The Next Step - Printer Recommendations?

C

ch1

Guest
Well I finally completed both my original Winter project a couple of weeks back which was to scan all my accumulated SLR chromes from the past 25 years!

In addition, I have scanned my more recent negatives which include my current RF and SLR stuff.

All scans were in either Nikon RAW (i.e. NEF) or TIFF for maximum rendition.

Everything is on both DVD and external HD (and of course I retained the slides and negs).

Now it's time for the next step - OUTPUT.

I'd like to get a good, relatively high-end printer. Willing to spend up to US$ 750 to a 1,000.

Any recommendations?
 
Epson 2400 George. I have the previous model, the 2200. I love it. Prints up to 13x19 and using Epson's inks, is relatively archival.
 
Last edited:
Agree on the 2400, I have both the old 1280 and the 2200 and they keep getting better.

Todd
 
You might consider waiting for the new Canon 10 ink monster. I am a dedicated Epson guy, but I wanted ot add that in for consideration.

If I were to buy today and wanted to do predominantly color, I'd get the R1800. If both, then the 2400.

allan
 
I'll be the contrarian.

Unless there is some over-riding consideration that is not obvious from your original post, I would recommend forgetting about printing your stuff at home.

Hook up with a good pro lab, prep your files yourself, and let the lab print your stuff. It will not only be cheaper, it will be MUCH easier and MUCH MUCH less of a headache. Unless, as I said, you have some other reason to print yourself.

Setting up a color-managed workflow from capture to print at home is a daunting task. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, sold the lot, went back to a pro lab.

Here is a great lab to try for US residents. (Standard disclaimer: Not associated with Bay Photo in any way other than being a satisfied customer)

www.bayphoto.com

Login to their Professional side of the house. Go to their download page. Download their "Economy ROES" software (this is the version where you do all the color control yourself). This software is free.

It is dead easy to upload a print order, they have lightening fast turnaround, and they will 2-Day Express ship your photos back to you for the ridiculously low price of $3.50

Their print prices are just pennies higher than cut-rate big box stores like Wal-Mart, but their print quality is light-years ahead.

Tom
 
Actually, I need to think more before I answer. I'll switch my response slightly based on Tom's.

I have abandoned color printing at home entirely. And, believe it or not, I use Costco. if you go to drycreekphoto.com, you can download ICC profiles for a number of their locations. If you have a membership and a managed workflow, you can get color-accurate prints on glossy or luster paper for $2 for a 12x18. That's a big print. And mine have been ready in as llittle as 30 minutes.

If you want B&W and are comfortable with going to 8x10, then you can get a dedicated printing system using a grayscale inkset for like...$100 total. Or, for about $250, you can get the Epson 1280 and the UT2 inkset and go to 13x19 (that's witht he rebate...not sure if it's still in effect). I use the 1280 system.

allan
 
Why not use mpix.com? I have many friends who use them and they have gotten great results. Nothing like doing the work yourself though.
 
I've been using an Epson R2400 for about a month now and I am astounded by the quality of the output. I am still learning how to use it, but even using the default settings, I have never seen B&W digital output like what it produces. It is, frankly, better than anything I have ever been able to do in the darkroom optically. (Not all of us are good printers). The drawback is that a full complement of inks cost you about $120.
 
Taking into account Tom's advice (don't print it yourself), I would say doing it yourself is a viable proposition if, as in my case, you've got a lot of work to print. Having the proper profiling for your own system isn't a walk in the park, but it needn't become a NASA project either.

I used to use a pair of Epsons: a 2200 for color work (it really, really doesn't do b/w well without aid from a RIP), and an 1160 loaded with quadtone inks for b/w. Worked out okay, but feeding and maintaining two printers became a bit of a pain. I now use an HP Photosmart 8750, which prints to the same size as the Epsons (to 13x19") and handles b/w and color beautifully. The inks are dye-based, but with HP's papers have the same longevity ratings as pigment-based dyes, but without issues such as metamerism or gloss differential. I got my 8750 over the holidays for under $375 shipped (a wild bargain IMO), but I presume it won't be as cheap now – expect prices around the $400-425 mark at the better discounters.

If you're keen on pigment-based inks, there's always the Epson 2400 (personally, I'd skip the R1800), but you might hold off for two printers coming down the line in the next few months: that ten(!)-ink Canon Pixma Pro 9500 (its dye-based sibling is the 9000), and HP's Photosmart Pro B9180, whose principal advantage over everyone else's pigment-based A3+ printers is the size of the individual ink tanks: huge, compared to either Epson's or Canon's, which is both more convenient and potentially money-saving.

My only caveat regarding both these printers concerns absolute b/w output quality: while my 8750 and Epson's 2400 utilize three black inks to acheive their stellar b/w output, the upcoming Canon and HP printers use only two, having sacrificed one of the two grey carts for the sake of having both "Photo" (gloss) and Matte black ink carts loaded at the same time – most likely in respose to criticism by some about the hassle and waste of ink incurred by having to swap inks when switching from gloss/semi-gloss to matte paper (or vice-versa). I mostly use semi-gloss for both color and b/w, so the ink-swapping issue doesn't figure in my workflow, while the potential loss of dead-neutral printing from using nothing but one black and one grey ink is an issue. We won't know how any of this shakes out until a few people (and not just reviewers) get their mitts on a few examples. Expect street prices for both to be in the $700-800 range.

