Posted by Jim Sabiston on April 2, 2012 at 1:49 PM
I am pleased to report that, as a by-product of maturing post college children, yours truly will soon be in possession of an actual dedicated studio space (aka former kids bedroom about to become photography centered man cave). To date, my 'studio' has consisted of two desks and my hardware setup in a corner of our living room. Yes, this is a big, fat happy deal!
I've recently upgraded all the processing components, from hardware to software, to up-to-the-minute specifications, so I should be state-of-the-art for another week or so.
The exception is my printer. My old Epson r2400 has given yoeman service and has provided literally hundreds of households on Long Island, and a few across the country besides, with high quality photographic prints. With the access to proper real estate to house the thing, I'm giving serious consideration to upgrading to something along the lines of the Epson 7700 24" printer. I do sell prints in that size on occasion and miss the direct control farming out the printing gives. I might even consider selling print services to local photographers in the future.
So, jumping into the great well of knowledge and experience cleverly hidden within NPN, I throw myself upon the mercy and frontal lobes of my fellow members: What say ye?
Does anyone have experience with these or similar printers? Good, bad, indifferent? What printer would you get if you had the option?
I have done some research on the 24"-wide printer options, and really it comes down to the Epson 7900 and the Canon ImagePROGRAF iPF6350. I've worked with an Epson 7800 through Costco, I basically went nuts when they outfiited their stores with the 7800, even providing printer profiles through Dry Creek. Ten bucks for a 20x30" print, seemed amazing (and it is). Problem is, you only get Fuji Pearl paper to print on, and the "technicians" there don't seem to be trained to look for banding due to clogged print nozzles, so you end up being the jerk customer because you want it reprinted, lol. I haven't worked with the iPF6350 but I do own the 13" PixmaPro 9000 and I dare say I like the output on there better than the Epsons I've used, but both companies have the print-making thing down pat. Epson has been the leader for years, but Canon has done some serious catching up.
Between those two models, it's a toss-up. Print samples from both appear nearly indistinguishable. They both cost about the same (the Canon is $400 less at B&H). They both cost just under $1000 to re-ink, the Epson takes 11 cartridges and the Canon takes 12. If I had my choice I would buy the Canon, based on two reasons: one, the XPS drivers that Canon makes work very well to transmit 16-bit printer data to the printer (if you are running Windows 7... Mac OSX already supports 16-bit natively), and two, I have had to battle clogged nozzles on every 11" Epson I've ever owned, drives me batty. I've been using the Canon 13" PixmaPro for two years and I've never had to clean the nozzles once, seriously. There's actually a third option with the Canon I really like: if your print head goes south, you can order a new one for $449 and you're back in business. Epson doesn't allow user-changeable print heads, it requires them coming to your house and doing surgery, and I'm fairly sure that doesn't happen for only $449. Oh, and did I mention the Canon was $400 cheaper?
Actually, I just thought of one more thing that may not be that big of a deal, but is worth mentioning: the native print resolution for the Epson is 360dpi, and for the Canon it's 300dpi, so potentially you could crop in a bit farther in an image and get the same print results quality-wise on the Canon. I'm testing that theory, so take that with a grain of salt, lol!
Have a look at the 4 reviews for the Canon on the B&H website, a couple of them hit some good points, especially one who mention the struggles that can occur with Epson drivers and Photoshop CS5 if you use that. Evidently Canon's drivers solve the "issue", whatever that issue is, but that's just one reviewer's take on it all.
Either way, you'll get super results, both printers are amazing and I'd be overjoyed to own one if it were financially feasible. I'd write both companies and ask for print samples, that may help in your quest. Have fun shopping!
