| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/16/2006 05:34:58 PM · #26 |
| Keiran - from all I've heard, Wilhelm Imaging Research is the highest authority on inkjet (and many other) longevity testing. The results of his testing for Epson products is summarized here in a document found on the Epson site. To find out more about his testing methodology and access to many of his papers and talks on the subject you might be interested in checking out the Wilhelm Imaging Research site. |
|
|
|
09/16/2006 08:23:45 PM · #27 |
| I've always used HP printers, ink and paper. Its largely a bias of mine because I live near HP HQ and they're important to the local economy (many family and friends work there) I've been pretty happy with HP printing products. That being said I'd probably say Epson makes the best products but canon does a fine job also. I have my finer work printed professionally though |
|
|
|
09/17/2006 05:47:07 PM · #28 |
Just wanted to update a couple of things I have found since starting to use the IP4300. I went on a paperchase of sorts this weekend. I bought several readily available photo papers. Some high priced some economical. Here is what I found(please remember this is personal experience not science or to be taken as gospel)
I used HP Premium photo paper. Nice results but not as smooth as I would like it. I can see the transition of colors when held at an angle.
Canon Photo Photo paper plus glossy. Very nice prints, smooth and dried well. Paper was a bit pricey @ 50 4x6 pieces for $12 usd.
Walmart brand everyday glossy. Why did I bother? Well it was cheap and has worked well in the past for my wifes prints. I printed a test print with it and 2 days later I laid it behind another photograph and it actually transferred ink from it to the back of the other photo. Not a recommended user.
Kodak Premium glossy photo Paper another why did I bother, horrible coloring from bleeding, long dry time and just overall a waste of money.
Finally I used Epson Premium glossy photo paper. This is by far the best choice I have found. Even slightly better then the canon paper thats recommended. I printed a photo that I had done at the lab put them side by side and until I turn it over to see the type of paper its on I could tell no difference whatso ever. This will be what I use. It was 14.99 for 100 pieces of 4x6 and is my personal choice for use. Your mileage may vary.
MattO
|
|
|
|
09/17/2006 08:52:11 PM · #29 |
Sounds good. Definitely see if you can find Ilford paper though. Apparently it outperforms Epson paper. I can't find it here in Taiwan, so I will probably have to use the Epson paper as well.
HP uses totally different technology. I read that they mix the colors in the printhead, leading to much larger droplets - not really affecting quality in the same way that larger droplets would affect a Canon or Epson printer though - and they apparently use pigment inks rather than dyes. It makes sense that their paper would react in odd ways to the drastically different technologies by Can/Ep. Incidentally, the most obvious thing to my mind would be that with larger droplets, the 'bleed' would need to be controlled, so the paper would have a very low bleed, which when using the tiny droplets of a Canon printer would emphasize the graininess... much as you experienced.
I don't know anything about Kodak.
Jemison - THANKS for that link! What an enormously useful link.
I'm a little disappointed at the glaring lack of any information related to Canon tech, but it still looks good.
They seem to have masses of real information and highlight (as both of my recent threads on printers have endeavoured to do) the real problem of mass misinformation and confusion on the simple basics of printing.
I have class in a short while, but I will be doing a lot of reading on that site in the next little while. Thanks! |
|
|
|
09/17/2006 08:57:26 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by bcoble:
I use the R1800 and I am very pleased with the quality. The only issue is that the best quality comes from using only Epson photo paper. All my old Kodak paper is now sitting in the closet. |
I also use the R1800 ... EXCELLENT! For 13x19" I use the Kodak Professional Luster paper. It is perfect and I'm completely satisfied with it. I've used in on two state fair winners and have sold a couple hundred prints with it with no complaints and lots of praise. I agree the lower grade of any paper, even Kodak does not look as nice. Good luck |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 06:30:36 AM · #31 |
| I just felt like dredging this one up from the depths with a bump. |
|
|
|
03/16/2007 07:23:08 PM · #32 |
I keep reading that the printhead for the canon 4300 can be replaced. I just bought the 4300 and it does all I want for my business, but i am concerned about the printheads if I refill the ink tanks. I had an HP 7110 Multifunction that had separate print heads. After 2 or 3 refills, the printheads would clog up. I had a 3 year warranty with the printer so that I received new printheads when cleaning them failed to work. Will I have the same problem with the 4300? Also, what is the cost of the printheads? Thanks in advance.
Bob |
|
|
|
03/20/2007 01:00:22 AM · #33 |
Eschelar and others, thanks so much for a very informative thread.
I'm still a bit lost, though. I normally just print some snapshots, but I do print the occasional 5x7 or 8x10 for my own use.
Money isn't an obstacle for us, but I still don't want to buy more printer than I need.
