Posted by Tim Buchanan on August 28, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Here's a picture I took last Sunday morning on the Buffalo river at Steele Creek. Completely foggy, it was at least cool and still. A nice morning to be out and about.
Canon 20D
ISO 100
EF-S 10-22mm @ 10mm
f/11 for .8 seconds
Thanks for looking
Posted by Tim Buchanan on August 28, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Oh - about the printer... Tim E. sold me one of his smaller printers on Sunday. It's quite a change from my old Epson 2200. Here's a picture of the two of them together!
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on August 28, 2007 at 11:49 PM
I'm really surprised there isn't some perspective distortion in the Buffalo River picture Tim. Do the EF-S lenses by design help to minimize that effect at super wide angles?
Nice to see this printer found a good home! I'm sure it will be put to good use. Does that mean you'll be selling your prints now?
Posted by Tim Buchanan on August 29, 2007 at 1:05 AM
Wayne - it's hard to see distortion in rocks and generally non-linear structures. Take a scene of buildings, though, and you can see lots of distortion. It would be nice to sell a few prints, but wasn't the reason behind getting the printer.
This is not only the very best 24" printer on the market right now for luster/gloss papers, but it also is the best for black and white too since it can become a quadtone printer and only lay down black ink in infinite shades of gray, which produces some incredible BW prints. I suspect Tim will be making a few of those of his amazing BW images and I can't wait to see an exhibit of his. That poor little 2200 sitting on the floor! It still can make a great print, and in fact was the printer that kicked off this entire desktop fine art print revolution a few years ago and was my first color photo printer (not Tim's actual printer - Glenn W. has it). But the HP z3100 that towers over it can produce much finer prints, and they will last a lot longer too - HPs inks are rated at 200-250 years plus! The only reason I sold this HP printer (which still had five of the original ink carts in it - that is how new it was) was to make room for the 44" version of the very same printer that now has taken over my living room. If they only made a 17" version of this I would have one of those too, but for now the best 17" printer is the one Bill Dark has - the Canon ipf 5000 (or new model 5100). Epson continues to lag behind, but I expect they will finally upgrade their line next year to keep up (the new ones Epson just announced are not really much of an upgrade to their current lineup). I have sold six different printers to guys on this nature board in the past three years, and I guess one of these days we need to have a print exhibit from you all at the same time!
Posted by Ed Cooley on August 29, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Tim,
When you are ready to unload the 44" version, I might be #7. javascript: x()
I have used the dye based 130nr since it was released and it runs FOREVER on each ink cartridge. Prints are rated at 100 years or so if you use HP paper. Canvas prints are excellent too but need to be sprayed with sealer due to the dye inks.
I would love to get some specifics on why you think Epson is lagging. Have you used any of the Epson 800 series printers that use their newer ink head technology and dithering algorithms? I have used a 3800 since they were released and have gotten some excellent prints especially with Hahnemule fine art pearl paper. (Especially for B&W prints) I use it for anything 16x20 or smaller and have no complaints.
I had heard the Canon printers are great but the ink costs are extremely high.
HP has definitely become a contender with the Z series. Their built in spectrometers make color management a breeze. I quit using the HP 8450 however because I got sick of wasting paper and ink due to it skipping lines. That one thing has kept me away from the Z series. If the 8450 sits for a week or so I would almost always get at least one bad print.
Never had a bad print with the z that was not my fault - I don't know what the skipping lines is all about. I had a 130nr for a year also and it produced great prints, but was so limited to only using two gloss/luster HP papers so I sold it. That remains the only 24" printer that has a cassette holder though - don't know why the others have not followed suit.
The new Epsons - it still costs $75 worth of ink to change from mat to gloss paper - even with the new 4880, 7880, & 9880 - and it dumps ink every day into the maintenance tank that fills up with ink and must be replaced. The 3800 is better, but since it is still an 8-ink head, you still have to dump ink anytime you switch - the canons and HPs retired this issue long ago and Epson continues to lose a lot of market share due to their refusal to include this in their new printers (like me - I would have bought a 9880 if they used the same head as in the new 64" printer, but bought the HP as soon as I found out). Neither my Canon nor HP use much ink - in fact the Canon recycles it as the heads are cleaned. And Epson still lags behind on the archival ratings too - 76 years vs. 100 for Canon and over 200 for HP. I know, most of you won't be alive that long so you don't care, but when I sell a fine art print to someone, I consider it an investment for them and hope the print will last a very long time.