I've owned my Epson 7900 for a little over a year. I think it was at the time the best out there for print output especially considering the wide color gamut. There can be an issue with clogging nozzles but I did not turn it on for four months and after one or two clean cycles it prints fine. However. Color management has never been easy and I've studied it for years until I bought a RIP by Colorbyte for another $1500. It is the Only way to go IMO. Plus I bought a couple years more insurance another $1500? From Epson. The. To make the ink affordable the larger cartridges. Another $1000? Plus I bought it a week before they dropped the price. Another lost $1000. So can I make a true museum quality print Yes. But do I have a demand for it No. And now Costco with the Epson 7800 will make a 24x72 pano for $27!!! And refund it if you don't like it. Your choice but I could have had a 1Dx for the same money. Instead I have a small car parked in my office room
One thing to take a serious look at is 'return on investment', which I think Mark is getting at. If you're only going to make a few really large prints per year, there may not be a satisfying return. On the other hand, if you do have a stable of clients who will buy big prints, or have photograhers lined up, the return could justify the investment.
Personnally, I can't afford a big printer, and I don't sell a large enough number of big prints to justify the expense. When I need large prints (bigger than 12x16) I have them done by a bureau (West Coast Imaging in my case). I do my proofing on my R2400, and when all is well, I upload my print file and have the print made by the lab on the same paper I used for the proof. While I don't have immediate control, and I have to wait for the prints to be shipped back, the results have been outstanding. Maybe a similar scenario would work for you?
> Yikes Mark, did that car come with optional sun roof and towing package??
My Epson 7600 came with both. Sometimes I open the 'sun roof' to admire the internals. The 'towing package' is convenient and allows me to move the printer around the house.
I have had this printer since 2004 and it has served me well. No clogging issues (touch wood) and with the profiles I use I am able to get a very close match to what I see on my monitor. Unlike some others who produce smaller prints at home and have a service center make the larger prints, I prefer having the ability to make prints upto the largest size I offer right in my studio. Aside from the control I have over the finished product (in my experience it often takes some additional post-processing work to get a large print to come out just right), I like the idea of producing my prints myself.
I plan to upgrade to an Epson 7900 (or a newer version if its available) soon.
Posted by Jim Sabiston on April 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM
Thanks for the very informed replies. You have given me much to think about.
One of the considerations I did not mention is that I use a number of different photographic papers which - as near as I can tell - are simply not available through the 'normal' print vendors. Being in NYC, I have access to some very high end printing services that would work with these specialty papers, but these also come at some impressively premium prices - measured in hundreds of $ per print. The impact on 'return on investment' are a bit different that what most would run up against in this environment. This is the primary reason that I need the control, as experimental prints on these papers can get truly costly otherwise. I am also looking into producing some of my own specialty papers to achieve a particular mat/textured surface without losing the deep contrasts available with gloss papers. This is, obviously, a very 'hands on' process.
I do not expect it to be a profitable exercise in the monetary sense in the short term, but it is still photo sales that will be paying for it - so that is one consideration. For me, at the moment, the art is first, profit is second - at least as long as I'm still working the day job!
Discussion
7 repliesI've recently upgraded all the processing components, from hardware to software, to up-to-the-minute specifications, so I should be state-of-the-art for another week or so.
The exception is my printer. My old Epson r2400 has given yoeman service and has provided literally hundreds of households on Long Island, and a few across the country besides, with high quality photographic prints. With the access to proper real estate to house the thing, I'm giving serious consideration to upgrading to something along the lines of the Epson 7700 24" printer. I do sell prints in that size on occasion and miss the direct control farming out the printing gives. I might even consider selling print services to local photographers in the future.
So, jumping into the great well of knowledge and experience cleverly hidden within NPN, I throw myself upon the mercy and frontal lobes of my fellow members: What say ye?
Does anyone have experience with these or similar printers? Good, bad, indifferent? What printer would you get if you had the option?
Thanks in advance for participating in my quest!
I have done some research on the 24"-wide printer options, and really it comes down to the Epson 7900 and the Canon ImagePROGRAF iPF6350. I've worked with an Epson 7800 through Costco, I basically went nuts when they outfiited their stores with the 7800, even providing printer profiles through Dry Creek. Ten bucks for a 20x30" print, seemed amazing (and it is). Problem is, you only get Fuji Pearl paper to print on, and the "technicians" there don't seem to be trained to look for banding due to clogged print nozzles, so you end up being the jerk customer because you want it reprinted, lol. I haven't worked with the iPF6350 but I do own the 13" PixmaPro 9000 and I dare say I like the output on there better than the Epsons I've used, but both companies have the print-making thing down pat. Epson has been the leader for years, but Canon has done some serious catching up.
