Photo Printer Suggestions?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Helen, Oct 4, 2008.

  1. Helen

    Helen Guest

    I needed to downsize the contents of my home, so I decided to sell
    things I have no use for. I made a tidy sum of approximately $600.
    I'm looking for a good photo printer. I'll be honest, I know nothing
    about them, so I decided to ask the pros on the groups before I go
    into a photo shop and be at the mercy of some salesperson. Thanks for
    your help.
    Helen, Oct 4, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Helen

    jimkramer Guest

    "Helen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I needed to downsize the contents of my home, so I decided to sell
    > things I have no use for. I made a tidy sum of approximately $600.
    > I'm looking for a good photo printer. I'll be honest, I know nothing
    > about them, so I decided to ask the pros on the groups before I go
    > into a photo shop and be at the mercy of some salesperson. Thanks for
    > your help.


    Standard questions:
    How good is good? :)
    How big do you want to print?
    How often do you want to print?
    How long to you want the print to last?
    Is this to be a dedicated photoprinter or do you want to print text as well?
    Color and/or B&W?
    -Jim
    jimkramer, Oct 4, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Helen

    measekite Guest

    On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 08:33:15 -0700, Helen wrote:

    > I needed to downsize the contents of my home, so I decided to sell
    > things I have no use for. I made a tidy sum of approximately $600.
    > I'm looking for a good photo printer. I'll be honest, I know nothing
    > about them, so I decided to ask the pros on the groups before I go
    > into a photo shop and be at the mercy of some salesperson. Thanks for
    > your help.


    There are two great wide format printers that can print most of the sizes
    a hobbyist would need.

    Canon Pro9000
    or
    Epson 2880

    Both will print the same sizes. The Canon prints may be somewhat more
    vivid and look slightly more impressive on glossy paper but it uses dye
    ink that does not have the longevity against fading as a pigment ink
    printer has.

    The Epson 2880 has a somewhat greater tendency to clog if not used on a
    regular basis and uses somewhat more ink than the Canon. You also have to
    manually switch between photo black used for glossy paper and matte black
    used for matte and artistic papers and you do waste some ink in doing that
    so you need to plan or batch your printing to some extent.

    The prints from the Epson will fare much better over time and will look
    better when using artistic and matte papers.

    I have always used Canon printers and preferred the bang of a bright and
    vivid color print. But I think I will go with the Epson 3800 next time
    because I plan on using more matte and artistic papers and I want the
    longevity. The 2880 is the little brother of the 3800. The K3 ink set is
    the same but it uses smaller tanks and is 13"wide instead of 17" wide.
    The 2880 is within the price range you suggested.

    Because the 3800 is 17" wide and gets better ink mileage it is worth the
    additional $450 since you get that much in additional ink with it but the
    choice is yours.
    measekite, Oct 4, 2008
    #3
  4. Helen

    measekite Guest

    On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:10:47 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

    > Helen wrote:
    >> I needed to downsize the contents of my home, so I decided to sell
    >> things I have no use for. I made a tidy sum of approximately $600.
    >> I'm looking for a good photo printer. I'll be honest, I know nothing
    >> about them, so I decided to ask the pros on the groups before I go
    >> into a photo shop and be at the mercy of some salesperson. Thanks for
    >> your help.

    >
    > See also comp.periphs.printers



    But if you go there be careful. That group has many many morons and
    idiots that beleive in NOT using appropriate ink recommended by the
    printer mfg and do not like others that do not subscribe to their cultish
    views.
    >
    > Photo quality with a long life depends on:
    >
    > - paper quality
    > - ink (or pigment) quality
    > - mounting
    >
    > Accuracy in colour requires calibration and profiling.


    Maybe. If you have need to really get accurate and do not want to deviate
    at all from total reality then yes but if you want to get very close and
    produce a really nice looking print that you and others can enjoy then
    reasonable profiling should get you close enough. It is very difficult to
    look at you monitor and your print and see exactly the same shade.



