Professional Photographers Inkjet Printer of Choice?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Donald Stouder, Feb 11, 2004.

  1. Hi Everyone,

    Based on what I have read and observed over some period of time, it
    seems that the inkjet printer of choice for professional photographers
    as been those made by Epson. I am referring here to those printers
    that make 8-1/2 x 11 on up to 13x19 prints. It appeared that this
    preference was based on print quality and the availability of color
    profiles and user control that the Epson printers provided relative
    Canon and HP.

    However, it get the feeling that HP and especially Canon have closed
    the gap or passed Epson in their print quality???

    So my fundamental question is now what printer do professional
    photographers prefer? Are they still going with Epson (2200, 1280,
    etc) or are they moving to HP or Canon to replace their Epsons?

    Thanks,

    Don S.
     
    Donald Stouder, Feb 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Donald Stouder

    Robertwgross Guest

    Donald wrote:
    >Based on what I have read and observed over some period of time, it
    >seems that the inkjet printer of choice for professional photographers
    >as been those made by Epson. ...


    I would not argue with that. Epson is probably first, Canon is a near second,
    and HP is a distant third. I've used a wide format Epson since 1997 now, and I
    have no intention of changing anything.

    Virtually any of those printers can be manipulated to get good results, and
    that depends on color calibration and mostly on paper.

    ---Bob Gross---
     
    Robertwgross, Feb 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Donald Stouder

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: Donald Stouder

    >Based on what I have read and observed over some period of time, it
    >seems that the inkjet printer of choice for professional photographers
    >as been those made by Epson. I am referring here to those printers
    >that make 8-1/2 x 11 on up to 13x19 prints.


    Many REAL professionals prefer the Epson 7600 and 9600 models, which print 24"
    and 44" wide, but they are expensive ($3,000 and $5,000) so you need to run a
    lot of prints to make them pay off. The Epson 2200 uses the same inks but in a
    13" wide carriage, and because the ink carts are so much smaller the running
    costs are much higher.

    >It appeared that this
    >preference was based on print quality and the availability of color
    >profiles and user control that the Epson printers provided relative
    >Canon and HP.


    Also a much longer print life per Wilhelm estimates, and a much wider range of
    Epson-supported paper types.

    >However, it get the feeling that HP and especially Canon have closed
    >the gap or passed Epson in their print quality?


    I think Canon pretty much caught up with the Epson 1280 class printer with
    their S9000 and subsequent models, but these all have a much shorter print life
    than the Epson's mentioned above with Ultrachrome inks and few pros would pick
    them for that reason.

    The new HP 7960 seems to have similar print life to the Epson Ultrachrome
    models, but is limited to 8.5" wide carriage.

    >So my fundamental question is now what printer do professional
    >photographers prefer? Are they still going with Epson (2200, 1280,
    >etc) or are they moving to HP or Canon to replace their Epsons?


    From what I see, few if any "professionals" use the Epson 1280, but the
    Ultrachrome ink models (2200, 7600, 9600) are still wildly popular. The new
    Epson 4000 (17" wide carriage) should also be a winner when it comes out next
    month.

    Canon won't compete in the pro market until they have longer lasting inks, I
    feel. I saw a link recently to a new Canon 24" wide printer with pigment inks
    which should provide competition for the Epson 7600, but they (Canon) need to
    migrate this ink technology down to the consumer grade printers to compete at
    that level. This one sold for $3,500, a bit more than the 7600 though.

    The HP 7960 sounds interesting but the prints are not big enough for pros, or
    so one hears.

    Bottom line, the Epson 2200 is hard to beat right now. The Canon 13" wide
    models are excellent but don't offer competitive print life. The HP 7960
    offers excellent print life but isn't big enough. At least that's the way I
    see it ...

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Feb 11, 2004
    #3
  4. Donald Stouder

    Ed E. Guest

    Many pros around me take their stuff to a nearby pro lab to have everything
    printed. I'm sure they have a nice inkjet for time-sensitive work, though.
     
    Ed E., Feb 11, 2004
    #4
  5. Donald Stouder

    Sf Guest

    Also I understand that the two of the makers are coming out with a 8color
    ink jet system.Check them out.



