Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Wawe on October 19, 2015, 05:38:13 am
-
I’m an enthusiast photographer, have owned a DSLR (currently D800) for about three years now and have so far only presented my work online. Recently I’ve found myself more and more interested in printing my pictures and hanging them on the walls at home etc.
So, in the near future, I’m looking to buy a quality printer and am now asking for advice in making the right purchase for my needs. As noted, I have pretty much zero experience or knowledge in printing apart from what I’ve read online.
I mostly shoot landscapes, including (single row) panoramas, so being able to print on fairly large paper sizes, perhaps on paper rolls, too, would be a requirement. And considering the large prints, the maximum resolution should probably be on the larger side as well. Also, it would be nice to be able to print on both multiple types of paper and, say, canvas, too.
Importantly, I do not plan to print very regularly, probably sometimes not even once a month, so I’m looking for a printer that will not cause problems if not used all the time.
At this point I have no strict budget planned for my purchase, but I think I’ll be able to spend up to some thousand (USD) on the printer alone. I’m also well aware that the prints themselves (paper and ink, that is) will be a significant factor in the total costs, but any information on some average prices or price per print determinants would be appreciated so that I could get a better picture of the expenses.
Thanks a lot in advance!
-
I’ve not used anything besides Epson printers since the 4000 came out and really have had no reason to consider other brands. I’d advise getting as large a printer as you feel you can afford. Even if you at present don’t think you have need or desire to print large, I am guessing that will change.
So, the three I’d look at are the Epson 3880, 7880 and 9880 used. Yes Epson has newer models out there, but my feelings are that these newer printers, in particular the print head technology, for certain people, read low use, can be problematic. These three printer offer great quality images and not nearly the level of clog issues that seem to be associated with the newer Epson printers. These printers, bought as used, allow a significantly reduced buy in and possible it allows for a larger printer as a trade off against price. These printers have a large number of sources for reasonably priced replacement/repair/maintenance parts as well as the easy availability of technical documents and programs needed to maintain them.
If you feel the task of repairing and or maintaining a used printer is beyond your abilities or have other constraints then it is pretty simple, buy a new printer, any manufacture will do, as I don’t think there are any real significant differences in quality, of the machines or of the images they produce, but make sure to get the extended warranty and then you can let the printer tech sort the details out for you. When the extended warranty runs out just buy a new printer and start over.
-
Hi,
Your first investment might be to buy the Camera to Print video tutorial from Lula. For a few dollars and a bit of time you will get quite a bit of information that will guide you in deciding on the type of printing you are prepared to do and if buying a small or large printer makes sense to you. And, yes, clogging is a real issue with some Epson printers.
Jean-Michel
-
...
Importantly, I do not plan to print very regularly, probably sometimes not even once a month, so I’m looking for a printer that will not cause problems if not used all the time.
...
If you're only thinking about one print a month and do landscape work, I would advice you NOT to buy a printer. I would look into "pro" labs or fine art printers in you're region.
Most landscape work does tend to be better on larger prints and you're D800 can deliver the files to make big prints. A 17" by 24" (42x63cm) photo in a larger mat seems to me the minimum size for a vista, 24" by 36" (60x90cm) can be done without a mat around it.
All 24" or more printers love to print at least one or two times a week, so they seem out of the question.
A good second hand epson 3880 could be a viable option, especially if it has printed quite regulary.
Alain
-
If you're only thinking about one print a month and do landscape work, I would advice you NOT to buy a printer. I would look into "pro" labs or fine art printers in you're region.
+1
They are expensive to buy, expensive to run and they use ink just sitting there.
The learning curve is steep. Printing is a science.
There first thing to decide if you press on anyway is the platoon width.
If you are printing once a month then get an A4 and play with that for a while before you shell out serious money.
I am not sure what difference landscapes make, but mine are all panoramas anyway so you can get a lot of print on a fairly narrow width.
-
Thanks everyone!
Recognizing the associated costs and the "trouble" I need to go through to learn the color management part and so on, I think I'll still pursue this because for me getting the image on paper would be the last step completing the creative process, which I would prefer to do myself.
