Re: Reviews of Wide Printers?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bill Hilton, Aug 2, 2003.

  1. Bill Hilton

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >>> And how about HP's printers? I know they make wide-carriage
    >>> ink jets. Are these for photo work? Any good?



    >>Bill Hilton wrote:
    >>
    >> Epson and Canon S9000 are better for photo work.


    >From: "Roger N. Clark"
    >
    >Hey Bill, I have to disagree.


    Roger and I will try to argue this one with civility, since we've met while
    photographing birds at Bosque del Apache and are friends!

    >I know a professional photographer who bought a bunch of
    >epson printers, including the really big ones, hated them
    >and sold most of them off.


    I think the wide carriage 7500 and 1000 models that used the 2000p type pigment
    inks had some issues with metamerism and what not, but all this has been pretty
    much fixed with the Epson 7600 and 9600 series. I know of maybe two dozen big
    name nature and wildlife photographers who bought these and love them, and the
    manager of a big lab told me that these have practically killed off his
    LightJet 5000 business because they are so good. These are clearly the best
    photo printers available right now.

    In fact two of the best California labs, West Coast Imaging and Calypso, now
    offer 9600 prints for *exactly* the same price as LightJet 5000 prints. Pretty
    amazing when you consider one printer costs $5,000 and the other $130,000. You
    get very similar print quality with the same inks in the narrower carriage 2200
    for $650.

    >The HP can also do 1200x1200 dpi and 1200x2400 dpi printing.
    >This adds a sharpness that makes the prints have more
    >snap


    This sounds impressive, but the Epsons print up to 2880 x 1440 dpi with 7
    pigment inks. Plus you have a choice of light blacks, matte for art papers or
    photo black for glossier papers, for better blacks. Neither Canon nor HP offer
    this.

    >I also like the HPs for the color cartridges: if one clogs, pop in
    >a new one; no expensive repair.


    I've owned four Epson photo printers since 1995 and never had the so-called
    clogging problem with any of them (original Stylus Photo, Photo EX, 1280 and
    2200). I think it was at its worst with the 870/1270 models (judging from
    internet posts) but even then many of the people reporting clogging were using
    3rd party inks or not parking the heads when turning off the machine.

    A couple months ago I dusted off an old Epson EX (about 5 years old) that I
    hadn't used in a year. A relative wanted a printer so I figured I'd see if
    this one still worked and give it to him or donate it if it was terminally
    clogged (which I expected it was since I hadn't used it in so long). Two
    cleaning cycles and it was printing fine.

    I don't really see clogging as a major problem myself and you know I live in a
    very hot, dry climate. The 2200 has never clogged and the 1280 clogged badly
    once (actually had air bubbles) when I ran a cart dry trying to see how many
    extra prints I could get after the 'out of ink' warning. But I just don't have
    a problem with it and neither do my friends who use Epsons.

    See you in Ouray for the aspens perhaps? :)

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 2, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hi Bill.
    I didn't respond this weekend as I was upgrading computers.

    Bill Hilton wrote:

    > >>> And how about HP's printers? I know they make wide-carriage
    > >>> ink jets. Are these for photo work? Any good?

    >
    > >>Bill Hilton wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Epson and Canon S9000 are better for photo work.

    >
    > >From: "Roger N. Clark"
    > >
    > >Hey Bill, I have to disagree.

    >
    > Roger and I will try to argue this one with civility, since we've met while
    > photographing birds at Bosque del Apache and are friends!


    Yep. I guess I should have been clearer. The HPs
    make nice photos and are good all around printers.
    But in disagreeing I didn't mean to imply that HPs were
    actually better than epsons or canons. Each printer is
    a little different and has + and -. Bill: next time
    were in the field together, I'll show you some HP prints.
    Looking at samples in stores, many printers can print
    photos nicely. While I like the greens of HPs, skin tones
    show a little grainy, while the epsons do nice smooth
    skin tones. I think anyone looking at printers should
    consider the + and - of each for their tastes and use.

    > >I know a professional photographer who bought a bunch of
    > >epson printers, including the really big ones, hated them
    > >and sold most of them off.