Not that I'm in any hurry. I really like my 8750.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
Not withstanding that getting prints done externally can be a good idea and give great quality I personally love making prints. In some respect I almost feel the excitement of wet darkroom printing except instead of hovering over the development tray as the print emerges I anxiously await the print as it comes out of the printer. I print mostly B&W on my Epson 2200 with Epson inks and sometimes with Eboni black ink doing either black-only prints or using QTR for various tonal varieties. I simply love sitting down, working on my scanned neg files and making prints. That plus the differences in tone, contrast, sharpness, etc. can be different depending on the papers used and some subject matters and lighting differences work better on some papers than others. If it was as simple for me as getting the color just right on my monitor, putting it into the right color space or profile and emailing off the file to an external printing source and awaiting my print (confident that it will be WYSIWYG) I'd do that. But for me, especially with the B&W work I do, I simply enjoy getting my prints printed as I want them and sometimes experimenting with the output as mentioned. If this is you then consider your own printer for sure. I'm awaiting more results from the 2400 and am considering that to replace my 2200 especially since it can do much better glossy or semi-gloss/lustre than the 2200 for B&W.
 
Re: the Canon Pixma Pro 9500

This is being billed as "Pro" printer in the manufacturer's hype and I have no idea why.

It won't even take roll paper which makes it useless for 90% of professional applications. I quit reading about it right there.

It might turn out to be a good printer, but it is not "Pro" level by any means. If you are looking for a professional printer with a track record now, look at a used Epson 4000 or a new 4800.

I have no idea about the capabilities of the newer HP units, but again, unless they take roll paper, they are not set up for professional use.

Tom

PS: If you are dead set upon using a home based inkjet, at the very least get a good profile done, or buy the equipment necessary to do it yourself (about $1000.00 or so for budget priced gear.). Cathy's Profiles, or some other profiler, will put you together a good one for a single ink/paper combination for less than 50 bucks. You will need one for each and every paper/ink combo you intend to print. As Barrett said, not rocket science, but it is not falling off a log easy either if you are completely unaware of how to manage a color workflow.
 
I'll vote for any of the Canon Pixma printers. I have the IP5000, a sort of middle of the line printer, and it is absolutely beautiful. Even with only CMYK, it produces prints that most people can't even tell from chemical prints. You need a strong loupe to see. And with B&W, you can't tell at all. It's truly amazing.

I tried the Epsons, and none of them compare. The 1 picoliter droplet size is apparent in the prints where you cannot even see printer grain.

And at $170, you could not possibly do better.

Get one with a wider inkset, like 6 or 8 inks, and you'd be a force of nature with the printer.
 
We had one of the HPs here at work for awhile - it sucked. It was one of the photo printers, don't recall the model, but it was a good one. Ink ran out quite quickly.
 
Depending on your output I would either go with the Epson R2400 or the R4800. I have the R2400 and love it but I run through allot of ink and that is only sometimes when it just sits there not printing. I usually leave my printer on to keep the head from fouling up. That having been said when I am away on travel for a couple ofr months the inks will evaporate out and I lose something like 60 bucks into the thin air. The 4800 though you can buy extra large ink tanks for the unit and the inks are half as much for the amount of ink you get. Over time you will get more prints out of the larger unit and more standby time. Allot of pro's may not think about what they are losing into the thin air if they do not use their printer on a daily basis but man does it add up. If you can bite the bullet for the 4800 it would be IMO the way to go. It is also considered a pro printer and profiled before it leaves the factory. while the R2400 is not.

The prints from other sources like Costco would be great option as well although I have not gone that route as yet.

Glenn
 
Fuji Pictrography prints I've seen are astounding. They look a lot like Fujicolor Crystal Archive RA4 prints, great tonality, and are supposed to have similar longevity. I think the price is much higher than your budget though.
 
Hmmm.

Much food for thought. To_m thanks for suggesting the alternative - although my preference is to "roll my own" I do want to think about what you are saying.

Maybe a better way to go is to just use a "cheapie" printer to get an idea of how the final will look but then take the file to a pro lab?

I dunno.

Votes seem to go with the Epson although I am noting the drying out ink issue. I have a Epson color inkjet with scanner etc. (RX????) out at the house in Tucson and everytime I get out there I have to do a major 'realignment" etc. routine. I always figured it was the dry climate that was eating my ink and fouling the head.

It may be worthwhile to keep it on at all times just to see how it acts since we often go 4 or 5 months b/w visits.

Anyway, thanks all for your thoughtful responses - much to think about.....
 
Shutterflower, what method are you usin for B&W prints from the Canon? I've used the ip6000D and the i9900 and although great for colour, can't get good B&W prints to save my life. I'm using the Monaco Optix XR profiling system.
 
photogdave said:
Shutterflower, what method are you usin for B&W prints from the Canon? I've used the ip6000D and the i9900 and although great for colour, can't get good B&W prints to save my life. I'm using the Monaco Optix XR profiling system.
Click to expand...


well, I am doing it ghetto style. I'm just taking my nice 3200 DPI B&W scans, and printing them in "grayscale mode" using just the basic inkset that comes with the IP5000. No B&W inksets or anything. I notice a very VERY slight color tint of some sort. So slight I can't even tell what color it is, and you would never notice if not comparing the print with a traditional print.

I print in 8x10 on Photo Paper Pro - makes a very noticeable difference from printing on other grades. And don't even think about using non-canon paper in this printer. yikes.

ONE BIG thing, is that I printed maybe 50-75 8x10 pages before I needed to buy new inks. ANd that is only 4 inks at $7 apiece. Not 8 inks at $10. Cheap and perfect for my needs. ANd I have very irrationally picky needs.

correction - 5 inks.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the info! I have been a big fan of the Canons but I've only used Ilford papers. The colour prints have looked great so far but I'll try the Canon paper for B&W now!
 
photogdave said:
Thanks for the info! I have been a big fan of the Canons but I've only used Ilford papers. The colour prints have looked great so far but I'll try the Canon paper for B&W now!
Click to expand...


yeah, the "Photo Paper Pro" is the only way to go. Surely.

They even smell like real prints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top