Best printer to buy - DPChallenge Forums

07/30/2004 12:06:44 AM · #4

How many photos are you looking to print? How much business are you currently getting?

I'm starting to do sports team photos and portrature work, however, I can't yet justify doing any printing in-house. For the time being, I am sending my stuff off to White House Custom Colour, //www.whcc.com/, I really like their choicees of paper and the price ain't bad either. It's also a lot less of a hassle on my side.

07/30/2004 12:15:51 AM · #5

I just ordered the epson 2200 over the canon i9900. Both are nice printers but I like several things about the epson better.

If you don't need large prints, the R800 is definitely the way to go.

07/30/2004 12:42:53 AM · #6

Your decision should be between the Epson R800 and the Canon i9900. Each has its strengths, so it will depend on your needs.

The Canon i9900 is MUCH faster, cheaper, prints up to 13x19 inches, has a wider color gamut, and should print on a wider variety of media.

The main advantage of the Epson R800 is fade resistance. The pigment-based inks should resist fading 3-4 times as long as the Canon. Epson prints tend to be a little more contrasty, too.

FWIW- I print samples and quick stuff off my Canon, and send away to PhotoAccess for anything I want to be permanent. You'll get back a 'real' print, probably with better color than any inkjet, at a comparable price to printing it yourself.

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF for Canon

07/30/2004 01:09:55 AM · #7

My decision to buy the 2200 over the i9900 was based on these items:

1. The 2200 has a roll sheet feeder. I can buy roll paper and recduce waste when printing 8x12 and 11x14 images. The roll sheet option gives me the ability to print up to 44" long if i should want to print a panoramic image.

2. The epson ultrachrome inks are superior life inks over the canon inks. Longevity is important to me and they should be to you as well if you are selling your prints.

3. I like the epson papers. I really like the epson premium luster paper. The comment that was made about epsons being more 'contrasty' doesn't seem to hold true in my own experience. The contrast of the print depends on the image itself and the type of paper you print it on.

The advantages of the canon i9900 are price and color gamut. The 8 ink system in the canon will produce a wider color gamut than the epson 2200 will.

Chez

Nikon D100

07/30/2004 01:34:23 AM · #8

I have the Epson Stylus 2100, it's a great printer, 7 color output, roll feeder and up to A3 print size. The grey balancer software is tricky but Idon't normally use it and you still suffer from bronzing on the blacks.

shoff

Nikon D3300

07/30/2004 09:57:21 AM · #9

Let me ask you all this. On average what size photos do you print most for your clients?

Should I really be concerned that Cannon prints will last about 25 years as compared to epson which would be 50-100 years?

Also I don't want to be caught not being able to print larger then 8x10.

But if I'm not mistaken most prints even older ones are rarely over that size. I'm talking about family photo stuff.

I will be doing mostly (if not only) family photo restoration.

Also, describe to me what type of photos would need to be over 8x10

Message edited by author 2004-07-30 10:01:48.

garlic

Canon EOS-10D

07/30/2004 10:36:30 AM · #10

Dont ink-jet prints faint in few years (or what)? Do some of you use some chemicals or some techniques to protect them? IÂ´ve done some printing and stored the images in albums with plastic wrap so they are pretty well protected form oxygen and other atmospheric factors but IÂ´ve been wondering if I should preferentially send them to some photolabs for longer lasting prints even though itÂ´s a bit more expensive.

07/30/2004 10:41:19 AM · #11

Originally posted by shoff:

Should I really be concerned that Cannon prints will last about 25 years as compared to epson which would be 50-100 years?

It concerns me a lot because I'm sure the 'specs' on longevity are not realistic. They are probably based on that rare 'best case scenario' testing method :) I would realistically expect half (or less) of the advertised life. So with the Canon rated at 25 years, I would realistically expect a print to last 10-12 years. I doubt that the average buyer would go to the lengths required to protect the print from light degradation.

Family photo stuff is rarely larger than 8x10. I do some occasional restoration work for friends and family. I don't often enlarge beyond 8x10 but I have on occasion. I restored one photo where the original was an 8x10 and the customer wanted a 16x20 reprint of it. This is where the normal wide format printers can't help. The Epson 7600 is in my sights but I'm not quite ready to spend that much on a printer yet.

With my own prints, my most common size to sell is a 12x18. I also sell quite a few 16x20 and 16x24 prints but not as many.

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

07/30/2004 10:42:33 AM · #12

Originally posted by garlic:

Putting a print in an album is probably the BEST way to store it. If the album stays closed most of the time, light is not going to fade your print.

Fredo

Canon EOS-1Ds

07/30/2004 11:04:08 AM · #13

I've got the i9950. It's a dream to use, unbelievably fast and the quality is astounding. My Epson 1290 (which it's replaced), was sluggish, noisy, and the quality wasn't great. Just my two-penneth seeing as you hadn't mentioned the i9950 for consideration, you may like to.