Is the Canon 4300 a printer you think would meet my needs well?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
03/20/2007 01:32:22 AM · #34 |
Bought this today. Wow, what a printer!
|
|
|
|
03/20/2007 01:34:02 AM · #35 |
| i use the Canon ip6600 and i love it! |
|
|
|
03/20/2007 01:35:29 AM · #36 |
| I haven't done any printer research in a long time (I just have a basic 3-in-1 and send anything I care about out for lab printing), so out of curiosity, why is HP completely disregarded? My occasional stroll through Staples leads me to believe that they're still very much a leader, if not *the* leader. I have a bit of a loyalty to them as one of their largest campuses is in my hometown and many of my high school friends' parents earned their living there, but that's pretty much a blind loyalty. I really have no idea if my printer is any good. Like I said I don't really keep up with the hype in ink printers since I don't feel the need to print many of my photos in house. So is HP falling behind or what? Just wondering why they aren't being discussed along with Epson & Canon? |
|
|
|
03/20/2007 07:07:57 AM · #37 |
I was at the Photoshop seminar yesterday and saw a couple of the new HP printers. I was REALLY surprised. This one caught my eye ($699). The color prints were amazing. The only B&W had great detail and no muddiness but I was less impressed; I think it was the image rather than the printer though. This was the low end printer they had. Odd, I can't find the two high end printers on their website but well, they rocked.
They also have 2 wide formats (13"X19") for less - $314 and $500 but I didn't see any output from them.
I've been an epson user for years but the B9180 may make for some tough competition.
Another thing I haven't really delved into yet is paper. HP had some impressive papers to use. Typically, at a lab, you really have only 2 choices. I saw prints on canvas and watercolor paper. What a difference! |
|
|
|
03/20/2007 08:22:25 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Bought this today. Wow, what a printer! |
MMmmm...very nice bit of gear! ;)
|
|
|
|
03/20/2007 09:07:21 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Makka:
Originally posted by dwterry:
Bought this today. Wow, what a printer! |
MMmmm...very nice bit of gear! ;) |
Yeah, I got it home... snuck it into my computer room/studio and hurried and printed up a really nice 16x20" print of our family that I could take upstairs and show my wife *before* letting her know that I bought a new printer. She fell in love with the picture instantly. Then the obvious question (because I had printed 16x20" on a 17x25" sheet of paper): Why didn't they trim off the sides? Ahem, I said, because I don't have a cutter larger enough to handle it yet. (confused look on her face) Then I told her what I had done. Luckily, I think I still get to sleep in our own bed tonight! :-)
|
|
|
|
03/20/2007 11:07:46 AM · #40 |
Just out of curiosity, has anybody figured out what it costs to print your own, say, 12x16 on a wide format printer? I've toyed with buying a printer eventually, but I can have a 12x16 printed at my local camera shop (which does a good job) for $7. I'm guessing at home (and I could be way off) the cost is maybe $2. It would take an awful lot of 12x16 prints to pay for the printer...
Of course you have convenience, but then you also have the added headache of upkeep.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2007 11:40:45 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just out of curiosity, has anybody figured out what it costs to print your own, say, 12x16 on a wide format printer? I've toyed with buying a printer eventually, but I can have a 12x16 printed at my local camera shop (which does a good job) for $7. I'm guessing at home (and I could be way off) the cost is maybe $2. It would take an awful lot of 12x16 prints to pay for the printer...
Of course you have convenience, but then you also have the added headache of upkeep. |
That's about right on the cost of 12x16, maybe less if you use the roll paper.
The biggest advantage to me in having a good printer at home is quality control. You may go through more paper tweaking it if you are obsessive like I am. But the end result is better IMO.
I use the Epson 2200 and it is the best photo printer I have ever used.
Message edited by author 2007-03-20 11:41:56.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2007 11:46:17 AM · #42 |
| I haven't kept track of the numbers but I have a feeling it's a little under $2 if you're using all Canon consumables. Their 13x19 paper runs about $1.50 per sheet and the ink is ~$70 for all 8 or ~$11 individually. Upkeep is pretty much non-existent unless I'm thinking of it differently than you. Convenience far outweighs the cost for me. If you wanted to cut the costs down there are other papers and inks that are much cheaper but they you may well have an upkeep issue. |
|
|
|
03/20/2007 11:47:12 AM · #43 |
From the website I referenced earlier about the Epson 3800 (the table at the bottom may answer your question a little more broadly):
LIKE GETTING A FREE PRINTER UPGRADE... Although the Epson 3800 is $445 more expensive than the Epson R2400 ($850), the 3800 comes with $450 more ink than the R2400 (and at a lower cost per millimeter) -- so it's almost like getting a free printer upgrade when you're willing to buy the Epson 3800 (17") over the Epson R2400 (13").