    "Ed E." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Many pros around me take their stuff to a nearby pro lab to have

    everything
    > printed. I'm sure they have a nice inkjet for time-sensitive work,

    though.
    >
    >
     
    Sf, Feb 11, 2004
    #5
  6. Donald Stouder

    AArDvarK Guest

    comp.periphs.printers

    Valid ink-jet 3rd party archival product
    sites for a little proof:
    http://www.piezography.com/
    http://www.cone-editions.com/
    http://coneeditions.com/
    http://www.inkjetart.com/
    http://www.mediastreet.com/index.html
    http://www.lyson.com/includes/frames.html
    http://www.digitalartsupplies.com/

    Everything 3rd party maker is for Epson
    and Canon, but mostly Epson. There is
    also CIS (coninuous [feed] ink systems)
    which can be added to any size printer,
    saves money buying bulk ink.
    --
    Sincerely,
    Alex

    "Donald Stouder" <> wrote in message news:...
    > Hi Everyone,
    >
    > Based on what I have read and observed over some period of time, it
    > seems that the inkjet printer of choice for professional photographers
    > as been those made by Epson. I am referring here to those printers
    > that make 8-1/2 x 11 on up to 13x19 prints. It appeared that this
    > preference was based on print quality and the availability of color
    > profiles and user control that the Epson printers provided relative
    > Canon and HP.
    >
    > However, it get the feeling that HP and especially Canon have closed
    > the gap or passed Epson in their print quality???
    >
    > So my fundamental question is now what printer do professional
    > photographers prefer? Are they still going with Epson (2200, 1280,
    > etc) or are they moving to HP or Canon to replace their Epsons?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Don S.
     
    AArDvarK, Feb 11, 2004
    #6
  7. Donald Stouder

    m II Guest

    Sf wrote:

    > Also I understand that the two of the makers are coming out with a 8color
    > ink jet system.Check them out.



    Great. It's probably going to cost three hundred dollars for an ink
    refreshment. Does anyone make a printer with easily refillable ink
    reservoirs? I would be the first in line to buy it, along with 500cc
    bottles of ink.




    mike
    --
    __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
    / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /
    / /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /
    /_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/

    ...Let the cat out to reply...
     
    m II, Feb 12, 2004
    #7
  8. Donald Stouder

    Sf Guest

    Screw Ink Jets.
    If you want really good pictures that NO ink jet can touch
    not even the 8 color ones go to Dye Sub printers there the best.



    "AArDvarK" <> wrote in message
    news:ujxWb.15294$IF1.10040@fed1read01...
    > comp.periphs.printers
    >
    > Valid ink-jet 3rd party archival product
    > sites for a little proof:
    > http://www.piezography.com/
    > http://www.cone-editions.com/
    > http://coneeditions.com/
    > http://www.inkjetart.com/
    > http://www.mediastreet.com/index.html
    > http://www.lyson.com/includes/frames.html
    > http://www.digitalartsupplies.com/
    >
    > Everything 3rd party maker is for Epson
    > and Canon, but mostly Epson. There is
    > also CIS (coninuous [feed] ink systems)
    > which can be added to any size printer,
    > saves money buying bulk ink.
    > --
    > Sincerely,
    > Alex
    >
    > "Donald Stouder" <> wrote in message

    news:...
    > > Hi Everyone,
    > >
    > > Based on what I have read and observed over some period of time, it
    > > seems that the inkjet printer of choice for professional photographers
    > > as been those made by Epson. I am referring here to those printers
    > > that make 8-1/2 x 11 on up to 13x19 prints. It appeared that this
    > > preference was based on print quality and the availability of color
    > > profiles and user control that the Epson printers provided relative
    > > Canon and HP.
    > >
    > > However, it get the feeling that HP and especially Canon have closed
    > > the gap or passed Epson in their print quality???
    > >
    > > So my fundamental question is now what printer do professional
    > > photographers prefer? Are they still going with Epson (2200, 1280,
    > > etc) or are they moving to HP or Canon to replace their Epsons?
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > >
    > > Don S.

    >
    >
     
    Sf, Feb 12, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <>,
    says...
    > Hi Everyone,
    >
    > Based on what I have read and observed over some period of time, it
    > seems that the inkjet printer of choice for professional photographers
    > as been those made by Epson. I am referring here to those printers
    > that make 8-1/2 x 11 on up to 13x19 prints. It appeared that this
    > preference was based on print quality and the availability of color
    > profiles and user control that the Epson printers provided relative
    > Canon and HP.
    >
    > However, it get the feeling that HP and especially Canon have closed
    > the gap or passed Epson in their print quality???
    >
    > So my fundamental question is now what printer do professional
    > photographers prefer? Are they still going with Epson (2200, 1280,
    > etc) or are they moving to HP or Canon to replace their Epsons?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Don S.
    >

    The epson 2200/2100 and it's bigger brothers are the current favorites
    with photographers. Many people have had problems with color fading with
    dye-based inkjets and now stick to pigmented inks. This is especially
    important if you are planning to sell your pictures or display them on
    the wall.

