desktop printers

I have used Epson printers for printing b&w for about 20 years. If my printer (P600) died today, I would replace it with the equivalent current model Epson. Good b&w prints were a real technical challenge early on. They involved 3rd party inksets and self developed custom workflows. It was a big deal to have mastered those technical challenges which took years. Then the Epson ABW settings beginning with the Epson 2400 in 2007 made all of those really simple. Now I use the standard Epson inks.

It is possible that HP, Canon, and other printers have caught up with Epson. It may have become similar to Nikon v. Canon. I just stay with what has worked for me for 20 years.

Realize the actual purchase price of the printer is one of the least important factors. The price of inks is much more important. The time you spend learning how to use the tools you have is #1. It is nowhere as simple as some believe where anyone simply hits "PRINT" and a top quality prints pops out. Printer are tools, just like cameras.
 
I agree with what Bob said. Paper quality is important also. I am using a pedestrian desktop Epson printer with standard Claria inks. When I switched from glossy Epson photo paper to Moab Juniper Baryta paper, I was blown away with the results ( both B&W and color).
 
Many years ago, back when 135-36 Tri-X was $2.99, we did a lot of print exchanges on the old ContaxG web site. 20 people would submit 20 identical prints to the organizer who would repackage them so everyone got 19 different prints and one of theirs back. We got to see all kinds of digital prints made by all kinds of printers and ink combinations. We concluded that it was possible to make a good digital prints with just about any printer / ink combination but some made it a hell of a lot easier than others. I still have some prints made with an Epson 1280 using only Eboni black ink from the 2002-2008 time frame that look as good as anything that can be done now.
 
I still have some darkroom prints on Ilford fiber paper from 30 years ago and love looking at them but the prospect of building a darkroom or accessing one outside today is zilch. Around 15 years ago I made several hundred BW prints with an Epson inkjet but the results were inconsistent even with the same file on the same Epson brand/type of paper. And the inks were expensive of course and probably still are. So I aim to get back into it hoping the technology has improved. A friend is happy with piezo system but I just want to use stock inks. After some research it’s between the popular Canon vs Epson top models. The top line models take larger cartridges so cost per print is much lower in the long run.
 
I’m an Epson fan and my brother is a Canon user. Both do beautiful prints but Epson is more of a standard. I think you’ll find more canned profiles available for Epson but that might have changed.

I have a 17” tabletop and 24” floor model. I only print B&W art for my gallery sales on the 24” using Quad Tone Rip and use Epson Hot Press Natural must of the time.

The 17” I mainly print color. I’ve had them for a number of years and owned a couple other Epson wide format machines and never had a problem. Head clogs are very rare and consistency is 100% perfect.

As far as ink, I use the standard Epson ink. I did have a piezography system years ago and had a lot of clogging problems then had another B&W system but can’t remember the name. Unfortunately the other company went out of business but I never had a clog with it.
 
From my research online, I've found that people generally agree that Epson makes better prints than Canon but Epson smaller printers are fragile and prone to problems--not the pro models, just the desktop models. Canon printers are said to be somewhat inferior to Epson printers as far as quality of image is concerned but the printers themselves are more reliable in the long run.

My experience agrees with this. I've owned two Epson 13x19 desktop printers and both printed beautiful prints. B&W is my specialty and the Epsons printed better prints than I could ever make in a chemical darkroom. But both printers died from the same disease--paper transport problems. The second Epson (P700) died just after the warranty expired. The first Epson, an R3000, worked for several years without any problem until it didn't work anymore. Very frustrating that the P700 developed the same transportation problems but over a much shorter period.

I'm not printing these days. I may buy another printer in the future. I'll try a Canon next time.
 
Dogman said:
From my research online, I've found that people generally agree that Epson makes better prints than Canon but Epson smaller printers are fragile and prone to problems--not the pro models, just the desktop models. Canon printers are said to be somewhat inferior to Epson printers as far as quality of image is concerned but the printers themselves are more reliable in the long run.

My experience agrees with this. I've owned two Epson 13x19 desktop printers and both printed beautiful prints. B&W is my specialty and the Epsons printed better prints than I could ever make in a chemical darkroom. But both printers died from the same disease--paper transport problems. The second Epson (P700) died just after the warranty expired. The first Epson, an R3000, worked for several years without any problem until it didn't work anymore. Very frustrating that the P700 developed the same transportation problems but over a much shorter period.

I'm not printing these days. I may buy another printer in the future. I'll try a Canon next time.
Click to expand...
Not to contradict your findings but I’ve owned 3 wide format Epson and still have one and have a 17” that I’ve had for about 6 or 7 years and run a bunch through it too and never had any problems.

I’ve had 2-2400, a couple of 2000?, I think was the model, 1800? And a couple more and run them hard. The only issue is Epson has or had a countdown clock in the firmware. After a certain number of years it shuts down, dead! It was one of my 2400’s. We have an Epson service center nearby and I called them. The said to bring it in and obtained the software from Epson to reset the clock and did it for a minor fee. I used it so long that the pads became so full they were about to overflow. Unfortunately no parts were available because it was so old but it still printed beautifully. I wound up giving it with some inks to a friend but he never set it up and just trashed it. 😟

You hear all kinds of stories and I’m sure some are legitimate but I’ve had great luck with every one I’ve owned and used them professionally almost daily until two years ago.
 
I only print black and white. I've had mostly Epsons over the years from trying the very first Piezography system back in 2000 or so, the 1280, the 2200 with Inkjetmall Piezotone ink, also using colour inks with Quadtone RIP, a 7800 (24") and a 3880 (17"). I still have the 3880 which is now about 10 years old at least and currently loaded with monochrome carbon inks I mix myself.

