Buying my first printer

[Jager]

I read on the P800 review mentioned earlier that it does a good job on B&W prints as well. What's the benefit of having a dedicated B&W printer on the side? Is the difference so noticeable that this is something worth considering for me, too? I think I might be printing something like 10% of my work B&W.

Yes, indeed, the P800 does an outstanding job with B&W, using its OEM inks.  I highly recommend Epson's ABW mode.

I use a second, dedicated printer for B&W printing because I'm primarily a monochrome shooter.  Piezography provides an extremely high fidelity option in that venue.  Higher resolution (Piezography does not use dithering), cheaper inks (though the upfront cost to get started is not insignificant), and the ability to mix different inkset channels to achieve split-toning.  The workflow is somewhat more complicated.  But the results are worth it, IMO. 

For someone who prints mostly in color, I think Epson's OEM inks w/ABW mode are more than adequate.  You can make absolutely terrific B&W prints with that combination.  Piezography is a great option for those looking for the ultimate in B&W inkjet printing.  The ideal is to have both at hand and I consider myself very fortunate.

[Ferp]

Yes, indeed, the P800 does an outstanding job with B&W, using its OEM inks.  I highly recommend Epson's ABW mode.

Jeff, you said that you're a Piezography user on your other printer, which I assume means that you print with QTR.  Why do you recommend ABW rather than QTR for a printer with OEM inks?

For the OP, my vote would be for a new or near-new 3880 if you could find one, and the P800 if you can't, on the hope that it is as trouble-free as the 3880 has been.  Anything smaller than these doesn't make economic sense in my view (ink cost) and is too limiting, and the larger printers really do need to be used far more often than you're proposing.  Especially the x900 series.  The 3880/P800 hits the sweet spot, unless you really must print wider than 17".

I suggest you need some experience with B&W on one of these printers using OEM inks before you will be in a position to decide whether you would benefit from a dedicated B&W printer.

[Jager]

Jeff, you said that you're a Piezography user on your other printer, which I assume means that you print with QTR.  Why do you recommend ABW rather than QTR for a printer with OEM inks?

Ferp, yes, I use QTR in conjunction with Piezography.  Works very well.  And, of course, a RIP like QTR is required for Piezography.

I made a number of prints using QTR with the OEM Epson inks before I converted my 3880 to Piezography.  I didn't really see much difference between the QTR prints and those made with ABW.  So I didn't really see any qualitative benefit to using QTR with the OEM inks.

Related to that... one of the great benefits of using the Epson driver is the ability to print directly from Photoshop and Lightroom.  Lightroom, in particular, with the way it dynamically scales output sharpening to the selected print size, dispenses with the need to create and maintain multiple master files of the same image.  It's a great convenience to go directly from image editing to soft proof to printer.  I'm willing to forgo that for something like Piezography, where the qualitative differences are very noticeable, but, alas, never saw that kind of improvement with QTR and the OEM inks.

YMMV, of course.

[Some Guy]

Personally, I'd wait for the reviews on the new Canon.

More ink.  Wider gamut with 12 carts.  Hopefully better transport than the 3880 and the Pizza wheel marks (Little dark dots every few inches).  No need for wasting ink in the PK to MK ink switch, along with the often finicky valve.  Ability to maybe change the head out yourself rather than throwing a 3880 into the trashcan as the head costs more than the printer - if you can still find them (China).  Better support form Canon too as on one of my old ones the parts were no longer available and they have some Valued Customer deal where they offer you a new model at a reduced price.

The roll paper on the P800 isn't a deal maker in that often roll papers fed into the Epson's will end up with print head edge strikes due to the edges and ends curling up.   I put some monkey bars on the back of one 3880 and fed it 17" roll paper, but the results haven't been that good with the curl aspects, and oftne half to resort to D-rollers to flatten it out prior to feeding so no roller for that part.  One reason for the vacuum on better models.  Hopefully Canon has something new there.

