large print

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by leo, Nov 28, 2004.

  1. leo

    leo Guest

    Is it worthwhile to print 13x19 at home? I understand inkjet prints are
    vibrant but might fade quickly. Is Canon i9900 still the best choice? When
    will Epson replace the aging 2200? What is the total cost of a 13x19 print?
    leo, Nov 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. leo

    Skip M Guest

    "leo" <> wrote in message
    news:BYmqd.5549$...
    > Is it worthwhile to print 13x19 at home? I understand inkjet prints are
    > vibrant but might fade quickly. Is Canon i9900 still the best choice? When
    > will Epson replace the aging 2200? What is the total cost of a 13x19
    > print?
    >

    Why would Epson be in a hurry to replace a printer that still has no direct
    competition from any other printer mfr? If you want longevity, the Epson
    2200 has no equal, but if you want speed of printing, the Canon is the best.
    I think the Canon has better color, too, but that's my opinion and only
    applies to what I do, not to any thing any one else does. One advantage the
    Epson has over the Canon is its ability to do a better job at B&W, and
    that's what may get me to buy one.
    Cost of a 13x19 print varies according to what paper used, can be as low as
    $2, easily getting to $4, and there's some paper my wife uses that runs
    about $32 for a 36"x24" sheet, so the paper alone is about $16 for a 13x19.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Nov 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. leo

    leo Guest

    "Skip M" <> wrote in message
    news:4Bnqd.178178$hj.958@fed1read07...
    > "leo" <> wrote in message
    > news:BYmqd.5549$...
    >> Is it worthwhile to print 13x19 at home? I understand inkjet prints are
    >> vibrant but might fade quickly. Is Canon i9900 still the best choice?
    >> When will Epson replace the aging 2200? What is the total cost of a 13x19
    >> print?
    >>

    > Why would Epson be in a hurry to replace a printer that still has no
    > direct competition from any other printer mfr? If you want longevity, the
    > Epson 2200 has no equal, but if you want speed of printing, the Canon is
    > the best. I think the Canon has better color, too, but that's my opinion
    > and only applies to what I do, not to any thing any one else does. One
    > advantage the Epson has over the Canon is its ability to do a better job
    > at B&W, and that's what may get me to buy one.
    > Cost of a 13x19 print varies according to what paper used, can be as low
    > as $2, easily getting to $4, and there's some paper my wife uses that runs
    > about $32 for a 36"x24" sheet, so the paper alone is about $16 for a
    > 13x19.
    >
    > --
    > Skip Middleton
    > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


    Because they now have R800 which brings some improvement over the 2200.
    Considering 1280 is even older, Epson doesn't seem to be in the mood of
    updating 2200 yet.
    leo, Nov 28, 2004
    #3
  4. leo

    Markeau Guest

    I am not a pro, just a 30+yr photo hobbyist. Since getting a i9900 a
    few months ago I have been printing LOTS of 12x16's (same aspect ratio
    as my Canon S400 cam, and pre-made frames can be easily/cheaply found,
    like at Aaron Brothers). I also just got a Nikon Coolscan V and so
    have been making 12x18's of some of my slides/negatives. This has all
    been huge fun for me - and ppl who see the results are asking for
    copies, I even sold a few! I have also been printing a lot of
    borderless 5x7 and 8.5x11.

    Yes it is noted that the dye inks of the i9900 probably won't last as
    long as the pigment ink of the Epson 2200; but, longevity also depends
    on paper type. There is alot to read on this subject. I have heard
    that when using the mfgr's best paper, the i9900 may have a print life
    of 38yrs and the 2200 90yrs. For more longevity I have heard the
    prints can be laminated. I chose Canon because they seemed to have
    less printhead/clog issues.

    http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/PCWorld_FadeFactor_Nov_2002.pdf
    http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

    "leo" <> wrote in message
    news:BYmqd.5549$...
    > Is it worthwhile to print 13x19 at home? I understand inkjet prints
    > are vibrant but might fade quickly. Is Canon i9900 still the best
    > choice? When will Epson replace the aging 2200? What is the total
    > cost of a 13x19 print?
    >
    Markeau, Nov 28, 2004
    #4
  5. "leo" <> wrote in message
    news:BYmqd.5549$...
    > Is it worthwhile to print 13x19 at home? I understand inkjet prints are
    > vibrant but might fade quickly. Is Canon i9900 still the best choice? When
    > will Epson replace the aging 2200? What is the total cost of a 13x19

    print?
    >



    I certainly hope its worthwhile. While reading this thread I discovered that
    Epson had a printer that used 7 UltraChrome inks other than the 9600 and its
    little brother....both of which are out of my range. So...a little research
    to see if there were any problems with it I went looking for a price. Epson
    has some factory referbs for $550...and its on its way!

