|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Photo Printer
Apr 06 05 04:02 pm Link Apr 06 05 05:07 pm Link Apr 06 05 05:11 pm Link Apr 06 05 06:21 pm Link Apr 06 05 07:18 pm Link Apr 06 05 09:15 pm Link Apr 06 05 09:34 pm Link Apr 07 05 12:00 am Link Apr 07 05 12:26 am Link Apr 07 05 01:05 am Link Apr 08 05 10:49 pm Link Apr 09 05 01:55 pm Link Apr 09 05 02:30 pm Link Apr 10 05 06:52 pm Link Apr 10 05 10:00 pm Link Apr 11 05 02:01 pm Link Apr 11 05 02:24 pm Link Apr 11 05 03:35 pm Link Apr 11 05 07:30 pm Link Apr 12 05 12:22 am Link I've been using a Canon i560. It does a great job for what I'm doing, but it sucks a lot of ink. Apr 12 05 07:45 pm Link If you want REAL photographic prints from digital, a Fuji Pictography machine is the way to go. Most pros in NYC use them. They're costly, but they have a small footprint, and use water and heat in a dye transfer process. The archivability of the paper rivals that of conventional photographic paper. Just remember, get a print from that epson wet, and kiss it goodbye. Apr 13 05 11:04 pm Link I think most of you are overlooking the very printer most print houses are using for proofing. I have yet to see ANYONE use an Epson proofer in a pre-press enviroment. Most of the print houses were using large format HP's for proofing before going to press. The latest news I have heard is SWOP has approved 2 HP printers: DesignJet 30 & 130. (HP DesignJet 130 is the preference for professional print houses) Plus it is said that Epson's longevity of pigmented ink is greatly overstated. At DRUPA there were tests by Kodak, that showed Ultrachrome inks faded much faster than predicted. They noticed that 3M does not warranty any Epson Ultrachrome ink, and warranties the earlier Epson ink for only 5 years. There is a wider color gamut of the HP 130 is because it is easier to make dye ink last much longer than it is possible to make pigmented ink colorful. The 130 is the most affordable ($1300) 24"/A1 printer with astonishing, fade-resistant photo quality. The 30 prints B size prints (prints 11"x17" on 13"x19" paper) for about $800. Both come in network models I think. Something to ponder since it is SWOP certified while the Epson 2200 is not (Lysonic inks may help a bit). I have been using Epson printers since 1982. And I am looking forward to using a SWOP certified printer before I send files to press without paying for IRIS or Matchproofs ever again. Apr 26 05 07:25 pm Link I use the Epson 2200 (in fact I have 2 of them) for proofing and prints. price performance wise, the best. if I were to start doing my own printing in house I's still go Epson. HP is nice but for the cost and upkeep, I'd rather go with a service (which i do). JMHO Apr 26 05 08:03 pm Link Wasn't the 2200 the one with the problem with white areas??? I have the Epson 1280, its a great printer too but it is actually cheaper for me to get prints done at the Pro Local Lab than Printing my self, unless I am at an event, so I have not been using it much lately, I may consider selling it in the near future if I get a good offer, although I would hate to see it go, but also sit there and collect dust. Apr 27 05 12:56 am Link Epson has been notiong but issues for both me and my busienss partner.. We use Canon's now - the i9100 and 9900.. Both damn good - and very fast... May 04 05 08:05 pm Link man for all my stuff for printing...Epson definitely tops all!! i have a Stylus C60 for all my small stuff, and I have my Stylus 1280 for my larger format stuff  Jun 22 05 01:27 am Link OK... As for the HP printers, paper options are limiting. The new inks only last as long as the claim on the HP papers. Still no water resistance, As for the 2200, it's now been replaced by the 2400. These printer excel at B&W and Matte printing. They DO NOT fair so well on gloss or semi-gloss papers. As for the R1800, the only thing the 200/2400 really excels over the R1800 is in B&W on matte papers. The R1800 is fantastic in color prints on pretty much any paper. Simply stunning on gloss/semi-gloss and still extremely good on matte. Still a smaller dot size than either the 2200 or 2400. I have the R1800 myself as B&W is just not a large enough chunk of what I print, and I am perfectly happy with the B&W the R1800 produces. Jun 23 05 10:42 pm Link Oh, regardin the Canon's... I almost bought the i9900 before I heard about the R1800. The canon is an excellent printer. Sharp and vivid. I just wanted the longevity and flexibility of pigmented inks (wider selection of media), and the water resistance as well... Jun 23 05 10:44 pm Link I love Canon photo gear but I bought one the 9000 a while back and the thing sucked balls! The inks arent archival and the photos turned yellow very quickly. To me the best bet would to check the new Epson printer. I think it is the 1800? Anyway it is supposed to have a better ink system than the 2200 but I am not positive. Still it is probably an upgrade from the 2200 and I always heard good things about that. Jun 24 05 03:05 am Link Canon 9900 color photo printer Jun 28 05 02:25 am Link with my 1280 i get great gloss prints and the colors arevivid and bright and my matte prints are just as awesome as well  Jun 28 05 02:31 am Link I've been using the canon 9900 and the 950 for quite awile, but anything I am selling I take to my local pro lab. With the volume I do with them for sports photography I get a good price and it is actually cheaper then printing at home (not to mention less time consuming) I thought I read that epson had a 2200 replacement-R2400? I was considering changing to it...but I do have a lot of canon ink stocked up. Jun 29 05 04:10 pm Link epson 2200 mjr. Jun 29 05 04:13 pm Link All the sugestions about the Epson 2200, have any of you looked at the R1800 yet ( 2200's replacement, and is cheaper than the 2200's original price tag, and more vibrant on glossy ). Jun 29 05 05:26 pm Link Ill post my .02 worth, printwise its people faces & bodies, we love to see the 'pink' of skin and the 2200 does this with great precision & accuracy (and affordability). about 2 years ago i questioned my brother who works for creo, the company who produced the first real digital proof printer, the one that needs a full time tech to keep it working, yes the ILEX 3740, read this report about it but only if your interested in what a +$50,000 printer is about ( http://www.fineartgicleeprinters.org/Ir … nters.html ) ok well anyways this is 2003 were talking but he said to get the (then new) EPSON 2200 and im glad i did. especially when he cant get one to drop off a truck accidentially for me!!! since then the CANNON i9900 has become avalable, it has its benefits & tradeoff's too but suffice to say it is on the top shelf next to the EPSON. different printers for different output. the 2200 has light magenta making fleshtones strikingly accurate. there are 100 different reasons for or against from 100 different people, there are good & bad aspects of the difficulty with doing printwork itself, the learning curve can be costly. allow me to push inkjetart.com for printing info and atlex.com for the best prices for 2200 ink (8.99) & paper, and fineartgicleeprinters.org I print exclusively on Ilford Gallerie Smooth Pearl (red box) with the epson ink and the 13x19" prints are spectacular. Note: MFA Boston uses EPSON! Jul 02 05 06:36 pm Link I use Canon i990 compared to the i9950 no green and only A4, but have had prints in customers living rooms for 12months with no fade. I always tell them to put it behind glass and keep it out direct sunlight, but I must admit thats with canon pr101 paper and it would be cheaper for me to get A4 digi prints on RA4 process in a lab Jul 04 05 04:33 am Link look at the new epsons- they address the bronzing and white drop out. Jul 04 05 09:25 am Link Printers? You don't have a person draw out the picture that you see on the screen? Jul 04 05 09:32 am Link Canon 9100 works well for me. Jul 04 05 09:32 am Link |
