printing now. Rows of prints on my office wall with many admiring comments, but no one believes they are inkjet.

Cheers,

Bruce

[Conk]

Epson ?

I thought she said she wanted a good printer?

To my way of thinking that would mean a printer that will actually "work"
:mrgreen:
lol


Sorry.. obviously this is a maater of personal experirence,. but I have yet to see an Epson printer last a full year.

I really like the Canon printers. If 8.5X11" is large enough,. then the i960 is hard to beat.

I DO get Stunning prints from both the i950 and the i9100 large format..

I have had my Epson Color Stylus 860 for close to 3 years and have never had a problem with it except for poor quality with certain black inks. Maybe I got lucky, who knows.
I have had photos from outside sources and have found that 2 out of 3 places have given me poor quality compared to what my Epson tuurns out.
Like I said though, maybe I lucked out.

[yallcome]

I haven't seen one printer yet do what anyone wishes they would do. Close, but no cigar. I think we're all wasting our money on these damn things - at least for photos.

[MediaMagic]

This thread brings up a question that I've had in my mind for quite a while - How do ink-jet prints compare to lab prints in terms of not just quality but longevity? I'm not yet ready to make the move to a photo-quality printer, but I suspect that I may do so in the future. The problem is that I don't want to sacrifice quality for convenience. I've gotten some excellent prints from the lab, from both digital and 35. I need comparible results or the printer isn't worth the money.

Yeah, I've had this question for a while now too. I haven't had mine long enough to see any degradation, but, we're talking a few months.

I've seen claims of "25 years", and detractors claim something like "two months, and it evaporated, turned yeller, and killed my hamster". I've read at least an hundred reviews and to my knowledge, this question has yet to be answered realistically. "Scientific" aging tests tend to be even less reliable in extrapolation to real world scenarios than our technogeek lens ruler tests are in attempting to ascertain overall lens "quality".

One thing which seems to show up with consistency is that if you want to make sure something last the longest time possible, use a pro lab.

If you do come across some reliable info during this quest for longevity information, pass it my way too please.

I use the printer for contacts, proofs, miscellaneous freebies, and personal gratification (or humiliation), but anything for which I receive compensation gets handled by a local lab in which I have complete confidence.

David

[dicky109]

Never had a problem with my 3 year old Epson Stylus 1280, but then I only use OEM inks, and try to take prper care of it (print something at least once a week and shut it off when not in use). Depending on the source of what I'm printing, its difficult to tell the difference between a professional print and what this one turns out.

Only downside to me, is that the colors are all in one cartridge, so if one color runs out, you need to change the cart.

[w10d]

I haven't seen one printer yet do what anyone wishes they would do. Close, but no cigar. I think we're all wasting our money on these damn things - at least for photos.


I think you must mean do what you wish they would do....

Apart from myself I know several other professional photographers who have portfolios produced entirely on Epson printers. I bought the first 6 colour printer Epson made (A4 only), it fell short of matching photo quality output, but at the time the price was unbelieveable. The first A3 machine was an inprovement, but to my taste the results were always oversaturated, and there were occasional images it really couldn't cope with. The 1270 I had next solved that.

One time I was showing my work to an Art director at a large Ad agency and we got talking about digital imaging. He told me he had an Epson printer at home, and how it made great prints. I told him the portfolio he was looking at was all printed on an Epson - he was stunned, he thought he was looking at photo prints.

The 2100 I have now is a significant improvement over previous models, but Epson's poor software/reliability/tech support has driven me nuts.

If your main concern is producing a photographic print then that's what you will have to do (Lambda or whatever). If you want great prints, there are at least a few inkjets on the market that are more than capable.

[KO_300D]

great responses, cheers all

So by the looks were pretty much narrowed down to the Canon i960 and a few of Epson's range

I have to admit I've owned two Epsons in the past - the first being a Stylus color 440 and I can't remember the second, although it was bought about 3 years ago. The printed great out of the box, but as soon as the ink cartridges were changed they were never the same again.

I'm surprised that laser printers haven't had a look in - but at the same time I didn't really expect them to since they're not really designed for photographs as yet....

Now to weigh up the pro's and con's between the Canon and the Epson..

Thanks again guys

[w10d]

The printed great out of the box, but as soon as the ink cartridges were changed they were never the same again.

I'd just mention that Epson (and others) have had a LOT of problems with counterfeit inks, the packaging can be so good that supplies have ended up on the shelves of major retaillers in Europe (and probably elsewhere). Unfortunately, not so much effort goes into reproducing the ink...
:(

[scottbergerphoto]

I haven't seen one printer yet do what anyone wishes they would do. Close, but no cigar. I think we're all wasting our money on these damn things - at least for photos.
If you really believe that, then you haven't seen the output from an Epson 2200 on a color managed system. I see jaws drop when I bring photos in to work. Even my wife likes them sometimes. Send me your address and I'll be happy to send you a print.
Scott

[chris.bailey]

Epson Stylus Photo 2200
Epson Ink
Epson Paper
Epson ICC profiles.
Simple, isn't it? :D
Good Luck,
Scott

Second you on that one though we call it the 2100 over here :lol:

[CyberDyneSystems]

We can only speak from our own experiences..

My own experiences with Epson have all been very poor.. like KO I have had problems getting Epson to work after changing cartridges. I have never used anything but Epson Ink purchased from retail stores.

They are noisy,. they go through this god awfull ink wasting start up procedure that makes a noise and pisses through costly ink.

That said i qualify with this. I have not worked with the pricey Epson.. only the more standard models..

But all of them have lasted less than a year,. all of them DID offere beautifull prints,. and for a while they were the only reasonable choice for "photo quality" but now that I have used a canon I will never go back.

To this day I suspect that Epson has the best image quality.. but the difference now is minute compared to how things were 6 years ago..

They are no longer worth the headache to me.

[evilenglishman]

Epson have dominated the inkjet market for years, but Canon have put a lot of effort into catching up and they are now a serious threat to Epson.

I used to use a Stylus Pro XL+ which gave great A3 prints on the glossy paper.
I am howver just about to throw out a C62 which I got for free 3 months ago. it put out decent prints but (as Cyber has pointed out) I changed the cartridges and its never worked since :(
Another thing that pi##es me off with Epson is the price of their cartridges - that printer even if crappy, costs £65 and a full set of cartridges will cost over £50.
It's cheaper to buy one with free cartidges, use them, sell it on ebay for £20 then buy another new printer - than it is to buy cartridges :shock:

[scottbergerphoto]

I have received the e-mails of those of you who took me up on my offer for a print from the 2200. I'm breaking the piggy bank open for the postage now. I'll be sending them across the pond soon.
Regards,
Scott

[eric1]

i heard the ink in epson printers lasts longer (doesn't fade as fast) than
canon. could someone comment on this? i'm leaning toward the i960.

thanks,
eric1

[karusel]

I've had Epson photo 700 for 4 or 5 years now and still can't complain - it always worked properly. However I'm gonna be buying a new one soon, probably Epson again and definetely a large format one with separate 7 color cartridges...

A color laser is totally out of question, since it doesn't even come close to an photo inkjet. I do however have a good old HP LJ 4 for heavy duty text prints - very low cost per print.