Here's a comparison of costs per milliliter of ink, at Manufacturer Suggested Retail Prices (MSRP):
$1.35 / ml with HP B9180 ink cartridges (27 ml carts)
$0.95 / ml with Epson R2400 ink cartridges (15 ml carts)
$0.75 / ml with Epson 3800 ink cartridges (80 ml carts)
$0.65 / ml with Epson 110 ml ink cartridges used in 4800/7800/9800
$0.58 / ml with Canon iPF5000 ink cartridges (130 ml carts)
$0.51 / ml with Epson 220 ml ink cartridges used in 4800/7800/9800
What we really need is a cost break down of how much ink does it use to print a 16x20 and what does the paper cost?
|
|
|
|
03/23/2007 11:11:18 AM · #44 |
Apologies for ignoring my own thread for so long. :)
I'm still stymied after almost a year... I have tried every single Asian country and the only one that sells the 4300 is Japan. And they will not ship the 4300 overseas. Also, their price is quite a bit more, nearly 200 dollars US without shipping at the CHEAPEST place I could find... Makes me rather vexed with Canon. Sadly, there is (maybe I said this before?) a Canon factory that three of my friends work at that is about 30 minutes drive from my apartment. They refuse to help me to obtain a 4300 as well.
Currently, Amazon prices them at $67 USD refurbished and $89 dollars new in the States. @!#$*(*@#%@#$(*@#$
So just a reminder that the purpose of the thread was initially to deal with the 100-200 US dollar price range of printers. I'm quite convinced that the best printer money can buy for fine art prints is likely going to include Epson's K3 triple black technology as well as 1.5 picoliter size droplets. I notice that the 3800 includes both a matte black and a photo black now as does the Canon 9900 Pro. The 3800 has 3.5 picoliter droplets. My guess is that since the prints are larger, their target audience is probably expected to not be looking quite so closely. I did read their marketing info about the size of the individual pigment fragments, but with a minimum droplet size that is 3.5 times more than the iP4300, I still feel that it is likely that the 4300 will perform better if you get REALLY close up simply by the merit of painting with a finer brush.
Having said that, I'm not going to suggest for a moment that the iP4300 is going to be able to hold a candle to a printer that sits at around 10 times more than its MSRP. Having a full spectrum of 5 REAL COLORS and 3 blacks, there ain't much point...
Personally, I'm more of an 8x10 kinda guy myself, and barring the odd poster here and there, that's probably as far as I'm going to go for 99% of my prints (until via some miracle of financial magic I manage to pick up a 5D a few years down the road). My local print shop can probably handle my poster prints.
Honestly, either of the pro level printers will do you pretty damned well. If you are interested in joining that price level.
A note on HP printers: While they do have good reported longevity (fade resistance, not machines) and some good advantages with their use of pigment rather than dye inks, they simply aren't even in the same league. They play the marketing game and manage to keep afloat by working in the lower end where multiple features and gimmicks really count for something. Stuff like card readers built in to the printer, the ability to print directly off the card by printing proof sheets and checking which ones you want and using the scanner to see what you want... I don't think there are many guys who take photography seriously to whom these sorts of features make a real difference.
If you are shooting seriously, you probably have a firewire card reader (another thing that is simply unattainable here in Taiwan *growl*) and edit EVERYTHING in photoshop before sending it to print.
Further, HP tends to have rather high consuables prices and the above mentioned print head clogging problems with aftermarket ink use.
I was given an HP 3845 by a friend of mine who left the country a couple of months ago. They had it for around 6 months. They didn't even refill the durned thing but those danged printheads are clogged to hell anyhow. I have soaked them and scrubbed them and cleaned them at all levels of the printers ability to self-service, actually using up two whole refills of ink and I STILL get only about 6 passes of the printheads before the yellow drops out to nearly nothing and the magenta goes all screwy. This is a printer that costs 59 dollars. For 8 dollars more, you could get the iP4300 from Amazon.com refurbished.
Oh if only I could.
Yeah, the print quality is so good on this that the black printhead is finally actually working and the edges of the prints are apalling.
I don't think I will EVER buy another HP printer. Lots of people do and enjoy using them. My sister's roommate has one. She buys new cartridges every time they go down. But she also puts 6 times more money than I make in a month into her bank account. Her printer does what she wants it to. Oh and I think it sends faxes too... remember faxes? They were important back in the days of ALF. Everybody loves ALF.
Maybe HP has a printer that works well at the $699 dollar level... heck, they darn well ought to, but for someone who is a few levels below that in budget and doesn't need larger than 8x10, I doubt that I will be facing a serious shortfall in any aspect of print quality with the 4300. Oh wait, there's that waterproof feature... That's important because I like to exhibit my photos in my fish tank and clean them in the dishwasher. One heck of a dry cycle! |
|
|
|
03/23/2007 11:20:05 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Eschelar and others, thanks so much for a very informative thread.
