Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: First Photo Printer  (Read 2471 times)

Colorado David

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1178
First Photo Printer
« on: March 26, 2012, 04:08:49 pm »

I have never made more than a casual print.  Perhaps it's a hold-over from film when the city where I live had four or five thriving commercial labs, some that were willing to stay open late or open on weekends if you needed them.  Well, there's one commercial lab left and I feel like I ought to start making my own prints.  Where do I start?  What should I buy as a first photo printer? I won't be making huge prints, but would like to be able to print panos from a roll feed.  I thought about posting this query for a while, but was embarrassed that I'd held off on getting into printing for so long.

John E

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 102
Re: First Photo Printer
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2012, 04:51:30 pm »

I believe the Epson R3000 has a roll feed (unlike its big brother - the 38XX series), and there's a sale on it now, if I'm not mistaken. Only prints 13" tall (for panos), but it's a printer I would purchase if in the market. Won't break the bank (relatively speaking), and it has larger print cartridges than its little brother, the 1900. Also, I understand from reviews that it's capable of high quality prints in both BW and color. Current price on the Epson site is $650 USD.

John
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: First Photo Printer
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2012, 06:08:18 pm »

Only prints 13" tall (for panos)

Actually, the carriage is 13" wide...it'll print 13" by about 37" (I think, I've not tried long panos from roll paper). And yes, as a first printer it's a good start.
Logged

bill t.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3011
    • http://www.unit16.net
Re: First Photo Printer
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2012, 11:09:13 pm »

In retrospect, I would be $ ahead today if my first printer had been a 44" Epson or Canon.  Just commenting.  I would have (mistakenly) thought that idea was totally over-the-top when I was starting out.
Logged

johnATshadesofpaper

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
Re: First Photo Printer
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2012, 02:20:04 pm »

At least start with the 3880 the ink costs alone will kill you on the 3000. Also the 3880 comes with a full set of ink. That is a $450 value right there.
Logged
John Ferriola
856-787-9200
www.shadesofpaper.com

dgberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2760
    • http://bergsprintstudio.com http://bergscustomfurniture.com
Re: First Photo Printer
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2012, 02:28:32 pm »

In retrospect, I would be $ ahead today if my first printer had been a 44" Epson or Canon.  Just commenting.  I would have (mistakenly) thought that idea was totally over-the-top when I was starting out.

Ditto.
Printed for a month with a 7900 to only find out it was nowhere big enough.
4900 gives you 17" roll feed for the panos but may be a bit pricy for a starter.
3880 is the one I would recommend other then it has no roll feed.

John R Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1357
  • Still crazy, after all these years
Re: First Photo Printer
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2012, 03:09:10 pm »

The OP is asking for advice on a first photo quality printer. Something to learn your craft on, to make mistakes, play around with different papers, and generally get a feel for the process. Just like we used to do in the darkroom with a cheap enlarger, one safelight and three 10x8 dishes.

For this the R3000 makes perfect sense. Telling him to get a 7900 or whatever certainly does not . . .

John
Logged
Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
an

bupalos

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
Re: First Photo Printer
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2012, 03:11:18 pm »

In retrospect, I would be $ ahead today if my first printer had been a 44" Epson or Canon.  Just commenting.  I would have (mistakenly) thought that idea was totally over-the-top when I was starting out.

I totally second this. In two years you will either have given up on self-printing (unlikely because once you're into it, you're into it) or you will have one of the larger more economical machines. The canon 8300 can be had for $2300 which includes around $1000 in ink. Probably more like $1700 ink par value with one of the smaller machines like a 3800. Even if you get out early, you'd still be able to sell it for 1000, probably worst case. Just a thought.
Logged

dgberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2760
    • http://bergsprintstudio.com http://bergscustomfurniture.com
Re: First Photo Printer
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2012, 07:10:01 pm »

The OP is asking for advice on a first photo quality printer. Something to learn your craft on, to make mistakes, play around with different papers, and generally get a feel for the process. Just like we used to do in the darkroom with a cheap enlarger, one safelight and three 10x8 dishes.

For this the R3000 makes perfect sense. Telling him to get a 7900 or whatever certainly does not . . .

John
[/
No one suggested a 7900.
I was responding to Bill T's comment (thus the quote.) about a 44" printer and that what happened to him happened to me as well.
I did recommend the 3880 which I agree is probably a little more then someone new to printing really needs.

John R Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1357
  • Still crazy, after all these years
Re: First Photo Printer
« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2012, 03:56:08 am »

Dan

My reference to the 7900 was meant to be rhetorical rather than to be taken literally  ;)

John
Logged
Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
an

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: First Photo Printer
« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2012, 06:20:25 am »

I'd suggest an Epson 7890.
For Photo printing there are only rare occasion where you would profit from the larger gamut of the 7900 or 4900.
And you'll soon want to print big.
... my 0.02 €
~Chris

BarbaraArmstrong

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 288
Re: First Photo Printer
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2012, 09:08:49 pm »

You can print big on the larger machines, but you can't print small.  I understood from Colorado David's inquiry that he was interested in printing for his own personal use and enjoyment.  When I started out, I did a lot of printing at half-letter size (5-1/2 x 8-1/2).  I worked on adjustments in Photoshop (he could try Lightroom), learned sizing the print and sharpening it, gradually going to larger sizes.  For many years I enjoyed the Epson 2200.  In recent years I bought the 3880 and then the 4900.  But for 9 years now I've gotten a lot of printing pleasure from nothing larger than a 17" carriage.  Yes, there is the desire to print large, but then one needs to be sure one's file quality is up to it.  And I think I would have been intimidated trying to start out on a 24" (or larger!) printer.  And then there are the times I want to print small, like the photo I printed on nice Crane stock (I think it was a blank invitation piece with a nice small design and some gilding, at Christmas).  I personally would urge the 3880 for price and size and relative economy of the ink cartridges, or the 4900 if roll printing (for panos) is wanted/needed.  The problem with printers smaller than the 3880 is the rapid use of expensive ink cartridges.  Maybe the R3000 is worth consideration as a smaller printer with cartridges larger than the other Epson 13" models.  I think the sizable Epson rebate ends with the end of this month.  (That's just speaking of Epson, the only brand with which I've had personal experience.)  Jump in and get your feet wet, and before you know it, you'll be swimming (in ink!).  I will add that everyone who wrote that you'll soon want to print big, was right. --Barbara
Logged

mgrayson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 67
Re: First Photo Printer
« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2012, 09:24:56 pm »

I totally second this. In two years you will either have given up on self-printing (unlikely because once you're into it, you're into it) or you will have one of the larger more economical machines. The canon 8300 can be had for $2300 which includes around $1000 in ink. Probably more like $1700 ink par value with one of the smaller machines like a 3800. Even if you get out early, you'd still be able to sell it for 1000, probably worst case. Just a thought.

Where can a Canon 8300 be obtained for $2300? That is well below the lowest price I've seen, even including the rebate.

Thank you,

Matt
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up