Reviews of Wide Printers?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PTRAVEL, Aug 1, 2003.

  1. PTRAVEL

    PTRAVEL Guest

    My apologies for writing a longer post than I intended.

    My "Is the Epson 2200 the way to go?" post opened a whole can of worms for
    me. I read a review of the printer and have two concerns: bronzing on
    glossy paper (I like glossy paper), and cost of ink. Though I'm strictly an
    amateur photographer, I'm not a casual "snap shooter." I travel a lot and
    do as-yet amateur video travelogues which frequently incorporate still
    montages. Besides being used in the videos (and doing standard-duty in
    photo albums), I like to make large, high-quality enlargements of my travel
    shots.

    I'm getting rid of my color darkroom in favor of an all-digital (my purchase
    of a Canon 10d was the key -- I'm comfortable that digital finally
    approaches chemical film in quality). I don't sell my work -- just put them
    up in my house and office and give them to friends who say, "Hey, nice
    picture!" I routinely print 16 x 20 in the darkroom. 13 x 19 is close
    enough, so the sub-$1000 printers will do nicely. I'm not concerned with
    archival-quality. Whether the print lasts 10 years or 100 years doesn't
    matter to me. I won't be around for the latter end of the spectrum, and if
    a print starts to fade, I can always reprint it.

    Which brings me to my concerns:

    From the review that I read, the Epson 2200 is the printer of choice IF
    you're doing fine-art prints on, specifically, Epson matte paper. I don't
    want to be restricted in my paper choices and, as I've mentioned, I prefer
    glossy prints. I also don't want to be in a situation where each print
    costs me more than the same print if I used my chemcial darkroom; if the
    Epson inks and papers are too costly, I'll never hear the end of it from my
    wife. ;) I understand that the Epson 2200 is also slow; I don't want to
    spend 30 minutes waiting for a print to finish, when I can do a chemical
    print in 10 minutes, though, I suppose, I can set up a print run at night
    and wake in the morning to a stack of nice prints. Bronzing on glossy paper
    is also an issue, though I read something that suggested that the problem
    could be eliminated by using a UV protective spray (which probably isn't a
    bad idea, anyway). Has anyone tried this? Does it work?

    The Epson 1280 was suggested by some people. Unfortunatley, I haven't been
    able to find any comparison reviews (I wish dpreview.com covered printers).
    Evidently, it is older technology than the 2200, but uses dyes, rather than
    pigment inks. Just how good is it? The 2200 review implied that prints
    from the 1280 aren't as bright, sharp or saturated. Are we talking about
    barely-perceivable differences, or is the quality difference significant?
    I'm only concerned with image quality -- I want prints that equal what I do
    in the darkroom. If the 1280 can do this, then it might be a better choice.

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

    Price isn't the driving concern, and I'd rather not compromise on quality if
    it just means saving a couple of hundred dollars (though the cost of the
    Epson 2200 is about as much as I'm willing to spend).

    I'd really appreciate it if anyone can direct me to comparison reviews of
    these printers. I'd also very much like to hear from any advanced amateurs
    (or pros) who can give me an objective evaluation of the printers,
    particularly as compared to chemcial photographic prints. I'm grateful to
    those who've responded to my first post, but I'm hoping for a little more
    detail if possible.

    And, in return, if anyone wants any advice about digital video, I'd be happy
    to oblige. ;)

    Thanks!
    PTRAVEL, Aug 1, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. PTRAVEL

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "PTRAVEL"

    >My "Is the Epson 2200 the way to go?" post opened a whole can of worms for
    >me. I read a review of the printer and have two concerns: bronzing on
    >glossy paper (I like glossy paper), and cost of ink.


    If worried about the bronzing just use either the semi-gloss paper (which is
    excellent) or the Luster.

    http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_03-14-03.html for info on ink costs
    (scroll down a bit) ... a bit over $3 for 11 x 16.5". Darn sight cheaper than
    buying a custom Ilfochrome ...

    >I'm not concerned with archival-quality. Whether the print
    >lasts 10 years or 100 years doesn't matter to me.


    The Epson 1280 or Canon S9000 would be fine for someone like you.

    >From the review that I read, the Epson 2200 is the printer of choice IF
    >you're doing fine-art prints on, specifically, Epson matte paper.


    ? Dunno where you heard this from but the part about matte paper is definitely
    not true. The 7600 and 9600 use the same inks but it costs about $100 to
    switch from matte black to photo black on them so owners tend to pick one ink
    and stick with it. Almost all the guys I know using these printers are
    printing landscapes on Semi-Gloss and portraits on Luster (except for the b/w
    guys and people printing non-photo images like digital paintings, who seem to
    prefer the matte black inks and art papers). And the matte has the shortest
    print life of the six papers Epson supports. To my eye the Watercolor -
    Brilliant White looks much better.

    Matte HW is a top choice for people selling prints from the 1280 because it has
    a longer print life than PGPP, but that doesn't matter to you.

    >I understand that the Epson 2200 is also slow; I don't want to
    >spend 30 minutes waiting for a print to finish, when I can do a chemical
    >print in 10 minutes


    I think it takes me 7-8 minutes most of the time, maybe 15 minutes for a 12 x
    18" print ... speeds up if you use the USB or Firewire ports rather than the
    parallel port.