    >
    > There is no middle ground AFAIK.
    >
    > So either cheapish colour printers which use dye based inks (I just
    > bought a Canon MP530 at Staples for CAD$79.95 but I don't use it for
    > photos). This includes a scanner and fax. These print very good color
    > photos on good paper (eg: Epson, Kodak, other glossy and semi-gloss
    > papers). But they will fade in 10 - 30 years or so depending on how
    > they are mounted and kept. (With more extravagant care, they could go
    > 50+ years). Limited to 8.5" wide prints (so 8x10, 8x12, ...). Not sure
    > how many photos a set of carts will print. (Some people claim dye based
    > inks last longer than the above, I don't agree).
    >
    > Or get a pigment based pro printer such as the Epson 3800 (CAD$1249 at
    > Vistek) which comes complete with carts good for about 600 8x12" prints.
    > Will print up to 17" wide as well. This will produce prints that
    > will last 50-100 years without noticeable fading if mounted and kept


    under glass and I personally do not like prints mounted under glass.
    First unless you get very expensive museum glass you will see some
    reflections. Notwithstanding the reflections, cost and weight; you just
    cannot appreciate the look and feel of artistic papers when viewing the
    print behind glass. You might as well use a semi gloss paper. I really
    would like to know just how much less a pigmented print will last if
    properly cared for matted and frames but not under glass.


    > with care. With more extravagant care 100 - 200 years. I just bought
    > one hardly used (was still on original carts) for $750 and it is a gem.
    > Wonderful prints. When the inks run out, a full set of carts (9) is
    > about $550.
    >
    measekite, Oct 4, 2008
    #4
  5. Helen

    DavidM Guest

    Helen wrote:
    > I needed to downsize the contents of my home, so I decided to sell
    > things I have no use for. I made a tidy sum of approximately $600.
    > I'm looking for a good photo printer. I'll be honest, I know nothing
    > about them, so I decided to ask the pros on the groups before I go
    > into a photo shop and be at the mercy of some salesperson. Thanks for
    > your help.


    Have you considered not buying a photo printer? They are nasty plasticy
    things that dry up, clog, get stuck and then cost a fortune to refill
    with 'official' ink.

    A good alternative is an online printing service, or even your local
    printshop. Just make sure that they use genuine photographic paper and
    the results will always be good.

    I use photobox.co.uk, obviously you would need a similar firm where you
    live. Photos are easy to upload to their site and prints are dispatched
    the same day. I usually get prints in the next mornings post.
    DavidM
    DavidM, Oct 4, 2008
    #5
  6. Helen

    N Guest

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Nothing can beat the Espon 3800 for fidelity and longevity.
    >
    > --
    > john mcwilliams



    The OP admits to knowing nothing about colour printers. Do you really think
    she wants a wide format printer costing about 3 times the available funds?
    N, Oct 5, 2008
    #6
  7. Helen

    measekite Guest

    On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:46:38 +0100, DavidM wrote:

    > Helen wrote:
    >> I needed to downsize the contents of my home, so I decided to sell
    >> things I have no use for. I made a tidy sum of approximately $600.
    >> I'm looking for a good photo printer. I'll be honest, I know nothing
    >> about them, so I decided to ask the pros on the groups before I go
    >> into a photo shop and be at the mercy of some salesperson. Thanks for
    >> your help.

    >
    > Have you considered not buying a photo printer? They are nasty plasticy
    > things that dry up, clog, get stuck and then cost a fortune to refill
    > with 'official' ink.



    I have been printing with a Canon photo printer IP4000 for 5 years. It
    has never clogged up and I never had a problem with it. While it may cost
    a little bit more than an online service my prints are actually better
    and I print what I want when I want on the type of paper that I want.

    I have many more choices.

    >
    > A good alternative is an online printing service, or even your local
    > printshop. Just make sure that they use genuine photographic paper and
    > the results will always be good.
    >
    > I use photobox.co.uk, obviously you would need a similar firm where you
    > live. Photos are easy to upload to their site and prints are dispatched
    > the same day. I usually get prints in the next mornings post. DavidM
    measekite, Oct 5, 2008
    #7
  8. Helen

    measekite Guest

    On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:02:21 +1100, N wrote:

    > "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> Nothing can beat the Espon 3800 for fidelity and longevity.
    >>
    >> --
    >> john mcwilliams

    >
    >
    > The OP admits to knowing nothing about colour printers. Do you really think
    > she wants a wide format printer costing about 3 times the available
    > funds?