Between those two models, it's a toss-up. Print samples from both appear nearly indistinguishable. They both cost about the same (the Canon is $400 less at B&H). They both cost just under $1000 to re-ink, the Epson takes 11 cartridges and the Canon takes 12. If I had my choice I would buy the Canon, based on two reasons: one, the XPS drivers that Canon makes work very well to transmit 16-bit printer data to the printer (if you are running Windows 7... Mac OSX already supports 16-bit natively), and two, I have had to battle clogged nozzles on every 11" Epson I've ever owned, drives me batty. I've been using the Canon 13" PixmaPro for two years and I've never had to clean the nozzles once, seriously. There's actually a third option with the Canon I really like: if your print head goes south, you can order a new one for $449 and you're back in business. Epson doesn't allow user-changeable print heads, it requires them coming to your house and doing surgery, and I'm fairly sure that doesn't happen for only $449. Oh, and did I mention the Canon was $400 cheaper?
Actually, I just thought of one more thing that may not be that big of a deal, but is worth mentioning: the native print resolution for the Epson is 360dpi, and for the Canon it's 300dpi, so potentially you could crop in a bit farther in an image and get the same print results quality-wise on the Canon. I'm testing that theory, so take that with a grain of salt, lol!
Have a look at the 4 reviews for the Canon on the B&H website, a couple of them hit some good points, especially one who mention the struggles that can occur with Epson drivers and Photoshop CS5 if you use that. Evidently Canon's drivers solve the "issue", whatever that issue is, but that's just one reviewer's take on it all.
Either way, you'll get super results, both printers are amazing and I'd be overjoyed to own one if it were financially feasible. I'd write both companies and ask for print samples, that may help in your quest. Have fun shopping!
One thing to take a serious look at is 'return on investment', which I think Mark is getting at. If you're only going to make a few really large prints per year, there may not be a satisfying return. On the other hand, if you do have a stable of clients who will buy big prints, or have photograhers lined up, the return could justify the investment.
Personnally, I can't afford a big printer, and I don't sell a large enough number of big prints to justify the expense. When I need large prints (bigger than 12x16) I have them done by a bureau (West Coast Imaging in my case). I do my proofing on my R2400, and when all is well, I upload my print file and have the print made by the lab on the same paper I used for the proof. While I don't have immediate control, and I have to wait for the prints to be shipped back, the results have been outstanding. Maybe a similar scenario would work for you?
I wish you well in your endeavors!
--P
My Epson 7600 came with both. Sometimes I open the 'sun roof' to admire the internals. The 'towing package' is convenient and allows me to move the printer around the house.
I have had this printer since 2004 and it has served me well. No clogging issues (touch wood) and with the profiles I use I am able to get a very close match to what I see on my monitor. Unlike some others who produce smaller prints at home and have a service center make the larger prints, I prefer having the ability to make prints upto the largest size I offer right in my studio. Aside from the control I have over the finished product (in my experience it often takes some additional post-processing work to get a large print to come out just right), I like the idea of producing my prints myself.
I plan to upgrade to an Epson 7900 (or a newer version if its available) soon.
One of the considerations I did not mention is that I use a number of different photographic papers which - as near as I can tell - are simply not available through the 'normal' print vendors. Being in NYC, I have access to some very high end printing services that would work with these specialty papers, but these also come at some impressively premium prices - measured in hundreds of $ per print. The impact on 'return on investment' are a bit different that what most would run up against in this environment. This is the primary reason that I need the control, as experimental prints on these papers can get truly costly otherwise. I am also looking into producing some of my own specialty papers to achieve a particular mat/textured surface without losing the deep contrasts available with gloss papers. This is, obviously, a very 'hands on' process.
I do not expect it to be a profitable exercise in the monetary sense in the short term, but it is still photo sales that will be paying for it - so that is one consideration. For me, at the moment, the art is first, profit is second - at least as long as I'm still working the day job!
Your note about the speciatly papers changes the scene quite a bit. Given that, your plan sounds good. Have fun!
--P