Looking for printer suggestions

I'm giving a talk on home printing Thursday to a local camera club and am looking for some recommendations to suggest for lower end printers. Here are the basic requirements: paper size 13" wide, $250-$500 range and $500-$1,000 range, major manufacturer (Canon, Epson, HP primarily)reliable, preferably with premade profiles available for various paper choices.

I opened the BH site to see what is there and realized that it has been years since I paid any attention to printers under $1,000.

Basically, what machines would you recommend to a photographer look to purchase a decent printer to use at home?

Thanks.

Quite happy with my 13 X 19 Canon 9000. A bit dated now but I have had no problems with it over the last several years. Believe the current model is the 9500.

Actually Dave, the 9500 is the pigment ink version of the 9000. The current models from Canon are the PIXMA Pro 9000 Mark II, and the PIXMA Pro 9500 Mark II. The 9000 is dye ink, and the 9500 is pigment...otherwise they're pretty much the same.

I also have a 9000 (the Mark I) and have not had any issues with quite a few different papers and profiles. But if you're worried about print permanence, you'll get longer life from pigment prints. Dyes have gotten very good, but pigments still lead from what I've read.

Among pigment printers, the Epson models are the leaders. The R2880, and R3000 are the two main 13" printers. I don't have any experience with them, but I'm sure they're excellent, based on the models they're replacing. (You could google for reviews, I'm sure.)

If you print a lot, a lot of people would recommend the Epson 3880, even if you don't necessarily need a 17" printer. The larger ink cartridges that it uses are much, much more economical if you print a lot, but it is a large printer. (Plus, the amount of ink it comes with would be hundreds of dollars to buy for the smaller printers.)


As for HP, they've not been introducing many new models... I'm not sure what their plans are moving forward or what current models might be.

I haven't used

...you'll get longer life from pigment prints. Dyes have gotten very good, but pigments still lead from what I've read.

I'll second this. I have a dye ink based Canon i9900 and a pigment ink based Canon iPF6100. Many of the i9900 prints have faded badly after 3 years or so. The iPF6100 prints of comparable age haven't faded at all.

I use the Epson 2880 and find it very adequate for my needs (don't print a lot but enough to want a good printer). I also find it is very good for high quality B&W prints. For larger prints, I use MPIX through my Zenfolio website.

Dan, Eva's comment about having a lab to make larger prints may be a worthwhile point to bring up in your talk. I have an Epson R2400 (13" wide) on which I do all my proofing and 12" wide prints, but there are times when I need larger prints. In that case, I have to use a lab. So, perhaps mentioning a few of the great labs might give the participants a heads up.

--P

Many of the i9900 prints have faded badly after 3 years or so.

Just a note that the i9900 uses a slightly older dye ink set (ChromaPLUS). The 9000 uses a newer set, supposedly with much better life (ChromaLife). I don't have any data on how well it works (Wilhelm Research doesn't seem to have dye ink data), but I do have some prints that are a few years old and look perfect. They don't get direct sun or anything though.

I have used the Epson r2400 for years with very good results. A good friend of mine is a world class Master Printer (he teaches printing techniques internationally, is a professor on the subject at Columbia University and his new book on his experiences is being published by Yale University Press). He is contantly amazed at the quality of prints that I can generate from the r2400, such that he bought the current iteration (the 2880) for himself. The prints are frequently mistaken for silver gelatin prints (even by him!). I know of no higher recommendation.

I did a little research and discovered that Epson still does not make a 16-bit driver for Windows 7 (if somebody has found that they recently came out with it, please correct me!). Macs can print 16-bit but Winders is still behind. They at least make a WAY to get 16 bit data to the printer via XPS Path (it's something us programmers call an API but don't worry about that part, lol). But for that to work, the printer manufacturer must create a printer driver to access XPS and get the 16-bit data to the printer. Canon has done this and in a comparison the16-bit prints do come off my PixmaPro 9000 (1st gen) with smoother gradations especially in the sky. And it NEVER needs head cleaning, something my Epsons of the present and past are notorious for.

My vote: Canon PixmaPro 9500 MKII. Pigment inks, runs clean, gorgeous images and 16-bit drivers for both platforms.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions, especially Eva and Preston for looking at labs for larger prints. I hadn't considered adding that to the talk. It will probably go in the handout as a separate section.