    Nobody gives a damn on if it is a wide format or standard format printer.
    What is important is the kind of results one wants and what they are
    willing to pay for it.

    If a person want to hang enlargements on their walls or give them to
    others than a wide format printer is justified and is affordable.
    measekite, Oct 5, 2008
    #8
  9. Helen

    Bob Williams Guest

    Helen wrote:
    > I needed to downsize the contents of my home, so I decided to sell
    > things I have no use for. I made a tidy sum of approximately $600.
    > I'm looking for a good photo printer. I'll be honest, I know nothing
    > about them, so I decided to ask the pros on the groups before I go
    > into a photo shop and be at the mercy of some salesperson. Thanks for
    > your help.


    Since your printing will be at an entry level, I'd suggest you START
    with an entry level printer. All inkjet printers are so good nowadays,
    that you will be delighted with your results from a good, simple, entry
    level Canon. The new, Canon Pixma iP 3500, for instance, costs $79 (or
    less) and the replacement ink cartridges are reasonably priced.
    If you ever outgrow the 3500 (unlikely in 2-3 years), you will then have
    enough experience to know what specifications you want to upgrade to.

    Photo printing from online sources or at WalMart/Costco type stores is
    so competitive, that you can get excellent quality prints, usually for
    less than it would cost you to print the pictures yourself.....AND....
    the colors are more stable than those from consumer inkjet printers.

    Bob Williams
    Bob Williams, Oct 5, 2008
    #9
  10. Helen

    Alien Jones Guest

    Helen <> wrote in news:7bab3692-77f9-4d91-8158-
    :

    > I needed to downsize the contents of my home, so I decided to sell
    > things I have no use for. I made a tidy sum of approximately $600.
    > I'm looking for a good photo printer. I'll be honest, I know nothing
    > about them, so I decided to ask the pros on the groups before I go
    > into a photo shop and be at the mercy of some salesperson. Thanks for
    > your help.



    Forget the printing photos at home thing unless it's B&W you fancy and then
    be prepared for serious print costs... Like about 28¢ for a 6"x4" print.
    More if you want to use decent paper.

    Instead of this absurd notion people have that owning a desktop printer is
    somehow going to give you whatever it is you think it will (and it won't)
    ....open an account with "Snapfish.com" (owned by HP).

    Instead of a printer, invest in a spyder to calibrate your screen and the
    long lasting prints you get back from HP will always look amazing. Sharper
    than an inkjet and no colour bleaching issues. No messy inks and best of
    all, no regular cost for new ink tanks.

    Snapfish are absolutely guaranteed to supply you prints at less than half
    the cost of the cheapest inkjet printer and deliver them to your door
    inside a week.

    Like Alan Browne just told you, $500 worth of ink to replensih a desktop
    pigment printer... Any size pigment printer actually.

    Anything else is not worth having. Figure it out. 10¢ per print from
    Snapfish = 5000 prints for the cost of one set of ink tanks.

    Even getting 8"x12" prints done will still get you nearly 200 for the cost
    of a set of ink tanks. And don't forget the mess of spray coating your
    inkjet prints to even look like getting them to last as long as a real
    photo.

    Factor all your test prints into the desktop inkjet and you'd need a pretty
    good reason to be able to justify owning one, wouldn't you?
    Alien Jones, Oct 5, 2008
    #10
  11. Helen

    Jeff R. Guest

    Alien Jones wrote:

    > Like Alan Browne just told you, $500 worth of ink to replensih a
    > desktop pigment printer... Any size pigment printer actually.


    Having read and absorbed all that, let me simply state that I adore my Epson
    R800 pigment-based printer. I can replace all 8 tanks for a lot less than
    $500 (genuine dye - much less for clone).

    There is no doubt that a home inkjet printer makes little or no sense
    economically...

    -but-

    ...it is priceless for producing extremely high quality prints *instantly*.
    (Well five minutes actually, but that feels like "instantly" when compared
    to "less than a week.")

