Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Digital Photo printer question....

Reply
Thread Tools

Digital Photo printer question....

 
 
danmullen@optonline.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2006
If money was not a question.......
what photo printer would everybody buy???
Criteria... up to 11x14 size
roll paper optional
Photo to be "for sale" quality.



thanks
dan
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Skip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2006
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> If money was not a question.......
> what photo printer would everybody buy???
> Criteria... up to 11x14 size
> roll paper optional
> Photo to be "for sale" quality.
>
>
>
> thanks
> dan


Canon PROGRAF5000. 17" wide, archival pigment ink, 12 inks.
http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/EC1615.html

That would be for desktop. For really large prints...
http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/EC1618.html
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Digital Photography Now
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2006
In my experience Canon is still some way behind Epson and, now, HP in terms
of metamerism (variation in visible colour balance under different
lighting).

You probably don't need anything more than an Epson Stylus Photo R2400,
which can go up to A3+ sheets, or about 12x18 inches and longer with roll
paper.

Ian

Ian

Digital Photography Now
http://dpnow.com

*** Extra 40MB of storage space on DPNow's free photo gallery until the end
of November, don't miss it while it's there! http://galleries.dpnow.com






"Skip" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:N1T9h.3090$(E-Mail Removed)...
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> If money was not a question.......
>> what photo printer would everybody buy???
>> Criteria... up to 11x14 size
>> roll paper optional
>> Photo to be "for sale" quality.
>>
>>
>>
>> thanks
>> dan

>
> Canon PROGRAF5000. 17" wide, archival pigment ink, 12 inks.
> http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/EC1615.html
>
> That would be for desktop. For really large prints...
> http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/EC1618.html
> --
> Skip Middleton
> www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> www.pbase.com/skipm
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Hebee Jeebes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2006
HP PhotoSmart Pro B9180. It produces prints with more detail than anything
Epson or Canon has.

R


<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> If money was not a question.......
> what photo printer would everybody buy???
> Criteria... up to 11x14 size
> roll paper optional
> Photo to be "for sale" quality.
>
>
>
> thanks
> dan



 
Reply With Quote
 
frederick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2006
Digital Photography Now wrote:
> In my experience Canon is still some way behind Epson and, now, HP in terms
> of metamerism (variation in visible colour balance under different
> lighting).
>
> You probably don't need anything more than an Epson Stylus Photo R2400,
> which can go up to A3+ sheets, or about 12x18 inches and longer with roll
> paper.
>
> Ian
>
> Ian
>
> Digital Photography Now
> http://dpnow.com
>

\
A3+ is 10x13", the A3+ printers will do this borderless.
The HP B9180 would be a contender too - even though there have been some
real QC and support issues with HP. IIRC maximum paper length is 44",
no hardware roll paper support.
Above the R2400, there's the R3800 17" printer that doesn't have the
problem of matte/photo black cartridge changes, but IIRC maximum paper
length it will handle is 37". Above that, the large format Epsons won't
do small prints (6x4 etc).
The most interesting (IMO) new printer is the HPZ3100. A 6 head/12
channel 10+ colour printer, same 200 year DPR as the B9180, gloss
optimiser like the R1800 - so no gloss differential / bronzing.
Closed-loop self-calibration (also like the B9180), but this time also
integrated full spectrophotometer for making ICC profiles on any media.
They aren't cheap though, and IIRC are available in 24" and 44" model
sizes only - a little large for my home office.
A problem that HP face is that the ink isn't as "strong" as Epson,
probably a compromise needed to get reasonably trouble-free performance
with pigment ink through thermal head printers. Result is that there
are issues using the HP B9180 (and probably the Z series - as the same
inks are used) on third party papers which don't absorb enough ink
quickly enough, yet were excellent with Epson's pigment printers.
Problems such as pizza cutter wheel marks, banding, bronzing, poor
colour from ink pooling around paper surface texture have been observed.
If the HP printers become popular, then perhaps there will in time be
more support from third-party paper suppliers.
I don't think Canon are a real contender yet. Although Luminous
Landscape has nice things to say about the iPF5000, they seem to act
like a Canon marketing division at times - that is when they aren't
acting as Leica's advertising agency. Other reviewers seem to place it
in the class of Epson's older Ultrachrome printers (not the newer K3 or
Ultrachrome Gloss), but with better colour from neutral black and extra
colours.
 
Reply With Quote
 
frederick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2006
Hebee Jeebes wrote:
> HP PhotoSmart Pro B9180. It produces prints with more detail than anything
> Epson or Canon has.
>

Incorrect. A nice printer, but it doesn't produce prints with more
detail than anything Epson or Canon does.
 
Reply With Quote
 
frederick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-25-2006
frederick wrote:
> A3+ is 10x13", the A3+ printers will do this borderless.

Typo:
That is 19x13"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Skip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2006
"Digital Photography Now" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:dk%9h.20773$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In my experience Canon is still some way behind Epson and, now, HP in
> terms of metamerism (variation in visible colour balance under different
> lighting).
>
> You probably don't need anything more than an Epson Stylus Photo R2400,
> which can go up to A3+ sheets, or about 12x18 inches and longer with roll
> paper.
>
> Ian
>
> Ian
>


You need to get out more. The new Canons have different inksets to improve
their performance. My old S9000 Canon whacks the R2200 all hollow on image
quality, giving way only on archival quality. I've never seen a print from
a 2400 that beats the newer Canon s9900, so I'd expect the newer ones to do
even better. And it prints A3+, too.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm


 
Reply With Quote
 
Hebee Jeebes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2006
Well, it does for me. Printing the exact same image on both my HP B9180 and
my Epson R2400 and my Canon i9900 the HP has bare far more image detail. Now
you maybe blind or you have the hots for Epson or Canon. I have the hots for
the best print quality and that is the HP.

R


"frederick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1164485900.209970@ftpsrv1...
> Hebee Jeebes wrote:
>> HP PhotoSmart Pro B9180. It produces prints with more detail than
>> anything Epson or Canon has.
>>

> Incorrect. A nice printer, but it doesn't produce prints with more detail
> than anything Epson or Canon does.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Skip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2006
"Hebee Jeebes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4568f508$0$34563$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Well, it does for me. Printing the exact same image on both my HP B9180
> and my Epson R2400 and my Canon i9900 the HP has bare far more image
> detail. Now you maybe blind or you have the hots for Epson or Canon. I
> have the hots for the best print quality and that is the HP.
>
> R
>
>
> "frederick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:1164485900.209970@ftpsrv1...
>> Hebee Jeebes wrote:
>>> HP PhotoSmart Pro B9180. It produces prints with more detail than
>>> anything Epson or Canon has.
>>>

>> Incorrect. A nice printer, but it doesn't produce prints with more detail
>> than anything Epson or Canon does.

>
>

I love guys who feel they have to insult those who disagree with them. Why
can't people be civil, anymore?

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Labelling prints in galleries: "photo" vs "digital photo" vs "digital manipulation"... Alan Justice Digital Photography 2 06-08-2005 03:10 PM
Re: goodbye rec.photo.digital -hello rec.photo.digital.slr-systems? Woodchuck Bill Digital Photography 36 10-30-2004 11:50 PM
Re: goodbye rec.photo.digital -hello rec.photo.digital.slr-systems? Woodchuck Bill Digital Photography 15 10-27-2004 04:29 AM
Digital Photography RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr vs rec.photo.digital.slr-systems? Lionel Digital Photography 16 09-17-2004 12:48 PM



Advertisments