Re: Field Conditions,was: A3 printer recommends please
In your situation, Dave, you may just have to consider your printers a short term investment. It might be best to use the cheapest that will do the job and replace them every few months. I know of none that are designed for a dusty environment, and even if they are some sealed printers made they would be very expensive. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brendan chimed in with: Even the higher end printers like the 2200 are ink monsters, Hi all. Now i have several examples of printers other than my Canons,thanks to Bill and Wendy. But, i tend to use my printers and computers in some pretty dusty,hot,windy,fly infested conditions.I have noticed i have to service the S800 quite often as the pull down rollers stop pulling down,have to push it a bit,and after a few months in the field i noticed,under light bulb light only,not under normal daylight,very fine,less than hair llike scratches on the papers surface.None noticed with Ilford papers. Has anyone used their Epson,say 925 or so or Olympus dye sub in field conditions such as mine.???The photographer that sold me the D1 mentioned the dye sub's can produce a poor quality print if ANY dust/dirt gets in the ribbon/ink/paper. Wendy said her first on site went well with good quality prints. Any comments. Dave -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: A3 printer recommends please
After much to-and-froing, my own Canon/Epson/HP decision finally got resolved in favour of HP. It's only six-colour (not their latest eight-ink unit), but the biggest difference there would be if I did a lot of black-and-white printing. The single biggest factor was my fear of printheads clogging if the unit sits unused for a month. At least on the HP all I need to do is replace the ink cartridge (and if I know that the printer isn't going to be used for a while I can take the cartridges out and store them in a ziploc bag). I also like the fact that HP seem to have standardized on one regular set of print cartridges for all their various models, so if I get a smaller printer as well as the wide-format I would only have to have one set of ink cartridges in use at any time. The Epson would be my primary choice for print lifetime, but it's twice the cost of the HP ($799 instead of $399). That difference buys me quite a few reprints.
Re: A3 printer recommends please
if you sell your prints, you have to make the choice in the other direction. you can't reprint for someone, even a good friend, if the image is in a frame. Herb - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 6:30 PM Subject: Re: A3 printer recommends please The Epson would be my primary choice for print lifetime, but it's twice the cost of the HP ($799 instead of $399). That difference buys me quite a few reprints.
Re[2]: A3 printer recommends please
John, After my last two Epsons kept clogging, I finally went the HP route too. I have been much happier with overall usage of this printer (7350 - six color) including feel (touch) of the prints and their hardiness. Once dry, they seem to be nicer than the Epson prints - this is all using the manufacturer's paper and inks. As far as image quality is concerned, they are very close - I suspect very slight edge to the Epson, but you would have to do a side by side to notice. --- Bruce Sunday, October 26, 2003, 3:30:47 PM, you wrote: JF After much to-and-froing, my own Canon/Epson/HP decision finally JF got resolved in favour of HP. It's only six-colour (not their JF latest eight-ink unit), but the biggest difference there would JF be if I did a lot of black-and-white printing. JF The single biggest factor was my fear of printheads clogging JF if the unit sits unused for a month. At least on the HP all JF I need to do is replace the ink cartridge (and if I know that JF the printer isn't going to be used for a while I can take the JF cartridges out and store them in a ziploc bag). I also like JF the fact that HP seem to have standardized on one regular set JF of print cartridges for all their various models, so if I get JF a smaller printer as well as the wide-format I would only have JF to have one set of ink cartridges in use at any time. JF The Epson would be my primary choice for print lifetime, but JF it's twice the cost of the HP ($799 instead of $399). That JF difference buys me quite a few reprints.