    If I have a bunch of prints to produce (some event or other) I'll use a
    lab -but- if I just want ot produce a one-off, or if I particularly want to
    produce a very specifically tailored print - or if I want the print *NOW*
    (not next week) then I'll use the Epson. The results are spectacular,
    instant but quite expensive.

    If one of my kids wants a quick print-out, I'll use the cheap dye-sub
    postcard printer. They love it - instant, on-demand and OK quality.

    If I were living on a fixed income I probably would elect for the cheap
    alternative, and farm it all out to the lab, but I can afford better than
    that.

    If you are very patient, the lab is satisfactory.
    Likewise, if you don't mind complaining about poor printing and then
    demanding reprints.
    Likewise if you don't mind sharing your private copyrighted masterpieces
    with some junior lab operator with an (who knows what) agenda.

    If you appreciate the luxury of producing your own custom output in the
    comfort of your own home, and you can afford the premium, then a home inkjet
    makes sense.

    I can't speak for brands other than Epson (such as the
    buy-for-the-price-of-the-ink Lexmarks), 'cause I've never owned one. They
    have to be better than interminable waits IF you can afford it.

    I use my colour laser for proofs, but its nowhere near photo quality.
    Cartoonish, but OK for proofs and layouts.

    --
    Jeff R.
    Jeff R., Oct 5, 2008
    #11
  12. Helen

    Keith nuttle Guest

    Jeff R. wrote:
    > Alien Jones wrote:
    >
    >> Like Alan Browne just told you, $500 worth of ink to replensih a
    >> desktop pigment printer... Any size pigment printer actually.

    >
    > Having read and absorbed all that, let me simply state that I adore my
    > Epson R800 pigment-based printer. I can replace all 8 tanks for a lot
    > less than $500 (genuine dye - much less for clone).
    >
    > There is no doubt that a home inkjet printer makes little or no sense
    > economically...
    >
    > -but-
    >
    > ..it is priceless for producing extremely high quality prints
    > *instantly*. (Well five minutes actually, but that feels like
    > "instantly" when compared to "less than a week.")
    >
    > If I have a bunch of prints to produce (some event or other) I'll use a
    > lab -but- if I just want ot produce a one-off, or if I particularly want
    > to produce a very specifically tailored print - or if I want the print
    > *NOW* (not next week) then I'll use the Epson. The results are
    > spectacular, instant but quite expensive.
    >
    > If one of my kids wants a quick print-out, I'll use the cheap dye-sub
    > postcard printer. They love it - instant, on-demand and OK quality.
    >
    > If I were living on a fixed income I probably would elect for the cheap
    > alternative, and farm it all out to the lab, but I can afford better
    > than that.
    >
    > If you are very patient, the lab is satisfactory.
    > Likewise, if you don't mind complaining about poor printing and then
    > demanding reprints.
    > Likewise if you don't mind sharing your private copyrighted masterpieces
    > with some junior lab operator with an (who knows what) agenda.
    >
    > If you appreciate the luxury of producing your own custom output in the
    > comfort of your own home, and you can afford the premium, then a home
    > inkjet makes sense.
    >
    > I can't speak for brands other than Epson (such as the
    > buy-for-the-price-of-the-ink Lexmarks), 'cause I've never owned one.
    > They have to be better than interminable waits IF you can afford it.
    >
    > I use my colour laser for proofs, but its nowhere near photo quality.
    > Cartoonish, but OK for proofs and layouts.
    >


    > Jeff R.
    >
    >
    >

    I have voted for Jeff R. solution. I would say that 95% of the time I
    view my photos on the computer. When I want a print it is wanted now to
    give to a relative who does not have a computer or for a special event
    (party, etc). Or it is needed by my wife who may be using it for a
    reference for a painting she is doing.

    In my opinion while quality and resolution are highly important;
    stability in paper photos is no longer a concern for the average
    photographer. If I print a paper photo and it is used such that it
    deteriorates after a year or two I will print another and replace the
    picture. The original image being dependent on pixels not chemicals
    will live for ever, if it is maintained on the current technology.

    For my paper photos, I use an old HP932c (one of the first truly photo
    quality printers), use the 8X11 photo paper, and them cut the photos
    apart. When providing photos to friends and relatives they never
    request one photo. The 8X11 is cheaper than the 4 X 6 photo paper.