As for the printing size, 17" seems like the most appropriate choice for me. After doing some more research I understood that going wider than that would cost me significantly more. Please do correct me if I'm wrong on this, because if expenses were no issue I would, of course, like to be able to print as wide as possible.
Given the 17" width and also my requirement to be able print on rolls, I'm now seriously considering the Epson SC P800. Has anyone got experience on this printer? I would especially be interested in hearing about the possible issues related to using the printer infrequently, which I think might be the key issue in my case based on the comments I've received.
Again, given that the central problem in my case would probably be not using the printer so often, I need to work around this somehow. Could I be able to avoid this issue if I printed at least, say, once every two weeks (with the P800)? I think I could do this without printing something completely useless, because occasionally I also shoot friends and family, who would probably have use for (smaller) prints of some of these pictures. If this would work as a solution, would it matter if I printed in B&W or would it have to be a color print every time to use the ink from all of the different colors in the cartridge set?
-
Hi,
Your first investment might be to buy the Camera to Print video tutorial from Lula. For a few dollars and a bit of time you will get quite a bit of information that will guide you in deciding on the type of printing you are prepared to do and if buying a small or large printer makes sense to you. And, yes, clogging is a real issue with some Epson printers.
Jean-Michel
Thanks, I'll definitely have a closer look at the tutorial when I have the time. It seems to have received a lot of positive feedback.
-
There first thing to decide if you press on anyway is the platoon width.
Don't you love technology.
That would be "The first thing to decide if you press on anyway is the platen width."
Sounds like you are looking at the P800. I currently have the 3880 and it will probably be my next printer.
You probably won't hear a lot of experiences as it's only new.
-
Thanks, I'll definitely have a closer look at the tutorial when I have the time. It seems to have received a lot of positive feedback.
Wawe, for a fully informed decision you should also look at the Canon 17" iPF5100, which has an excellent track record, and ALL the pro features: vacuum paper transport, roll feed (max. 50 foot images!), and full-time glossy (PK) and matte (MK) blacks, with totally transparent switching, and no ink cost with switch. Also, a superb 16-bit PS printing plug-in to get the most benefit from your RAW 16-bit ProPhoto RGB images.
Pete
-
There's a completely new range of Canon printers of various widths coming out very soon - they are already being shown in mockup form at trade shows.
The Canons are far less operationally fussy than Epsons but have high print head costs. If the head costs are significantly lower in the new models, they will be very competitive. Wait and see what they offer before jumping in.
-
There's a completely new range of Canon printers of various widths coming out very soon - they are already being shown in mockup form at trade shows.
The Canons are far less operationally fussy than Epsons but have high print head costs. If the head costs are significantly lower in the new models, they will be very competitive. Wait and see what they offer before jumping in.
Good idea, but mock-up to market "very soon"? Doubtful!
I've had two iPF's - a 5000 in '07, replaced in '12 when the heads failed with a 5100, whose cost was equal to the $900 retail cost of the two replacement heads and $600 for the 12 "starter" 90 ml carts (replacement carts 130 ml). Going strong for three years now, with total freedom from nozzle checks and forced cleanings.
Pete
-
Wawe, for a fully informed decision you should also look at the Canon 17" iPF5100, which has an excellent track record, and ALL the pro features: vacuum paper transport, roll feed (max. 50 foot images!), and full-time glossy (PK) and matte (MK) blacks, with totally transparent switching, and no ink cost with switch. Also, a superb 16-bit PS printing plug-in to get the most benefit from your RAW 16-bit ProPhoto RGB images.
Pete
I agree. I have been doing some research and found Canon to be a worthy choice. If I were to get a printer with a format larger than my nice 3880, I would give Canon very serious consideration.
Bob
-
I don't know what printers sell for in other parts of the world, but the prices here in Australia from the same store that sells both are:
Epson P800 $1889 (plus roll attachment)
Epson 4900 $2995 (real workhorse model but you have to use it a lot)
Canon IPF5100 $4255
They are all the same size at 17". I have only used Epson in large format and that is unlikely to change soon.
