Posted by Peter Conway on July 8, 2007 at 10:13 AM
I want the highest possible quality. I do not care about speed at all. I am printing for my own personal use and thus very low volumes, but I care greatly about the finished product.
The 13 x 19 size is probably Ok as it would handle 95% of what I want to do. I assume there is no such thing as a larger format printer for low volume personal use?
thanks in advance.
Peter Conway
Posted by Chuck Beatty on July 8, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Peter, Not sure what your budget is, but I've been using an Epson R2400 and have been very pleased with the results. It prints up to 13" x 19" (longer than 19" if you use a paper roll). I use it to print both large images and 5 x 7 cards at a relatively low volume (I'm working on that).
Another happy user of the R2400. Results have been superb to date. Bought mine from Atlex.com - approx. $729 currently. Atlex.com is the cheapest ink I've found as well ($11.45 ea.)
If you are buying a $700 plus printer, only to use cheap ink, you are defeating the purpose of spending the cash on the printer. It would be much more reasonable to accurately calibrate your monitor and use a pro lab for large prints.
An Epson 2400 is a machine that uses pigmented inks, known for their tendency to clog when not used on a daily basis. Often the clog can be cleared with a standard nozzle cleaning, but bad clogs need a deeper level of cleaning. When combined with the initial nozzle check, it can more than double the ink costs for a letter sized print.
Dmax, or the deepest black attainable, is still an elusive target for Epson. Their inks are optimized for matte finish paper, and while the blacks are adequate, if you want to switch to glossy paper, you will find you have to swap out the black cartridges, otherwise you risk the dreaded "bronzing" typical of Ultrachrome ink, using up lots of ink since you must purge the ink each time you swap. Needing to swap black would be a deal-breaker for me no matter how nice the prints look.
No one will argue that dye based printers produce superior images, especially in the black areas, and with a wider gamut than is possible with pigmented inks. Similarly no one will argue that pigmented inks will resist fading longer than dye based inks.
However, will someone really care if dye ink will remain colorfast for only 75 yrs compared to Ultrachrome's 200 yr life? Don't think so - in any case, I am certain that a print made today on the best of current technology will look like a Polariod when compared to what will be available even 20 yrs from now. Besides, for color photography the archival gold standard has been about 25 yrs anyway. Even Canon's dyes will give you in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 yrs.
If you are looking for outstanding print quality where cost is no concern, then the Canon Pixma Pro 9000 with its 8 dye based colors is likely to give you the widest gamut and best contrast, and some resistance to ink clogging. If you are not running a commercial printing business, but would like the advantages of pigmented ink, then the HP 9180 is a clear choice. Both printers have user replaceable printheads, and HP uses 4 pairs of print heads which are significantly less costly to replace than the single, non-user replaceable head in the Epsons.
Epsons are notorious ink hogs, and Epson inks, while really good on a variety of media, are still among the most expensive. The other alternatives are likely to give better results, at a lower cost, with a lot less hassle.
I had an R2400 but sold it for a 3800. The R2400 has such small ink cartridges they go empty rapidly and always seem to be needing replacement. The 3800 has the same or better print quality but will let you print up to 17x22 which is a very nice size. The 3800 is roughly the same price as the 2400 when you factor in the large quantity of ink that comes with it.
I never had any clogging problems with either one though after several weeks of non-use, even in dry Arizona.
I'd not consider anything smaller and in fact will probably buy a bigger Epson after they introduce new models.
Gene brings up a valid point that Epson blacks aren't as black as they perhaps should be, but this hasn't caused me any significant problems. As far as clogging goes, I've only had one slight clog issue in 18 months with my R2400 (solved by running the nozzle cleaning) and I sometimes won't use my printer for a week or more at a time. As for Epson being an ink hog, I don't have anything to compare against there so I can't comment intelligently there, but the ink does seem to go fast!! I print only on matte paper so I have never had any kind of bronzing issues.