    One last thing, I print my pictures in the aspect ratio of the digital
    image maximized to the 8 X 11 sheet not the standard chemical camera
    ratios 4X6, 3X5 etc.
    Keith nuttle, Oct 5, 2008
    #12
  13. Helen

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:38:33 -0700, Bob Williams
    <> wrote:

    >Helen wrote:
    >> I needed to downsize the contents of my home, so I decided to sell
    >> things I have no use for. I made a tidy sum of approximately $600.
    >> I'm looking for a good photo printer. I'll be honest, I know nothing
    >> about them, so I decided to ask the pros on the groups before I go
    >> into a photo shop and be at the mercy of some salesperson. Thanks for
    >> your help.

    >
    >Since your printing will be at an entry level, I'd suggest you START
    >with an entry level printer. All inkjet printers are so good nowadays,
    >that you will be delighted with your results from a good, simple, entry
    >level Canon. The new, Canon Pixma iP 3500, for instance, costs $79 (or
    >less) and the replacement ink cartridges are reasonably priced.
    >If you ever outgrow the 3500 (unlikely in 2-3 years), you will then have
    >enough experience to know what specifications you want to upgrade to.
    >
    >Photo printing from online sources or at WalMart/Costco type stores is
    >so competitive, that you can get excellent quality prints, usually for
    >less than it would cost you to print the pictures yourself.....AND....
    >the colors are more stable than those from consumer inkjet printers.
    >

    There's also a time and labor factor involved. I have relatives who
    live in another country and do not own a computer. If I want to send
    them - say - 30 family 4x6 snapshots, I'll order them online from
    Walgreens. I can pick up the prints in an hour.

    I could print those 30 snapshots on my Epson printer and the results
    would be about the same as the prints from Walgreens. The cost of the
    ink and the paper would be somewhat less, but I prefer the time and
    effort savings of ordering prints.

    I've never really compared the cost. Walgreens is currently at 19
    cents for a 4x6, but they do run specials as low as 9 cents each. I
    buy Epson ink in the bundle that includes a package of 4x6 print paper
    at very little extra cost. I've never bothered to count how many
    prints I get out of the Epson ink cartridges.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Oct 5, 2008
    #13
  14. Helen

    Alien Jones Guest

    Alan Browne <> wrote in
    news::

    > Jeff R. wrote:
    >> Alien Jones wrote:
    >>
    >>> Like Alan Browne just told you, $500 worth of ink to replensih a
    >>> desktop pigment printer... Any size pigment printer actually.

    >>
    >> Having read and absorbed all that, let me simply state that I adore
    >> my Epson R800 pigment-based printer. I can replace all 8 tanks for a
    >> lot less than $500 (genuine dye - much less for clone).

    >
    > There is a distortion of facts here.
    >
    > The first is that, of course, with a multi-cart printer you only
    > replace the carts that are empty. So you're not facing a $500 charge
    > all of the time. (My carts are about 20% full on average right now so
    > I'm ordering a full set next week which will get me a discount about
    > equal to the price of one cart..).
    >
    > After a few iterations of this, I will have some carts piling up. The
    > darker cyan and magenta are not used as much as the lighter ones; the
    > lighter blacks are used more quickly).
    >
    > The second is the cart capacity.
    >
    > On the Epson 3800 it is 80ml per cart.
    > On the R800 it is 15ml.
    >
    > A full set of 3800 carts will print approx. 640 8x12" prints (est.
    > includes 'ink tax' (losses of ink in operation)).
    >
    >> I use my colour laser for proofs, but its nowhere near photo quality.
    >> Cartoonish, but OK for proofs and layouts.

    >
    > Proofing requires colour verification.
    >



    Jeff Ralph's idea of proofing... Cartoonish photos! Gotta love these
    self styled "experts".

    The sad fact about desktop inkjets is that they were until quite
    recently, a golden cash cow for the printer makers. HP started to move
    to more ink in the tank and Epson had to follow.

    Desktop printer's in general are 6 to 7 times more expensive for ink
    tanks than wide format or Professional inkjets. Play with non-genuine
    ink at your own peril. If you have a $600 profiling system, you might
    keep the colours within acceptable limits but that's spending not saving
    more money again, isn't it?