PRINT QUALITY is one issue where all three of the current lines come out about even - you can produce a print from any of them that is better than any photographic print we've ever been able to make. Side-by-side there are difference in color gamut, but standing alone you can't really tell any of them apart - that is the great news for all of us photographers, and those of us who buy prints too! We are certainly far ahead with any of these printers then we have ever been.
Yup, if you only print on one type of paper/black ink it is not as big a deal, however I think it has been proven that Epson throws away something like 30% of all ink you feed it so the costs are so much more than with other pigment printers, plus you have the more limited life of the prints. Epsons used to be state of the art, but things keep getting better and better and Epson has lagged behind into 3rd place for now, unless you go wth their 64" printer, and then you still have the shorter print life. Most folks will lobby for their brand, but since I use all three I try to lay things out the way I see them. Again, the bottom line is that all three will produce stunning prints like we have never seen before, and I can't wait to see what comes along next year!
Discussion
9 repliesCanon 20D
ISO 100
EF-S 10-22mm @ 10mm
f/11 for .8 seconds
Thanks for looking
Nice to see this printer found a good home! I'm sure it will be put to good use. Does that mean you'll be selling your prints now?
When you are ready to unload the 44" version, I might be #7. javascript: x()
I have used the dye based 130nr since it was released and it runs FOREVER on each ink cartridge. Prints are rated at 100 years or so if you use HP paper. Canvas prints are excellent too but need to be sprayed with sealer due to the dye inks.
I would love to get some specifics on why you think Epson is lagging. Have you used any of the Epson 800 series printers that use their newer ink head technology and dithering algorithms? I have used a 3800 since they were released and have gotten some excellent prints especially with Hahnemule fine art pearl paper. (Especially for B&W prints) I use it for anything 16x20 or smaller and have no complaints.
I had heard the Canon printers are great but the ink costs are extremely high.
HP has definitely become a contender with the Z series. Their built in spectrometers make color management a breeze. I quit using the HP 8450 however because I got sick of wasting paper and ink due to it skipping lines. That one thing has kept me away from the Z series. If the 8450 sits for a week or so I would almost always get at least one bad print.
Never had a bad print with the z that was not my fault - I don't know what the skipping lines is all about. I had a 130nr for a year also and it produced great prints, but was so limited to only using two gloss/luster HP papers so I sold it. That remains the only 24" printer that has a cassette holder though - don't know why the others have not followed suit.
The new Epsons - it still costs $75 worth of ink to change from mat to gloss paper - even with the new 4880, 7880, & 9880 - and it dumps ink every day into the maintenance tank that fills up with ink and must be replaced. The 3800 is better, but since it is still an 8-ink head, you still have to dump ink anytime you switch - the canons and HPs retired this issue long ago and Epson continues to lose a lot of market share due to their refusal to include this in their new printers (like me - I would have bought a 9880 if they used the same head as in the new 64" printer, but bought the HP as soon as I found out). Neither my Canon nor HP use much ink - in fact the Canon recycles it as the heads are cleaned. And Epson still lags behind on the archival ratings too - 76 years vs. 100 for Canon and over 200 for HP. I know, most of you won't be alive that long so you don't care, but when I sell a fine art print to someone, I consider it an investment for them and hope the print will last a very long time.
PRINT QUALITY is one issue where all three of the current lines come out about even - you can produce a print from any of them that is better than any photographic print we've ever been able to make. Side-by-side there are difference in color gamut, but standing alone you can't really tell any of them apart - that is the great news for all of us photographers, and those of us who buy prints too! We are certainly far ahead with any of these printers then we have ever been.
Since I do most of my prints on luster or photo fine art papers I have not been aggravated by the photo/matte black switching issue.