Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: 13" or 17"?  (Read 3067 times)

EinstStein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 368
13" or 17"?
« on: November 01, 2013, 11:24:26 PM »

13" ink jet printer used to be called larger format, no more, now it's started from 17" if you check adorama or B&H.
I know it's very subjective, but how do you determine whether 13" is enough, or why 17"?
Logged

langier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 817
    • Celebrating Rural America and beyond
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2013, 11:35:27 PM »

If all you do are 8x10 and smaller, 13 is enough.  However, if you ever want to print 16x20 or 17x22, and have the room for it, go with the larger.

From experience, I kept bumping upwards every few years to the next size printer and now besides a pair of 17 inch printers, I've also have a pair of 44 inch printers. Each has more than paid its way shortly after their purchase.

Starting over, I'd have at least the 17 for sheets and the 44 for roll and I'd be a happy camper.
Logged
Larry Angier
ASMP, NAPP, ACT, and many more!

Webmaster, RANGE magazine
Editor emeritus, NorCal Quarterly

web--http://www.angier-fox.photoshelter.com
facebook--larry.angier
twitter--#larryangier
google+LarryAngier

aduke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 424
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2013, 12:06:55 AM »

I print only for myself and knew, when I went digital 10 years ago, that 8 x 10 was too small, so I bought a 13" printer. That was fine until I became unhappy with the amount of detail that I could get in my images. Twelve by eighteen was too small and 12 by 36 panoramas seemed to be a joke, so  I bought a 4880 when one was available at a great price. I now print 16 by 16, 16 by 20 and 16 by 24 often as well as a couple of 16 by 48 panos. These fill all of the wall space that I can bring myself to use.

The 4880 is parked on a table that is a 90" by 64" L-shape that holds the 4880, an 8" inkjet print and two computer systems. There is no room for a larger printer or I might think about moving up. The cost of the larger printer, its space, and the cost of more pixels in my camera systems is a big inhibitor to doing so.

Alan
Logged

EinstStein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 368
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2013, 03:45:39 AM »

8x10 is used to be very impressive already when I printed with chemical. I often went 10x10, sometimes, though very rare, to 12x12.  Haven't done that for a few years.
Strangely, with digital print,  8.5x11 is never enough. A 11x17 is like the 8x10 in my old days, so I think 13" should be the minimum size to go, and I'm looking up to 17".
The problem is, I'm not sure I'd have enough volume. Epson 17", R3880, has 80mm ink tank, and it should be drained within 6 months.

Anyone knows how much prints (in, say, 13'x19") for a 80mm ink? what about 25mm (EPSON R3000), and 17mm (R2000)? 

Logged

JRSmit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 565
    • Jan R. Smit Fine Art Printing Specialist
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2013, 05:47:59 AM »

About 1 ml per A4 is the formula . You do  not have to stick to the half year with the epson inks. I am doing more than one year on my 4900.
Logged
Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2013, 06:08:00 AM »

When I bought my 24" printer I had thought about 17" before and I am happy I went with the larger format.
Printing big is just plain fun.

Sal Baker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2013, 08:20:45 AM »

8x10 is used to be very impressive already when I printed with chemical. I often went 10x10, sometimes, though very rare, to 12x12.  Haven't done that for a few years.
Strangely, with digital print,  8.5x11 is never enough. A 11x17 is like the 8x10 in my old days, so I think 13" should be the minimum size to go, and I'm looking up to 17".
The problem is, I'm not sure I'd have enough volume. Epson 17", R3880, has 80mm ink tank, and it should be drained within 6 months.

Anyone knows how much prints (in, say, 13'x19") for a 80mm ink? what about 25mm (EPSON R3000), and 17mm (R2000)? 



IMO the absolute best bargain for 13-17" printers is the 3880.  It's about the same size as 13" printers but comes loaded with a about $500 more ink.  I'm not a high-volume user.  My 3880 is 4-years old and still has a couple of the original carts installed.  The other carts lasted 3-years. 

Current price of the 3880 is only $825 and ink costs much less per ml (80ml carts).  When you account for the ink, Epson is offering an incredible price for a stellar printer that never clogs.

Sal
Logged

John Chardine

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
    • chardine photography
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2013, 10:31:17 AM »

If you do full-bleed prints to 13" wide or can get away with 1/2" or 1" border and print 11" or 12" wide, then you can make some good-sized prints with a 13" printer. However, Sal's argument for a 3880 is very compelling and to be able to print on 17" x 22" is VERY nice!

Ken Bennett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1639
    • http://www.kenbennettphoto.com
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2013, 10:43:53 AM »

The 17 inch printers have larger ink carts, and generally cheaper per-ml ink costs.