    One of my (Dye) HP Designjets has monsterous tanks compared to a desktop
    but puts out long lasting prints on canvas or paper that cost less than
    a lab print. Whether or not the cost of the printer is justifable for
    home use is another thing altogether.

    HP make a small, desktop Designjet which does 6 colour output very
    economically in 13"x19" size but that is not your consumer grade $400,
    r800 Epson with miniscule tank capacity. Pay for what you get is never
    more applicable than with photo printers.

    Incidentally... Xerox lasers (even the $400 entry level ones) will put
    out magazine quality prints on the right paper. sRGB simulation output
    means you print screen colours on them out of the box.

    Gotta make you wonder when proofing with cartoon colours - why bother?
    Alien Jones, Oct 5, 2008
    #14
  15. Helen

    Helen Guest

    On Oct 4, 11:33 am, Helen <> wrote:
    > I needed to downsize the contents of my home, so I decided to sell
    > things I have no use for.  I made a tidy sum of approximately $600.
    > I'm looking for a good photo printer.  I'll be honest, I know nothing
    > about them, so I decided to ask the pros on the groups before I go
    > into a photo shop and be at the mercy of some salesperson.  Thanks for
    > your help.


    Thank you kindly to everyone for all your great info. I'm sorry it
    took this long for me to see your posts........Google was down. Some
    excellent suggestions.
    Most of my work is b&w, if that opens any further suggestions. Silly
    question but I have to ask: do any of these printers give the same
    archival quality as a b&w lab would?
    Again, thanks so much for you help guys!
    Helen
    Helen, Oct 5, 2008
    #15
  16. Helen

    Helen Guest

    On Oct 5, 7:18 am, "Jeff R." <> wrote:
    > Alien Jones wrote:
    > > Like Alan Browne just told you, $500 worth of ink to replensih a
    > > desktop pigment printer... Any size pigment printer actually.

    >
    > Having read and absorbed all that, let me simply state that I adore my Epson
    > R800 pigment-based printer.  I can replace all 8 tanks for a lot less than
    > $500 (genuine dye - much less for clone).
    >
    > There is no doubt that a home inkjet printer makes little or no sense
    > economically...
    >
    > -but-
    >
    > ..it is priceless for producing extremely high quality prints *instantly*..
    > (Well five minutes actually, but that feels like "instantly" when compared
    > to "less than a week.")
    >
    > If I have a bunch of prints to produce (some event or other) I'll use a
    > lab -but- if I just want ot produce a one-off, or if I particularly want to
    > produce a very specifically tailored print - or if I want the print *NOW*
    > (not next week) then I'll use the Epson.  The results are spectacular,
    > instant but quite expensive.
    >
    > If one of my kids wants a quick print-out, I'll use the cheap dye-sub
    > postcard printer.  They love it - instant, on-demand and OK quality.
    >
    > If I were living on a fixed income I probably would elect for the cheap
    > alternative, and farm it all out to the lab, but I can afford better than
    > that.
    >
    > If you are very patient, the lab is satisfactory.
    > Likewise, if you don't mind complaining about poor printing and then
    > demanding reprints.
    > Likewise if you don't mind sharing your private copyrighted masterpieces
    > with some junior lab operator with an (who knows what) agenda.
    >
    > If you appreciate the luxury of producing your own custom output in the
    > comfort of your own home, and you can afford the premium, then a home inkjet
    > makes sense.
    >
    > I can't speak for brands other than Epson (such as the
    > buy-for-the-price-of-the-ink Lexmarks), 'cause I've never owned one. They
    > have to be better than interminable waits IF you can afford it.
    >
    > I use my colour laser for proofs, but its nowhere near photo quality.
    > Cartoonish, but OK for proofs and layouts.
    >
    > --
    > Jeff R.



    The reason I was asking about printers at home is that someone asked
    to see a portfolio of my work. I have a lot of old prints from my
    film days, but I find I'm shooting digital almost always, so I thought
    I was in need of a printer. I didn't know I could have a
    professional printing shop do it for me. I will have to contemplate
    all these great suggestions. Thanks so much.
    Helen
    Helen, Oct 5, 2008
    #16
  17. Helen

    Helen Guest

    On Oct 4, 8:34 pm, John McWilliams <> wrote:
    > N wrote:
    > > "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...