Re: A3 printer recommends please
Metamerism is still an issue with the 2200, But proper profiling will reduce the effect dramatially --- Juey Chong Ong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, Oct 24, 2003, at 14:34 America/New_York, Ramesh Kumar wrote: I too was looking at 2000P and its goes cheap on ebay. 2000P has metarism problem, so i did not got for it. I think 2200P solves metarism problems. Users on the 2000P/2200 email list have said that the 2200 does not eliminate metamerism completely. I think it depends on what you're printing and the paper you use. I also don't necessarily find the metamerism on the 2000P a problem. Again, it depends on the image, paper and the printer driver used. --jc __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: A3 printer recommends please
- Original Message - From: Brendan Subject: Re: A3 printer recommends please Metamerism is still an issue with the 2200, But proper profiling will reduce the effect dramatially I am curious about this statement. I had thought metamerisation was purely a function of how the colour relations of the dyes responded to various colours of light. Please elaborate. Thanks William Robb
Re: A3 printer recommends please
It is but when there is a serious colour cast to begin with, good profiles remove this and reduce the effect. --- William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Brendan Subject: Re: A3 printer recommends please Metamerism is still an issue with the 2200, But proper profiling will reduce the effect dramatially I am curious about this statement. I had thought metamerisation was purely a function of how the colour relations of the dyes responded to various colours of light. Please elaborate. Thanks William Robb __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Field Conditions,was: A3 printer recommends please
Brendan chimed in with: Even the higher end printers like the 2200 are ink monsters, Hi all. Now i have several examples of printers other than my Canons,thanks to Bill and Wendy. But, i tend to use my printers and computers in some pretty dusty,hot,windy,fly infested conditions.I have noticed i have to service the S800 quite often as the pull down rollers stop pulling down,have to push it a bit,and after a few months in the field i noticed,under light bulb light only,not under normal daylight,very fine,less than hair llike scratches on the papers surface.None noticed with Ilford papers. Has anyone used their Epson,say 925 or so or Olympus dye sub in field conditions such as mine.???The photographer that sold me the D1 mentioned the dye sub's can produce a poor quality print if ANY dust/dirt gets in the ribbon/ink/paper. Wendy said her first on site went well with good quality prints. Any comments. Dave
Re: A3 printer recommends please
This one time, at band camp, Chris Stoddart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cons for the Canon are that a colleague bought one and got bad banding (I think it was the 9000 though), so took it back and swapped it for another - same problem. Took it back again and got the Epson instead, which he swears by. Cons for the Epson are that huge six-colour cartridge having to be replaced. Anyone want to try and sway me either way? I have the Epson 1290 Stylus and I have had nothing but pleasure from it. I use it in conjunction with Canon FS 4000US neg scanner, great results. I cannot say anything about the Canon as I have not tried it. (tip. Calibrate your monitor so the printed color is the color on the screen. this will save you printing something then having to correct, and print again) Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
A3 printer recommends please
On 24/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Cons for the Canon are that a colleague bought one and got bad banding (I think it was the 9000 though), so took it back and swapped it for another - same problem. Took it back again and got the Epson instead, which he swears by. Cons for the Epson are that huge six-colour cartridge having to be replaced. Anyone want to try and sway me either way? I have the S9000 and have not seen any banding at all. I like the fact that the inks come in seperate tanks, but they are (cheapest for me) £6.45 each. Note that the printer head is user replaceable on the S9000 but not on the Espon, IIRC, though I could be wrong on that Both are excellent printers. Try and see both in operation, even print off your own file, compare? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: A3 printer recommends please
Oh yeah, the S9000 is very fast, and very very quiet (compared to my old Epson Stylus Photo EX). Useful for printing off late at night when all the little goblins are tucked up in bed ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: A3 printer recommends please
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Chris Stoddart wrote: All this talk about the pros and cons of Ilford paper and so on and so forth gives me opportunity to asks for recommendations for an A3 photo printer, which I am sure Santa will be bringing me. I'm really torn between the Canon i9000 and the Epson Stylus 1290S. In favour of the Canon is that it has lots of little ink cartridges; in favour of the Epson is it has a roll feeder in case I want to do panoramics (I'm tempted). Another advantage of the Canon is that you can easily refill the ink cartridges. Don't underestimate how much ink will cost you when making a lot of prints. Being able to trivially refill cartridges is a real plus. I switched from Epsons to a Canon S9000 about a year ago and love it. The Canon doesn't have a roll feeder, but you can do panoramics up to about 44 if you just drape the paper behind it. I've read of some ways to get the printer to allow you to make longer panoramics. Cons for the Canon are that a colleague bought one and got bad banding (I think it was the 9000 though), so took it back and swapped it for another - same problem. My S9000 had a few clogged nozzles in the original printhead, but Canon just mailed me another one. alex
Re: A3 printer recommends please