    >
    > I think the wide carriage 7500 and 1000 models that used the 2000p type pigment inks had some issues with metamerism and what not, but all this has
    > been pretty much fixed with the Epson 7600 and 9600 series. I know of maybe two dozen big name nature and wildlife photographers who bought these
    > and love them, and the
    > manager of a big lab told me that these have practically killed off his LightJet 5000 business because they are so good. These are clearly the best
    > photo printers available right now.
    >
    > In fact two of the best California labs, West Coast Imaging and Calypso, now offer 9600 prints for *exactly* the same price as LightJet 5000
    > prints. Pretty amazing when you consider one printer costs $5,000 and the other $130,000. You get very similar print quality with the same inks in
    > the narrower carriage 2200
    > for $650.


    This is good news to hear! I checked with my 8x10 photo
    friend. He had older epsons, which he got rid of,
    and now uses epson 2200 and 9000. But he doesn't like
    epson inks and uses pigment inks. He says it's a pain and
    he must clean the heads every day.

    He agrees with you about the general quality of the 9600
    series and lightjet output: very close. He thinks the
    lightjet is slightly better, but very small considering the
    price difference of the printers. This should help
    bring prices down too. And at $5k now, the price should drop
    so more normal people could afford them. I'll have to
    look into this some more.

    > >The HP can also do 1200x1200 dpi and 1200x2400 dpi printing.
    > >This adds a sharpness that makes the prints have more
    > >snap

    >
    > This sounds impressive, but the Epsons print up to 2880 x 1440 dpi with 7 pigment inks. Plus you have a choice of light blacks, matte for art
    > papers or photo black for glossier papers, for better blacks. Neither Canon nor HP offer this.


    Well, we need a test, right? Apparently the epson drivers
    limit effective resolution to 300 ppi, regardless of the
    printer dpi.

    HP had a 6-color printer which was very good. They dropped
    it for their new technology that spits out multiple ink
    drops that blend while wet. The result is as good as
    the 6-ink system in my opinion.

    > >I also like the HPs for the color cartridges: if one clogs, pop in
    > >a new one; no expensive repair.

    >
    > I've owned four Epson photo printers since 1995 and never had the so-called clogging problem with any of them (original Stylus Photo, Photo EX, 1280
    > and 2200). I think it was at its worst with the 870/1270 models (judging from internet posts) but even then many of the people reporting clogging
    > were using 3rd party inks or not parking the heads when turning off the machine.
    >
    > A couple months ago I dusted off an old Epson EX (about 5 years old) that I hadn't used in a year. A relative wanted a printer so I figured I'd see
    > if this one still worked and give it to him or donate it if it was terminally clogged (which I expected it was since I hadn't used it in so long).
    > Two cleaning cycles and it was printing fine.
    >
    > I don't really see clogging as a major problem myself and you know I live in a very hot, dry climate. The 2200 has never clogged and the 1280
    > clogged badly once (actually had air bubbles) when I ran a cart dry trying to see how many extra prints I could get after the 'out of ink' warning.
    > But I just don't have a problem with it and neither do my friends who use Epsons.


    This is more good news. I've had numerous clogging problems
    with HP's cartridges. It seems such a waste to throw a
    half full one away. I often don't print for weeks, and then
    there is a chance of clogged cartridges. Also, if a cartridge
    sits in its package for months, it has a higher chance of
    clogging.

    > See you in Ouray for the aspens perhaps? :)


    I'm planning on it. I'm hoping for a banner year.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark, Aug 5, 2003
    #2
    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. PTRAVEL

    Reviews of Wide Printers?

    PTRAVEL, Aug 1, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    421
    PTRAVEL
    Aug 2, 2003
  2. Replies:
    31
    Views:
    2,448
    Jeff Rife
    Apr 27, 2006
  3. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    765
    Paul Rubin
    Jan 9, 2006
  4. Dauphin de Viennois

    Re: DSLR lenses not good wide open at wide angle?

    Dauphin de Viennois, Jul 16, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    552
    Roy Smith
    Jul 16, 2008
  5. PeterN

    Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors

    PeterN, Feb 16, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    886
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Mar 1, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page