-
I don't know what printers sell for in other parts of the world, but the prices here in Australia from the same store that sells both are:
Epson P800 $1889 (plus roll attachment)
Epson 4900 $2995 (real workhorse model but you have to use it a lot)
Canon IPF5100 $4255
They are all the same size at 17". I have only used Epson in large format and that is unlikely to change soon.
Be aware that there is a new Canon 17" wide shown on shows.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/printers/canon_news.html
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
The Epson P800 was only just introduced this past summer. So there is little evidence to suggest whether it will be as reliable under infrequent print regimens as were its predecessors (3880 and 3800). It will be a year or more before we really know.
That said, its core head design remains largely the same as those steadfast predecessors and we can speculate that it probably will be reliable with episodic print sessions.
There are several threads here that discuss the P800, including a full review by Mark Segal. A quick search will pull those up.
I own the P800 (along with the 3880) and highly recommend it. I'm biased towards Epson simply because they've long been the elephant in the room with respect to high-end photographic inkjet printing - and by virtue of that I'm very familiar with their products, profiles, workflow, etc. If I were just starting out printing I would most definitely give the Canon lineup a close look.
Finally, as a photographer who philosophically believes that any good image isn't complete until it lives in a physical, tangible form, I'm a big fan of printing and highly encourage it. But just as optical printing in the darkroom was always practiced by many, mastered by few... so it is in the digital realm. There's a lot more to it than just hooking up a new printer, loading the right profile, and clicking 'print.' But it's a lot of fun and the results are well worth it. Looking forward to hearing of your experiences. Welcome to the forum.
-
Thanks again.
I'm in no hurry with the purchase so if the new Canon 17" is going to be introduced in, say, the next quarter, I'll probably consider it, too.
I've also already read the P800 review by Mark Segal but at this point don't quite understand all of it. Still have a lot of reading to do before I'm going to buy the printer, let alone papers etc...
Jager, you mentioned having owned the printer for some months now. Have you been using it on a daily basis or do you have experience on how it works if left unused for some time?
If using the printer intermittently were to be an issue, how about the workaround I mentioned in my previous post? I've also heard that a possible solution could be printing an alignment test every week or so. Can anyone tell if this approach would lead to a huge waste of ink or should I do it just in case (if the ink usage on these test pages is very marginal)?
-
If you use Lightroom and/or Photoshop you could look at the book "The Digital Print" by Jeff Schewe. Call sign "schewe" on these forums.
-
Jager, you mentioned having owned the printer for some months now. Have you been using it on a daily basis or do you have experience on how it works if left unused for some time?
If using the printer intermittently were to be an issue, how about the workaround I mentioned in my previous post? I've also heard that a possible solution could be printing an alignment test every week or so. Can anyone tell if this approach would lead to a huge waste of ink or should I do it just in case (if the ink usage on these test pages is very marginal)?
I run my P800 in conjunction with my 3880 (which I've set up as a dedicated B&W printer, using Piezography inks). Both rarely go more than a week without use. Probably the longest I've gone without printing on the P800 is ten days or thereabouts. But in past years, on my 3880 (and the 3800 that preceded it), I would sometimes go 2-3 months between print sessions, without any issues. I strongly suspect the P800 will exhibit comparable reliability, but it'll be quite some time before we really know.
Regardless, yes, any kind of workaround that involves moving enough ink through the lines and head should be sufficient to avoid non-use problems. I wouldn't recommend running an alignment weekly. Simply printing a letter-size print which exercises all the colors should be sufficient.
-
It appears Canon released the product just yesterday. However, sadly the printer doesn't seem to have a roll feed attachment, so I think I'll have to pass this if I want to be able to print panoramas.
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.
-
If you use Lightroom and/or Photoshop you could look at the book "The Digital Print" by Jeff Schewe. Call sign "schewe" on these forums.
Yep, I do use Lightroom and Photoshop (CC) and have understood that Lightroom is one of the best programs to use for color management, especially when I'll be doing most of my retouching there also. So thanks for the tip!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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, 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.
-
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.
-
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. . . .
-
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.
-
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>
-
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