I know when I bought an Epson 3800, I assumed I would never print anything larger than 11x14 -- after all, in the analog darkroom printing 16x20 was a rare thing for me. But being able to knock out a great 16x24 inch print is a lot of fun and makes me want a 24 inch printer :)

The 3800 (now the 3880) is small enough to fit on my desk, and comes with a full set of ink carts. Quite the bargain, I think, and it has made many good prints over the years.
Logged
Equipment: a camera and some lenses. Images: Work photos. Personal photos.

EinstStein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 368
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2013, 11:52:49 AM »

1ml per 8x12, then only 20 prints of 16x24 with R3880.
Sounds too low. Sine a set costs about $600, it would be $30 per 16x24.
Logged

Pete Berry

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2013, 02:26:40 PM »

1ml per 8x12, then only 20 prints of 16x24 with R3880.
Sounds too low. Sine a set costs about $600, it would be $30 per 16x24.


It's 80ml/cart and, what, 10 active carts? = 800ml total/4ml per 16x24 = 200 prints @$3 each

Pete
Logged

EinstStein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 368
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2013, 02:34:08 PM »

Thanks for the clarification. I'm in.
Logged

hugowolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 991
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2013, 03:05:55 PM »

It's 80ml/cart and, what, 10 active carts? = 800ml total/4ml per 16x24 = 200 prints @$3 each

Eight active cartridges: Cyan, Light Cyan, Yellow, Vivid Magenta, Light Vivid Magenta, K, LK, and LLK. $3.75 for a 16 x 24 inch print, if you are foolish enough to be paying $600 for a set of cartridge that can be had many places for $450.

Brian A
Logged

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1991
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2013, 03:16:38 PM »

Agreed... Epson 3880 is the best deal. It comes with 80mL tanks full. I priced it compared to the 3000 and found that by the time you purchase two more sets of ink for the 3000, you're at the same price as the 3880 with the same volume of ink - yet you have a 17" printer! With a wider printer, you can always print narrower; the opposite can't be done.
Logged
Terry McDonald
Revealing the art inherent in nature - visit luxBorealis.com.
Have a read of my PhotoBlog and subscribe!

Ellis Vener

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2110
    • http://www.ellisvener.com
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #14 on: November 02, 2013, 03:56:04 PM »

I have two Canon printers, a Pixma Pro10  (up to 13 inches wide) and an iPF6300 imagePROGRAF. The wider format machine is great if I am doing large prints including long panoramas, or for several at a time. For smaller prints the Pixma Pro10 is terrific.

Before yesterday the Pixma pro10 nad been sitting idle for about 6-7 months . After installing the updated drivers, firmware and software so that it OS X 10.9 compatible I  was really pleasantly surprised to see that I had no ink or nozzle problems and while the first print out was a little dark I quickly adjusted for that and it has just been rock solid through last night and through out today's printing session.

I am printing on Legion's Moab Lasal Exhibition Luster 300, a semi-gloss  paper, using the ICC profile provided by Moab.
Logged
Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.

EinstStein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 368
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2013, 06:18:42 PM »

It seems r3880 cannot take roll paper. True?
Logged

hugowolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 991
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2013, 07:07:47 PM »

It seems r3880 cannot take roll paper. True?

True, but the r3000 can only take 2" cores. And there isn't much paper available (thankfully) with a 2" core.

Brian A
Logged

felix5616

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #17 on: November 04, 2013, 04:39:15 PM »

Always err on the larger side.
Logged

AFairley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1489
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #18 on: November 04, 2013, 04:58:01 PM »

Agreed... Epson 3880 is the best deal. It comes with 80mL tanks full. I priced it compared to the 3000 and found that by the time you purchase two more sets of ink for the 3000, you're at the same price as the 3880 with the same volume of ink - yet you have a 17" printer! With a wider printer, you can always print narrower; the opposite can't be done.

Impeccable logic.
Logged

NikoJorj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1057
    • http://nikojorj.free.fr/
Re: 13" or 17"?
« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2013, 10:51:37 AM »

True, but the r3000 can only take 2" cores. And there isn't much paper available (thankfully) with a 2" core.
For the core diameter problem, you can easily build DIY-wise a roll stand which would be way more durable than the little plastic things that clip into the printer (or cut a sheet and feed it, but it's less practical). The limitation come mostly from the (very) few papers available in 13" rolls.
One may think that for roll printing, a 17" printer is much more preferable for that reason.

That said, I wish that my 13" ix6550 could take paper longer than 67cm for a few panos.
Logged
Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up