    >The Epson 1280 was suggested by some people. Unfortunatley, I haven't been
    >able to find any comparison reviews ... Evidently, it is older technology than

    the 2200,
    > but uses dyes, rather than pigment inks. Just how good is it? The 2200

    review
    > implied that prints from the 1280 aren't as bright, sharp or saturated.


    If you're really losing sleep over this go to this site and blow $45 and order
    four test prints, two each from the 2200 and 1280 on papers of interest, and
    compare them directly so you can decide for yourself. That's what I did when
    the 2200 first came out (I already had the 1280) ... I bought the 2200 too
    after comparing image quality, which seemed very comparable (but I wanted the
    longer print life).

    http://www.inkjetart.com/custom/

    They will print the test image on 7 different papers for you for a fee. You
    will learn more from looking at the test prints than from posting 20 more
    questions on the newsgroups.

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


    Epson and Canon S9000 are better for photo work.

    >I'd really appreciate it if anyone can direct me to comparison reviews of
    >these printers.


    Try these ...

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/1280.shtml
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/Epson2200.shtml

    At the end of the 2200 review he briefly discusses which printer to buy, the
    2200 vs 1280 vs S9000.

    >I'm hoping for a little more detail if possible.


    Buy a couple of test prints and decide first-hand if still on the fence. From
    what you describe I think you'll be fine with the 1280 or Canon S9000, you
    don't really need the 2200.

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

  3. PTRAVEL

    Bob Hatch Guest

    "PTRAVEL" <> wrote in message
    news:bgef0j$nfthp$-berlin.de...
    Bronzing on glossy paper
    > is also an issue, though I read something that suggested that the problem
    > could be eliminated by using a UV protective spray (which probably isn't a
    > bad idea, anyway). Has anyone tried this? Does it work?
    >

    Yes, bronzing is a problem with the 7600 as well, and I use mostly Premium
    Luster. I spray each print with 2 or 3 light coats of Lumijet ImageShield
    Spray. The bronzing disappears.

    >


    --
    http://www.bobhatch.com
    Our web site about RV Stuff
    A work in progress
    Bob Hatch, Aug 2, 2003
    #3
  4. PTRAVEL

    Abrasha Guest

    Bob Hatch wrote:
    >
    > "PTRAVEL" <> wrote in message
    > news:bgef0j$nfthp$-berlin.de...
    > Bronzing on glossy paper
    > > is also an issue, though I read something that suggested that the problem
    > > could be eliminated by using a UV protective spray (which probably isn't a
    > > bad idea, anyway). Has anyone tried this? Does it work?
    > >

    > Yes, bronzing is a problem with the 7600 as well, and I use mostly Premium
    > Luster. I spray each print with 2 or 3 light coats of Lumijet ImageShield
    > Spray. The bronzing disappears.
    >



    What is bronzing?

    Abrasha
    http://www.abrasha.com
    Abrasha, Aug 2, 2003
    #4
  5. PTRAVEL

    Dierk Haasis Guest

    On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 12:28:20 -0700, "PTRAVEL" <>
    wrote:

    >My "Is the Epson 2200 the way to go?" post opened a whole can of worms for
    >me. I read a review of the printer and have two concerns: bronzing on
    >glossy paper (I like glossy paper), and cost of ink


    Bronzing is way exaggerated in most comments. One, usually you don't
    examine photos at an angle (and to see the effect you need quite a
    large one). Second, if you don't know of the effect you won't realise
    it. Third, the effect isn't as pronounced as sometimes written.

    BTW, I remember a time (the 70s) when certain laboratory papers were
    used to create such an effect.

    --

    Dierk
    Dierk Haasis, Aug 2, 2003
    #5
  6. PTRAVEL

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "Abrasha" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Bob Hatch wrote:
    > >
    > > "PTRAVEL" <> wrote in message
    > > news:bgef0j$nfthp$-berlin.de...
    > > Bronzing on glossy paper
    > > > is also an issue, though I read something that suggested that the

    problem
    > > > could be eliminated by using a UV protective spray (which probably

    isn't a
    > > > bad idea, anyway). Has anyone tried this? Does it work?
    > > >

    > > Yes, bronzing is a problem with the 7600 as well, and I use mostly

    Premium
    > > Luster. I spray each print with 2 or 3 light coats of Lumijet

    ImageShield
    > > Spray. The bronzing disappears.
    > >

    >
    >
    > What is bronzing?


    Areas with heavy concentrations of ink "glaze over," forming a reflective
    patch.


    >
    > Abrasha
    > http://www.abrasha.com
    PTRAVEL, Aug 2, 2003
    #6
    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. Bill Hilton

    Re: Reviews of Wide Printers?

    Bill Hilton, Aug 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    390
    Roger N. Clark
    Aug 5, 2003
  2. Replies:
    31
    Views:
    2,327
    Jeff Rife
    Apr 27, 2006
  3. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    704
    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:
    498
    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:
    781
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Mar 1, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page