If it is like my old BCJ-620 the head costs more than the printer is worth. However, when it had clogged up badly (hadn't been used in a year) I pulled it out and soaked it in a jar of rubbing alcohol for a week changing the alcohol daily. That put it back in service. With the epsons you can't do that (at least not easily). With the HP's the heads are in the cartridges so you replace them every time you change cartridges. I don't know about the Lexmarks. I replaced the Canon with a cheap Epson last year simply because the old 620 was not up to current photo printing standards and the Epson 820 was the only thing I could afford. At that time the Canon still printed as well as it ever did and I certainly liked the individual cartridges better. Cotty wrote: On 24/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Cons for the Canon are that a colleague bought one and got bad banding (I think it was the 9000 though), so took it back and swapped it for another - same problem. Took it back again and got the Epson instead, which he swears by. Cons for the Epson are that huge six-colour cartridge having to be replaced. Anyone want to try and sway me either way? I have the S9000 and have not seen any banding at all. I like the fact that the inks come in seperate tanks, but they are (cheapest for me) £6.45 each. Note that the printer head is user replaceable on the S9000 but not on the Espon, IIRC, though I could be wrong on that Both are excellent printers. Try and see both in operation, even print off your own file, compare? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: A3 printer recommends please
But then you can find a bulk ink system for most Epson photo printers there is even one available for the cheap Photo 820. alex wetmore wrote: On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Chris Stoddart wrote: All this talk about the pros and cons of Ilford paper and so on and so forth gives me opportunity to asks for recommendations for an A3 photo printer, which I am sure Santa will be bringing me. I'm really torn between the Canon i9000 and the Epson Stylus 1290S. In favour of the Canon is that it has lots of little ink cartridges; in favour of the Epson is it has a roll feeder in case I want to do panoramics (I'm tempted). Another advantage of the Canon is that you can easily refill the ink cartridges. Don't underestimate how much ink will cost you when making a lot of prints. Being able to trivially refill cartridges is a real plus. I switched from Epsons to a Canon S9000 about a year ago and love it. The Canon doesn't have a roll feeder, but you can do panoramics up to about 44 if you just drape the paper behind it. I've read of some ways to get the printer to allow you to make longer panoramics. Cons for the Canon are that a colleague bought one and got bad banding (I think it was the 9000 though), so took it back and swapped it for another - same problem. My S9000 had a few clogged nozzles in the original printhead, but Canon just mailed me another one. alex -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
A3 printer recommends please
Hi Chris, I would give some serious thought to ponying up the extra and going with the Epson 2100/2200. The three main reasons would be: 1.Archival inks 2.Individual ink tanks (I use 2 black and light m c to one of others aprox.) so the ink saved may make up the difference in cost over time. 3.Availability of profiles for it. I have found printing to profiles much better then other forms of color adjustment. Epson's stock profiles aren't that good but I found out that Pictorico's profiles work fine for the Ilford and Lex-jet papers I use. Ilford has posted profiles for their Gallerie smooth gloss and pearl (free) I've downloaded them but haven't used them yet. The difference is about $300 here in the US. I don't know how it is across the pond. I've been extremely happy with the 2200. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: A3 printer recommends please
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, graywolf wrote: But then you can find a bulk ink system for most Epson photo printers there is even one available for the cheap Photo 820. Yup. I had one of these systems for my Epson 870. The bulk ink is great if you are printing _a lot_. If you plan on printing 4oz of each color every 6 months they work wonderfully. If not the inks evaporate a little bit and start to thicken and things start to clog. With my 870 I was spending as much time trying to unclog the thing as I was using it. With my Canon S9000 I spent less on the refill setup. The ink is sealed in bottles and doesn't thicken very fast. It takes me about 10 minutes to top off all of the ink carts, and I end up doing that about once every other month. That is often enough that I come out way ahead by purchasing bulk ink, but not often enough to keep a bulk ink system running properly. My Epson 870 is now at a local high school where it gets plenty of use. Epson is also getting more devious in their ink cartridge designs and making it harder and harder for the bulk ink guys. Canon keeps it really simple. There are downsides to bulk ink besides the mess of refilling cartridges. The ink generally fades more quickly (one to two years on the papers that I use, instead of four to five with Canon ink). The color gamut is just as good though, and I'm willing to accept the faster fading time when I spending less than 10% on the ink. If I was selling prints I would use an archival printer like the Epson 2200 and pay for the manufacturers (overpriced) ink. alex
Re: A3 printer recommends please
On 24/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Another advantage of the Canon is that you can easily refill the ink cartridges. Don't underestimate how much ink will cost you when making a lot of prints. Being able to trivially refill cartridges is a real plus. Ah, this sounds good - any info you can recommend? 3rd party inks scare the hell out of me as they can be poor quality and screw up colours and clog heads etc. My S9000 had a few clogged nozzles in the original printhead, but Canon just mailed me another one. My old Epson Stylus Photo EX would clog as a matter of course although used at least once a week. I have had 2 seperate clogs on the Canon, easily cleared by one cleaning cycle each. This was in mid print run. The cleaning cycle (like on most printers) initiates after the print command is sent when the printer is either first switched on, or is left on all the time. I bought mine used, and have an intermittent fault whereby when it is switched off, it sometimes refuses top power up again. I though it was the power supply (a seperate pluggable unit near the base) so change it but it still does it. A quick jiggle of the printer soon brings it to life, so I suspect a loose connection somewhere inside. I searched a few forums to see if this is a known problem but cannot find anything on it anywhere so I assume it is a one-off. It doesn't bother me as I got the machine half-price a earlier this year which was a bargain Otherwise, nice printer. I'd probably be just as happy with Epson's individual tank model - the one with 2 blacks - also. But this S9000 is so quiet! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: A3 printer recommends please