    So...yes...I think its worthwhile....UltraChromes don't fade in a
    lifetime...Who says Canon is the best choice?
    Gene Palmiter, Nov 28, 2004
    #5
  6. leo

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "leo" <> wrote in message
    news:BYmqd.5549$...
    > Is it worthwhile to print 13x19 at home? I understand inkjet prints are
    > vibrant but might fade quickly. Is Canon i9900 still the best choice? When
    > will Epson replace the aging 2200? What is the total cost of a 13x19
    > print?


    I think it's worthwhile. Last year, I replaced my chemical color darkroom
    with a Canon i9100 (the predecessor of the i9900) and a Canon 10D. The
    results that I get are, for all intents and purposes, as good as what I got
    out of my darkroom -- in some respects, even better because of the
    additional control I have over the image. Note, however, that I've
    calibrated my monitor, which makes a huge difference. My prints, which are
    mounted behind glass, are on my walls at home and at the office. Some have
    been up more than a year, with no sign of fading at all.


    >
    >
    PTRAVEL, Nov 28, 2004
    #6
  7. "leo" <> writes:

    > Is it worthwhile to print 13x19 at home? I understand inkjet prints are
    > vibrant but might fade quickly. Is Canon i9900 still the best choice? When
    > will Epson replace the aging 2200? What is the total cost of a 13x19 print?


    For medium-sized art prints, it's very definitely worth printing at
    home. Inkjet prints from the Epson Ultrachrome ink printers are more
    stable than the best chromagenic photographic prints. The Canon i9900
    is an interesting newcomer, but has never been a consensus best
    choice. Given that Epson still sells the 3000, *MUCH* older, I don't
    know why they'd want to replace the 2200 any time soon.

    A 13x19 print costs more than I like. I've spent so much time using
    bottled inks and continuous inkfeed systems that buying it by the
    cartridge is really unattractive.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 28, 2004
    #7
  8. "leo" <> writes:

    > "Skip M" <> wrote in message
    > news:4Bnqd.178178$hj.958@fed1read07...


    >> Why would Epson be in a hurry to replace a printer that still has no
    >> direct competition from any other printer mfr?


    > Because they now have R800 which brings some improvement over the 2200.
    > Considering 1280 is even older, Epson doesn't seem to be in the mood of
    > updating 2200 yet.


    The R800 is interesting; the question has to be if the smaller
    droplets are enough to make up for the lack of the light cyan and
    light magenta inks. And the light black -- the 2200 B&W is one of the
    big features.

    The 2200, 4000, and R800 use three different sets of Ultrachrome inks,
    and all get good results of their sort. It's interesting.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 28, 2004
    #8
  9. I was just looking at some of the larger format printers.

    2 things stopped me
    1) I was not sure my 5-6 megapixel camera would produce worthwhile
    prints at such a size
    2) The printer I settled on the i9900 was out of stock

    I still debate the megapixel/size problem. Any info on this would be
    appreciated

    Skip M wrote:
    > "leo" <> wrote in message
    > news:BYmqd.5549$...
    >
    >>Is it worthwhile to print 13x19 at home? I understand inkjet prints are
    >>vibrant but might fade quickly. Is Canon i9900 still the best choice? When
    >>will Epson replace the aging 2200? What is the total cost of a 13x19
    >>print?
    >>

    >
    > Why would Epson be in a hurry to replace a printer that still has no direct
    > competition from any other printer mfr? If you want longevity, the Epson
    > 2200 has no equal, but if you want speed of printing, the Canon is the best.
    > I think the Canon has better color, too, but that's my opinion and only
    > applies to what I do, not to any thing any one else does. One advantage the
    > Epson has over the Canon is its ability to do a better job at B&W, and
    > that's what may get me to buy one.
    > Cost of a 13x19 print varies according to what paper used, can be as low as
    > $2, easily getting to $4, and there's some paper my wife uses that runs
    > about $32 for a 36"x24" sheet, so the paper alone is about $16 for a 13x19.
    >
    william kossack, Nov 28, 2004
    #9
  10. "leo" <> writes:

    > Because they now have R800 which brings some improvement over the 2200.
    > Considering 1280 is even older, Epson doesn't seem to be in the mood of
    > updating 2200 yet.


    Actually a wide printer based on the R800 has appeared in Japan recently, so
    the betting in the printer forum of dpreview.com is it will be released to the
    rest of the world in spring time.

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
    Michael Meissner, Nov 29, 2004
    #10
  11. leo

    leo Guest

    "william kossack" <> wrote in message
    news:MDtqd.579010$mD.434841@attbi_s02...
    >I was just looking at some of the larger format printers.
    >
    > 2 things stopped me
    > 1) I was not sure my 5-6 megapixel camera would produce worthwhile prints
    > at such a size
    > 2) The printer I settled on the i9900 was out of stock
    >
    > I still debate the megapixel/size problem. Any info on this would be
    > appreciated



    Depends. I had a Canon 300D [just sold] with 6MP. I print 12x18 at Costco
    for $3. It doesn't have enough MP for closeup critique. Neverthless, the
    rector proudly put the large pictures I took at the entrance of the church.
    People love them. They can finally find themselves in the picture of a
    cabaret/dinner I took from the balcony. I am upgrading to 20D, I might see
    some marginal improvement in resolution.