    --
    Robert D Feinman

    Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips
    http://robertdfeinman.com
     
    Robert Feinman, Feb 12, 2004
    #9
  10. Donald Stouder

    JohnS Guest

    I wouldn't buy Epson ever again, and I've had a few.
    The printer was great when it worked, but splashed ink all over prints.
    Cost more in waste than the printer.
    Epson (UK) Ltd didn't want to know.
    HP are OK but I've never been happy with the paper handling.
    Go with Canon, that's my recommendation.
    John

    "Robert Feinman" <> wrote in message news:...
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > Hi Everyone,
    > >
    > > Based on what I have read and observed over some period of time, it
    > > seems that the inkjet printer of choice for professional photographers
    > > as been those made by Epson. I am referring here to those printers
    > > that make 8-1/2 x 11 on up to 13x19 prints. It appeared that this
    > > preference was based on print quality and the availability of color
    > > profiles and user control that the Epson printers provided relative
    > > Canon and HP.
    > >
    > > However, it get the feeling that HP and especially Canon have closed
    > > the gap or passed Epson in their print quality???
    > >
    > > So my fundamental question is now what printer do professional
    > > photographers prefer? Are they still going with Epson (2200, 1280,
    > > etc) or are they moving to HP or Canon to replace their Epsons?
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > >
    > > Don S.
    > >

    > The epson 2200/2100 and it's bigger brothers are the current favorites
    > with photographers. Many people have had problems with color fading with
    > dye-based inkjets and now stick to pigmented inks. This is especially
    > important if you are planning to sell your pictures or display them on
    > the wall.
    >
    > --
    > Robert D Feinman
    >
    > Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips
    > http://robertdfeinman.com
     
    JohnS, Feb 12, 2004
    #10
  11. Donald Stouder

    AArDvarK Guest

    I have heard of them, solid ink applied with heat.
    But has any maker ever come out with one that
    does not* leave a "computer obvious" pattern as
    part of the image? And what company makes them?

    Alex

    "Sf" <> wrote in message news:GRCWb.290546$na.449008@attbi_s04...
    > Screw Ink Jets.
    > If you want really good pictures that NO ink jet can touch
    > not even the 8 color ones go to Dye Sub printers there the best.
    >
    >
    >
    > "AArDvarK" <> wrote in message
    > news:ujxWb.15294$IF1.10040@fed1read01...
    > > comp.periphs.printers
    > >
    > > Valid ink-jet 3rd party archival product
    > > sites for a little proof:
    > > http://www.piezography.com/
    > > http://www.cone-editions.com/
    > > http://coneeditions.com/
    > > http://www.inkjetart.com/
    > > http://www.mediastreet.com/index.html
    > > http://www.lyson.com/includes/frames.html
    > > http://www.digitalartsupplies.com/
    > >
    > > Everything 3rd party maker is for Epson
    > > and Canon, but mostly Epson. There is
    > > also CIS (coninuous [feed] ink systems)
    > > which can be added to any size printer,
    > > saves money buying bulk ink.
    > > --
    > > Sincerely,
    > > Alex
    > >
    > > "Donald Stouder" <> wrote in message

    > news:...
    > > > Hi Everyone,
    > > >
    > > > Based on what I have read and observed over some period of time, it
    > > > seems that the inkjet printer of choice for professional photographers
    > > > as been those made by Epson. I am referring here to those printers
    > > > that make 8-1/2 x 11 on up to 13x19 prints. It appeared that this
    > > > preference was based on print quality and the availability of color
    > > > profiles and user control that the Epson printers provided relative
    > > > Canon and HP.
    > > >
    > > > However, it get the feeling that HP and especially Canon have closed
    > > > the gap or passed Epson in their print quality???
    > > >
    > > > So my fundamental question is now what printer do professional
    > > > photographers prefer? Are they still going with Epson (2200, 1280,
    > > > etc) or are they moving to HP or Canon to replace their Epsons?
    > > >
    > > > Thanks,
    > > >
    > > > Don S.

