DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Best (archival) color photo printer?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 26, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/05/2004 01:17:24 AM · #1
I would like to be able to print long lasting archival photos. Where can I find more info on these types of printers, types of processes used (sub dye vs. others processes etc).

Any printers come to mind? I did a few searches (on this forum and elsewhere) but I have not found much.

If it is really more cost effective to send out, who's services are you using?

Thanks much,
CJS
D-70
11/05/2004 01:32:20 AM · #2
EPSON 2200. Its a cheap 4000 pro, and you can sell the prints for $$$. For $600, you can not go wrong. I also like the new canon 8 ink tank printer, but if you need 100 year + prints, go with the epson 2200. My D70 looks the same on both printers. My D1 Mii looks better on the Canon. Haven't tried my D1s Mii yet on my printers (a gift from the AP).
11/05/2004 08:14:26 AM · #3
The epson 2200 is good. If you want to print glossy prints and don't need anything larger than letter, the epson R800 is a better option than the 2200 and both are archival.

2200 : matte finish and larger prints

R800 : matte and glossy prints, up to letter size. Direct print to CDs too.
11/05/2004 09:09:22 AM · #4
I use the 2200, and a friend of mine has a 4000. The diference in the quality is nominal at best. The 4000 prints a much larger photo though, but costs something like $1800. also, the ink costs about $110 for the large size, and $70 for the small size. You will get a lot more prints out of the 4400, but you can't print smaller that 8x10. Not good if you need to print a bunch of 4x6 photos.
11/05/2004 09:22:28 AM · #5
I've got an Epson 2200 and it's brilliant. Being in the UK I got loads of extras like cd printing, roll paper cutter, and 'grey balancer'. But beside the extras it does amazing prints. I like panoramas so being able to print on roll paper is excellent. It prints on glossy paper with no problems (I haven't had any), but prints on archival matt at A3+ size do look fantastic. Perhaps because I had an old Epson 1200 before the 2200 I am extra pleased with it. Not sure I can fit any more superlatives into this!!! lol

If you go to the Epson site you can request a brochure which comes with some sample prints.
11/05/2004 11:58:02 AM · #6
I was not aware that the 2200 cannot print glossy. Why is does it not print glossy?

Message edited by author 2004-11-05 11:58:24.
11/05/2004 11:59:51 AM · #7
Originally posted by lhall:

I was not aware that the 2200 cannot print glossy. Why is does it not print glossy?


Thats not true! I do it all the time with mine. Beautiful results.
11/05/2004 01:58:13 PM · #8
The 2200 doesn't have the gloss optimizer cartridge(clear liquid), like the R800 does. I think that's why some people feel the R800 is a better printer for glossy. Essentially it was designed to be better at glossy than their previous models. I think it's a test on Epson's part; you may in the future see it in their larger format models also. Hopefully.
11/05/2004 02:08:25 PM · #9
It can print on glossy papers, the results just don't look that great and suffer from bronzing pretty badly. The R800 addresses a lot of the issues and gives a much better result on glossy paper than the 2200. The 2200 also requires you to change ink cartridges to switch between matte and glossy media, something that's been addressed with the newer designs too.

Message edited by author 2004-11-05 14:10:37.
11/05/2004 02:10:08 PM · #10
I've been using Epson for ages, the photo700, then the 880 and the 1280 and now the 2880xlP. But I'm wondering about the canon Pixma line. I've alsway be most satisfied with Epson, but I've also been very frustrated with clogging.
11/05/2004 02:13:44 PM · #11
Its not neccesary the printer per sey but you need to buy the archival inks as well,they are quite more expensive thouh. Another option which I do is have them printed onto Fuji crytal archive paper this is warranted to last a minimum of 70 years, get them done thru a Frontier machine and youll be amazed
11/05/2004 02:19:15 PM · #12
Originally posted by Gil P:

I've been using Epson for ages, the photo700, then the 880 and the 1280 and now the 2880xlP. But I'm wondering about the canon Pixma line. I've alsway be most satisfied with Epson, but I've also been very frustrated with clogging.