As to Piezography, I really cannot find it to be that advantageous.  The B&W tint is locked to the inkset and color of the paper.  If you don't like it, then you are out $450 in ink.  Lots of work and expense to tune it in too (Linearization) if you visit the QTR forums on Yahoo!  I'd guess that half my piezo ink costs have been wasted in clogs, linearization tests, etc. rather than printing and a lot of those I've trashed due to awful yellow tints even in their selenium line which should be cooler like my old Kodak paper prints that had a purple black tine and the piezo is yellowish.  Just leave it in Adobe RGB and tint there and print, that or use the ABW in Epson.  Canon may have a better B&W in the new line too and maybe a Gloss Optimizer as well which is the only part of the Piezo I like.

My only concern is if Canon put a limit on the length of paper into the new ones.  I'd like to see a panorama mode without resorting to some costly RIP driver.

Wait for the reviews and see...

SG

[Jeff-Grant]

Jeff, without wishing to distract from the purpose of this thread, are you saying that ABW gives good results straight out of the box? My understanding is that there is a whole lot of process around it.

[Jager]

Jeff, without wishing to distract from the purpose of this thread, are you saying that ABW gives good results straight out of the box? My understanding is that there is a whole lot of process around it.

Aye, that indeed is what I'm saying, Jeff.  ABW is very straightforward to use.  And results have always been consistently outstanding for me.  Not as good as Piezography K7, but excellent nonetheless.

[Chris Kern]

Very similar circumstances here: amateur photographer, print infrequently and at long intervals, finally decided I wanted to do it myself rather than continue to turn the job over to a commercial lab.  I purchased a P800 in August and have only used it twice, on the second occasion after an interval of over a month.  Worked fine when I again made some prints the other day — no sign of any clogging problems.  By default, the device goes into power-saving mode after a few minutes of inactivity so just I leave it on.  Of course, the long-term viability of this approach remains to be seen.  I selected the P800 based on (1) the early reviews and (2) the reputation of the 38XX series.  I did not buy the roll feeder, but I wanted to have the option.

I was reasonably happy with the results I was getting from the lab I used, but I couldn't properly soft-proof because they didn't provide printer-paper profiles for their environment: they had their customers submit TIFFs in Adobe RGB and the printing technician did the soft-proofing.  So it was a bit of a crap shoot as to exactly how the finished product would turn out.  But the real reason I bought a printer wasn't that, or the lab fees — given the price of ink and paper (including the fact that I have to eat the cost of any failed efforts), I'm not sure I'm saving any money by making the prints myself — but to reduce the psychological threshold for printing.  In the past, I only made a print if I was sure I was going to frame and hang it, or give it as a gift.  Now, if I wonder how a particular image would look printed, I just try it.

As an aside, I'm still waiting for somebody to manufacture a very thin, wide-gamut, extremely high definition, affordable large square monitor I can hang on a wall.  A well-made, detailed print is a pleasure to look at, but mine have to compete with my wife's art collection for wall space in our house, and that is definitely a losing proposition. . . .

[Dale_Cotton2]

Wawe: The 3880 does not have a roll paper attachment. Work-arounds include buying one of the few 17x25 inch paper alternatives or buying a 17 inch roll of any paper, cutting off the length you want, then wrapping that length back around the roll, but reversed to remove the worst of the paper curl. I'm sure I'm not alone in finding roll paper curl to be such a nuisance, that I stick solely with cut-sheet/boxed paper. But then I've never gotten hooked on long, narrow panoramas so it's been easy to take that route.

Another consideration is that getting the 3880, and perhaps the P800, to accept canvas is a challenge many of us have found impossible to manage.

Letting any of the printers you're considering sit for weeks at a time isn't an issue if you can just run a small print job through it about once per week. I'd think just a 2 inch by 2 inch bit of an image will do fine. You just need the printed image to be big enough to replace the ink in the nozzles with fresh ink. I think of it as just another weekly chore like watering house plants or mowing the lawn.

Failing that, the 3880 is well known to typically go weeks and even months without incurring a serious clog. But it's not something you can absolutely count on. As I understand it, it's possible for grunge to build up in a way that prevents something called the capping station from creating a complete seal. When that happens evaporation occurs and the ink remaining in the nozzles dries and hardens. I've read on this forum that some papers shed little pieces that can cause just this problem, while others do not. (Which reminds me: you need to buy something called a print brush or draftsman's brush then use it to brush off both sides of each sheet of cut paper just before inserting into the printer.)