I'm still a bit lost, though. I normally just print some snapshots, but I do print the occasional 5x7 or 8x10 for my own use.
Money isn't an obstacle for us, but I still don't want to buy more printer than I need.
Is the Canon 4300 a printer you think would meet my needs well?
Thanks! |
Oh, yeah, the answer is yes Levy. It's an excellent all around printer. it will do excellent snapshots, excellent documents and excellent 8x10's.
The other printer to look at would be the Epson R380. It will perform slightly less excellently with documents, but should be able to perform almost identical with the photographic side - if not very slightly better. Cost of running will probably be roughly the same over the long haul as well.
Canon does have the advantage of having replaceable print heads, but they aren't all that cheap. It may be worth it with a slightly more expensive printer, but then again, it might just be worth just as much to sell the old one for 20 bucks to a friend so he can play with print heads and get whatever is new when it dies... |
|
|
|
07/20/2007 11:52:24 PM · #46 |
Just a happy update.
I ended up getting an iP4300 a couple of months ago. F A N T A S T I C.
I've used the dual side printing. I've used the Photo printing. I find that things tend to go just a bit more yellow than on my screen when printing, but I haven't really tweaked it that much and that's been acceptable so far. I do not use a professional level calibrated screen. Just the normal type.
I'm still learning about how to use it. For now, I print on A4 Epson Premium Photo Glossy which I really like. Haven't considered using the 4x6 size paper, but I might give it a try in the future if it looks like it is cost effective.
I print everything with a small border rather than going true edgeless. For me, I find this more useful because of what I am putting the prints into as frames.
Am I convinced that the quality is acceptable pro level? Absolutely. Are there better printers? Of course. Will I ever get another print made at a photo print shop? Not unless I truly care about cost over quality. For anything with any meaning whatsoever, I do it myself. Control is the ultimate factor.
I would still like to see how the paper with Canon inks holds up to the test of time.
I suspect it will be fine. For now, as I am a student still, I am using the income from prints sold to pay for the cost of making my own prints to fill up my 15 slot 8x10 display thingy. They will help me gauge the longevity aspect.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2007 12:41:32 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Just a happy update.
I ended up getting an iP4300 a couple of months ago. F A N T A S T I C.
I would still like to see how the paper with Canon inks holds up to the test of time.
I suspect it will be fine. For now, as I am a student still, I am using the income from prints sold to pay for the cost of making my own prints to fill up my 15 slot 8x10 display thingy. They will help me gauge the longevity aspect. |
Glad to see you ended up with an iP4300, I am still using mine and love it. I'm even selling plenty of prints for customers now, instead of farming them out. I've had a photo I printed on Epson 4x6 paper hanging in a spot thats notorious for fading photos, it gets morning sun on it 365 days a year, and quite a bit of it in the summer. A normal print from my HP would last a couple of months tops and be all faded. I put on up there weekend after I got the printer. I printed the same print last week and compared the 2. I see no difference in either of them, as I see it longevity isnt going to be a problem.
MattO
|
|
|
|
07/21/2007 02:18:05 AM · #48 |
| Anyone have info on the iP6700? |
|
|
|
03/01/2008 08:16:55 AM · #49 |
| For non-photo purposes I've been looking for a printer that can print white. Anyone seen such a printer lately? Generally, I want to be able to print on non-white papers. Especially white text on dark paper. |
|
|
|
03/01/2008 10:37:35 AM · #50 |
I've had epson printers and many other brands. Canon is teh only way I'll go, but i'd HP if I had to have a second choice. I'd get a box of Crayolas before buying another epson printer.
I hear the big epsons are pretty good, but they'll still suffer from clogs and drying ink- it's the technology in their heads. My epson would clog up if it sat unused for more than 2 days. i went thru ink like it was water.
I have a canon iP4300- $50 last summer at Staples. I needed to print one thing that only inkjets can print, so I went with the cheapest canon they had. It even duplexes! I used it and then it sat till last month when I needed to make some prints - 8x10 duplexed color sheets and it worked flawlessly, and after 20 some of them it's still showing full ink (on the starter carts!).
I recently got some paper samples but haven't ever tried printing on anything but regular photopaper. Figure I'd play around a bit. I want to print on water color type paper and canvas type paper. I know the big (17" and 24") printers will do those papers, but I'm not sure if the cheapie little printers would.
My first inkjet was a Canon BJ1000 - so old tech and low end it came with one color cart and one black, and you had to manually switch carts to change them! It got donated to a non-profit and it finally died about 2 weeks ago - I think I bought it 10 years ago, and they used it pretty heavily.
|
|
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: 04/25/2024 01:38:18 PM EDT.