I was alway pleased with the quality from the epson line as well, but I switched to canon the last time around because too was frustrated with how often the epson print heads clogged. I'm still debating which way to go for archival, Canon (i9900, iP8500) or Epson (R800, 2200).
11/05/2004 02:22:07 PM · #13
Dunno if it is a climate thing or just how I'm using it, but I've never had any clogging at all, with an epson 780 or my R800. I use them both
quite infrequently (maybe 4 or 5 times per month) and keep them switched off (so parking the heads) all the time that I'm not actively using them.

I see a lot of complaints about clogging but haven't ever experienced it.
11/05/2004 02:25:01 PM · #14
Originally posted by Nusbaum:

Originally posted by Gil P:

I've been using Epson for ages, the photo700, then the 880 and the 1280 and now the 2880xlP. But I'm wondering about the canon Pixma line. I've alsway be most satisfied with Epson, but I've also been very frustrated with clogging.

I was alway pleased with the quality from the epson line as well, but I switched to canon the last time around because too was frustrated with how often the epson print heads clogged. I'm still debating which way to go for archival, Canon (i9900, iP8500) or Epson (R800, 2200).


I don't think the Canons are archival because they use dye based inks, unlike Epson which uses pigment based inks (not in all models and some larger formats have UltraChrome or dye ink models).
11/05/2004 02:25:40 PM · #15
I have the Canon i950. It prints beautiful matte and glossy prints up to 8.5 X 11, using various photo paper. While this doesn't address the question, I'd be curious as to whether users of this printer (or others who are familiar with it) believe the i950 has "adequate" archival capabilities.
11/05/2004 02:31:55 PM · #16
There are several manufacturers who make printers capable of producing archival prints. Epson is well known for their excellent printers which have an extraordinary life span. Hewlett-Packard developed archival photo inks several years ago, their PhotoSmart printers are fast, adaptable to a variety of papers and other brands of paper, and don't require a lot of technical input. Canon printers, in my experience, produce lovely prints but are NOT other-brand friendly. Use Canon papers and deal with the many adjustments needed to optimize a photo print.

Before you choose, since you asked about archival printers, I suggest you go to www.wilhelm-research.com who are the established experts on archival testing. You'll find better and more specific information there than anywhere else. (Canon is not found there, btw. They refuse to pay for the research, using a proprietary ouija-board guess-timate to claim archival properties.)

I recently re-read this excellent article from 2002:
Wilhelm Research

Finally, please read what Wilhelm says about third-party inks - and papers! The finest printer in the world is dependent upon the quality of inks and the media that produces the output. The cheap stuff looks great - for a very short while. The good stuff lasts for generations.
11/05/2004 03:19:26 PM · #17
Originally posted by f-32:

There are several manufacturers who make printers capable of producing archival prints. Epson is well known for their excellent printers which have an extraordinary life span. Hewlett-Packard developed archival photo inks several years ago, their PhotoSmart printers are fast, adaptable to a variety of papers and other brands of paper, and don't require a lot of technical input. Canon printers, in my experience, produce lovely prints but are NOT other-brand friendly. Use Canon papers and deal with the many adjustments needed to optimize a photo print.

Before you choose, since you asked about archival printers, I suggest you go to www.wilhelm-research.com who are the established experts on archival testing. You'll find better and more specific information there than anywhere else. (Canon is not found there, btw. They refuse to pay for the research, using a proprietary ouija-board guess-timate to claim archival properties.)

I recently re-read this excellent article from 2002:
Wilhelm Research

Finally, please read what Wilhelm says about third-party inks - and papers! The finest printer in the world is dependent upon the quality of inks and the media that produces the output. The cheap stuff looks great - for a very short while. The good stuff lasts for generations.