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    AArDvarK, Feb 12, 2004
    #11
  12. Donald Stouder <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Hi Everyone,
    >
    > Based on what I have read and observed over some period of time, it
    > seems that the inkjet printer of choice for professional photographers
    > as been those made by Epson. I am referring here to those printers
    > that make 8-1/2 x 11 on up to 13x19 prints. It appeared that this
    > preference was based on print quality and the availability of color
    > profiles and user control that the Epson printers provided relative
    > Canon and HP.
    >
    > However, it get the feeling that HP and especially Canon have closed
    > the gap or passed Epson in their print quality???
    >
    > So my fundamental question is now what printer do professional
    > photographers prefer? Are they still going with Epson (2200, 1280,
    > etc) or are they moving to HP or Canon to replace their Epsons?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Don S.


    I have the Epson 2200 and the prints from a properly exposed digital
    file are virtually indistinguishable from a chemically processed print
    of a properly exposed film image. I print all my images - film and
    digital - on luster finish paper. I print all my images to 9X13.5
    inches. In fact, the ink-jet prints have less noise at ISO 400 than
    chemical prints have grain at the same ISO setting.

    Michael
     
    street shooter, Feb 12, 2004
    #12
  13. Donald Stouder

    Sf Guest

    Check with Hi Ti 630PS, 640PS, or Olympus 440 series.


    "AArDvarK" <> wrote in message
    news:QCRWb.15628$IF1.11188@fed1read01...
    >
    > I have heard of them, solid ink applied with heat.
    > But has any maker ever come out with one that
    > does not* leave a "computer obvious" pattern as
    > part of the image? And what company makes them?
    >
    > Alex
    >
    > "Sf" <> wrote in message

    news:GRCWb.290546$na.449008@attbi_s04...
    > > Screw Ink Jets.
    > > If you want really good pictures that NO ink jet can touch
    > > not even the 8 color ones go to Dye Sub printers there the best.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "AArDvarK" <> wrote in message
    > > news:ujxWb.15294$IF1.10040@fed1read01...
    > > > comp.periphs.printers
    > > >
    > > > Valid ink-jet 3rd party archival product
    > > > sites for a little proof:
    > > > http://www.piezography.com/
    > > > http://www.cone-editions.com/
    > > > http://coneeditions.com/
    > > > http://www.inkjetart.com/
    > > > http://www.mediastreet.com/index.html
    > > > http://www.lyson.com/includes/frames.html
    > > > http://www.digitalartsupplies.com/
    > > >
    > > > Everything 3rd party maker is for Epson
    > > > and Canon, but mostly Epson. There is
    > > > also CIS (coninuous [feed] ink systems)
    > > > which can be added to any size printer,
    > > > saves money buying bulk ink.
    > > > --
    > > > Sincerely,
    > > > Alex
    > > >
    > > > "Donald Stouder" <> wrote in message

    > > news:...
    > > > > Hi Everyone,
    > > > >
    > > > > Based on what I have read and observed over some period of time, it
    > > > > seems that the inkjet printer of choice for professional

    photographers
    > > > > as been those made by Epson. I am referring here to those printers
    > > > > that make 8-1/2 x 11 on up to 13x19 prints. It appeared that this
    > > > > preference was based on print quality and the availability of color
    > > > > profiles and user control that the Epson printers provided relative
    > > > > Canon and HP.
    > > > >
    > > > > However, it get the feeling that HP and especially Canon have closed
    > > > > the gap or passed Epson in their print quality???
    > > > >
    > > > > So my fundamental question is now what printer do professional
    > > > > photographers prefer? Are they still going with Epson (2200, 1280,
    > > > > etc) or are they moving to HP or Canon to replace their Epsons?
    > > > >
    > > > > Thanks,
    > > > >
    > > > > Don S.
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Sf, Feb 12, 2004
    #13
  14. On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:33:18 -0000, "JohnS" <>
    wrote:

    >I wouldn't buy Epson ever again, and I've had a few.
    >The printer was great when it worked, but splashed ink all over prints.
    >Cost more in waste than the printer.
    >Epson (UK) Ltd didn't want to know.
    >HP are OK but I've never been happy with the paper handling.
    >Go with Canon, that's my recommendation.
    >John



    I've used both over the years, quite a few Epsons
    (starting with the SC600) and for the last year and
    a half, Canon S9000. I'm picking up a used
    Epson 7000 this weekend -- seriously psyched!

    In terms of image quality, they're about equal.

    Canon still hasn't got any reasonably priced
    printers that use pigment inks.

    Canons are much faster, and have removable
    heads (nice!!!) and are (in my experience) a bit
    less trouble to keep running well.

    Still, the Canon print driver sucks, and there's a
    microbanding on my S9000 that is unfortunately
    part of the design, and by no means unique to
    my printer. This is a serious problem IMO, and
    I don't know if the i9000 fixes it or not. Never
    saw anything like it on my Epsons.