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Cotty wrote: On 24/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Another advantage of the Canon is that you can easily refill the ink cartridges. Don't underestimate how much ink will cost you when making a lot of prints. Being able to trivially refill cartridges is a real plus. Ah, this sounds good - any info you can recommend? 3rd party inks scare the hell out of me as they can be poor quality and screw up colours and clog heads etc. I'm using the ink from InkJetGoodies (http://www.inkjetgoodies.com). I believe that they only sell to the US. I have read that the WeInk (http://www.weink.com) ink is nearly identical and they might ship farther, but their customer service gets lousy reviews on dpreview.com. I've never had a clog with IJG ink. The color gamut was compared to the original Canon ink in this message: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003message=5955390 I've read that IJG ink fades a little more quickly in testing. I have only been using it for 9 months and so far I haven't had any problems with fading. I mostly print on Ilford Galerie Pearl and most of my prints are hung in my office without frames. alex
Re: A3 printer recommends please
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, mike wilson wrote: I forget where I saw the comparison but even cheapo printer ink is more expensive than vintage champage. Once you get to manufacturer's products, the difference is an order of magnitude. Yes, I read the same thing - I am pretty sure it was on the BBC's web site Chris (still can't decide between Canon Epson, but now has an extra £200-worth of Epson thrown into the the problem :-) ).
Re: A3 printer recommends please
Even the higher end printers like the 2200 are ink monsters, as far as the extra $200 for the epson, that gives you better icc support, pigment inks, better BW printing ( tho the new hp is damn good here ) more paper choices, roll paper and auto cutting, thats where the extra cash goes, if you don't need this then the canon won't do so badly. I have seen prints from the i9100 and don't see a difference between it and the 2200 BUT lightfastness tests show the epson to last the longest on most papers, no canon paper/ink lasted more than 10 years under Livicks rather harsh tests. The new HP lasts long due to it's papers, the hp paper absorbs the ink into it self but there are only 3 paper choices, epson relies on the ink itself to last ( looking at the tests it's the ink, not the paper that lasts long, epsons enhanced matte yellows quickly, now we know why they renamed it to enhanced matte from archival matte ). The new HP printers look good but epson has all the support from 3rd parties for photo use. --- Chris Stoddart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, mike wilson wrote: I forget where I saw the comparison but even cheapo printer ink is more expensive than vintage champage. Once you get to manufacturer's products, the difference is an order of magnitude. Yes, I read the same thing - I am pretty sure it was on the BBC's web site Chris (still can't decide between Canon Epson, but now has an extra £200-worth of Epson thrown into the the problem :-) ). __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Re[2]: A3 printer recommends please
The latest round of HP's (6 color) are much better than people give them credit for. I got a chance to see the latest HP photo printers this week; HP were partial underwriters of a Computer History Museum event, and sent along some HP 945 digital cameras, some of their 6x4 printers, and one 7900 series printer. I believe that's an 8-colour printer. I took along a CF card with an 2910x2400 JPEG on it, and printed off a borderless 8.5x11 sample that looks pretty good to me. Unfortunately, though, they don't seem to offer a unit that can handle larger paper sizes, and I'm looking for that capability. I wasn't all that impressed with the 945 camera, either. The preview screen freezes while the camera is focussing, which is very distracting. It appears to underexpose when using flash (despite HP touting the fill-flash ability of the camera). ob.relevance: I'm not sure if HP are still using Pentax glass. There was no indication on the lens as to who manufactured it.
Re: A3 printer recommends please
On 24/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I've been watching this thread with interest - I'm planning to purchase a large-format photo printer, and had pretty much narrowed the choice down to the Canon i9100 or the Epson pigment ink model (2000p or something like that). I'm a little concerned, though, to see people mentioning short image life times before fading - perhaps only a couple of years. I would be extremely unhappy if that were the case. My original photo printer, bought back in the days before anyone talked much about print longevity, was the original HP PHotoSmart. I've got images from that hanging on my walls that have been there for five years, and they still seem to be fine. The last time I checked (more than a year ago, admittedly) there didn't seem to be any difference between the visible part of the images and the part obscured by the mat. I have pieces hung behind glass that are okay after 4 years. Those that catch direct sunlight fair much worse (no surprise there), with the yellows and greens taking over. I have prints of the same vintage in folders and piles, and they are fine also. I think the two things that spoil a dye inkjet over time are air contact and high ambient light levels Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
