Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Printer Recommendation  (Read 3301 times)

Kit-V

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 275
Printer Recommendation
« on: March 26, 2010, 06:18:17 pm »

Another "can you recommend a good printer" question is likely the last question most of you want to hear. But, truth be known, the opinions & suggestions that I have received from people on this forum have helped me immensely in my education on color management. So, please, I beg your indulgence.

Let me cut right to the chase. I consider myself an advanced amateur photographer who decided to take complete control (& responsibility) over my printed output. My prints are for exclusively my own personal enjoyment & artistic expression. I am completely aware that the capability of a printer is limited only by the thickness of my wallet. What I want is a wide- format printer that will provide excellent print matching for a variety of landscape, still life & non-studio portrait images. Printing will be low-volume & speed is not important.

I learned many years ago (in both photography & motocross racing) that a person's performance is generally not restricted by their equipment; but rather by their skills & abilities. Thus, my skills & abilities do not require the "biggest & the best". Nevertheless, I purchase equipment that provides a margin for developing abilities.

Just to provide a reference point, I have been looking at the Epson R2800.

Thank you in advance for thoughts.

Kit
Logged
Falling Fork Photography

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Printer Recommendation
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2010, 06:56:22 pm »

The epson 2880 or 3880 would seem ideal.  I'd get the 3880.
Logged

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Printer Recommendation
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2010, 07:10:15 pm »

Don't dismiss dye-based printers for your needs. If you don't need archival prints and/or 17" form factor, you can get deeper blacks and wider gamut* with dye printers for much cheaper price per printer, and somewhat cheaper per print**.

FWIW I've looked at the prosumer 17" pigment printers, and have decided to stick with my Canon i9950. Especially the deep blacks are something I would not want to forgo with color prints as I do quite a bit of low-light and night photography. When I need a bigger print once in a blue moon I go to a lab.

* the gamut differences have lessened, but I haven't been able to find a recent comparison of modern dye vs. pigment ink gamuts to verify this claim. I would be very grateful if someone could produce such a comparison. Hopefully the next generation of pigment inks brings improved dmax and not only wider gamut.

** per-print prices are lower for prosumer 13" dye-printers than similar 13" or 17" pigment printers. The wider 22" and 44" pro pigment printers have lower per-print prices than prosumer dye-based printers.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2010, 07:11:07 pm by feppe »
Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Printer Recommendation
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2010, 07:42:24 pm »

Quote from: feppe
Don't dismiss dye-based printers for your needs. If you don't need archival prints and/or 17" form factor, you can get deeper blacks and wider gamut* with dye printers for much cheaper price per printer, and somewhat cheaper per print**.

FWIW I've looked at the prosumer 17" pigment printers, and have decided to stick with my Canon i9950. Especially the deep blacks are something I would not want to forgo with color prints as I do quite a bit of low-light and night photography. When I need a bigger print once in a blue moon I go to a lab.

* the gamut differences have lessened, but I haven't been able to find a recent comparison of modern dye vs. pigment ink gamuts to verify this claim. I would be very grateful if someone could produce such a comparison. Hopefully the next generation of pigment inks brings improved dmax and not only wider gamut.

** per-print prices are lower for prosumer 13" dye-printers than similar 13" or 17" pigment printers. The wider 22" and 44" pro pigment printers have lower per-print prices than prosumer dye-based printers.

Check this forum.  I made the same claim and someone proved me wrong.  At least on one type of media.

BTW, everyone needs archival prints.
Logged

Jeremy Payne

  • Guest
Printer Recommendation
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2010, 08:06:37 pm »

Quote from: DarkPenguin
The epson 2880 or 3880 would seem ideal.  I'd get the 3880.
I went back and forth on this and in the end picked the 2880, but if I had to do it again ... I think I'd get the 3880 ...

I wanted to be able to use rolls, but I've become frustrated a bit with using roll paper.
Logged

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Printer Recommendation
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2010, 08:40:26 pm »

Quote from: DarkPenguin
Check this forum.  I made the same claim and someone proved me wrong.  At least on one type of media.

BTW, everyone needs archival prints.