I upgraded a couple of years ago to a new printer fearing the 3880 would not last much longer. I contemplated the Epson P900 but read about issues with paper feeds on the thicker art papers (an issue I sometimes had with the 3880). So I decided to go with the Canon Prograf 1000 which had a better vacuum feed mechanism. Both of these printers also have a black and white mode which I use all the time. I have been happy with the Pro 1000 using mainly the black and white mode or custom paper profiles. It does run a lot of cleaning cycles which consumes more ink than my Epsons depending on how often I print.

I think these days if you get a higher end photo quality printer you will be hard pressed to see any difference in quality between Epson and Canon. The main difference will be in whether to go dye or pigment ink. Pigment inks have a reputation for clogging more but have better longevity. So it depends what your needs are.
 
I should add that I never had that many clogging issues with Epson and have had none at all with the Canon 1000.
 
I tried the higher end 13x19 epson printers with the pigment type inks and had all sorts of fits getting the thing to print what was on my screen, then there were some clog issues, I switched to an Epson XP 15000 a year or so ago and it printed perfectly first time out and continues to do so. Fairly cheap and after a couple years of use and sometimes sitting for months not printing it's still doing fine. Only drawback is that it uses dye based ink but so far the prints hold up fine.
 
I’ve just replaced an Epson 3880 with a P900. The 3880 eventually succumbed to ink leaks and there are no longer parts available. It is quite old of course. These are both able to make lovely B&W or colour prints.

We also have an ET-18100 for quick colour prints and family use. That actually does a very decent job with colour but I don’t like the mono output - not enough grays I think, so it has to mix colour and there are always tints.
 
My first photo printer over 20 years ago was an Epson 1280. I had a number of them since they never lasted more than 2 years. But they were designed for dye inks and we pushed pigment ink (Eboni K) through them to get good looking B&W prints, When they got to where the clogs were unbearable, you just bought another since they were less than $200. I have 20 year old prints from negs scanned on an old Minolta Scan Dual which costs around $200 and printed on an Espon 1280 that costs about the same. Those prints look as good as ones I print today. It just took a lot more skill, effort, and time back in those days. Now anyone with good knowledge of a photo editor such and Lightroom or Photoshop and a complete color managed workflow (important) can easily make great looking prints.

I've been through about 10 Epson printers in those 20 plus years. It has averaged out to spending around $100 a year to have a great printer as the consumer models do not last forever. My current Epson P600 does everything color and b&w that I could want a printer to do. I don't think I have had a clog since back in the 2400 days. And, I have been able to get exactly what I wanted on the paper over 95% of the time for many, many years. Always nice when a sheet of paper costs $4.

But, I have seen the same results currently with Canon and HP printers. Several years ago, I was at the opening of a Magnum photographers photo exhibit. There was a promo tag that everything was printed with an HP printer. I asked the photographer if there was something special about HP printers. His reply? "yes; HP, just like Kodak, has been very good to me"
 
I use an Epson P800 with the standard OEM inks. BW exclusively with its ABW function. I rarely print to its full paper size, but got it because its cartridges are said to be more economical. Although it hurts to see ink running low on those $60 cartridges.

The thing has run flawlessly, even after extended idle periods. And my screen and prints match really well without any special effort on my part. I have not used other brands, but I don't think you can go wrong with an Epson Surecolor series.

John
 
JohnWolf said:
I use an Epson P800 with the standard OEM inks. BW exclusively with its ABW function. I rarely print to its full paper size, but got it because its cartridges are said to be more economical. Although it hurts to see ink running low on those $60 cartridges.
John
Click to expand...
I just looked at the price of cartridges for my 7800, $148 each. Multiply that times 8. 😳 Fortunately I bought some spares for it and my 3880 two years ago before prices skyrocketed.
 
Bob Michaels said:
My first photo printer over 20 years ago was an Epson 1280. I had a number of them since they never lasted more than 2 years. But they were designed for dye inks and we pushed pigment ink (Eboni K) through them to get good looking B&W prints, When they got to where the clogs were unbearable, you just bought another since they were less than $200. I have 20 year old prints from negs scanned on an old Minolta Scan Dual which costs around $200 and printed on an Espon 1280 that costs about the same. Those prints look as good as ones I print today. It just took a lot more skill, effort, and time back in those days. Now anyone with good knowledge of a photo editor such and Lightroom or Photoshop and a complete color managed workflow (important) can easily make great looking pr
Click to expand...

What would be the closest equivalent to the Epson 1280 and four cartridge eboni carbon inkset available today?
 
vitaly66 said:
What would be the closest equivalent to the Epson 1280 and four cartridge eboni carbon inkset available today?
Click to expand...
As that printer is 25 year old technology, I cannot imagine anything produced today would be similar. Eboni ink is probably the same. The difference in today's technology is the ease of printing. Almost automatic once you completely understand using an image editor such as Lightroom or Photoshop. The Epson AWB function alone is like suddenly having auto exposure and auto focusing plus chimping compared to previously having the knowledge to needing the ability to capture all of that with only what was between your ears.
 
There aren't any 14" photo printers. You'll find 13" and 17" printers. Epson's printers have an excellent system called Advanced B&W Mode that prints flawlessly neutral B&W prints with good tonality that matches the screen closely if you have a properly calibrated monitor. They use color inks plus three black inks (black, light black which is a middle gray, and light-light black which is a light gray). The color inks allow you to add a tone to the prints and the system has built in settings for Neutral, Coldtone, Warmtone, and sepia. It works beautifully, and is how I print my B&W fine art prints for exhibition and sale. The printer also does color prints, of course; which is nice because I do a lot of color work, too.

I'm currently using the Epson P800, a now-discontinued 17" printer since I sell a lot of 16x20 prints.

Here's a tutorial that I made for printing with the Epson Advanced B&W Mode.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top