TomH1000

Olympus E-3

07/30/2004 11:08:09 AM · #14

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I also use the 2200. It is a great printer and like you I also like the luster paper. This is the paper I use for clients and they seem to like it very much. I also have a 1280 but I don't use it that much anymore. I like the idea of the i9900 but I worry about print life.

07/30/2004 11:27:42 AM · #15

Originally posted by Fredo:

The i9950 looks like the same printer as the i9900. I think the 9950 may be a non-US model of the printer.

Kneeforu

Nikon D70s

07/30/2004 12:10:51 PM · #16

Personally, I get worried when selling prints to anyone that I have printed at home. When you sell a print, typically it is at a professional price, which you can then have printed at a local or internet based processor, and take the fade issue out of the equation (at least the best that you can).

I have been selling prints from a baseball tournament last week. I have sold around $450 dollars worth of prints in the last week from this one tournament, and am running at about a 70% profit margin. All prints are done through my local guy, and I feel really good about selling a true print.

FYI - Bill

Message edited by author 2004-07-30 12:12:03.

07/30/2004 12:14:29 PM · #17

Originally posted by Kneeforu:

What kind of printing system is being used for your prints? The epson archival life ratings are as good or better than anything else I have seen so far...

07/30/2004 12:17:26 PM · #18

Originally posted by Kneeforu:

My point exactly. To me, any comparison of fading or print life compared to other inkjets is moot. The real benchmark that buyers expect is a "developed" photo printed on photo paper. The price diffference between an inkjet print and a real one is negligible, so why not just give your customers the real thing?

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

07/30/2004 01:25:01 PM · #19

Originally posted by scalvert:

The only way to get 'developed' digital prints is with one of the lightjet methods. These prints don't have the longevity ratings that the epson ultrachrome inks do. See this page for some reference:

//www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/articles/printercompare.html

The "Chromira" printer listed here uses the LED process and then chemical printing similar to normal film printing. As far as I know, this is the closes thing to actual photographic prints you can get from digital images. It has a similar longevity rating to the Epson 9600 (which uses the same ink system as the Epson 2200), but not quite as long. I have bought prints from here using the Chromira, the Epson 9600 and the Epson 10000. Your paper options are more limited on the Chromira and you can't get fine art paper prints (Giclee) from it either.

caba

Nikon D800

07/30/2004 01:50:06 PM · #20

John,
I have the 2200 also, If you haven't tried yet, check out Ilfords smooth pearl paper. I like the luster also, but the Ilford really impressed me. I use the semigloss setting. Black and whites are so sharp.

Frank

07/30/2004 02:25:08 PM · #21

Lightfastness claims are measured to the point that fading becomes noticeable, and it often depends on the paper as much as the ink. From LightJet's own web site:

"...long lasting and resistant to fading so your customers will be happy with their LightJet prints for a long time. Some paper manufacturers guarantee archival quality photo paper that are color fast for several generations."

All pigments will fade eventually (much to the chagrin of Michelangelo and Da Vinci), and it's gradual anyway. After 60-100 years, I don't think anyone will be coming back to you for a refund.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

07/30/2004 02:27:06 PM · #22

Originally posted by scalvert:

The measured fading of LED/ laser exposed photographic paper is pretty much identical to pigment based Epson systems - in fact the inkjet pigments inks on the correct papers out perform photographic printing techniques - measured in the same way.

This is not true for dye based inkjet prints, but I wouldn't sell them to anyone anyway - but correctly produced pigment inks have better longevity than most other commercial printing and you have a much higher degree of quality control and feedback.

For comparision see this table:

Under the same test conditions, Epson pigment inkjet inks lasted more than twice as long as Fujicolor crystal archive silver halide prints (104 years vs 40 years simulated fading) These are just the '4x6' size photo printer comparisions but similar results are common across mose print technologies.

Message edited by author 2004-07-30 14:30:50.

07/30/2004 03:49:38 PM · #23

Back to the original question, the writer was asking for information on what printer to buy. I chose to give my reasoning for buying what I bought rather than suggest that he either buy a quarter-million dollar printing system or have his work sub-contracted.

I didn't really mean to get into a debate over which printing technique has the best longevity. Anything rated over 50 years is probably acceptable for my own needs. I just prefer the immediacy and control I have when doing the printing myself. Knowing that I can produce prints that have great longevity here at home is also beneficial.

My personal goals and those of the original poster here are probably quite different.

shoff

Nikon D3300

07/30/2004 07:48:06 PM · #24

So on important prints I should really send them out to a place like Ofoto? What are the price comparisons between an 8x10 ofoto (or other) and printing myself?

I see on shutterfly and ofoto they are about $4.00 per print less if you order more. So i guess even if I lose 2 bucks on that deal I still make it up in the cost of the labor. so instead of making $100 I make 98 not a big deal.

Message edited by author 2004-07-30 19:51:21.