Thanks all. I went with the Canon 9000. So far it has been really easy to set up and print with. The quality seems wonderful.
Thanks for all the suggestions, I am sure there is no right/wrong answer. I have liked all the Canon equipment so far so some of my decision was just brand loyalty.
It's funny that nobody mentioned the Epson R1800. It has both matte black and photo black ink cartridges, no swapping out. The black & white output has quite a bit metamerism but the color prints are just wonderful. I've got some prints from I don't I could have gotten from any other printer. It also has a "gloss optimizer" which is a clear glossy coating that makes metamerism in color prints disappear entirely. I won't part with my R1800. It has made me too much money! :)
You'll like it even more when you have to replace the printer head in a couple of years - I think I saw it recently for $80 plus S/H. I recently replaced the head in my i9100 for $70 +S/H after nearly three years. All print heads fail - they only have so many nozzle firiings before they begin to flake out. Nice thing is that the Canons are very inexpensive and super easy to replace. My i9100 is still producing prints as well as it did when I got it, and outside of the occasional clog when I haven't used it in a while, its fine. Stock up on photo magenta and photo cyan - it uses these at twice the rate of the others.
If you have access to a profiling system (ink, paper, monitor) you might want to take a look a the OA100 ink - it doesn't last as long without fading as the Canon OEM ink, and there is a definite red/magenta shift that has to be corrected, but once you have generated a profile, the color looks as good as OEM, even on non-OEM paper. I am getting results that are closer to what I am seeing on the monitor than I did when I was using OEM ink and paper, at a fraction of the cost. Haven't tried it on matte finish yet, but I am enjoying the price - Amazon sells it for $17 for two full sets, or less than $1.50 per cart. You have to search through the listings though, since the same vendor (Abacus 24-7) has a number of sku's for the same products with different pricing, and there is another vendor, Eforcity, that also sells them for different prices.
I've been using the ink for about 6 months, and have not noticed any fading yet. I have some prints just taped to the wall in my office, others mounted in glass, and others in plastic protectors in 3 ring binders - no problems so far. It wouldn't be my choice for prints to sell, but for tooling around it seems to fit the bill. When I need another print head or something goes wrong mechanically with this one, I will likely upgrade to the HP 130, which takes 24" wide rolls and uses HP's Vivera pigmented inks. Once again, it features user serviceable print heads, and they size the carts appropriate to their individual rates of consumption, so you tend to replace them more or less at the same time. Also very economical to use and apparently not prone to clogging.
Just for kicks I'll add that I have used 2 versions of HP printers-first the regular small ink jet and then the wider format 8750 which I replaced with a used Epson 2200 because of constant connection issues. The Epson has been better for number of prints in cost of ink. The only draw back is that St*ples doesn't give instore credit for recycling Epson cartridges anymore.
CompUSA and everyone else just stopped doing the in store credits too.
I'm an R1800 owner. The carts are essentially the same size as the R2400. If I had it to do again today, I'd buy the 3800. I think this is the best printer for its purchase price and maintenance price. The Canon 5000 seems like a good option, especially when it was selling at ~$1300, but there have been so many issue noted with it that I'm not sure that I'd invest in that system right now.
Discussion
13 repliesThe 13 x 19 size is probably Ok as it would handle 95% of what I want to do. I assume there is no such thing as a larger format printer for low volume personal use?
thanks in advance.
Peter Conway
An Epson 2400 is a machine that uses pigmented inks, known for their tendency to clog when not used on a daily basis. Often the clog can be cleared with a standard nozzle cleaning, but bad clogs need a deeper level of cleaning. When combined with the initial nozzle check, it can more than double the ink costs for a letter sized print.
Dmax, or the deepest black attainable, is still an elusive target for Epson. Their inks are optimized for matte finish paper, and while the blacks are adequate, if you want to switch to glossy paper, you will find you have to swap out the black cartridges, otherwise you risk the dreaded "bronzing" typical of Ultrachrome ink, using up lots of ink since you must purge the ink each time you swap. Needing to swap black would be a deal-breaker for me no matter how nice the prints look.