All that aside, you may be one of us who discover that print-making is every bit as addictive as the picture-taking side of photography. In that case the issue won't be under-using the printer but over-using your credit card.

Climbing the learning curve of proper soft-proofing+profiles printing is definitely something to master. But just to get started, apparently you can get quite reasonable results -- at least with an Epson printer -- by letting the printer manage the colour and using an actual Epson paper stock, such as the omni-present Premium Luster. Hopefully, someone can supply the exact settings needed for this if you decide to give it a try.

[Dale_Cotton2]

But the real reason I bought a printer wasn't that, or the lab fees ... but to reduce the psychological threshold for printing.  In the past, I only made a print if I was sure I was going to frame and hang it, or give it as a gift.  Now, if I wonder how a particular image would look printed, I just try it.

Nicely said!

I'm still waiting for somebody to manufacture a very thin, wide-gamut, extremely high definition, affordable large square monitor I can hang on a wall.

I too have often fantasized about a sufficiently large Retina display replacing printed output. Of course there are pluses and minuses. (And, presumably, anyone trying to make a living from print sales is weeping at the mere thought of this ever coming to pass. <g> But I suppose if the printed photograph survived the era of the slide projector, it can deal with Retina displays too.)
 

... mine have to compete with my wife's art collection for wall space in our house, and that is definitely a losing proposition. . . .

I don't have a problem with competition for wall space. I do have the problem that the light on nearly all my available wall space is dim and the wrong colour temperature. Beyond that, I've come to view walls as the places a good picture goes for a lingering death by habituation. What I've come to prefer is what I think of as my print viewing station. I have a full-spectrum ~5000K bulb in a spot reflector above a comfortable chair. Beside this I have boxes of 13x19, high PPI prints on a card table, and a stack of photography books not much further away. To me an hour spent feasting my eyes this way seems sybaritic decadence at its best. <g>

[Larry Heath]

 So here is a used eBay 7880 printer( link below) just as a reference point that uses roll paper, you can buy large 220ml ink carts, read lower ink cost, and it prints up to a short side of 24” at $1500, and I think that is a bit on the high end of the spectrum. I paid $1800 three years ago for a 9880. P800 ink $55 per 80ml, $52 for 80ml on the 3880 as well, 7880 ink $89 per 220ml. In case you wondered that is near about $2600 a gallon for the P800 ink. P800 max print size 17x22 sheet papers only, roll paper is generally cheaper than cut sheet. I think the 3880 is sheet paper only as well. Will either handle cut sheet canvas; can you even get cut sheet canvas? The 7880 does roll paper and canvas 24”x a bunch, seems I remember the Epson driver will do 30,000 pixels on the long side, I think that comes out around 85”. The thing you need to remember is that ink is your biggest cost factor in Epson printing. Most Epson printers piss away ink into the maintenance tanks at prodigious rates, I can’t see it being any different in the newer printers. So you can have a nice new P800 for about $1200 to $1300 and it doesn’t do one of the things you have as a requirement and uses more costly ink or pay $1500, give or take, and be able to print on roll paper or canvas and use substantially less costly ink. I suppose I should also point out that the 7880 comes with a roll around stand try moving those desktops around by yourself. Oh, and another thing the 7880 comes with a network card if you have a network and therefore you can print to it from any computer on the network. Do the new printers have Wi-Fi or network cards standard, I don’t know.  Further I think it bears pointing out that the used printers have already taken the out the door depreciation hit, so if you later on decide printing really isn’t your thing you will possibly recover a larger percentage of the buy in. Finley do the new technology printers and latest inks produce better images, likely they do, but I’d bet you’d need a spectrophotometer to see the difference in gamut and I’d also be betting you can’t tell the difference in resolution/sharpness/acutance between a standard photographic print from a P800 and a 7880.

So there are a few more tidbits to think on.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Epson-Stylus-Pro-7880-Large-Format-Inkjet-Printer-/121785025404?hash=item1c5af4037c:g:ko8AAOSwQTVV8x~5