Thanks, found this pretty easily which indeed confirms that the Canon 9500 (pigment) has wider gamut than 9900 (dye). Still need to do some research on the dMax - but it might be time to move to a 17" pigment printer with the next generation. Not sure if the 12-ink Lucia EX is a reasonable proposition on a 17" printer but here's hoping...
« Last Edit: March 26, 2010, 08:47:50 pm by feppe »
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Printer Recommendation
« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2010, 08:51:59 pm »

I started out with the Epson 2880 but have moved up to the 3880 because my print volume turned out to be larger than I thought.  If you are doing very modest print volume the 2880 makes sense but do understand that your per print cost is higher.  The 3880 is built to a tighter tolerance and is a more sturdy machine so you can expect many years of good service from it.  While a dye base printer probably can give a little more Dmax and perhaps some greater color vibrancy, the pigment inks are more stable and if you give prints to friends you can be sure that the colors will not fade (unless exposed to direct sunlight or bright halogen lamps).
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Printer Recommendation
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2010, 09:34:29 pm »

Quote from: feppe
Thanks, found this pretty easily which indeed confirms that the Canon 9500 (pigment) has wider gamut than 9900 (dye). Still need to do some research on the dMax - but it might be time to move to a 17" pigment printer with the next generation. Not sure if the 12-ink Lucia EX is a reasonable proposition on a 17" printer but here's hoping...
I believe the link shows the 9500 Canon pigment based printer exceeds the Canon 9000 dye based printer, not the 9900 which is an Epson pigment based printer. (guessing you just made a typo).  The Epson (and from what I've seen so far most likely the new Canon ipf series printers) approach 900,000 in gamut volume (and maybe exceed that in some papers) where as the dye based canon is around 750,000.  (EDIT: thought I would add this after looking it up, according to Epson's media specs for their Hot Press Bright paper, the gamut volume for their profile on an 11880 is over 1,000,000 and on the 9900 is around 1,150,000. )

The 3880 may not quite equal the 7900 but will exceed the dye based printer.  As far as "blacker" blacks, perhaps so, but bottom line is the new pigment printers have terrific blacks, and while they might not technically measure as dark, it really isn't an issue.
The pigment printers perform better on far more media types as well.

As far as the OP, I agree with the other posters that the 3880 would be a great choice.  Another consideration based on the post might even be a slightly used or perhaps refurbished 3800  ... it's a great printer and results will be pretty sweet for less money.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2010, 11:17:29 pm by Wayne Fox »
Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Printer Recommendation
« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2010, 11:05:09 pm »

Quote from: Wayne Fox
As far as the OP, I agree with the other posters that the 3880 would be a great choice.  Another consideration based on the post might even be a slightly used or perhaps refurbished 3800  ... it's a great printer and results will be pretty sweet for less money.

Good luck finding one.  When I have seen them the discount has been pretty minimal..
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Printer Recommendation
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2010, 11:15:09 pm »

Quote from: DarkPenguin
Good luck finding one.  When I have seen them the discount has been pretty minimal..
Could be, although we have sold a couple of used 3800's for customers who have purchased a 3880, so they are out there.

 And you are right, a refurb 3800 from epson is still around $1,000 - perhaps not enough savings over buying new.
Logged

Gemmtech

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 526
Printer Recommendation
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2010, 11:56:24 pm »

I do believe that the pigment printers have a overall wider gamut, but if you have a print where you want a black black, then there's no comparison, I can't match the blacks from the 1280 with a 3880.  Everything else, the pigment based printer wins, especially human skin tones.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2010, 11:57:01 pm by Gemmtech »
Logged

NashvilleMike

  • Guest
Printer Recommendation
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2010, 12:04:52 am »

Another vote for the Epson 3880.

If you're going to spend the money for a 2880, it's not that far a stretch to go for the 3880 and you get a set of much larger ink carts when you buy it, versus the dinky ones that come in the 2880. Thing is, as soon as you start printing, at some point you're going to want to go larger, and being able to do a really nice 16x20 is going to appeal to you at some point down the road. I wish I had gone that route myself years ago - I went R1800 -> R2400 -> 3800 myself and ended up buying a printer essentially three times before getting it right. Would have saved a lot just by getting the 3800 (now 3880) the first time.

-m
Logged

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Printer Recommendation
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2010, 06:32:52 am »

Quote from: Wayne Fox
I believe the link shows the 9500 Canon pigment based printer exceeds the Canon 9000 dye based printer, not the 9900 which is an Epson pigment based printer. (guessing you just made a typo).

You're of course right. I was actually referring to the i9900, a cheaper Canon dye printer, not the Epson 9900... Gotta love the confusing product designations.

Kit-V

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 275
Printer Recommendation
« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2010, 11:05:56 am »

Excellent comments. I appreciate it. Nashville Mike's point is well-taken. It is indeed important to try to at least attempt to assess future (as well as present) needs to avoid buyer's remorse.

Since I am in no hurry, I will continue to do my homework.

As usual .... thank you for the solid, straight-ahead advice.

Kit
Logged
Falling Fork Photography
Pages: [1]   Go Up