No one will argue that dye based printers produce superior images, especially in the black areas, and with a wider gamut than is possible with pigmented inks. Similarly no one will argue that pigmented inks will resist fading longer than dye based inks.
However, will someone really care if dye ink will remain colorfast for only 75 yrs compared to Ultrachrome's 200 yr life? Don't think so - in any case, I am certain that a print made today on the best of current technology will look like a Polariod when compared to what will be available even 20 yrs from now. Besides, for color photography the archival gold standard has been about 25 yrs anyway. Even Canon's dyes will give you in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 yrs.
If you are looking for outstanding print quality where cost is no concern, then the Canon Pixma Pro 9000 with its 8 dye based colors is likely to give you the widest gamut and best contrast, and some resistance to ink clogging. If you are not running a commercial printing business, but would like the advantages of pigmented ink, then the HP 9180 is a clear choice. Both printers have user replaceable printheads, and HP uses 4 pairs of print heads which are significantly less costly to replace than the single, non-user replaceable head in the Epsons.
Epsons are notorious ink hogs, and Epson inks, while really good on a variety of media, are still among the most expensive. The other alternatives are likely to give better results, at a lower cost, with a lot less hassle.
My two cents worth.
I never had any clogging problems with either one though after several weeks of non-use, even in dry Arizona.
I'd not consider anything smaller and in fact will probably buy a bigger Epson after they introduce new models.
Thanks for all the suggestions, I am sure there is no right/wrong answer. I have liked all the Canon equipment so far so some of my decision was just brand loyalty.
Peter
You'll like it even more when you have to replace the printer head in a couple of years - I think I saw it recently for $80 plus S/H. I recently replaced the head in my i9100 for $70 +S/H after nearly three years. All print heads fail - they only have so many nozzle firiings before they begin to flake out. Nice thing is that the Canons are very inexpensive and super easy to replace. My i9100 is still producing prints as well as it did when I got it, and outside of the occasional clog when I haven't used it in a while, its fine. Stock up on photo magenta and photo cyan - it uses these at twice the rate of the others.
If you have access to a profiling system (ink, paper, monitor) you might want to take a look a the OA100 ink - it doesn't last as long without fading as the Canon OEM ink, and there is a definite red/magenta shift that has to be corrected, but once you have generated a profile, the color looks as good as OEM, even on non-OEM paper. I am getting results that are closer to what I am seeing on the monitor than I did when I was using OEM ink and paper, at a fraction of the cost. Haven't tried it on matte finish yet, but I am enjoying the price - Amazon sells it for $17 for two full sets, or less than $1.50 per cart. You have to search through the listings though, since the same vendor (Abacus 24-7) has a number of sku's for the same products with different pricing, and there is another vendor, Eforcity, that also sells them for different prices.
I've been using the ink for about 6 months, and have not noticed any fading yet. I have some prints just taped to the wall in my office, others mounted in glass, and others in plastic protectors in 3 ring binders - no problems so far. It wouldn't be my choice for prints to sell, but for tooling around it seems to fit the bill. When I need another print head or something goes wrong mechanically with this one, I will likely upgrade to the HP 130, which takes 24" wide rolls and uses HP's Vivera pigmented inks. Once again, it features user serviceable print heads, and they size the carts appropriate to their individual rates of consumption, so you tend to replace them more or less at the same time. Also very economical to use and apparently not prone to clogging.
Make money the old fashioned way, print it yourself.
I'm an R1800 owner. The carts are essentially the same size as the R2400. If I had it to do again today, I'd buy the 3800. I think this is the best printer for its purchase price and maintenance price. The Canon 5000 seems like a good option, especially when it was selling at ~$1300, but there have been so many issue noted with it that I'm not sure that I'd invest in that system right now.