I use a PhotoSmart printer with pearl paper to print shots from my D70, and sometimes edited through PS... I couldn't be happier with the results.
11/05/2004 03:32:03 PM · #18
I'm not taking about the Canon range...but their new PIXMA line, which they claim will "revolutionise" digital imaging..... I've heard this before!
11/05/2004 04:14:17 PM · #19
Originally posted by orussell:

Originally posted by Nusbaum:

Originally posted by Gil P:

I've been using Epson for ages, the photo700, then the 880 and the 1280 and now the 2880xlP. But I'm wondering about the canon Pixma line. I've alsway be most satisfied with Epson, but I've also been very frustrated with clogging.

I was alway pleased with the quality from the epson line as well, but I switched to canon the last time around because too was frustrated with how often the epson print heads clogged. I'm still debating which way to go for archival, Canon (i9900, iP8500) or Epson (R800, 2200).


I don't think the Canons are archival because they use dye based inks, unlike Epson which uses pigment based inks (not in all models and some larger formats have UltraChrome or dye ink models).

I thought that the i9900 and maybe the iP8500 used Canon's UltraChrome inks which were considered archival. I could me wrong or it could have been marketing hype. I'm trying to find some further clarification now.
11/05/2004 04:33:00 PM · #20
Originally posted by CactusJackSlade:

I would like to be able to print long lasting archival photos. Where can I find more info on these types of printers, types of processes used (sub dye vs. others processes etc).

Any printers come to mind? I did a few searches (on this forum and elsewhere) but I have not found much.

If it is really more cost effective to send out, who's services are you using?

Thanks much,
CJS
D-70


I'm very satisfied with my Epson 2200. I do sell my prints (both to commercial businesses and individuals). I have no reservations. This is exactly the printer I needed for my home studio.
11/05/2004 04:50:30 PM · #21
Originally posted by Nusbaum:

I thought that the i9900 and maybe the iP8500 used Canon's UltraChrome inks which were considered archival.


UltraChrome inks are Epson, not Canon. Canon's dye-based inks supposedly resist fading for 25 years, vs. 80 years for Epson (depending upon paper & other conditions). FWIW, the Epson R800 is generally considered the top dog at the moment. It's MUCH faster than the 2200, and features a 'gloss optimizer' that reduces the metamerism (bronzing) commonly found with pigment-based inks on glossy paper.
11/05/2004 04:58:12 PM · #22
Originally posted by Gordon:

Dunno if it is a climate thing or just how I'm using it, but I've never had any clogging at all, with an epson 780 or my R800. I use them both
quite infrequently (maybe 4 or 5 times per month) and keep them switched off (so parking the heads) all the time that I'm not actively using them.

I see a lot of complaints about clogging but haven't ever experienced it.


When deciding on my new printer Epson R800 the clogging was a concern for me as well but I have only seen it reported once. Gordon advised me to turn it off and park the heads which I do and I have not had any trouble. I only use the R800 to print photos at the moment and use my old Canon 6000 and my general purpose printer.

BTW the print results are fantastic even at A4 borderless. In fact I won the best medium print at the local camera club on my first night with my wildlife entry cropped and printed borderless on A4.
11/05/2004 05:41:22 PM · #23
hp 7150 here , I guess no one likes hp , I'm gona check out that Epson 2200 , I think they suck you in and then make there real money on the ink , My son's cost me a fortune in ink , Just to print out sponge bob pics
11/05/2004 07:21:52 PM · #24
nm...read something wrong

Message edited by author 2004-11-05 19:22:26.
11/08/2004 04:53:51 PM · #25
IMPO . . . for what it counts . . .

I have been using a Canon 9100 for a year noy and I cannot differentiate the difference between lab prints, Analog prints or digital lab print. I do not not about the new Canon series but the prince seems to be more consumer oriented. Personnally, the more ink cartridges the better

Fred
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 01:47:40 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 01:47:40 PM EDT.