    >
    > >> Nothing can beat the Espon 3800 for fidelity and longevity.

    >
    > > The OP admits to knowing nothing about colour printers.  Do you really
    > > think she wants a wide format printer costing about 3 times the
    > > available funds?

    >
    > Re-read the parts you snipped. I was correcting another poster's statements.
    >
    > Besides, Helen is a fast study, and deserves the best.
    >
    > --
    > lsmft



    Thanks John!
    Helen, Oct 5, 2008
    #17
  18. Helen

    Helen Guest

    On Oct 5, 5:33 pm, Alan Browne <>
    wrote:
    > Helen wrote:
    > > Most of my work is b&w, if that opens any further suggestions.  Silly
    > > question but I have to ask:  do any of these printers give the same
    > > archival quality as a b&w lab would?

    >
    > Use pigment based inks on acid free paper and mount with an air gap
    > behing UV glass and you're looking at 100+ years.
    >
    > --
    > -- r.p.e.35mm user resource:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    > --        r.p.d.slr-systems:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    > --      [SI] gallery & rulz:http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    > --                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
    > -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.



    Wow! Thanks Alan!
    Helen, Oct 5, 2008
    #18
  19. Helen

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >Helen wrote:


    >> Most of my work is b&w, if that opens any further suggestions. Silly
    >> question but I have to ask: do any of these printers give the same
    >> archival quality as a b&w lab would?

    >
    >Use pigment based inks on acid free paper and mount with an air gap
    >behing UV glass and you're looking at 100+ years.


    That all depends upon the inks and the maker of the inks. And it's
    still nothing close to what B&W paper can do.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Oct 5, 2008
    #19
  20. Helen

    Paul Furman Guest

    Ray Fischer wrote:
    > Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >> Helen wrote:

    >
    >>> Most of my work is b&w, if that opens any further suggestions. Silly
    >>> question but I have to ask: do any of these printers give the same
    >>> archival quality as a b&w lab would?

    >> Use pigment based inks on acid free paper and mount with an air gap
    >> behing UV glass and you're looking at 100+ years.

    >
    > That all depends upon the inks and the maker of the inks. And it's
    > still nothing close to what B&W paper can do.


    Factory inks are a given if you want 100 years life, 3rd party may be
    fine but it's unknown. I've sent out for Lightjet color prints ('real'
    photo paper) for larger sizes than 13x19 on my Epson R1800* but I'm not
    aware of a B&W paper for that, though I know a guy that does B&W on
    lightjet for selling as fine art prints with their color paper and no
    complaints. To do B&W on an inkjet, you'd want to dedicate a printer to
    B&W with a B&W ink set, continuous flow system with bottles & tubes and
    that's untested 3rd party ink.

    Epson R1800*
    My way of measuring ink use is to keep all my spent cartridges. Over a
    couple/few? years I've used:
    3 red
    4 blue
    4 matte black
    5 gloss optimizer
    6 photo black
    8 magenta
    10 cyan
    10 yellow

    That's a mix of gloss & matte paper, not much document printing (stinks
    at that anyways) and a lot of green landscapes & plant shots. 50 carts
    at $13 each I think from Calumet (would be $11 I think online but easier
    to go 10 blocks away & buy), so $650 which is about what the printer
    cost and a bunch of expensive paper. I like being able to test and
    experiment though.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Oct 5, 2008
    #20
    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. JohnNews
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,814
    Blue Jean
    Jun 24, 2003
  2. Jorge Alvarez

    Re: New Printer - Any suggestions

    Jorge Alvarez, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    670
    Master Tech ©
    Jul 11, 2003
  3. Lars Bonnesen

    Best color printer (photo printer) for a reasonable price

    Lars Bonnesen, Dec 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    991
    Lars Bonnesen
    Jan 1, 2005
  4. Ignoramus19259
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    798
    measekite
    Aug 28, 2007
  5. SS
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,029
    Mr. Arnold
    Jan 3, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page