    The reason for me to get an inkjet is the possibility that I can produce a
    more vibrant prints. My Epson R200 using Premium Glossy paper is vibrant but
    when using ColorLife, the color's pretty muted. The Costco, Noritsu, prints
    could use some punch too.
    leo, Nov 29, 2004
    #11
  12. leo

    Savidge4 Guest

    A little known option in the "Large Print" arena would be the HP CP 1700 ($500)
    or the Designjet 30 ($700). I personally use the CP1700 in my office for color
    proofing before going to my larger large format plotters. the CP1700 uses the
    same ink set as many of HP's Large Format Plotters. yes they are dye ink
    prints, but the Black is Pigment. One thing to consider though is with the use
    of HP Glossy and or Matte Brochure and Flyer Paper you can expect your print to
    last 72 years. The above mentioned paper is cheap as far as paper goes.. 50
    sheets of 11x17 for $20. Not as thick as "Photo" paper, but who can tell how
    thick the paper is if the print is behind a frame?

    hope that helps!
    Savidge4, Nov 29, 2004
    #12
  13. (Savidge4) writes:

    > A little known option in the "Large Print" arena would be the HP CP 1700
    > ($500) or the Designjet 30 ($700). I personally use the CP1700 in my office
    > for color proofing before going to my larger large format plotters. the
    > CP1700 uses the same ink set as many of HP's Large Format Plotters. yes they
    > are dye ink prints, but the Black is Pigment. One thing to consider though
    > is with the use of HP Glossy and or Matte Brochure and Flyer Paper you can
    > expect your print to last 72 years. The above mentioned paper is cheap as
    > far as paper goes.. 50 sheets of 11x17 for $20. Not as thick as "Photo"
    > paper, but who can tell how thick the paper is if the print is behind a
    > frame?


    I printed some calendars with HP glossy brochure paper last December using my
    HP deskjet 6122 printer, and I've been noticing a color shift on some of the
    prints. Of course calendars are exposed to the air and not behind glass (and
    also you typically don't care if they don't last past a year). Even without
    the color shift, I think Ilford Classic Pearl and Kodak Ultima Satin give
    better colors (but are single sided papers). I didn't think it was a swellable
    paper, but I could certainly be wrong....

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
    Michael Meissner, Nov 29, 2004
    #13
  14. << The Costco, Noritsu, prints
    could use some punch too. >>

    I use the Costco (Bend, Oregon) shop for my printing. 12x18's for $2.99 on Fuji
    Crystal Archive paper (rated 66+ years) and done on a Noritsu printer (320
    dpi). I'm happy to let dust collect on my three home printers (2 inkjets; 1
    dye-sub).

    Best,

    Conrad

    Conrad Weiler
    Camp Sherman, Oregon
    Conrad Weiler, Nov 29, 2004
    #14
  15. leo

    bob Guest

    william kossack <> wrote in news:MDtqd.579010
    $mD.434841@attbi_s02:

    > 1) I was not sure my 5-6 megapixel camera would produce worthwhile
    > prints at such a size
    >


    I've been doing some prints on a vintage HP plotter (750CM). It's fun. If
    you get close to them, you can see printing artifacts in a major way, and
    even pixels, but if you stand back you can't.

    If you want large-format quality prints, then you need a LF camera.

    Bob
    bob, Nov 29, 2004
    #15
  16. leo

    Q Guest

    Conrad,

    I'd like some tips on how you format your images before uploading them
    to the Costco computer. Last week I tried a 12X18 there and it took them
    3 tries to get it right. First try had a 3 inch border on one side and a
    1/4 inch boarder on the other. The photo I uploaded had the correct
    aspect ratio.

    Q (Bend, OR)

    Conrad Weiler wrote:
    > << The Costco, Noritsu, prints
    > could use some punch too. >>
    >
    > I use the Costco (Bend, Oregon) shop for my printing. 12x18's for $2.99 on Fuji
    > Crystal Archive paper (rated 66+ years) and done on a Noritsu printer (320
    > dpi). I'm happy to let dust collect on my three home printers (2 inkjets; 1
    > dye-sub).
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Conrad
    >
    > Conrad Weiler
    > Camp Sherman, Oregon
    Q, Nov 29, 2004
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Scott D. Weber For Unuathorized Thoughts Inc.

    Backing Up Large Files..Or A Large Amount Of Files

    Scott D. Weber For Unuathorized Thoughts Inc., Sep 17, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    973
    Joseph
    Sep 19, 2003
  2. nadine

    large print on GOOGLE

    nadine, Dec 18, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    4,939
    [ Doc Jeff ]
    Dec 19, 2003
  3. Bun Mui
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    814
    Phantom
    Sep 13, 2004
  4. kay
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,666
    Bryce
    Jul 30, 2003
  5. PTRAVEL

    Interesting Large-size Print Experiment

    PTRAVEL, Jan 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    398
Loading...

Share This Page