    Epsons have historically had a huge following
    among pro photographers, and for good
    reason, but we are well aware that Canon is
    moving up fast, and is about to eat Epson's
    lunch.

    Canon and Epson have both recently announced
    8 color printers using CMYKcmOG inks. Epson
    is onto its 3rd generation of pigment inks.
    Interesting times!



    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Feb 13, 2004
    #14
  15. Donald Stouder

    RAD Guest

    Raphael Bustin wrote:

    > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:33:18 -0000, "JohnS" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>

    > Still, the Canon print driver sucks, and there's a
    > microbanding on my S9000 that is unfortunately
    > part of the design, and by no means unique to
    > my printer. This is a serious problem IMO, and
    > I don't know if the i9000 fixes it or not. Never
    > saw anything like it on my Epsons.
    >

    I have the i9100 and have not had any banding so far. But I haven't
    printed too much yet, gone through about 3 carts on some colors and 4 on
    others.

    RAD
     
    RAD, Feb 13, 2004
    #15
  16. Donald Stouder

    AArDvarK Guest

    Hey Rafe, really neat site. I ran into it a couple
    months ago and I wonder what is the font you
    use, it is the text below the photo on the front
    home page with the extra large capitols ... ?
    I love fonts of class design, good taste! I
    could not get an answer in alt.binaries.fonts
    so can you tell me where I can attain it?

    Alex

    "Raphael Bustin" <> wrote in message news:...
    > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:33:18 -0000, "JohnS" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >I wouldn't buy Epson ever again, and I've had a few.
    > >The printer was great when it worked, but splashed ink all over prints.
    > >Cost more in waste than the printer.
    > >Epson (UK) Ltd didn't want to know.
    > >HP are OK but I've never been happy with the paper handling.
    > >Go with Canon, that's my recommendation.
    > >John

    >
    >
    > I've used both over the years, quite a few Epsons
    > (starting with the SC600) and for the last year and
    > a half, Canon S9000. I'm picking up a used
    > Epson 7000 this weekend -- seriously psyched!
    >
    > In terms of image quality, they're about equal.
    >
    > Canon still hasn't got any reasonably priced
    > printers that use pigment inks.
    >
    > Canons are much faster, and have removable
    > heads (nice!!!) and are (in my experience) a bit
    > less trouble to keep running well.
    >
    > Still, the Canon print driver sucks, and there's a
    > microbanding on my S9000 that is unfortunately
    > part of the design, and by no means unique to
    > my printer. This is a serious problem IMO, and
    > I don't know if the i9000 fixes it or not. Never
    > saw anything like it on my Epsons.
    >
    > Epsons have historically had a huge following
    > among pro photographers, and for good
    > reason, but we are well aware that Canon is
    > moving up fast, and is about to eat Epson's
    > lunch.
    >
    > Canon and Epson have both recently announced
    > 8 color printers using CMYKcmOG inks. Epson
    > is onto its 3rd generation of pigment inks.
    > Interesting times!
    >
    >
    >
    > rafe b.
    > http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    AArDvarK, Feb 13, 2004
    #16
  17. Donald Stouder

    Hils Guest

    AArDvarK wrote

    >Hey Rafe, really neat site. I ran into it a couple
    >months ago and I wonder what is the font you
    >use, it is the text below the photo on the front
    >home page with the extra large capitols ... ?
    >I love fonts of class design, good taste! I
    >could not get an answer in alt.binaries.fonts
    >so can you tell me where I can attain it?
    >
    >Alex


    Looks to me like TNR 10pt with 200% line height and 16pt drop caps. :)

    --
    Hil
     
    Hils, Feb 16, 2004
    #17
  18. Donald Stouder

    AArDvarK Guest

    Okay I saw the source, it's html tricks on the text <laughs>
    Alex

    "Hils"
    > Looks to me like TNR 10pt with 200% line height and 16pt drop caps. :)
    >
    > --
    > Hil
     
    AArDvarK, Feb 16, 2004
    #18
    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. Fred
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    576
    Phillip Remaker
    Dec 11, 2003
  2. Lionel
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    2,828
    Lionel
    Jul 15, 2003
  3. Eatmorepies

    Choice of inkjet paper

    Eatmorepies, Feb 6, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    40
    Views:
    1,144
    Bill Tuthill
    Feb 12, 2007
  4. Talal Itani

    Which inkjet printer for a professional photographer?

    Talal Itani, Jul 1, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    944
    ASAAR
    Jul 9, 2008
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    345
    RichA
    Sep 10, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page